Jump to content

Best ju87


goose

Recommended Posts

On 8/1/2018 at 3:51 AM, Troy Smith said:

I asked the guy who measured the Hendon G if he still had the measurements, he was doubtful.

 

But, I pulled out the Classic publications Ju-87 book, on page 253 there are drawings from the Ju-87 D-1 Trop handbook.

Length is shown as ~11000 , I presume that's mm.

 

HTH

Yet the table of dimensions (p 337, same book) gives the Ju 87B a length of 11100mm and the Ju 87D as 11500mm. Curious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tempestfan said:

Could it be that the „original“ Korean mould (EDIT: With that I mean the Idea/Hobbycraft G; no idea about the origin of the Aca B ) was a copy of the Frog, as the Koreans liked basing theirs on Frog moulds (among others) in the early days?

Hi all,

 

Academy B looked very much like Fujimi but with fixed nose.

 

I'd raise a couple of kits not mentioned in this threath also into discussion. Before recent Airfix B's Zvezda's B-2 looked for me "good enough" and is still a good alternative in my books.

 

For the G Hobby Boss has a G. It has nose same lenght as B's but too llong rear fuselage! I have feeling that same problem might be also HB/Trump bigger scale Stukas. Not a big deal to shorten if builder has some experience of this kind of job. It looks for me better than Academy which I feel undernourished an Fujimi that suffers a bit overside fuselage. Unfortunately for D's wing bomb racks should be sourced from another kit and cockpit is non-existing but the CMK one for Academy fits there with some work.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chuck1945 said:

Yet the table of dimensions (p 337, same book) gives the Ju 87B a length of 11100mm and the Ju 87D as 11500mm. Curious...

Sounds about right, as most of the references that quote dimensions list the Ju-87B at 11m or 36' 5" and the D/G at 11.5m or 37' 8", which is very close to the 15" increase in length that  is mentioned for the D/G over the B; some of that is likely due to the spinner for the later versions, which is longer than the one fitted to the B-series. Ah, sweet mystery of life!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Junkers documentation gives the same length for B and D, there's no known engineering  reason why there should be any difference, there's no visible difference in photos where the quoted increase would be highly visible - then the many sources simply quoting themselves and are just plain wrong.

 

 Bear in mind that none of the models actually represent this value anyway.  It may be that there is a slightly longer spinner on the D but this may simply have been ignored.  No-one ever quotes different lengths for the Hurricane and Spitfire with different spinners.

 

The Fujimi does not seem to have an oversize fuselage but the contrary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:44 AM, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

If I have to come to Texas Im leaving with some of those models 😉

If I ever figure out how to post photos, I'll show you what the 'stash' looks like! If you do come, you better bring a U-Haul! Come to think of it, if you PM me your email address, I can send you some pics! It's pretty depressing, actually, but my modeling mates say they  love the smell of all of the boxes- reminds them of an old hobby shop!

Mike 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2018 at 12:37 AM, Graham Boak said:

The Fujimi does not seem to have an oversize fuselage but the contrary.

Hello Graham, 

 

I tried to impress that Fujimi fuselage is too wide and tall having a slightly fat feeling to my eyes. I didn't mean lenght.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/29/2018 at 10:48 PM, KRK4m said:

Any news? A week has passed and nobody was able to visit Hendon and take the measure?

The nearest free weekend I could fly to LHR will be 18/19th August...

Cheers

Michael

Unfortunately last weekend I had to be in quite another place and I won't be able to fly to London until the end of October I'm afraid.

Thus could anybody take this measure earlier? Is there (at BM) any person working at the RAF Museum Hendon?

Cheers

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I got my hands on a copy of Eddie Creek's book Junkers Ju-87: from Dive-Bomber to Tank-Buster, and found some information that might shed some more light (licht?) on our Stuka discussion. I have no real grasp of what is right or wrong on the subject, but wanted to post this for everybody's use. 

 

The overall lengths quoted in the specifications table are:

35' 4" for the Ju-87A

36' 1" for the Ju-87B/R

37' 9" for the Ju-87D/G

 

In  addition, there were some excellent 6-view scale drawings of the A/B/D/G. For the sake of our discussion, I measured the G drawings and they scaled out to the length and span quoted in the specifications table.

 

Using my trusty metal scale rule, I made the following observations from examining the drawings- I offer them so those of you who have the Academy, Airfix, Frog, Fujimi, or Revell 1/72 Ju-87G kits so you can draw your own conclusions. Hope this helps!

 

Ju-87G-1/G-2

spinner, overall length: 30"

spinner, diameter at baseplate: approx. 32"

slot/opening for exhaust: 9" back from the spinner baseplate and 3' 9" in length

oil cooler intake: 3' back from spinner baseplate and 3' 3" in overall length; oil cooler opening is 9" deep

horizontal panel line on cowling above the exhaust, from the spinner backplate to the edge of the angled firewall: 7'

angled firewall at upper edge of cowling: 7' 6" from the spinner backplate

angled firewall at lower edge of cowling: 6' 6" from the  spinner backplate

depth of the fuselage at lower rear edge of oil cooler to the top of the cowling: 5'

depth of the fuselage from the aft edge of the gunner's canopy fairing to the bottom of the fuselage: 3' 6"

rudder chord at horizontal stabilizer: 27"

overall length from the edge of the firewall to the rear edge of the rudder, measured along the longeron that separates the upper and lower fuselage halves: 28' 3"

 

I also discovered that the Ju-87C navalized variant as well as the Ju-87D/G had the capability to jettison the main landing gear by means of explosive bolts in the event of a water landing or catastrophic damage to one or both struts.

Mike

 

Any news yet on whether or not somebody was able to measure the Hendon Stuka?

Edited by 72modeler
corrected wrong dimension
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no great surprise in finding that the plans in books match the dimensions quoted n the same book (or at least there shouldn't be).  However unless these are tied to actual known dimensions from production drawings, or the (very carefully measured) real thing, there's not a lot of evidence in favour of any of them.  They can be very detailed and still plain wrong.  In that sense, what you are doing here doesn't advance the argument any.  However, what can be done with these drawings is to check what differences they show between the B and the D.  There seems to be very good reason to assume that the same central fuselage was used on both variants , so the fuselage lengths between the rudder post and the firewall were identical.  Do the drawings show this?  It is better to use the rudder post rather than the rudder trailing edge, as the rudders may differ between variants. 

 

To put it another way, where in the drawings does this extra 20 inches appear?  If some of it is in the central fuselage then doubts arise.

 

To query deeper, why do they quote an extra 20 inches when Junkers drawings don't show this?  Let's be fair, overall general arrangement drawings are not always reliable sources for shapes and details, that's not what they are for, but any quoted dimensions would normally be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

There's no great surprise in finding that the plans in books match the dimensions quoted n the same book (or at least there shouldn't be).  However unless these are tied to actual known dimensions from production drawings, or the (very carefully measured) real thing, there's not a lot of evidence in favour of any of them.  They can be very detailed and still plain wrong.  In that sense, what you are doing here doesn't advance the argument any.  However, what can be done with these drawings is to check what differences they show between the B and the D.  There seems to be very good reason to assume that the same central fuselage was used on both variants , so the fuselage lengths between the rudder post and the firewall were identical.  Do the drawings show this?  It is better to use the rudder post rather than the rudder trailing edge, as the rudders may differ between variants. 

 

To put it another way, where in the drawings does this extra 20 inches appear?  If some of it is in the central fuselage then doubts arise.

 

To query deeper, why do they quote an extra 20 inches when Junkers drawings don't show this?  Let's be fair, overall general arrangement drawings are not always reliable sources for shapes and details, that's not what they are for, but any quoted dimensions would normally be accurate.

The drawings of the B/R/D/G in the Creek book all had the same length from the firewall to the rudder post, if that answers your question. As I stated in my last post, I have absolutely no idea as to the accuracy of the drawings in the book, nor was the source of the drawings stated; I merely listed measurements taken from the drawings that might be pertinent to look at for  those wanting to build that version of the Ju-87. Graham, I made no claim as to the accuracy of the drawings I examined, except to state that they seemed to match the dimensions commonly agreed to for that version,  but I also am not prepared to discount them entirely out of hand because they were not actual Junkers "production" drawings, to which I have no access- sounds like you do. Nuff said, I think.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, the Classic books usually quote the draftsman in the Copyright Block on the page with the bibliographic information, before the book proper starts. The 262, 335 and 200 have drawings by Arthur Bentley, the 88 by some Polish gentlemen. As Graham says, the drawings will only be as accurate as the data they are based on. Junkers „General“ drawings/Data sheets may not necessarily be the ideal source, there are enough cases were kits were based on manufacturers data that wasn’t kept up to date - Airfix Battle, Matchbox Beaufighter for example.

Did you get that book at a good price? It seems fairly scarce these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 72modeler said:

The drawings of the B/R/D/G in the Creek book all had the same length from the firewall to the rudder post, if that answers your question.  ….I have no access- sounds like you do. 

 

That's a very useful piece of information.  I have no more access to original drawings than you do, but clearly some do, as they are quoted earlier in this thread and reproduced in an available publication, but do not agree with the information you provide.   The key problem has always been that this commonly-reproduced increase in length does not seem to appear anywhere in views of the actual aircraft, and we are not talking about the odd inch somewhere (which can easily be misjudged) but almost 2 ft.

 

The point I am making, which you seem to have missed, is that a plan drawn to an incorrect overall dimension cannot be relied upon to provide accurate dimensions for detail breakdowns.  If this basic dimension of the central fuselage can be relied upon, then we can indeed see by comparing these drawings where the draughtsman thought that this extra distance had been introduced, and then look in detail at photos, perhaps using some simple photogrammetry (always dangerous!).  So listing the values for the B alongside the D could have been more helpful.

 

I used to believe that the D was indeed longer - a slightly longer spinner, perhaps a wider chord rudder, perhaps a longer fuselage?  But the last point is not the case, the other details do not add up to the increase in length claimed, and such a large increase should be visible whereas it is not.  We must face the fact that much information on Luftwaffe aircraft commonly reproduced since the 1940s has been proven wrong, and this does look as though it may well be another one.

 

No, I don't believe anyone has gone and taken a tape measure to the RAF Museum's example, and feel that such a comment underestimates the difficulty of obtaining accurate information by such means, not to mention the likelihood of a national Museum allowing such access to some uncredited bod with a tape measure.  Having said that, I was allowed to walk across the hallowed floor to peer closely at the tail of the Ju.88, for nothing more than satisfying my own curiosity about the section in front of the tailplane, but that was at a time when the Museum was quiet with no bad example being set to sticky-fingered hordes.  I didn't touch.

 

However, the Battle of Britain Hall has since been completely revised, and I don't know where the Ju87 is currently displayed or stored.  There's a strong chance that it is at Cosford, in which case the curious investigator may well be allowed more access, or (if time permits) careful measurement might be made of panel sizes, rudder chord, and such details.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I visited Hendon last April the Stuka was still there, but it was parked in an area that was under construction and the aircraft itself might have been disassembled - it was too far away to get a proper look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

No, I don't believe anyone has gone and taken a tape measure to the RAF Museum's example, and feel that such a comment underestimates the difficulty of obtaining accurate information by such means, not to mention the likelihood of a national Museum allowing such access to some uncredited bod with a tape measure.

Can't speak for my  Air Force Museum and NASM visits, as I did not have the opportunity to contact them in advance of my arrival, but the two times I have visited the Museum of Naval Aviation at Pensacola, I spoke with officials there in  advance of my visit, and was allowed to take measurements of several of the aircraft on the floor that I had planned as modeling projects. (This was done at the opening and closing times when there were few visitors.) Very nice people there, but certainly understand the reticence that most museums would have regarding rank amateurs poking and prodding a rare and priceless airframe! They sure had puzzled looks on their faces when I was lying flat on my back taking photos of wheel bays ands undercarts, though!

 

Your points are all well-taken, and I guess there are very few instances where accurate production/factory/engineering drawings exist, especially for Axis types, so almost all drawings have to be taken with a rather large grain of salt, but we do the best we can with what we have to work with- some having much better references and primary sources than others. That being said, I guess I have nothing more of significance to post, and will use what I have read and learned here to make up my mind as to what corrections might be in order to make an accurate Ju-87D/G, as I guess we all will do. Thank you for your assistance.

Mike 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tempestfan said:

Mike, the Classic books usually quote the draftsman in the Copyright Block on the page with the bibliographic information, before the book proper starts. The 262, 335 and 200 have drawings by Arthur Bentley, the 88 by some Polish gentlemen. As Graham says, the drawings will only be as accurate as the data they are based on. Junkers „General“ drawings/Data sheets may not necessarily be the ideal source, there are enough cases were kits were based on manufacturers data that wasn’t kept up to date - Airfix Battle, Matchbox Beaufighter for example.

Did you get that book at a good price? It seems fairly scarce these days...

I wish! I have all the Classic monographs but that one, and can't explain why I didn't get it when it was first out- guess I was waiting for a good used copy on A----n? Sure can't afford the going rate, now! I borrowed a buddy's copy. You know what? After looking at all my Stuka photos, reference books, and re-reading all of the discussion on this topic, I think I tend to agree with Graham's assertion and others that there really isn't a reason for a significant difference in length between the B/R and the D/G. They appear to share a common engine block/cylinder heads, and I don't think the longer spinner and sometimes quoted wider chord rudder would account for the kind of increase in overall length mentioned in so many reference works.   So I guess, if it looks like a Stuka, walks like a Stuka, and quacks like a Stuka.... heck, I'm still trying to find an FS equivalent for the RLM P you mentioned for the relief tubes!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

Then we'll never see one page of text or one photo- that's for sure!

Mike

I wouldn't bet on that.  Remember that the entire Junkers design office was transferred to a Russian site and the personnel returned to work.  Also that Solzhenitsyn stated that the Communist regime would eventually be condemned by looking in its obsessive bureaucracy.  There's a lot of good stuff on Russian aviation coming out nowadays, so it's possible that somewhere in the immense archives, researchers will one day find the appropriate Junkers records.

 

I think the Meteor 14 makes a very good comparison, but I don't think that this matter has been demonstrated to quite the same level of truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I wouldn't bet on that. 

I was just remembering that when Frog went out of business, Russian-owned  Novo did not want the molds for any of the German kits, like the Do-335, Ta-152H, He-162, Me-410, etc. but sold them to Revell/Germany...old hatreds die hard, it seems.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Four month more have elapsed since last post in this thread... Do we have any news there?

What is the O/L of the Hendon Stuka - 36'1" or 37'9".

In other words: who's right? Academy or Fujimi?

Cheers

Michael

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

Regrettably I had no time to visit London last year, but AFAIK there is one late Ju-87 exhibited at the RAF Hendon Museum.

Could anybody there try to measure (or at least to make an orthogonal photo) it's nose? It will surely help to end this Fujimi vs. Academy uncertainty.

Cheers

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2018 at 10:06 PM, Sturmovik said:

I don´t know if someone has already mentioned it, but Italeri makes a good looking 1:72 Ju 87B-2/R-2 (also reboxed by Revell). Recessed panel lines, spinning propeller, nicely detailed and three decal options.

If you´re looking for a 1:72 D/G Stuka, you can choose the Revell one, raised panel lines (doesn´t bother me), rather ill-fitting wingtips, sparse cpckpit detail, has an engine, spinning propeller, and two decal options.

 

I´m mentioning the ones I´ve come in contact with.

Italeri also does the D & G variants.  The kits were also repopped by Tamiya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Don't mean to throw avgas on the fire or re-open the dreaded can of worms, but I just got my copy of the Valiant Wings Airframe and Miniature 14 on the Ju-87, and in the specifications table it lists the oal of the Ju-87A as 10.82 meters and the B through G as 11.0 meters. Also, in the kit review section, the reviewer for the 1/72 Academy Ju-87G stated that the previous reviews that found the nose section was too short were based on faulty drawings, and that the kit actually scales out OK in oal. (No mention as to which drawings were used  for this conclusion.) FWIW, both of the Arfix Ju-87B kits and the Academy Ju-87G got high marks.

Mike

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
×
×
  • Create New...