Jump to content

"Picchiatello", the Italian Stuka - Ju 87 B-2


Recommended Posts

Hi everybody, here's the update I mentioned:

 

the Valiant publication I'm using as a reference has 1:48 scale drawings for every Stuka version included, so I spent some time during the WE to check the model against them. The drawings are R.J. Caruana job, dated 2020, according to their tag; do I trust them? Well, judging from the whole package and content (I mean the book), I decided that yes, I'll trust them. If anyone has better knowledge, please shout out :) 

 

BTW, there's a modelling section in the book where the author analysed this kit too (not this boxing, the previous one), and made a quick, yet detailed analysis of its issues and shortcomings, so most of what I'm about to show is already reported there.

 

Anyway, I started by comparing a half fuselage plus the bottom engine cowling (also divided in halves) - note: you have of course to take into account perspective when judging from drawings, which are flat and used to compare a 3D object.

 

 

dryfit10

 

I lined them up at the spinner plate, basically like this

dryfit11

 

This first check shows that the tail fin and its blending into the fuselage are slightly different, but the overall length looks pretty much OK (the fin hard point for the antenna wire looks to be incorrect, that will go, but it's an easy fix).

Two other things can be noted here: the diagonal panel line where the fuselage and the cowling meet are at a different angle between the drawings and the model (partially hidden by the kit parts here) and the cockpit opening seems to be about 2 mm too far front on the model

 

Then I checked the rudder - the link @Troy Smith of Ray's build addressed that issue

 

dryfit12

 

As you can see, the shape is quite different, being the kit part narrower at the top; I think I'll fix this by adding material at the fin edge, so as to reshape it. Then of course I'll have to do some rescribing. Or am I going to scratch build a new one? .... :hmmm: 

 

I then put together the other fuselage half and almost all the cowling panels, to check for the overall length

dryfit13

 

the wooden blocks are reasonably square and provide a visual reference to compensate for the perspective induced error; the overall length seems to be off of a couple of millimeters, the model being longer than the drawing; my main goal, though, was to check for the cockpit positioning, and the transparencies.

So here I lined a reference block with the windshield on the drawing, and the kit part looks to be almost 2mm too far forward

 

dryfit14

 

while the back seat canopy, in the closed position, looks good

dryfit15

 

I had a strange feeling about the wing position at this point, so I decided to check them out too

dryfit16

 

As I said, I used the front side as a reference for the alignment

dryfit17

 

and checked again the overall length

dryfit18

 

A couple of mm off - I think I can live with that

 

As for the wings, they appear to be in the correct position; however, as stated in the Valiant book, they look narrower in cord near the root

dryfit19

 

Back to the windshield position, this time I checked the back side

dryfit20

 

definitely too far forward; here's a front side double check

dryfit21

 

So what happens sliding it back of the aforementioned 2mm, aligning the front edge with the drawing?

dryfit22

 

It looks like a pretty good match at the back

dryfit23

 

Keeping the canopies in their open position, the overall aspect of the transparencies should be acceptable

Now there: this partially fixes the issue, but how about the relative position of the IP and cockpit in general?

To check that too, I used a side view that show the gunsight, and provisionally put the kit gunsight in place

dryfit26

 

Don't look at the vertical alignment - in the middle of the green circle, in the background, you can see the gunsight position on the drawing, while at its left, slightly lower, is the kit part.

The offset looks to be much more than two millimetres, but you have to keep into account that the IP will have two layers of PE plus glue plus decals in that area, so it will end up aft of the current, provisional position. So my idea is to slide the entire cockpit assembly back by two millimetres, and it should be fine (I keep saying 2mm, but I haven't done any actual measurement so far; it's probably more 1.5mm, in reality, but you get the point).

 

Last thing I checked, tailplanes (the fixed part):

dryfit24

 

This appear to be too short, too narrow in cord and with the elevator hinges in the wrong position; also, the curved part at the end of it looks quite off - I'll try to source pics of the real thing for those last two things, though.

I shall ponder how to fix the whole thing, anyway, but it doesn't look too hard of a job.

 

That's it for the day, all comments welcome

 

Ciao

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be an interesting diversion to check if the drawings for the D show it to be the same length as the B (bar a pointier spinner) which is what it should be, or somewhat longer as represented by almost every model.  Which is irrelevant for the accuracy of the B drawings, I know.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

It might be an interesting diversion to check if the drawings for the D show it to be the same length as the B (bar a pointier spinner) which is what it should be, or somewhat longer as represented by almost every model.  Which is irrelevant for the accuracy of the B drawings, I know.

Easily done, Graham: in 1:48th, the B2 measures 218mm from the back of the spinner plate to the lower corner of the rudder, while the D measures 222mm. 4mm at this scale means 19.2cm in 1:1.

BTW, the rudders are represented as identical in both diagrams; the D spinner is 2 mm longer than the B, making for a 9.6cm difference in real life.

 

Are you positive about the two versions being exactly the same length? I don't remember if I read on the Valiant book or somewhere else about a longer front fuselage section, but I might as well be totally wrong and I don't have it at hand right now.

I hope this is not a :worms:  :D 

 

Ciao

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a case of the longer nose being quoted (and modelled) time and again without any justification.  I could never make it out from the photos (looking at the length of the exhausts and the distances from the spinner and the leading edge) nor find any suggestion as to why.  Original Junkers documentation apparently does not suggest any such increase, and there is at least one set of dimensions on a drawing quoting the same overall length.  The 1/72 Academy apparently has a short (correct?) nose but was heavily criticised for this when it appeared.  Clearly the correct information, as in other cases, takes a long time to drive out the bad - if it ever does!

 

However, my curiosity is now satisfied, so let's not disturb the worms any more and let the thread return to the B.  Except, perhaps, a warning that if one set of drawings is wrong, then what about the others?  The kit may be more correct than the drawings - always a possible problem and showing that no single secondary source can be relied on entirely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Except, perhaps, a warning that if one set of drawings is wrong, then what about the others?  The kit may be more correct than the drawings - always a possible problem and showing that no single secondary source can be relied on entirely.

True; however, this is an Italeri kit, and my direct experience with their kits, albeit limited, is that there's always at least one "major" shape or size flaw .... :devil:  Maybe they do that on purpose, to pick on lazy modellers and improve their scratch building techniques...

 

:rofl2:

 

Ciao

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Giorgi, this is the magazine I was telling you about.

IMG_0149

As you can see there are more than one 'Stuka' features.

If you are interested I could send you the whole magazine which you can return when you've finished with it, or scan a particular article and send it to you.

 

John

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

Nice work on that with all that research and plans. The kit seems pretty accurate, but not perfect to the plans. I guess, you will make the parts accurate for your model to the plans Others may would say "Who cares." (probably including me, till I have my fingers on those plans to compare. It's always the same with modelling)

Cheers

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Biggles87 said:

Hi Giorgi, this is the magazine I was telling you about.

 

As you can see there are more than one 'Stuka' features.

If you are interested I could send you the whole magazine which you can return when you've finished with it, or scan a particular article and send it to you.

 

John

Very kind of you, John - however, being the Italian Mail what it is, I don't feel safe for your magazine to travel back and forth. I'd be actually interested in any reference regarding the engine and its cowling panels, so if there's anythign about a B-2 model in there, a scan would be great. Again, many thanks for the offer :thumbsup:

6 hours ago, CedB said:

Wow, that's some impressive reference checking Giorgio, great stuff! :) 

3 hours ago, hendie said:

lovely detective work Giorgio. I can see this building up into  a cracker of  a build

Thanks Ced and Alan - no pressure then, right? :D :D 

 

1 hour ago, bbudde said:

Nice work on that with all that research and plans. The kit seems pretty accurate, but not perfect to the plans. I guess, you will make the parts accurate for your model to the plans Others may would say "Who cares." (probably including me, till I have my fingers on those plans to compare. It's always the same with modelling)

Cheers

I will try to fix the parts that would make the overall look appropriate for a Stuka - once I know something it's not correct, however, I just cannot go away with "who cares"; I need at least to evaluate the possible remedies and discard them only if they are beyond my abilitites :shrug:  I guess it's borderline OCD, but what the heck.... :D  :winkgrin:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, giemme said:

I guess it's borderline OCD, but what the heck

Maybe, but no, when you compare the things you just can correct while seeing it in the wrong way  Even on my simple diecasts (going back into the nitro thinner again). after messing it up  with the paint job or other small issues then. Yep it's always a bit of a nerd, thing, I guess

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/10/2020 at 13:19, giemme said:

Are you positive about the two versions being exactly the same length? I don't remember if I read on the Valiant book or somewhere else about a longer front fuselage section, but I might as well be totally wrong and I don't have it at hand right now.

This was discussed in @Ray_W  build,  I'll see if I can find it, but comparison with photos with the engine exposed showed no difference in the length of the engine bearers.

EDIT

this one

 

 

 

 

Also, when there was a request on engine panels, AFAIK they are just removed, and are held on with some type of screw fixing.

 

while searching for this, I found a metal scratch build of a Ju-87B,  

 

which maybe helpful,  and is a very impressive bit of work as well.

 

HTH

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, giemme said:

Thanks Ced and Alan - no pressure then, right? :D :D 

 

No, no, no my dear friend. On the contrary - the idea is that you start a thread off sloppily so you don't set the bar too high. Then you can (leisurely) get progressively better and better through the build.   

That way you meet and/or exceed your audiences expectations and keep them surprised and happy throughout the build.

 

Giorgio, you have now set the bar so astronomically high you're going to be buying your drinks from aliens.

 

astronaut-on-the-moon-with-beer-mike-air

 

and all you've done so far is used sticky tape and a few italeri bits!!!  

 

where is this going to end when you actually start cutting and gluing bits of plastic?

 

Remember...

 

the-only-way-is-up-up-upppppp.jpg

 

 

It's your own fault - just sayin'

 

 

:D

  • Like 1
  • Haha 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

This was discussed in @Ray_W  build,  I'll see if I can find it, but comparison with photos with the engine exposed showed no difference in the length of the engine bearers.

EDIT

this one

 

 

 

 

Also, when there was a request on engine panels, AFAIK they are just removed, and are held on with some type of screw fixing.

 

while searching for this, I found a metal scratch build of a Ju-87B,  

 

which maybe helpful,  and is a very impressive bit of work as well.

 

HTH

 

 

Thanks Troy; I haven't gone so far as to superimpose pics for confrontation (yet...). A quick look at Caruana's drawings shows a difference in the cowling panels arrangement, but I'll have to investigate further. At any rate, it looks like the B length is the one to go, so this is more for the sake of knowledge...

19 hours ago, hendie said:

 

No, no, no my dear friend. On the contrary - the idea is that you start a thread off sloppily so you don't set the bar too high. Then you can (leisurely) get progressively better and better through the build.   

That way you meet and/or exceed your audiences expectations and keep them surprised and happy throughout the build.

 

Giorgio, you have now set the bar so astronomically high you're going to be buying your drinks from aliens.

 

 

 

and all you've done so far is used sticky tape and a few italeri bits!!!  

 

where is this going to end when you actually start cutting and gluing bits of plastic?

 

Remember...

 

the-only-way-is-up-up-upppppp.jpg

 

 

It's your own fault - just sayin'

 

 

:D

Alright, alright, when you're right, you're right.... :rofl:  :rofl: 

 

Ciao

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great analysis of the kit accuracy. Funnily enough I lead a double life, when I build kits I tend to trust the manufacturer got it right but when I scratch build I try to be meticulous in conforming to scale plans. Never really thought about it before.

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

Oh well , late on parade again, sorry.

I can see that is going to be one of those builds!!!!

With the reference material you have I am sure that you will be able to sort out.

 

Coffee 2 sugars white please.

 

Stay safe.

 

Simon.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi G, 

I haven't forgotten about sending you some info, I've taken advantage of  the last three dry days to complete some outdoor stuff which was delayed by the rain. A friend kindly made me a door to replace the disintegrating one on our stable store room, which we decided to fit yesterday and what should have been 3 or 4 hour job spilled over into this morning for various reasons.

SWMBO ( who is more computer literate than me  ) has promised to sort something out tomorrow so stand by.

 

John

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

Just remembered another problem I had during my build - the struts that hold the tailplane did not fit properly whichever way I tried them, almost like they were made for a different fuselage. Another check first moment!

 

Les

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

2 hours ago, lesthegringo said:

the struts that hold the tailplane did not fit properly whichever way I tried them, almost like they were made for a different fuselage. Another check first moment!

This kit is made by?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes but I must be nice....

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lies, damn lies, and Italeri advertising....

 

Direct from Italeri's website

 

Quote

...the two founders of Italeri, Giuliano Malservisi and  Gian Pietro Parmeggiani ...

<snip>

Their hobby turned into an accurate research, and became the motivating force to produce the models that modelers want, with no imperfections whatsoever.

<snip>

The Bologna-based company immediately became an important reference point for all plastic modelers. All our product lines are characterised by an accurate historical research, great care in development and design to release high quality scale models. 

 

 

 

I reserve comment.  :rofl2:

 

 

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2020 at 18:21, Marklo said:

Great analysis of the kit accuracy. Funnily enough I lead a double life, when I build kits I tend to trust the manufacturer got it right but when I scratch build I try to be meticulous in conforming to scale plans. Never really thought about it before.

Thanks Marklo :thumbsup: I tend to check drawings whenever I can - still, their reliability is an issue sometimes ... :shrug: 

On 07/10/2020 at 18:33, Spookytooth said:

Oh well , late on parade again, sorry.

I can see that is going to be one of those builds!!!!

With the reference material you have I am sure that you will be able to sort out.

 

Coffee 2 sugars white please.

 

Stay safe.

 

Simon.

Welcome on board Simon, glad to have you along :thumbsup:

On 10/10/2020 at 14:25, Biggles87 said:

Hi G, 

I haven't forgotten about sending you some info, I've taken advantage of  the last three dry days to complete some outdoor stuff which was delayed by the rain. A friend kindly made me a door to replace the disintegrating one on our stable store room, which we decided to fit yesterday and what should have been 3 or 4 hour job spilled over into this morning for various reasons.

SWMBO ( who is more computer literate than me  ) has promised to sort something out tomorrow so stand by.

 

John

Most kind of you , John! :thumbsup:

On 10/10/2020 at 14:31, lesthegringo said:

Just remembered another problem I had during my build - the struts that hold the tailplane did not fit properly whichever way I tried them, almost like they were made for a different fuselage. Another check first moment!

 

Les

Thanks Les :thumbsup: That is something I already knew from checking out others' builds - and since you confirm it, I guess this is a constant fault in the kit, not just some boxes .... 

On 10/10/2020 at 16:38, perdu said:

This kit is made by?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yes but I must be nice....

On 10/10/2020 at 17:06, hendie said:

Lies, damn lies, and Italeri advertising....

 

Direct from Italeri's website

 

 

 

I reserve comment.  :rofl2:

 

 

On 10/10/2020 at 17:18, perdu said:

Ho ho and yet ho

 

You mean guys .... :D But I have to agree. On a positive note, Italeri decals are normally a treat, and if I say so myself ...

 

Anyway, last rant about drawings accuracy and overall Stuka length across different versions: I compared the drawings in the Valiant book and reported the cowling measures on a copy of the B2 page

 

cowling_length

 

Both B and D show the same distance between the windshield aft frame and the engine cowling, while the cowling itself shows a 3.5mm difference (almost 17cm in 1:1)  - all measured using a panel line as a reference for the horizontal axis. So it appears the only way to determine if this is correct or not will be to superimpose pictures of exposed engines for the two versions. Not at the top of my list ATM, but I'm not ruling this out either.

 

Time to start with some actual modelling, to wit the IP and coaming; the kit gives you alternatives between using decals or using PE and decals (BTW, in the instructions the callout for which version of decals to use is the wrong way round - the ones with clear background and colored bezels are to be used with the PE, obvs ....)

 

Here are the parts, with the coaming already bent to shape

ip1

 

As for the IP color, I ran into what seemed another potential can of worms: Italeri calls for RLM02 IP with black gauges, other sources mention the IP being painted RLM66 from a certain point in time on also on the B2 version. I decided to go with RLM02, for which I mixed up my own concoction: 

rlm02

 

Prior to that, I airbrushed a very dark grey (Tamiya Flat Balck + Tamiya German Grey) on the IP parts and the coaming

ip2

 

ip3

 

Then RLM02, thinned with IPA and airbrushed with my new PROCON BOY 270 - spraying Lifecolor acryclics with that is so easy!

ip4

 

I then gloss coated the two PE parts and applied a black tempera wash, to help defining details for the successive brush painting stage

ip5

 

First decal posed on the IP backplate

ip6

 

and the second one in the middle of the main PE, with all details brush painted

ip7

 

I then used Gator's Grip to glue on the PE parts, followed after a few minutes by some CA applied along the edges to secure everything in place

ip8

 

The alignment between decals and PE isn't the best, but it should look OK once it's all buttoned up inside the fuselage. There are going to be levers of various kind on this IP  (which I need to scratch build) but I intend to run a few more dry fit tests to determine the correct position of the cockpit relatively to the windshield, so for the moment they are staying off.

 

Some Formula 560 was then brush painted as a glaze inside the bezels, to represent the glass covers (when it dries...)

ip9

 

As I'm typing this, I can confirm it dried clear ( :phew:  :rofl: ), but it needs more than one application to properly simulate glass - so I did brush more on.

 

That's it for the day, all comments welcome

 

Ciao

 

  • Like 17
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...