Jump to content

Rob de Bie

Members
  • Posts

    544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,921 profile views

Rob de Bie's Achievements

Obsessed Member

Obsessed Member (4/9)

337

Reputation

  1. If you plan to add weapons: I just finished a study of all stores used by the RNLAF on the F-84F; https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/f84f.htm Rob
  2. Thanks! I tried to use the lengths measured in the photos to see if it's an SD500 or SD250. The forward bomb is 92% of the length of the SC500 in the rear, ignoring perspective that I cannot calculate. OP 1666 says the SC500 is 80", making the forward bomb 74". Or smaller if perspective is accounted for. But the SC250 is 64.5", and the SD500 is 82". That's quite a difference with the calculated 74". Your reference to the SD500 had an unexpected benefit: the drawing contained the 'Stuka' suspension details that I was looking for! See here: https://books.google.nl/books?id=lWzV-xUdkpMC&lpg=PA102&dq=OP 1666%3A German Explosive Ordnance&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q=SD500&f=false It's page 22 if the link does not show a page of the manual. They use the terminology 'suspension band' and 'trunnion bolt', and the band has an opening for the standard suspension lug. If someone knows the German words, I would be happy to learn them. Rob
  3. Thanks! I noted the contents are the same as the OP 1666 manual that I linked to in the first post. The images are much better in OP 1666 Rob
  4. In this thread the following great photo was posted: It raised two questions: 1. both bombs have a metal strap / band with pivots on the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. I tried to find more information on these straps, but I found nothing, not even in this extensive US manual on German weapons (https://books.google.nl/books?id=lWzV-xUdkpMC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=OP+1666:+German+Explosive+Ordnance&source=bl&ots=-fqRuLaMmR&sig=ACfU3U26uZx95Si1T7HgwZalutN1CEU4vQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj37KSx_ZzqAhVPDuwKHXfeCOQQ6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=OP%201666%3A%20German%20Explosive%20Ordnance&f=false). Maybe because I don't know what the straps / bands are called. Were they exclusive for the Ju 87? 2. what bombs are seen in the above photo? The rear one looks a lot like the SC500 from CMK set 7184, of which I assembled one. Thanks in advance! Rob
  5. Thanks again! I will add braces to my figure. Here's where I am with my figure. I still want to add some kind of head gear, in a way someone would use to sleep in the daylight. Rob
  6. Ah, now I understand. I checked the drag chute housing shape, and indeed all U-2As have a staight lower side. But on U-2Cs I see different shapes: the straight lower side, and the kinked lower side like you describe. See for example this one, that I always assumed to be a U-2C. The rear fuselage shape and exhaust opening suggest a C to me, but just maybe it's an A? I mostly want to point out that the drag chute housing is not the most reliable identifier for a C-model. Rob
  7. Your comments on the rear fuselage shape triggered another study, and my conclusions are different. Here's an excellent photo of the U-2A rear fuselage shape. I see a near-perfect straight cone, with a double-curved last section, leading to a relatively small exhaust opening. I haven't found a similar U-2C photo, but it is my impression (but only that for the moment) that the shortened rear section is straight, like the rest of the rear fuselage, creating a much larger exhaust opening. So my shape analysis is almost the opposite of yours! Also I calculated the position of the exhaust opening in relation to the rudder root chord. In a random U-2A photo I measured approximately 70%, wheres a 'Pave Onyx' U-2C photographed in nearly perfect side view yielded approximately 40%. You can also see that the exhaust opening of the latter coincides with the trailing edge of the horizontal tail (or elevator) at the root. Back to looking for that definitive U-2C rear fuselage shape photo! Rob
  8. Kekelekou, here are the two photos from Jay Miller's Aerofax 'Lockheed U-2', page 56, and Jay Miller's 'Skunk works', page 77. The kink would not be that strange, the width of the J57 intake is quite a bit less than the J75 intake. And I don't think it's a sharp kink, but there has to be a transition somewhere. To me t looks like the U-2 was designed for the J75 from the start The fuselage length is rather difficult to see. I usually use the rudder's trailing edge as a reference, and then you start to see it. The J75 required a bigger exhaust opening, that's all. I will contact you by PM. Rob
  9. JPuente54, thanks for the book suggestions! I have to admit I have nothing covering that era - I selected that Fujimi Stuka for the reason that I could not do any research, in order to finish it straight from the box Rob Colin, a similar thanks for the book suggestion! Rob
  10. RainierHooker, thanks for your great post! A question about the "Drillich" trousers: as far as I can see, it had no loops for a belt, but instead buttons for braces, and some straps to tighten the waist, correct? Added braces would be great for the figure I plan to build. The woolen cap is another interesting option, I have to look through my Preiser figures again. Thanks again! Rob
  11. Jack, thanks for the additional information! My Stuka is from 1942, so a pith helmet would not be out of place. Rob
  12. One more thing: a drawing of the Q-bay camera hatch for the A-cameras was posted on ARC a couple of months ago: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/288638-francis-gary-powers-u-2-scheme/ Rob
  13. What a nice surprise to find this document! It's the first time ever that I looked in the 'resources' area, in appr. ten years of daily Britmodeller visits, but reading 'Cold War' and 'Modern' sections only. Maybe you could repost it in the 'Cold War' section, it would attract so much more attention I think.. You asked for comments, remarks and corrections, here are mine: 13.2 Q-bay hatch 3 windows - you can't find a single photo either huh! Unbelievable after so many years.. 13.3 Q-bay hatch 7 windows - I made a 3D CAD model for the 1/72 kit(s), but the printing of the first (thinner) version wasn't successful 19.3 Double exhaust right of the dorsal fairing - I have that mentally listed as the airco outlet, but I don't remember the source - also mentally listed: there is a small air inlet ahead of the exhaust 21.2 Engine air intakes: Wider, straight but slightly higher ("Interim") - you could add that the small inlet has a kink in the plan view. Jay Miller's Aerofax 'Lockheed U-2', page 56, has a photo of a U-2 approaching a tanker, Jay Miller's 'Skunk works', page 77, shows a U-2 on the tanker's boom. The former clearly shows the original small inlets, which cause a kink in the fuselage sides just ahead of the wing leading edges; the latter clearly has the enlarged but non-bulged intakes, and a continuous curve of the fuselage sides. 22.3. Air scoops under the belly: Three scoops - I made a set of the three scoops in 1/72 scale Suggestions: a. you could add a section on the fuselage rear end diameter & length, U-2A versus C. It takes a trained eye to spot it. When the old Hawk U-2A was upgraded to a C, this change was included: b. you could add a section on the inlet color, there are many variations there too. Recently I came across a photo on Ebay that showed chromate yellow ones: c. can you make the tables on the last two pages available as Excel (I guess) files? They are nearly impossible to study in the PDF Rob My Seminar 1/72 U-2C under construction: https://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/models/u2.htm
  14. Jack and GR, many thanks for all the information. You've given me a good start. I was surprised to see even tropical hats. I tried forming one from thick aluminium foil, but it wasn't a success. I then went looking in all my figure sets, and to my surprise a few figures with a tropical hat are included in Preiser set 72509. I will probably use one of them. Rob
  15. I have a Fujimi 1/72 Ju 87D that I want to add some ground crew figures too. I know they were called 'Schwarzmänner' because of their black clothing, but I wonder whether different outfits were used in Africa, for obvious reasons. Does anyone know? Rob
×
×
  • Create New...