mike romeo

Ant, I have been following your thread from the start although I haven't posted previously. I have been really inspired by your can do attitude in the face of multiple setbacks and your willingness to try new techniques. I think your 410 is looking really good and you should be proud of the final result. You will also have an array of new skills to deploy on subsequent builds. Well done! Regards Martin

Quite accurate, I'd say. For the pilots I've met anyway...

Looking really smart in that colour scheme. Should stand out on your shelf. Regards Martin

Hi again, Richard, William Green had some interesting things to say about the '88. According to him, tlhe Schnellbomber spec. mentioned a requirement for a speed of 310mph (in '36!) which had to be held for 30 mins. It's max cruising speed was to be 280mph. No mention is made of a range requirement at cruising speed which, as previously pointed out, would usually help set wing / fuse incidence. Unless Green left out the range requirement, this suggests to me that the challenging max speed requirement would drive the need to minimise drag at high speed, with a requirement for a flat fuse angle at that condition, like a fighter. Perhaps this was due to the tactical doctrine of the Luftwaffe, in support of the Army, leading to less interest in range, per se. Anyway, the stretching max speed and endurance mentioned suggests (to me, at least) that the driving requirement for setting wing / fuse incidence would have been that. So, to recap, I would expect a flat fuse angle at max speed to minimise drag. Consequently, I would expect a nose up fuse angle at heavy bomber cruise speeds. This is a hypothesis, not fact, and your mileage may vary, but until more evidence surfaces, it'll do for me for now. Green also says that the nose armament on the C was set nose down ~3° and that the G nose armament was deleted due to the cannon flash distracting the pilot. So, that was a possibility that I hadn't even thought of earlier! Green mentions the 5° downward cant of the gondola armament, but is not forthcoming on the reason for this, darn it! So, in the absence of any firm evidence, I currently believe that the downward cant was to counteract the nose up angle taken by the fuse when attacking at heavy bomber speeds. . . However, it could have been done to avoid damage to the aerials. I, personally, don't buy that, but I can't prove it wrong. Who knows? Maybe there were multiple reasons for the downward angle! Hopefully one of the Experten will come along to put us out of our misery. Regards Martin

Thanks for that, Richard. When I get a mo, I'll check my copy of William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich and see if there's any further enlightenment therein. Regards Martin

Agreed in general, but the point I'm arguing is whether that was the design philosophy for the Ju88, specifically as a 'Schnellbomber'. Is there any evidence one way or another? Also, what did you think of the other points in my post? Regards Martin

A quick Google suggests that the Ju88A4 had a max speed of ~290mph at 17000ft. The wing incidence rel. to the fuse (prob. pretty low?) was no doubt carefully worked out, as you say, to enable the Schnellbomber to reach this speed, suggesting a fairly flat flat fuse incidence at high speed to minimise drag. Again from Google, the cruising speed of a laden Lancaster was ~200mph, so assuming a co-speed stern attack, the Ju88 would have adopted a somewhat more nose up angle at this speed to maintain the required wing lift. The main armament of the G, unlike the C, was carried in a ventral gondola (possibly to free up space in the nose, for c.g. issues or to avoid damage to the radar arrays as you say). I assumed (posdibly wrongly) it was the downward angle of these guns we were discussing. The gondola guns are certainly canted downwards in the models I've seen. If the gondola guns are also canted down at the same angle as the nose guns in earlier variants (@Richard502 : which fixed armament were you referring to?), this suggests to me at least that the fuse angle rationale may have credence. Good discussion, though, whatever the conclusion. Regards Martin

More speculation: how much angle of attack (actually, I mean fuselage angle relative to the horizontal in straight & level flight here) would be needed for a Ju88 to match speed with a fully laden 'heavy' for a radar guided stern attack? Max speed of the 'G', I'm guessing would have been in the region of 300mph* at bomber height, so perhaps a few degrees nose up could be expected at 'heavy' cruise speeds? Regards, Martin *A quick Google suggests max speed was somewhat more than this for the G. Doesn't change the argument though.

Hi Steve, If it were me, I might scratch the door out of thin styrene sheet and rod. Love the sit of the sliding hood, btw. Regards Martin

Good Lord! How could you?!

Loving watching this. I built one for a work colleague who had flown one (his wife had found am decals for an aircraft with his name on it). Not my usual modelling fare and it fought me most of the way so I took ages to finish it. I was - eventually - happy to hand it over. One memory was placing lots of little no step decals around the periphery. Looking forward to seeing it properly mastered! Regards Martin

Hi Graham You're quite correct. Pat Didn't the Airfix club FAA kit have a Wildcat VI in gsb as one of the options? BEI markings tho, iirc Regards Martin

Erm, Graham, Pat doesn't mention BPF markings, only ones that are painted in gsb.

Stewart, your post ignores the fact that we LOVE agonizing over small "errors" (or are they?). I must be a cr*p modeller, because by the time I've finished hacking, filling and sanding, the dimensions of my models are rarely as they were when in the box! Regards Martin

Explains why it looks quite good, Graham.