NEI Martin WH-3's

[JohnMacG]

For an explanation of the changes made to the WH-3s try and find 'Air Enthusiast Quarterly' #22, which has a long article on the Duitch Martins, which explains these.

Now, the Dutch were quite happy with their early Martins (WH-1s & -2s) but wanted an improved version with the ability to carry bigger bombs internally,, more range and more powerful engines.  Changes to the fuselage; it was widened but only by 3" not noticeably in 1/72nd, surely? The more 'snub-nosed' bomb aimer's compartment and long glasshouse glazing are obvious but the nose turret was also 'squatter' and I THINK there were internal differences on the construction of the vertical fin and tailplanes, leading to different panel lines.

Now, the wings; the centre-section seems unchanged (except for the new engines

SO, all these changes seriously altered the c/g of the design, leading the major changes to the wing-sweep. It SEEMS that Martin merely wept the wing spars backward, but used the same wing ribs as on the earlier versions (changes also made to aileron cut-outs, obviously.)

 

There's also a book by P C Boer (of course), which is the absolute 'bible' of NEI Army aviation -

Aircraft of the Netherlands East Indies Army Air Corps in crisis and war times, February 1937-- June 1942 (pp560, hardback, in English). This has a LOT on the Martins.

 (Batavian Lion International, 2016)

 

-

[Graham Boak]

3in would not be noticeable in length but is a much higher percentage of the fuselage width.  In 1/72nd scale this means 40 thou - if you  look at a piece of 40 thou plasticard you can decide on whether a new centre keel piece is required for you, but at least it would be fairly straightforward to adapt the kit.  I suspect this thickness was at the centre-section to help with a larger bombbay and the rear fuselage would taper to the same tail.  Depending upon the design of the fuselage frames this would not be too difficult to change in manufacture, perhaps.  The nose may have been wider or not; I suspect some taper but the need for a new turret may imply otherwise.  It would of course imply some work to the canopy but perhaps this could be fudged.  You would need a new rear transparency anyway.

[JWM]

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

In 1/72nd scale this means 40 thou

in SI it is 10^-3 m (ie. 1 mm)

J-W

 

[Graham Boak]

It's a long time since I bought any plasticard. so still think in terms of the old units.  However looking at Hannants lists, Slaters still sell their plastic sheets in the old units, in steps of 10 thou, only now they quote the metric equivalents.  40 thou is indeed 1mm.   It seems likely that some other intervals of thickness are used in metric nations, but I wouldn't know.