Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Jure Miljevic

Members
  • Content Count

    1,118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

566 Excellent

About Jure Miljevic

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Slovenia

Recent Profile Visitors

816 profile views
  1. Hello Neil I have Caldwell's book and it provides some, although rather sketchy, information. When Esmonde's Swordfishes attacked, sixteen III./JG 26 Fw 190, led by Gerhard Schoepfel, were approaching from the south to relieve Bf 109s from II./JG 2, covering battle cruisers, heavy cruiser and their escorts. Part of Focke-Wulf formation engaged escorting Spitfires (9./JG 26 lost three Fw 190s to RAF fighters in this engagement and another one later), but the rest fell on Swordfishes which were swiftly dispatched. Now, Krzysztof Janowicz's book JG 26 Schlagether Vol. II (Kagero) follows more or less the same lines as Caldwell's book although it is slightly more specific as it also names two Fw 190's pilots who claimed victories over Swordfishes (Oblt. Naumann two and Lt. Paul Galland one). Messerschmitts from II./JG 2 also claimed six Swordfishes so this was a case of over-claiming by at least 50% as I believe Kriegsmarine also got one or two torpedo bombers. Cheers Jure P.S.: Here is the photo of Fw 190 A-2 Gerhard Schoepfel flew in early 1942: There is a good chance he had been flying this aircraft during operation Donnerkeil. There is plenty more photos and profiles of this aircraft on the web. Also, I believe there are AM decals available for this Fw 190.
  2. Pete in Lincs, there is one here, translated to English, but it covers A-1, A-4 and A-5 versions only. Elevator trim handling is mentioned only in connection with pull-out mechanism failure: ˝If pull-out mechanism is inoperational, the pull-out can be performed by using the elevator trim tabs (Approx. for 1 1/2 turns on the wheel to direction "Tail heavy" ("Schwanzlastig"), after which flight is continued and landing performed.˝ Cheers Jure
  3. Martin, I still believe that at high speed Ju 88 would fly in slight nose down attitude. Also, according to handbook Antti found (pages 5 and 6) Ju 88 G-1 had two MG 151/20 A installed in the cockpit. I reversed my opinion about fixed nose armament and I agree Ju 88 G-1 cannons had been angled down by 4,5° (slightly less to keep grenades flying reasonably close to aiming line, but in this case we are talking about minutes, not degrees). What I am trying to figure out now is why. I realize that in aerial combat occasions when an aircraft has too much energy (speed + altitude) are rare but generally speaking Ju 88 G-1 had had little trouble catching bombed-up Lancaster, let alone other, slower types. Also, I believe Luftwaffe night fighter pilots, even when flying planes without Schräge Musik armament, preferred attack from below (Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein certainly had). I fail to see how canted down cannons would help in this case. However, when chasing Mosquito attack from slightly above to gain speed (and the use of GM-1 or whatever German pilot also had up his sleeve) would certainly help. Yes, He 219 was the plane for this task, but Milch detested labour and resources intensive Heinkels and argued for increased production of cheaper Ju 88s. Again, any thoughts? Cheers Jure
  4. As Graham said, with increasing speed lift also increases and this is compensated with nose down flying attitude. The Flugzeug-Handbuch Antti linked to mentions Schnellfluglage 4,5° gesenkt (literally: high speed flying attitude 4,5° depressed) several times. So, at high speed Ju 88 G-1 flew with nose depressed for 4,5°. However, taking 5° mentioned in OP in account, this would also mean that at such flying attitude guns pointed to almost 10° downwards. This sounds excessive to me and table on page 17 as well as Geschoss-Flugbahnschaubild (missile flight trajectory diagram) on page 20 both suggest fixed gun armament angle is actually increased and not decreased. Note Visierlinie (sighting line) on the same diagram, intersected with round trajectory curves, list of distances, at which rounds intersect it for the first time when climbing and then for the second time when falling, greatest heights above line of sight rounds reach etc. However ... On page 11 of equivalent Ju 188 E-1 armament handbook here it is clearly stated: ˝Bei Einsats des MG151/20 als starr gerastete Schusswaffe ist der Lauf um 4°30' - bezogen auf Flugzeuglängsachse - nach unten geneigt.˝ (When MG151/20 is used as a fixed weapon its barrel is canted down at 4°30', compared to aircraft's longitudinal axis). Certainly Ju 188 E-1 is different aircraft, still ... Any thoughts? Cheers Jure
  5. I agree with P.1127. Here is a set of D. H. Comet drawings with fuselage cross-sections included which may help. Cheers Jure
  6. Hello Ham Hands I do not have this kit but after examining various web photos of plastic trees I believe one can build A-1 version out of A-2 kit, although this requires some modifications. To see if there is a way around it I browsed trough my books to find photos of aircraft Hadmodels provides decals for. There are several photos of Hungarian F0+55, but none of them shows dorsal or tail turret. Unfortunately, I could not find a dozen or so Hungarian magazines I have, in which a series of two or three articles about Fw 189 had been published. Otherwise, some Hungarian Fw 189 apparently had MG 15 in dorsal turret and MG 81 Z in tail turret or vice versa. There are two or three photos of VVS machine which is described as either A, A-1 or A-2. To me it looks like she has twin-barreled machine gun in dorsal turret, protruding through regular and not armoured glass but I am not certain about it. The situation with Slovak air force plane is more or less the same. There are two photos of H1+BI, and they seem to appear in just about every book about Fw 189. Unfortunately, these photos had been taken some time after her crash landing and the aircraft had her armament removed and was missing most of her transparencies. I found no photos of +A. Not much of a help, but hopefully somebody with better knowledge on the subject will chime in soon. Cheers Jure
  7. Ham Hands, which brand of kit in which scale are you building and which decals did you get? Cheers Jure
  8. Hello Steve I am in a similar position regarding a professional involvement in aviation. Yes, ever increasing role of computer in aviation concerns me, too. However, where to draw a line? In an interview decades ago one retired DC-9 trained Adria airline pilot called MD-80 series aircraft, puzzling as it may sound today, flying computers. Still, she must have looked like an ungrateful spoiled brat to her older colleges, who had previously piloted DC-6 propliners. In turn, these guys, who had had navigator, flight engineer and all sort of fancy radio equipment at their disposal, must have been regarded in more or less the same manner by pre-war airline pilots. Going back to airliners in which pilots gauged engine power by its sound, determined planes' airspeed by a pitch of whistling wires, maintain correct flying attitude by a feel of an air stream on their faces and judging load factors with a seats of their pants is probably impractical. Cheers Jure P.S.: I do not know about later series, but early production A320s certainly have analog back-up instruments. But, as you said, they are not much of help in case of faulty sensors.
  9. Hello Ham Hands If you are asking about differences between A and B versions: Fw 189 B was a training version (no armament, solid nose etc.) which never got beyond research and evaluation phase. Otherwise, as Work In Progress said, Fw 189 A-2 had twin MG 81 Z machine-gun in both tail cone position and dorsal turret: Fw 189 A-1 Fw 189 A-2 Take a look at this and other Fw 189 pages from WarBird Photos site for more photos. On A-2 they also switched from drum to belt-fed armament and dorsal turret had armoured glass added: Also, Fw 189 A-2 had shell casing ejection chutes installed under the fuselage: However, many A-1s had their armament upgraded to A-2 standard in the field, so twin machine-guns do not necessary indicate the latter version. I hope it helps. Cheers Jure
  10. Steve, unless the photo you provided link to shows a 737 MAX cockpit mock-up you are probably right! Hairystick's comment is certainly valid for 737 NG cockpit but, as far as I can tell, the only mechanical thing in 737 MAC cockpit seems to be a compass on the top of the windshield frame. However, that central mini LCD or MFD looks more like a pro forma addition than a functional back up to me. The display is small, not very conveniently placed and reading it must be quite a task, especially in emergency situation. Cheers Jure
  11. Hello Jerzy-Wojtek I believe RAF established a kind of semi-free fire zone over Yugoslavia in 1944. By the same token, Royal Navy reserved the right to sink every vessel during daylight, no matter which flag she may have been flying. There was plenty of grey areas within these restrictions, though, and friendly fire incidents were bound to happen. I first read about Sikorski crash as a boy in Piekałkiewicz's book Spionen, Agenten, Soldaten. To me the story sounded like unfortunate incident, although a highly unusual one. Around here some blamed British for a death of Ivo Lola Ribar, who in autumn 1943 got killed in Partisan Do 17, about to take off, which had been bombed on the ground by German Hs 126. Ribar was leading a delegation which was sent to talk with Allied representatives in Italy. Given that two relatively high-ranking British military mission members (Major and Lieutenant-Colonel) had also been killed in the incident, British involvement can be ruled out. A year or so later, Commander in Chief of Slovene Partisan Army, Lieutenant-General Franc Rozman Stane, had been mortally wounded when a round exploded in a tube of para version of British two-inch mortar he had been evaluating. I am not quite certain, but I understand these Mk.VII two-inch mortars were so unreliable, that they had not been issued to British Paras post-D-Day, although Canadians and others did get them. Again, a faulty equipment rather than a any malicious intent should be blamed. Cheers Jure
  12. Split flaps, that is a blast from the past! They work well both ways, as flaps and as air brakes, but they seem to be out of fashion for the last half a century or so. Cheers Jure
  13. Hello, Serge I, too, doubt this is a recent photo. Also, I believe Russian Su-25 was shot down over Idlib province shortly before Su-57s arrived. Cheers Jure
  14. Hello Jerzy-Wojtek How could I completely miss RFI of your model? Very nice Partisan Fi 167, well-weathered as it should be given the subject of your build. I could not help but notice a bit thick wing and control surfaces trailing edges but this is not unseen on a short-run kits and there is little one can do about it anyway. All in all, I like it very much. I doubt shooting down and killing of General Cetkovic was intentional. While Winston Churchill had been considering Balkan landing in 1943, this plan had been discarded by 1944. Unfortunately, friendly fire was far from uncommon in WWII. Given the high rank of the officer involved it is hardly surprising not everybody believed it was only an unfortunate incident. Just think about controversy surounding the death of General Sikorski. Cheers Jure
  15. Hello Here is a double Fi 167 build, found on BM RFI forum. The original camouflage scheme may have been RLM 72/73/65, but photos of aircraft in service of NDH puppet state suggest additional blotches of unspecified colour. While I am inclining towards a repaint, the usual wear and tear could not be excluded. Jockney, how about Yugoslav Partisan Fi 167 as a challenge? The first photo on this site shows the aircraft still in NDH markings just after defecting to Partisans and the third photo shows remains of her fuselage and tail after it had been shot down by RAF (SAAF?) Mustangs. The second and the fourth photos show post-war machines in Yugoslav service and I am undecided on the fifth photo. Cheers Jure
×
×
  • Create New...