Jump to content

A Pair of Bulgarian Shchuka – R-2 and D-5 ***FINISHED***


Ray_W

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

Count me in. These days I spend so much time in Bulgaria I decided to build something with a local flavour – a Bulgarian R2.

 

I am using the latest 1/48 Airfix B1 boxing.

 

20200112_093427

 

 

The R2 is achievable as a number of the B2/R2 items are in the box. I will need to modify that top cowl, side panels and radiator plus what ever else pops up through the build. Why did I just not use the latest Airfix B2/R2 offering? Well, I am into stash reduction (I know it's a lame excuse) and do enjoy some research and mod work (the real reason).

 

The colour scheme for these aircraft is fairly simple – the usual 70/71/65 with Bulgarian National Insignia, wing tips and fuselage band and simple number. My choice will probably be White 8 dependent on my research. Kora Models (www.lfmodels.cz) do some decals for these aircraft although due to the marking simplicity and the fact I have the national insignia already, I think I’ll mask my own numbers.

 

There are a couple of photos on the net but I have not, as yet, seen a good side view of the early Bulgarian Stukas. I have slightly front on and Alamy has a couple of good photo of the line-up of the 12 R2’s with external fuel tank fitted, I expect on day of delivery. German unit markings, swastika still visible and, interestingly, the national markings covered. I will do one after conversion. A visit to Sofia's National Military Museum next week might also drag up something.

 

Should be a good build and as always the preliminary research is fun.

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very much into the research stage of this project. Not ready to start playing with styrene until the current build is finished … soon.

 

As mentioned I intend to do white 8. Osprey provide a nice side profile artwork of this aircraft in their publication "Junkers Ju 87 Stukageschwader of the Russian Front (Combat Aircraft Book 74)". Failing also else I will go this way. However, I'm on the hunt for photographic evidence. If you're modelling the Bulgarian D's you're in luck. R's are much more difficult. Other than the photograph of the 12 supplied aircraft still in their German markings, that I am assuming was taken on day of delivery,  this is the best I have been able to dig up. At least it confirms the marking locations (wing upper and fuselage) and, if I'm not mistaken, a tropical filter is fitted.

 

Interestingly, and I hope the Stuka camo experts are reading this, that splinter camouflage may of been overpainted. The difference in the "splinter" colours is noticeable and see the edges on that right wing. Looks like a neat hand paint job when I was doing a 1/72 build as a kid. The German supply photo is difficult to detect difference in the splinter patter so I am assuming 70/71. Did the Bulgarian re-paint for more of a Mediterranean theme? 

 

The plot thickens. This could really make an interesting colour scheme.

 

Correction: I now consider the photo showing the line-up of 12 R2's were not the supplied aircraft but was taken on the occasion of Bulgaria's Tsar III Boris's visit to the German Airbase at Krajnici, Bulgaria in 1941 inspecting the Ju-87's and Ju-88's.

 

Stuka _ Bulgaria_001

 

 

Edited by Ray_W
Updated information
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to the earlier post. This appears as standard 70/71. Not counting out a re-paint and a change to colours more suitable for a Balkan deployment.

 

Stuka_Bulagaria_Standard Scheme

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Greg. With no better information I'll fall into line and go with 70/71 but there's a couple of months to go before the colour coats so hopefully more research will uncover a more definitive answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Ray_W changed the title to A Pair of Bulgarian Shchuka – R-2 and D-5

Hi All,

 

During my research for the Bulgarian R-2, I kept coming across their use of the D-5’s. My interest in the second type of Ju-87 in Bulgarian service was further increased on reading Dimitar Nedialkov’s excellent book “The History of Bulgarian Air Power”. It’s a great read, in English, with some excellent photographs many of which are held in Bulgarian collections and a few nice shots of the D-5. For example, the one following - a late war D-5 sans wheel spats.

 

Stuka_Book_Shot

 

I thought maybe a good subject for a dual build. As luck would have it, one of the LHS’s in Sofia had the 1/48 Italeri boxing of the D-5 in stock. I had to grab it. So now I am committed to a side-by-side 1/48 build.

 

I changed this topic title to “A Pair of Bulgarian Shchuka – R-2 and D-5”. The latin characters for the Bulgarian name for the Stuka was Shchuka . The Bulgarian word for the Pike (yes, the fish).

 

A few shots of all the sprues. You can see fuselage, wings and canopies are already off the sprues. I couldn’t wait and immediately started playing around in a comparison of the kits. I will publish my thoughts on this separately and as part of this build. I am most interested in correcting any major variations between the kits such as the Italeri fuselage length issue. Waiting on some aftermarket to arrive a bit of photo-etch and resin but that will not stop me making these changes if required.

 

Let’s see how it goes.

 

Stuka_Dual_Build_Kick-off

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My focus is now on the Italeri fuselage length and cockpit placement issue. If there is an issue and it can be reasonably rectified, then I will give it a go.

 

At the moment I do not have access to good Ju-87 plans so instead took the latest Airfix release as the “Standard” to see where the differences lie.

 

I’d seen the IPMS Deutschland review of Italeri's B2 where they did a comparison with Hasegawa showing length and cockpit location variation. For me, it was not clear as to what was best or correct and where the “errors” lie. I thought I would do it another way.

 

Pleasingly, the Airfix top wing halves match Italeri’s single piece bottom wing. By taping an Airfix wing half on one side I could fit in its matching Airfix fuselage half correctly aligned with its wing root. Similarly, I could do the same on the other side with the Italeri parts. At all times I was aligning both sides off the Italeri bottom wing. The front of the wing then becomes the key reference line. By taping the fuselage halves together I could remove the fuselage and see what's going on.

 

Top wings taped in position and respective fuselage halves fitted.

 

Stuka_Airfix_Italeri_1

 

The key observations by this method are:

 

1.      The Italeri fuselage is too long by approximately 4 mm (a scale 192 mm) measured at the mid-point of the fin height as the rudder line is slightly angled.

2.      The Italeri firewall position sits back approximately 1.0 mm.  

3.      The Italeri canopy is slightly forward by 1.0 mm.

 

Some pics of the fuselage:

 

Stuka_Airfix_Italeri_3

 

Stuka_Airfix_Italeri_2

 

Stuka_Airfix_Italeri_4

 

When dry fitting the canopies and assembly of the respective fuselage it seems the Italeri length error is spread over its length compounding at each critical position. Very difficult to correct in the canopy and wing root positions. Some reduction in length is doable in the rear half.  I hope to spend more time on this tomorrow and will try to post some photos of my proposed corrective work.

 

Importantly, if,

 

(a)    the Airfix offering is in fact correct dimensionally; and,

(b)    the B1/B2/R2 and the D5 had the same length firewall to rudder,

 

then I can sense my razor saw coming out.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect this may be linked to something I've been querying ever since the Academy 1/72 Dora was criticized for having too short a nose.  Looking at photos and considering the engineering, there appears no good reason why the D should be any longer than the B, apart from a slightly pointier spinner, yet published dimensions state otherwise.  So a model company has to make some changes somewhere.

 

This is something that has been discussed ad nausea without any convincing conclusion.  If you are going to research this matter you will need to look into German primary sources not just a variety of published books.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

Importantly, if,

 

(a)    the Airfix offering is in fact correct dimensionally; and,

(b)    the B1/B2/R2 and the D5 had the same length firewall to rudder,

 

There was a long debate on on some of these aspects for the 72nd kits.  

AFAIK, the firewall to rudder are the same on the B and D, but no definitive answer was arrived at.

 

Given the Italeri kit also has a bulged upper cowling and a misshaped spinner,  and they regularly make a pigs ear of kits, (1/48 Hurricane and Re2002 spring too  mind)  and I think that if you look again at IPMS Deutschland Hase vs Italeri that the Hase and the Airfix are a match up.... 

I don't have the Italeri kit,  as it's expensive in the UK,  and my others are buried (Hase, Monogram and old tool Airfix) or I'd do you some dimensions.    have you checked the Italeri Vs Airfix colwling length ?  Should be the same again, AFAIK.

 

Sorry, very vague and woolly answer, perhaps worth a thread in the ww2 section, and see if someone can compare other kits.   

 

HTH

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

 

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I suspect this may be linked to something I've been querying ever since the Academy 1/72 Dora was criticized for having too short a nose.  Looking at photos and considering the engineering, there appears no good reason why the D should be any longer than the B, apart from a slightly pointier spinner, yet published dimensions state otherwise.  So a model company has to make some changes somewhere.

 

This is something that has been discussed ad nausea without any convincing conclusion.  If you are going to research this matter you will need to look into German primary sources not just a variety of published books.

 

Thanks Graham for this insight. I think I will be like the modelling companies and gather as much info as I can and then make a decision which way to go. I picked up the Italeri kit for a good price and it seemed a good basis for the Bulgarian D-5 to complement the R-2. I will persevere with this unless there is the ultimate fatal flaw. e.g the whole kit is the wrong scale. Hopefully we can add another piece to the jigsaw puzzle.

 

In answer to Troy,

7 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

Given the Italeri kit also has a bulged upper cowling and a misshaped spinner,  and they regularly make a pigs ear of kits, (1/48 Hurricane and Re2002 spring too  mind)  and I think that if you look again at IPMS Deutschland Hase vs Italeri that the Hase and the Airfix are a match up.... 

I don't have the Italeri kit,  as it's expensive in the UK,  and my others are buried (Hase, Monogram and old tool Airfix) or I'd do you some dimensions.    have you checked the Italeri Vs Airfix colwling length ?  Should be the same again, AFAIK.

 

 

I was saving the cowl for the next discussion but can confirm the Italeri D-5 cowl is longer than the Airfix B1 cowl by 5 mm. With the set back of 1 mm in the firewall, as discussed in my previous post, we have a matching front length extension to the rear giving a total greater length of 8 mm compared to the Airfix B1.

 

As the extension appears on both ends it will give a more balanced look. There could be an engineering argument for maintaining centre of gravity for these changes (think FW-190 D9) if they did occur on the actual aircraft but, my suspicion is it was the sacrifice for accommodating that nicely detailed engine in 1:48 not 1:1 and something wrong in the scaling of the fuselage length.

 

What's right? I do not know at this stage. I'll keep hunting for an answer. If the cowling portion is too long then I will modify it.

 

What I was always planning to modify is that Italeri bulbous front end and weird match to the spinner. I agree with Troy on this. One aspect that also does not look quite right is the width at the cowl front end when viewed from above. All of these strange shapes were probably mandatory to accommodate the nicely detailed engine. My plan is to close it all up so I can "go to town" on getting the shape and length right.

 

I have the Hasegawa 1/72 G-2 in the cabinet back home in Australia. A kit I made eons ago. It will be a couple of months before I'm back but from memory, I am sure the Italeri D-5 does not capture that slim, attractive yet aggressive look.    

 

I'll post some pictures later today.

 

Ray

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Working on the assumptions that Airfix is correct and the firewall to rudder length measurement is the same on the B1/B2/R2 and D3 and using my reference point established for alignment of the fuselage halves per the previous posts I now have determined a cut position on the Italeri fuselage.

 

The following image is interesting in that there is rough alignment of panels between Airfix and Italeri with the exception of one long panel on the bottom of the Italeri fuselage. A shortening of the fuselage at this point will bring the Italeri roughly into alignment with the Airfix. I think I will just have to live with the rudder angle variation.

 

You will note I just don't hack through the fuselage but have a cut along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. This is to provide a shelf to slide the tail section up into its new position. I prefer to get the length and contour right in the halves and then proceed with the build as per normal. 

 

I will now leave it for a few days before I cut the plastic to see if any new information comes to light. 

 

Stuka_Airfix_Italeri_5

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From one to two and kit bashing pure on top of that - great!

 

Sorry, I am not a Stuka expert. but I can say that the Airfix fuselage length (from fire wall to rudder, didn't check the nose) is matching the MMP Books Scale Plans perfectly.

 

But in reality this doesn't mean much as there are as many inaccurate drawings out there as there are inaccurate kits :(

 

It looks you are enjoying your research which is what is important and I am sure you will create a respectable representation of a D-5 from the Italeri kit.

 

Cheers, Peter

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the photo comparison of Hasegawa and Italeri from IPMS Deutschland and added my Italeri D-5 and Airfix B-1 fuselage. My D-5 and B-1 alignment is per the front wing position I used before. I then aligned the two Italeri's as best I could. This placed the Airfix in relationship with Hasegawa.

 

Sorry my photo capability and facilities did not allow an exact match or alignment but it is close enough to make some gross judgements.

 

 

Stuka IPMS comparison (2)

 

If the Hasegawa rudder line remains where it is in relationship to the Airfix the Hasegawa fire wall is significantly forward. My thoughts on this is that the Hasegawa cockpit is too far back. By aligning the firewalls the Hasegawa cockpit location is pushed further back in relationship to both Italeri and Airfix. 

 

My rough Google translate of our German friends write-up.

 

"Speaking of pilot jobs. Since I had now brought out the Hasegawa kit for comparison, I noticed a clear difference. The cockpit at Italeri is about a few millimeters further forward than at Hasegawa - (with the same length of this component without a rudder at Hasegawa) - just as a food for thought for those who want to measure."

 

Possibly Italeri got it right as their cockpit does align reasonably with the Airfix cockpit.

 

Further, with firewall alignment the Hasegawa rudder line moves back and aligns roughly with Italeri. Either both are wrong or the D series were longer. This still needs to be confirmed before I shorten the Italeri.

 

I should also say that the cowl length previously posted is not at this stage saying Italeri got it wrong. Rather another observation. Someone will probably have both kits and let me know how the Hasegawa D/G cowl measure to Italeri.

 

Mean time, into the drawings I can source. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick in his STGB cross-kit build responded to a post of mine in his topic as quoted below. It answers a lot. A big thank you. Also special thanks to Ed Russel for some additional information that has helped greatly in confirming this and of course BM stalwarts Graham and Troy.

 

Outcomes:

 

1. I will shorten the Italeri fuselage as proposed to match Airfix.

2. I will use the long Italeri cowling with some shape improvements and slight shortening in length.

 

In the end, not difficult mods for a more accurate D-5.

 

52 minutes ago, Niknak said:

Hi Peter I'm starting with the italeri kit as I haven't been into the loft to find my hasegawa ju 87. Course I'm too lazy. 😁

Hi Ray the d was slightly longer at 11.10 m  were as the b was 11.m long if my references are correct Here is the d nose taped onto the airfix fuselarge  placed over the kagero drawings. Nick

 

2020-01-19_10-56-32

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray_W said:

If the Hasegawa rudder line remains where it is in relationship to the Airfix the Hasegawa fire wall is significantly forward. My thoughts on this is that the Hasegawa cockpit is too far back. By aligning the firewalls the Hasegawa cockpit location is pushed further back in relationship to both Italeri and Airfix.

tricky assessment Ray.

I know that the Hase Stuka was in part derived from measurements of the Stuka that was at Hendon, as a chap from my model club and ex model shop owner talked about climbing over it to do this.

 

One suggestion, lay the Italeri and airfix over a squared up cutting mat or graph paper, and if possible, add some actual measurements, so better comparisons with the Hase can be made.

 

If/when I get chance I'll dig out a hase Stuka,  I have both B and D models stashed, as well as old and new tool Airfix, and a broken down Monogram G.

 

AFAIK Airfix still have a lot of their older research (ie pre 81 ) and they did do a 1/24th Stuka then, (which I also have the remains of)

The Classic publications Stuak book has drawing from the Ju87 manual, and that listed the D as being 11 m. (Book, like Hase kits, not too hand) but 11.10 m, 10 cm is 4 inches, and this could easily be due to a longer spinner.

 

re the Italeri

this image link broke in a linked thread, but this may help,  I tried to find a similar angle shot,  and note there looks to be a difference in length between firewall and windscreen visible.     And how awful the Italeri B spinner is....

Junkers-Ju-87B-Stuka-StG1-(6G+-)-+G50-65

 

6Zjp4jw.jpg&key=bdb35d83119ef11f270c57f9

 

Comparisons with the B model kits would be good too.

 

I'd get the Italeri kits if I found them cheap, but only then, and they tend to be expensive new in the UK, so even at a discount, are still more than I'm prepared to pay (which isn't much TBH)

 

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Troy, yes a good idea to lay it out on graph paper to avoid the photographic effects of scaling and parallax and I will do so in the next couple of days. It will give you a reference without sourcing the Italeri kit. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

21 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I suspect this may be linked to something I've been querying ever since the Academy 1/72 Dora was criticized for having too short a nose.  Looking at photos and considering the engineering, there appears no good reason why the D should be any longer than the B, apart from a slightly pointier spinner, yet published dimensions state otherwise.  So a model company has to make some changes somewhere.

 

This is something that has been discussed ad nausea without any convincing conclusion.  If you are going to research this matter you will need to look into German primary sources not just a variety of published books.

 

All, after further reading from various sources and forums, looking at a pile of photographs, comparing scale drawings and kits I have came to the same conclusion as Graham in his comment of close to 24 hours ago. I see no definitive answer to the dimensional issues. However, I have formed my own opinion and now it's time to place razor saw, scalpel and file in hand and attack that Italeri kit. What does this mean?

 

1. To replicate the Airfix B fuselage length to firewall for the Italeri D as best as possible by shortening the fuselage as I already proposed. If the cockpit location is out slightly, see if there is an easy fix otherwise go with it how it is.

 

2. Shorten that Italeri cowl to match the Airfix cowl length. I can find no evidence of the cowl needing to be longer to accommodate a more powerful but dimensionally same engine. Some of the drawings reflect this showing the longer cowl. I am going to opt for the "No D/G Cowl Extension" theory.  If you took the Airfix cowl filled the oil cooler areas and sanded it smooth like the D I feel confident the shape will look much more  correct than the current Italeri offering.  The proof is, of course, sitting at Hendon. 

 

3. Get the correct prop and spinner profile - I have some aftermarket on the way. Hopefully someone has achieved the correct spinner length and this will add to the overall length to give a slightly longer D compared to the B.

 

4. If the correct length cannot be met then extend the windscreen to firewall distance.

 

All-in-all this should achieve a sweet looking Ju-87 D - if such a thing exists.

 

I am sure there are more challenges ahead. Next pics should be WIP. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Useful information. I too find the 11.1 reasonable. I also found this thread discussing the length variation that gives me further confidence in this decision, https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/72nd_aircraft/ju-87-d-g-academy-anf-fujimi-nose-length-comparisi-t9601.html

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, apologies as I said the next post would be WIP. Instead I have been planning the front-end mods.

 

The following image shows the Airfix B-1 side panel compared to the Italeri D-5. I realise they’re opposite side panels, but the key longitudinal positions will be the same. By orientating at the prop end results in an alignment of certain key features - the exhaust outlets, the main panel line at the rear of the exhausts.

 

You then have that extra wide panel at the firewall. I was pleased to see this as it makes for a simple correction by shortening the Italeri D to match the B series panel on the firewall line.

 

 

Stuka Airifx Italeri Cowl Side Panel Alignment

 

It did raise a couple of questions to investigate before committing to the change.

 

1.      Is the wider panel supported by photographic evidence and how does the length and location of the oil cooler duct appear?

2.      Is there any evidence of the JUMO 211 engine being placed further out possibly shown in images of the D/G with the cowl panels removed, such as maintenance shots?

 

On the first point, I had a look at as many side-on images of Stuka D/G’s I could find and measured that firewall panel width at the prop shaft centre line and compared this to the full cowl length on the same line. By using many images and a ratio to compare the lengths, I hoped to compensate for some of the vagaries associated with parallax, perspective and fisheye. I have not posted up a heap of images with lines drawn all over them rather just one using the method on the Hendon Ju-87 G. It gives a firewall panel width to total cowl of 30%.

 

Stuka_Side_Panel

 

Outcome?

 

I could not get anything close to the Italeri representation.  The Italeri ratio of the firewall panel to full panel length at the prop shaft is 37%. The ratio as determined from photos ranged between 28.5 to 30 %. Airfix at just under 29%.  With Italeri at 37% and all others falling close to the Airfix Ju-87 B  it gave me confidence in shortening the Italeri D-5 at the proposed cut line.

 

I also noted that the start of the oil cooler entry is in line with the 4th exhaust port between Airfix and Italeri and the photographic evidence. Therefore, a shortening of the cowl length at the firewall line will not change this location. Another confirmation.

 

On the second point, there are many photos of maintenance work on B series Ju-87 showing the covers off and that major engine support member (bearer). A special forging or casting I thought unlikely to be changed from the B to a D series. And if so, the change should be obvious. The more likely extension would be a piece at the connection to the firewall or less likely something at the prop end. What I have called “Areas of interest”.

 

 

Stuka_Engine_Areas of Interest

 

Sourcing maintenance images showing covers off on the D/G has proved difficult. I posted in the BM WW2 section to no avail. Special thanks to Ed Russell for assisting me with some information. Maybe other can help and we can settle the debate. If we can find no extension pieces on either end and/or no change to the design of the engine bearer, then the only place for extension is in that longer spinner. Result overall length of the D/G in the 11.0 to 11.1 metre range.

 

What do you think? I think I start cutting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray_W said:

What do you think?

A thought occured, that in the pic i posted of the flying B-2 vs the Italeri B-2 that the there is a shortness between windscreen and rear of cowl panel, have you checked to see if Italeri have got the cowl panel too long and consequently the panel behind too short, and that it maybe a case of then assembling and rescribing the rear cowling panel line?  Have you compared the Airfix vs Italeri fuselage with cowl panels attached?  Sorry if stating the blinkin' obvious.

Not having the Italeri kit, just a suggestion.

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...