Jump to content

Best ju87


goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, goose said:

Are the new tool Airfix ones any good?

Well, if you think that literally shrinking the details normally expected in 1/48th and larger scales down to 1/72nd makes a kit any good, then yes. :D 

 

I built the the new tool Ju87B a while back. It is a fabulous kit, perhaps with too much detail and over engineered. I liked it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, goose said:

Which is the best 1/72 Ju 87 stuka? 

That depends what kind or version of Stuka you want.

 

there are 3 main types

Ju87A,

Spanish Civil War and training are main uses

 

Ju 87B/R,  

with the B-1 vs B-2 having different radiator and prop blades, use SCW, early to mid war.

 

Ju87 D/G

major redesign, new nose, new canopy, samller UC leg spats, later D and G version have a longer wing, the G-2 being the one with the 37mm cannons.

use, mid war on.

 

I don't know enough about 72nd to says what is good or not, but if you say what version you are interested in,  or era, this may get you a better answer(s)

 

Best also can be subjective, the most accurate kit maybe fiddly or over engineered,  or expensive, an older kit maybe be simple and have raised panel lines, but be well shaped.

The late 70's Airfix B-2 kit I believe is  decent,  benefiting from the research done for the 1/24th Superkit version for example.  

 

HTH

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fujimi do the Ju-87B-1/R, Ju-87D-2 and D-5/8, and Ju-87G-2, with the D's and G's being offered with standard and extended wingtip boxings. They are very good kits, considering their age- nicely scribed, decent interiors, and fit very well, but the ailerons and flaps are molded as part of the wings, so the hinges/actuators are solid and if you want to display the control surfaces deflected, you're in for some fiddly work! Transparencies are very nice, and are in two pieces- pilot and gunner, but closed only, and IIRC the internal framework of the real thing is not represented. They can be had for pretty reasonable prices. I would suggest a cockpit set and etched set for the harnesses and the gunner's seat, which is not very well done. If you're doing either of the tank buster versions, I would suggest replacing the cannon  with the Quickboost resin set or the Armo turned metal barrels. The Academy Ju-87G is also excellent, but only builds the G-2 variant. The Airfix kit, in my opinion is by far the best early Stuka and can be built as a B-1 or B-2 variant, the difference being in the prop, exhausts, and oil cooler, which is catered to by means of separate cowlings. The Airfix kit is the only one to my knowledge that provides the bombing observation window in the belly as well as the cutout for the same in the cockpit floor. I have all of the above and can pull them out to answer specific questions, should you have any. Not knowing which specific versions you might be interested in, here's a brief summary of the biggest differences- you can go to sites on the internet for detailed descriptions of each variant.

 

Ju-87B-1

Ju-87B-2/R  different cowling and prop; -2R's had provision for an external fuel tank under each wing

Ju-87D-2     had standard span wings; DB-603, radiators moved to underside of wings; wider chord prop with larger spinner

Ju-87D-5/8 had extended span wings, same engine, prop, spinner, and radiators as D-2

Ju-87G-1   dedicated tank buster built from existing Ju-87D-2's; had standard  span wings

Ju-87G-2   dedicated tank buster built from existing Ju-87D-5's; had extended span wings

 

This should help get you started- the experts will be along shortly. IIRC there was discussion on this same topic a while back- you might do a search for "best 1/72 Stuka" Good luck!

Mike

 

Edited by 72modeler
corrected text
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special Hobby does a pretty nifty Ju 87A Anton in a few different boxings (Luftwaffe, Condor Legion and export):

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234923469-special-hobby-ju-87a-172/

https://modelingmadness.com/scott/axis/previews/splhobby/72136.htm

 

The Airfix is excellent all around, and certainly easier to get than the Fujimi versions. The Italeri kit (also reboxed by RoG) is no slouch, but a bit softer in detail all around (especially the cockpit and canopy sufffer when compared to Airfix's). 

 

4 hours ago, 72modeler said:

The Academy Ju-87G is also excellent, but only builds the G-2 variant.

 

Acadamy do both the G-1 and G-2: 

 

https://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/aca/kit_aca_1641.shtml

http://www.ipmsusa.org/reviews/Archive/Kits/Aircraft/Academy_72_JU-87G-2/Academy_72_JU-87G-2.htm

 

In their early days they did a rather ghastly B-2 as well that's better avoided like the plague:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/107472-academy-72001-ju-87b-2-stuka

 

One thing to look out for in Academy's Ju-87 G-1/2 kits is that the left wing has a gap in the wing root fairing above the left MLG strut,  just inboard of the gun fairing, while the corresponding right side fairing is uninterrupted, as it was on the real thing. This should be filled.

 

Possibly Academy went by a preserved example with an access cover missing.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was after a Ju 87G I would certainly go for the Fujimi kits over Academy.  Better outline, nicely moulded, cons: cockpit interior a bit spartan (but then how much are you going to see through the heavy cockpit framing?)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an outstanding query over the D/G kits.  The Academy was accused of being too short.  This is measured against the quoted dimensions for the D, which is quoted as being slightly longer than the B.  However, no-one has been able to point out just where this extra length (just over a foot?) appears.  If you make the (entirely reasonable) assumption that the central and rear fuselages of the B and D are structurally identical, then it all has to be in the engine cowling  - but it clearly isn't.  It has been suggested elsewhere that the oft-quoted value for the D's length is wrong. 

 

If this was what you meant by "Better outline", I'd reserve judgement.  For the moment I only have a Fujimi D-7 and an Italeri B, so I don't think that putting one kit fuselage up against the other would prove anything.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

There's an outstanding query over the D/G kits.  The Academy was accused of being too short.  This is measured against the quoted dimensions for the D, which is quoted as being slightly longer than the B.  However, no-one has been able to point out just where this extra length (just over a foot?) appears.  If you make the (entirely reasonable) assumption that the central and rear fuselages of the B and D are structurally identical, then it all has to be in the engine cowling  - but it clearly isn't.  It has been suggested elsewhere that the oft-quoted value for the D's length is wrong. 

 

If this was what you meant by "Better outline", I'd reserve judgement.  For the moment I only have a Fujimi D-7 and an Italeri B, so I don't think that putting one kit fuselage up against the other would prove anything.

You aroused my curiosity, Graham. I have the Academy and Fujimi G-2's as well as the MMP Ju-87 monograph pretty handy, so got them all out along with my trusty 1/72 scale ruler. The overall length listed for the Ju-87G in the MMP reference was 37.73 feet, as measured from the tip of the spinner to the tip of the nav light on the rudder. The Fujimi G-2  measures right at 37' 6", which is pretty good, as far as I'm concerned. The Academy G-2 measures 9" short in length, with the discrepancy being between the firewall and the base of the spinner; it is also 3" short in depth,  with the discrepancy being that the oil cooler housing is too shallow by that amount; in addition, the Academy G-2 has the intake for the oil cooler 3" further forward than the Fujimi kit, when one cowling half is placed against the other and when compared to the scale drawing in the MMP monograph. Good eye, my friend! It does look like the 37mm cannon housings and barrels in the Academy kit are nicer than those in the Fujimi kit, which look a little aenemic; when I opened my Fujimi kit box, I also found  37mm cannon I had removed from my Revell kit, and they were as good or better than the ones that come in the Academy kit. Since the Academy kit hadn't been released when I got my Fujimi Stukas, I must have robbed my Revell kit to replace the rather soft and aenemic ones from the Fujimi G-2. Hope thus helps! You get bonus points for the photographic memory!

Mike 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting, but can you see what the differences are between the B and the D in the models?  Or indeed in the drawings?  Does the Academy D match in length the nose of the B?  It is possible that the Academy was intended to be the same size as the other kits but got it wrong, as opposed to working somehow from more accurate information.  Assuming it is the more correct in length, of course.  One problem is that no-one explains why the nose should be any longer, and after all we are talking about the same engine as far as overall dimensions are concerned.  Why should the nose be any longer?  What was the benefit?  Was there a cg problem with the B?  Not that I've seen mentioned.

 

The D does seem to have a slightly longer and more shapely spinner, but that could only add a fraction of the difference.

 

Not that I expect the Academy D (or any other model) to be the ultimate in accuracy, for that has to be the original Junkers drawings.  Which do not seem to be available.

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

That's interesting, but can you see what the differences are between the B and the D in the models?  Or indeed in the drawings?  Does the Academy D match in length the nose of the B?  It is possible that the Academy was intended to be the same size as the other kits but got it wrong, as opposed to working somehow from more accurate information.  Assuming it is the more correct in length, of course.  One problem is that no-one explains why the nose should be any longer, and after all we are talking about the same engine as far as overall dimensions are concerned.  Why should the nose be any longer?  What was the benefit?  Was there a cg problem with the B?  Not that I've seen mentioned.

 

The D does seem to have a slightly longer and more shapely spinner, but that could only add a fraction of the difference.

 

Not that I expect the Academy D (or any other model) to be the ultimate in accuracy, for that has to be the original Junkers drawings.  Which do not seem to be available.

Graham,

I do not have an Academy D-2 or D-5; I only have the Academy G-2. I do have the Airfix B-1 and B-2, as well as the Fujimi B-1, D-2, D-5, G-1, and G-2 kits. I can check the lengths of the Airfix and Fujimi B-1 kits against the D-2 and D-5, which are identical except for the wings, as well as the MMP drawings of the same. As you probably are well aware, the B's had the Jumo 211D and the D/G's had the DB603 powerplants, so that might account for the difference in length, as I think the fuselages aft of the firewall were the same. In  William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich, the length of the B is listed as 36' 5" and the D/G is listed as 37' 8 3/4" I can measure the length of the Airfix and Fujimi B kits against the Academy G-2 kit if that will help you. Let me know.

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham,

 

I pulled my Airfix Ju-87B-1, Fujimi B-1, Fujimi D-2/8, Fujimi G-2, and Academy G-2 kits to see where the length discrepancy is located. On  a fuselage half from each of the kits, I measured from the edge of the firewall to the rearmost edge of the rudder, measuring along the horizontal panel line that runs from the firewall to the rudder post, as that appeared to be the most consistent spot on each of the kits.  They all measured 27' 9". Then I measured the length of a cowling half from the Academy G-2 (Their D-2 kit would be the same, as the G's were converted D's) and the Fujimi G-2 from the front edge of the cowling at the spinner backplate to the rearmost edge of the cowling, along the horizontal panel line that runs above the cutout for the exhaust stacks from front to rear. The Academy cowling is 9" shorter than the Fujimi cowling. It appears  that maybe Academy was not aware that the D/G variants had the longer Jumo 211J and used published dimensions for the B? Best I can do at this point, and I hope I have shed a little more light on the subject. (I wish I knew how to post photos, as it would make a lot more sense laying out the kit parts along with a scale ruler- need to work on that one!)

Mike

Edited by 72modeler
deleted incorrect info
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D did not have the DB603 but Jumo 211J.  Which was the same size as the engine in the B.  I think the point is that the D was much the same length as the B and the usually quoted dimension. (11.5m as opposed to 11m) is wrong.  I have found a quoted dimension of 11.1m for the D which makes more sense, given the slightly pointed spinner.  

 

To make comparisons with other aircraft, the Hurricane Mk.II was four inches longer in the nose than the Mk.I, and this is barely visible unless you look closely.  The Spitfire Mk.IX was some eight inches longer in the nose and this is clearly visible.  So the Ju 87D was some nineteen inches longer than the Ju 87B and this is effectively invisible? No way.

 

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it means much - the German Wiki entry states 11.00 for both the B and D... I could have a look in the Schneider this evening, but I am not sure if I have the version with 1944 supplement; in any case, it would be doubtful if that wartime publication has the correct figures.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that the German sources have caught up with research whereas the English language sources are just continuing to quote from each other.

 

But reverting to the kits, this does imply that the other D/G kits are too long in the nose, but is the Academy kit right or just less wrong?

Edited by Graham Boak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having built both the Academy and Fujimi Stukas I'd say they both have their niggles , but they both look good and like Stukas when built.  The Advantages of the Academy kit is it's fairly cheap, here anyway, it builds easily, well the wheel spats are a bit annoying, and if you are so inclined quickboost makes a prop , wheels with spats, and a replacement rudder for it.  The interior is more then adequate  for the scale only requiring a set of belts if that's what you'd like. A gentleman on 72 scale aircraft forums did a very good Academy/Fujimi Stuka comparison 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Schneider is the 1939/40 issue and gives 11.00. Nowarra, Die Deutsche Luftrüstung, has 11.10 for the B and 11.13 for the D. I wouldn’t rate him the most reliable source, but the figures would snug in with Graham‘s line of thinking. Eric Brown quotes 11.50, Peter Smith 11.00 vs. the same 11.50. In Action 73 has 36/3 (11.05) vs 37/8.75 (11.50). Wood/Gunston (Salamander) give 11.10 across (they differentiate for span). Waffen Arsenal, Aero Detail and Classic a/c are upstairs.

No doubt Dressel/Griehl also compiled something, and I do not have the Classic title.

The idea I have so many books featuring the 87 is a bit frightening...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, then... 

Aero Detail 11.50, but I haven’t measured the drawings. Now it gets funny: Aircraft Archive quotes - to be expected- 11.50 for length and 13.80 for span („D and G“).  The drawing measures ca. 15.15 cm for length corresponding to 10.91 and ca. 19.1  cm for the short span wing, equating to ca. 13.75. They should have consulted Mr McHard who probably took tape to Hendon... Allowing for measuring inaccuracies on my part and perhaps slightly underscale printing, 1100 or 1110 mm seems more plausible than 1150, even if some profiles probably exaggerate the sleekness of the nose. Something similar can be observed with profiles from the early 80s portraying F-4E/Fs with I‘d say somewhat overlong noses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The D did not have the DB603 but Jumo 211J.  Which was the same size as the engine in the B.  I think the point is that the D was much the same length as the B and the usually quoted dimension. (11.5m as opposed to 11m) is wrong.  I have found a quoted dimension of 11.1m for the D which makes more sense, given the slightly pointed spinner.  

 

To make comparisons with other aircraft, the Hurricane Mk.II was four inches longer in the nose than the Mk.I, and this is barely visible unless you look closely.  The Spitfire Mk.IX was some eight inches longer in the nose and this is clearly visible.  So the Ju 87D was some nineteen inches longer than the Ju 87B and this is effectively invisible? No way.

 

I need new glasses, I guess! Don't know where I got the DB603 fact from, (My modeling buddy says he knows where I pulled it of, but there are ladies present!) but as you have pointed out, it's not correct for any of the Ju-87B through Ju-87G variants, I also found that according to one written source, the Jumo 211J series was 15.5:" longer than the Jumo 211A and Da of the Ju-87B, so that looks like it would account for the longer and revised nose contours of the D/G's. To redeem myself, I have listed the following- hope I got it right this time!

Mike 😪

 

Ju-87B-1    Jumo 211A

Ju-87B-2    Jumo 211Da

Ju-87D1-5 Jumo 211J

Ju-87G1-2 Jumo 211J-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Jumo 211J was longer, that would explain why the longer length would be needed, but an engine of the same basic kind being that much longer is very strange in itself.  The argument remains that this would still be visible on the nose of the aircraft.  

 

My first thought was that the cowlings on Jumo 211J versions of the Ju88 were no longer, but that is comparing with the Jumo 211F not earlier versions.   The F and J added a pressurised cooling system, the J an intercooler to the F.  I haven't found lengths for the relevant variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tempestfan said:

Found something, no idea how accurate it is - this page gives 1745mm for the 211D-1 and 2172.5 for the J-2 - the difference if correct is hence 427.5mm or 16.83 inches, or 1 foot 4 5/6.

I also found the same lengths for the two 211 engines, for what it's worth. I looked at as many photos of the Jumo 211J/J1 that I could find, and I think the extra length might be associated with the intercooler that was fitted to the J-series powerplants. None of the photos I could find showed the intercooler installed, but judging from the position of the intake plenum, it appears to me that the intercooler was mounted behind the engine, like the Merlin 60-series Spitfire  intercooler- could that account for the increased length of the J-series compared to the earlier engines?  Best I can do. On to more important pursuits- is the relief tube on the Ju-87 RLM 02 or 66? 😉

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

Very useful link, Tempestfan, thank you. I am following the debate with great interest, as I have built several Ju 87s, but still have (too) many of them in my stash. There is a question that is bothering me: there is Ju 87 G-2 in Hendon and I wonder if anybody of museum staff or, even better, one of us modellers measured her yet? Cheers

Jure

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...