Jump to content

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


Ray_W

Recommended Posts

On 1/20/2020 at 5:12 AM, Ray_W said:

I can find no evidence of the cowl needing to be longer to accommodate a more powerful but dimensionally same engine.

Are you sure about this? Have a look here.

 

According to that site, the Jumo 211D-1 used in the Ju 87B-2  has a length of 1745mm. But the Jumo 211J-1/2 used in the Ju 87D-1 has a length of 2172.5mm which is 427.5mm longer which is substantial.

 

Not sure how accurate this information is.

Cheers, Peter

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not go into this detail in this post but on an earlier one I mentioned that the Italeri firewall is set back too far. My estimate is by 1 mm. You are correct that this is one of the contributing factors and I think some compensation in the cowl has been made to accommodate this. However, the cowl is too long by some 5 mm. I think 1mm needs to be compensated by moving the firewall forward and 3.5 mm to 4 mm taken off the cowl itself. I also believe their whole cockpit area is too forward by another 1 mm resulting in the windscreen panel to firewall panel being 2 mm too short (1 mm on the cowl end and 1 mm from the cockpit end).  

 

Tonight, subject to other commitments, I plan to carefully assembling the Airfix an Italeri canopy and cockpit sections for comparison. My plan is to use PVA to assemble and check whether my previous conclusions are correct.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Basilisk said:

Are you sure about this? Have a look here.

 

According to that site, the Jumo 211D-1 used in the Ju 87B-2  has a length of 1745mm. But the Jumo 211J-1/2 used in the Ju 87D-1 has a length of 2172.5mm which is 427.5mm longer which is substantial.

 

Not sure how accurate this information is.

Cheers, Peter

I saw other posts refuting the length. Great to get the definitive answer. A pic Ed sent me showed a D with the same engine bearer and I cannot see any pronounced extension forward or aft. A side view covers off D or G will answer this.

 

This is why I like the forum and have not cut plastic.  Although strongly leaning to the length shortening proposed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Basilisk said:

Are you sure about this? Have a look here.

 

According to that site, the Jumo 211D-1 used in the Ju 87B-2  has a length of 1745mm. But the Jumo 211J-1/2 used in the Ju 87D-1 has a length of 2172.5mm which is 427.5mm longer which is substantial.

 

Not sure how accurate this information is.

Cheers, Peter

 

Peter,

 

Thanks for the information. You can see why there are arguments that the Jumo data is misleading with a overall length variance of Jumo 211 D to J of 427.5 mm (8.9 mm in a 1/48 kit). We need that dimensioned drawing to see what they are measuring.  At least, somebody must have a side view of the actual D211 J in a Ju-87 D/G with panels off for maintenance or construction. The one Ju-87 D installation I have looks very similar to the B. Same engine bearer. Same bolt position. Maybe a slightly longer ball joint fixing but this not enough to justify the D/G cowl length and this could be the picture angle or damage. I can't see how you would accommodate an extra 427.5 mm without a very long and observable cowl length change.

 

I know this is going over a lot of old ground and I am no Stuka expert. I hope it is of some interest and my build will reflect the outcome.

 

Ray 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall any reference to the Ju88 needing longer nacelles when it changed to the J.  Nor why the 211J should be any longer - for example a new gearbox as on the Merlin XX, but that was only four inches not four or five times that.  If it was a reason for it to be that much longer, then it would indeed make sense, but it surely doesn't look it in photos.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ray_W said:

You can see why there are arguments that the Jumo data is misleading with a overall length variance of Jumo 211 D to J of 427.5 mm

 

 

captioned as a D

Junkers_Ju_87_Stuka_Germany_1945.jpg

 

B-1

ju87-WRG-0017976.jpg

 

May help if you superimpose images, or find a better B engine shot, which are a lot more common to overlay.

 

 

PS 427.5 mm is nearly 18 inches... I can't see that much difference, if any, in the images above.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been doing some research to resolve this JUMO 211 motor length issue. I sourced the images from the link provided by Peter (junkers-ep.de) and superimposed the plan view of the B/D and J on one image. I have been counting rocker cover bolts, side fixing locations, the unique engine bearer, length comparisons from the images, etc etc,  and can find no significant difference other than the image of the J has the prop shaft and maybe slight change in the gearbox. Judge for yourself.

 

JUMO 211 BD and J comparison

  

Image constructed from Junkers-ep.de. (2020). Junkers Einspritzpumpen. [online] Available at: https://www.junkers-ep.de/ep/ep.html [Accessed 23 Jan. 2020].

 

I am hunting more primary source material from that treasure trove https://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/ and we will see what can be uncovered. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's play a quick quiz. From what aircraft is the following picture?

 

Stuka_Quick_Quiz

 

It looks very similar to the Ju-87B image I have already used.

 

Stuka_Engine_Areas of Interest

 

Or possibly this Ju-87B image from Bundesarchiv taken from the other side:

 

Bild 146-1981-064-16A

 

In fact, no, it's a Ju-87D. Thanks to Ed Russell for the image.

 

Ju87D-5 WNr132230 E8_AL

 

 

Really no marked difference in engine fitting or length.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an interesting fact you can see between the images is the B and the D. That is the toll the war took on the ground crews.  The guys in the B photos look healthy and well feed. In the D photo they look almost like they are staving. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

 

What a great observation that is!!  

 

It reminds me of my RAAF 453 Squadron build of "Froggy" Lyall's Mk IX MH779. Australian media were at their base at Ford late in the day June 6 taking photos. A very tired young man sitting in his cockpit after flying what was it 6 sorties over Normandy that day. Maybe he has a faint wry smile. I do not know but some of these photos are compelling. In a few days he will be shot down by ground fire. Survive and have to make his back to allied lines. 

 

409160-warrant-officer-r.-lyall-geelong-vic-w800

 

 

The other interesting matter with the Stuka is the lack of promotional/propaganda photos of the D/G. So well staged early in the war when the Stuka was "the plane". My I have struggled to get good maintenance shots of D/G models. Probably in private collections not like those early in the war printed for mass consumption.

 

I am now focussed on that slight increase in the D/G length. This is my theory of maybe an additional 100 mm (not 400 mm plus) to accommodate the JUMO 211 J's slightly larger reduction gearbox. I think this increase pushed the in prop shaft out further resulting in an increased gap cowling to rear of spinner and thicker rear spinner plate. Hard to find the "money shot". 

 

Thanks for the comments. Great insight.

 

Ray

 

 

 

Edited by Ray_W
clarification
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last check and I am cutting plastic.

 

As I am using the latest 1/48 Airfix B1/B2/R2 as the standard for my dual build with the Italeri D-5, I thought I would compare overall length of each kit as follows. Mainly to check if Airfix is in fact a scale 11.0 metres. The angle and distance from camera played some tricks with the alignment but the tail and nose are aligned with the marks as you can see in the second shot.

 

Stuka_Italeri_Airfix_FullBodyComparison

 

Stuka_Italeri_Airfix_NoseComparison

 

Airfix measure 229 mm or 10.992 metres close enough to 11 metres. Italeri 238 mm or 11.424 metres. That 400 mm extra length continues to haunt us. I will modify the Italeri rear fuselage and cowl length to match Airfix. The spinners will not be included at this stage. I have a theory on what needs to happen here. This will come later in the build (my previous post hinted at my theory).

 

Let's cut the Italeri and start the mods.

 

I decide to remove 5 mm from the Italeri rear fuselage length. This 5mm is made up of two adjustments (1) 4 mm in the rear fuselage and (2) a 1 mm length adjustment to be made at the firewall. These dimensions should match Airfix. 

 

1. Using the available panel lines I scribed 4.5 mm with my dividers (4.5 to allow for the cut to finish 5 mm). The proposed locations was given in one of my earlier posts.

2. I really like that small Tamiya panel line scriber to deepen the divider scribed lines. Gives me a good line for the razor saw to follow.

3. The razor saw can go to work.

4. Pieces cut out.

 

Stuka_Italeri_FueslageCutSequence

 

 

Looks good matched up.

 

Stuka_Italeri_Body_Taped

 

And I think looks even better aligned with Airfix. You can see where I need to do that 1 mm extension at the Italeri firewall. 

 

Stuka_AmendedItaleri_Airfix_FullBodyComparison

 

 

Next step will be to join those Italeri fuselage pieces and finish the halves before moving onto the build as per normal. 

 

The cowl mods will be left until the cockpit, fuselage and wings are done. I want to check prop shaft centre lines position before making the bulk cowl changes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I just post an ending for the fuselage extension.

 

Of course, by removing a section you end up with a step at the join because of the fuselage taper. I try to avoid fillers so I prefer to splay the smaller diameter and gently push the larger diameter in, if need be, to get a smooth transition on those outside panel sides.

 

I did this then added some longerons to the front half to align with rear half. Let them set overnight then ready to slip the rear half into position. That shelf I left provided a convenient line to push the halves together and I could sight along the fuselage panel line to ensure it was straight.

 

Sorry I had done this before I thought I'd post some pictures - glued complete.

 

Stuka_InsideBracing

 

When gluing the rear half in position I tried again to ensure the outside surfaces are flush. Once finished A light flick with a sanding stick should be all that is required.

 

Stuka_OutsideJoined

 

Of course there has to be a gap somewhere and its where I want it to be. Top and bottom. Later when I join the fuselage halves I'll shape a wedge piece of styrene card to fill the space. Push it in, Tamiya thin, set, trim and lightly sand. It should behave likely a normal seam join. I will have already clamped the rear to give the taper I want . Nice smooth transition and no significant filler. I use the filler after the fuselage halves have been joined and set. All separated now and waiting for the fuselage halves to be joined after the cockpit is finished as per normal. 

 

Stuka_TopReady

 

Time to disappear now and switch from Italian to British and start filling Airfix ejection and sink marks. No photos for that @Basilisk has already done a great job of showing what I'm in for with his build.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2020 at 5:18 AM, Graham Boak said:

I recall the usual quote for the D/G as 11.4 not 11.1.  I find 11.1 more reasonable.  The Flugbuch for the D-1 shows a drawing quoting 11.0, but with a blunt spinner.  (See similar thread on 72nd Modeller  https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/72nd_aircraft/junkers-ju-87-d-g-from-hobby-2000-t11176.html

 

Graham,

 

I thought I'd update us on my length findings.

 

Firstly, I give a lot of credence to the Flugbuch dimensions for the D-1. I think it is the starting point and needs compelling arguments to say the length is significantly longer than 11.0 metres approximation. 

 

Next, looking at the cowl and JUMO 211 B/D to J motor lengths I can see no marked difference in motor length. The Junkers.DE site being a modern site and depending very much on where the measurements were taken. I just can't see the large difference needed. I've seen a another site quoting the same length for JUMO 211's.

 

Further, using period photographic evidence, I see no marked difference in engine layout and support member between Ju-87 B and D/G. There is no indication of any cowl extension or the need for it (Thanks to BM members for their support and the opportunity to view some private collections with clear side images of the D cowls off to confirm this).

 

Lastly, and Troy's @Troy Smithpictures in his earlier post capture it so nicely as follows, look at the thicker spinner backplate on the D compared to the B. This thicker spinner plate is typical of D/G's. My guess is if you take the standard pointy Ju-87 spinner cap then add a thick rear plate you will have a nice rendition of the late model Stuka spinner. Do we get 100 mm? Maybe, but I think it will less unless a different longer spinner cap was used (yes possible). 

 

All-in-all everything points to a length of approx. 11 metres. 

 

On 1/23/2020 at 7:44 AM, Troy Smith said:

 

 

captioned as a D

Junkers_Ju_87_Stuka_Germany_1945.jpg

 

B-1

ju87-WRG-0017976.jpg

 

May help if you superimpose images, or find a better B engine shot, which are a lot more common to overlay.

 

 

PS 427.5 mm is nearly 18 inches... I can't see that much difference, if any, in the images above.

 

 

Ray

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Basilisk said:

Shortening the fuselage worked very well :thumbsup: But instead of just closing the gap, I would first remove a little from the fuselage in front of the gap so the fuselage tapers evenly toward the fin.

 

Cheers, Peter

Hi Peter,

 

You're on the ball!! What you say is correct to accommodate a smooth transition.

 

In this case, there is method in my madness. The Italeri fuselage is a little anorexic in plan view when compared to Airfix. I did not want to exacerbate this look in advance of checking how everything appears once the halves are together. If required a short razor saw cut along the main body seam will be done once the halves go together. I think it's not far off what is required now. I have exaggerated the appearance by too much clamping force in the image.

 

Thanks for the suggestion. Keep them coming.

 

Ray

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Thank you to @G.R.Morrison for sharing with me some excellent side images of the Ju-87D. I think the following one is particularly helpful being that rare almost perfect side on shot.

 

Ju87D1_1StG3_S7+EH_wrack_Afrika_9oclock

 

You can see a few things - that thick rear spinner plate, no real difference in the engine compartment as compared to the Ju-87B, an excellent image for cockpit position in relation to the wing and rear fuselage detail. It also highlights to me one of the other variations between the Airfix and Italeri kits – the rudder.

 

The following image shows both rudder positioned against the fin. Airfix at the top. The Airfix rudder looks, to my eyes, more correct and more like that in the photograph above. The Italeri rudder chord appears too narrow.

 

Stuka_Airfix_Italeri_Rudder Mods


Airfix, like the real aircraft, provides a slightly recessed rudder into the fin. Italeri is a butt join. If you compare with the Italeri taped on top and aligning at the rudder post this chord length difference is even more exaggerated. Italeri on top and Airfix on the bottom.

 

Stuka_Airfix_Italeri_Rudder_Variance

 

 

While waiting for some aftermarket PE to arrive I decided to make the Italeri rudder a more similar match to Airfix. I decided to add a 2 mm wide piece to better match the Airfix profile. I will let the Italeri slightly into the fin.

 

Here it is cut and drilled to accept some brass rod for alignment. Drilled into the rear portion of the rudder from the rudder post.

 

Stuka_Italeri_Pinned

 

I then laminated some 1 mm styrene card stock to make a 2 mm spacer and glued it in place after drilling through the spacer to align with the brass rod. Finish sanded and happy with the result. I also increased the radius on top of the fin to better match Airfix. Later in the build, when the airbrush is loaded with some undercoat, I’ll check finish and scribe and rivet. 

 

20200128_070828

 

There is a difference in those rudder trim tabs and actuators. Should I change them? Probably not, I think I can live with it and we’re on a deadline. We'll see.

 

Hopefully my aftermarket order arrives today so I can get into those cockpits in earnest.

Edited by Ray_W
Typo
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shortening the fuselage and lengthening the Italeri rudder was a worthwhile exerciser (and well executed) to bring the two models in line, but it also shows how overdone the Airfix rivets are :(

 

Looking forward to see your progress on the cockpit.

Cheers, Peter

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

I am taking on board your tag line "Every rivet counts!" and will fill and redo on both aircraft. The Stuka is a wonderful aircraft to do this. Simple panels and rivet lines. A subtle treatment, rivets and panel lines, will better portray the real aircraft which was, contrary to the view of "a mass of rivets" a very smooth aircraft.

 

Cheers,
Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No aftermarket arrived today so no cockpit.  I decided to press on and start work on that Italeri D-5 nose. It was that or filling rivet holes. Let me think about that for a moment … no contest!

 

I had already determined that I needed to shorten the nose by 4 mm and also do some reshaping. I wanted to preserve some of the Italeri nose detail. In particular that air intake and exhaust fairings.  Italeri’s treatment is not as fine as the real aircraft. Too thick and tends to protrude too far from the surface but they will give me a good basis to rebuild that detail. Much better than having to build something from scratch. 

 

Stuka_Italeri_Nose_Detail

 

Using some microsaws I sliced them off and look no blood stains – this time.

 

Stuka_Italeri_Intake Removal

 

It will be good to have them removed so I can work freely on reshaping the nose.

 

Stuka_Italeri_Intake Removed

 

I then set my dividers to 3.5 mm to give a little room to finish size and scribed a cut line on the firewall end of the side panels and top cowl.

 

Stuka_Italeri_Nose_Top cowl cut.

 

 

 I compared the Italeri side panel to Airfix aligning the nose spinner end, exhaust stacks and panel top. As I said in one of my earlier posts, this detail lines up nicely. A simple check before cutting and then removed the required material with a razor saw.

 

Stuka_Italeri_Nose_compared to Airfix

 

 

Once all three pieces were finished, I taped them together and did a length check using the Airfix VS-11 spinner. A much better likeness than the Italeri effort although the backplate is probably too thick for a B and not thick enough for a D/G.

 

Stuka_Italeri_Nose_Length_Check

 

 

Overall length at this stage 229 mm (10.99 metres). Close enough with further adjustments to come at the firewall, spinner and tidy up those cut lines. Sorry the length to the camera again does not show the alignment with the ruler. 

 

Hopefully I might have some time tomorrow to build that firewall extension (1 to 1.5 mm) and start shaping the nose to better match the real aircraft and that VS-11 prop.

 

Ray

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ray

Got to say this really is informative,  it's all well and good saying 'such and such is wrong' witgh kit, but a documented method to correct the faults, with the 'working's shown is fascinating, as working out "the recipe" for corrections is half the work.  I have a few similar project part done but I flit about so don't finish them off....(old tool tamiya Spitfire Mk.I and the much maligned Academy Spitfire XIV) 

 

From what I'd read and seen I'd stuck the Italeri Stuka in the unsalvageable pile but this shows otherwise, though if anything it is proof to go and buy a hasegawa if you want a D or G.....(or in my case keep the several I have stashed...)

 

Does not to distract from the methodolgy and skill shown

 

Look forward to the next stages

T

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Hi Ray

Got to say this really is informative,  it's all well and good saying 'such and such is wrong' witgh kit, but a documented method to correct the faults, with the 'working's shown is fascinating, as working out "the recipe" for corrections is half the work.  I have a few similar project part done but I flit about so don't finish them off....(old tool tamiya Spitfire Mk.I and the much maligned Academy Spitfire XIV) 

 

From what I'd read and seen I'd stuck the Italeri Stuka in the unsalvageable pile but this shows otherwise, though if anything it is proof to go and buy a hasegawa if you want a D or G.....(or in my case keep the several I have stashed...)

 

Does not to distract from the methodolgy and skill shown

 

Look forward to the next stages

T

Thanks Troy, I am glad it is of some value. Frankly it's turned the Stuka build into something that I find very interesting. As I said in the early posts I like the research part and forming a view on what I want to portray. Also by doing the project in a BM Group Build it puts that little extra incentive to keep at it and finish with great support from the membership. It's an excellent way to get these projects done.

 

Now it's difficult to find the incentive to rework the old Tamiya Spits or Academy when there are such good versions available off the shelf. Always worried me with two projects I want to do very soon - Classic Airframes Whirlwind and the Airfix Fury. Thankfully, Trumpeter did a Whirlwind so I have not lost the incentive to build the Classic Airframes. AMG has released that absolutely gorgeous Hawker Hart, in my view one of the best 1/48 kits out there, so unlikely I will bother with the Fury - probably see an AMG one soon or I'll build their Hart and get that shiny polished cowl out of my system. 

 

Also, I share your view, knowing what I know now, and if I saw the Hasegawa on the shelf or with a bit of pre-planning had ordered on line, it would be my first choice for D/G.

 

Ray

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a quick couple of pics because the next should show a complete JUMO 211J power egg ready to bolt onto a Ju-87 frame.

 

This evening's job was not very exciting but critical to get that Italeri D-5 looking less like it had a Merlin under its bonnet, rather a nice inverted V-12. Kitchen sink, file, 300/600 wet and dry. A pile of reference pictures. No science, just try to get it looking right.

 

It's just about there. Thin is some places but it has not broke through. That's the Airfix VS-11 spinner I'm using as a guide. 

 

Stuka_Nose_(2)

 

I have made the firewall spacer ready to fit when the fuselage halves go together. A little oversize in case some adjustment is needed. Like the rudder extension, I'll sand it down to fit. I do think that VS-11 spinner and thick base is going to capture that D look. Still some more shaping but it is close. Not bad.

 

Stuka_Nose_(3)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's looking good. Just one thing Ray. The vs 11 prop was used on the b and up to the early d-3. From the late d-3 on over the ju 87 used the vs 111 prop. According to my references. Nick

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

Hi Nick, 

 

Thank you.

 

Also you raised a good point on the VS-111.  Great comment and keep them coming.

 

The Stuka I am modelling has what appears to be the smaller chord prop. I assume this is what is being called the VS-111? Is it the prop on the right as shown in the following image from Takao Kuni's work? 

 

VS-11 Props

 

Like all things Stuka, as I have found on my subjects in this Group Build, there is plenty of room for interpretation like in the text where Takao Kuni challenges if the designation VS-111 even existed. That's why I like this hobby :devil: 

 

Here is the wording a little larger:

 

Takao Kuni Wording

 

There is no argument that there are two different props (maybe we should say at least 2 different props). Now the Airfix prop is a VS-11, I think, and in my view it represents a good start a bit of shaping if needed to get a prop and spinner that looks more appropriate for the D I am modelling.

 

Stuka_Airfix_VS11

 

I say, I think, because maybe we should call it a VS-11.5. 😉 It has no where near the broad paddle blades of the Italeri prop as supplied in the D-5 kit (Correction: I checked the Italeri D-5 and the blades are dimensionally the same) 

 

Also it is not the end of the story. Start looking at your references and check all the D and G photos and see the mix and match. The best I can do is try and match what I see on the aircraft that I am trying to model.

 

This is the prop shape I need to achieve. A Bulgarian D-5.

 

1940sJu87Stuka

 

Ray

Edited by Ray_W
Correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ray_W said:

Hi Nick, 

 

Thank you.

 

Also you raised a good point on the VS-111.  Great comment and keep them coming.

 

The Stuka I am modelling has what appears to be the smaller chord prop. I assume this is what is being called the VS-111? Is it the prop on the right as shown in the following image from Takao Kuni's work? 

 

VS-11 Props

 

Like all things Stuka, as I have found on my subjects in this Group Build, there is plenty of room for interpretation like in the text where Takao Kuni challenges if the designation VS-111 even existed. That's why I like this hobby :devil: 

 

Here is the wording a little larger:

 

Takao Kuni Wording

 

There is no argument that there are two different props (maybe we should say at least 2 different props). Now the Airfix prop is a VS-11, I think, and in my view it represents a good start a bit of shaping if needed to get a prop and spinner that looks more appropriate for the D I am modelling.

 

Stuka_Airfix_VS11

 

I say, I think, because maybe we should call it a VS-11.5. 😉 It has no where near the broad paddle blades of the Italeri prop as supplied in the D-5 kit (Correction: I checked the Italeri D-5 and the blades are dimensionally the same) 

 

Also it is not the end of the story. Start looking at your references and check all the D and G photos and see the mix and match. The best I can do is try and match what I see on the aircraft that I am trying to model.

 

This is the prop shape I need to achieve. A Bulgarian D-5.

 

1940sJu87Stuka

 

Ray

Hi Ray it looks like it the vs 111. Nick

2020-01-31_02-27-55

 

  • Thanks 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
×
×
  • Create New...