Jump to content

A few Luftwaffe '46 kits just arrived.


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Mottlemaster said:

Snap!    I bet the Flitter provides a challenge to get everything lined up

 

 

I think they will provide challenges i had quick look inside 2 boxes and it ain't pretty! At least there aren't many parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Walter said:

Some quick and dirty kits to look forward to building when I need a change.

 

2020-11-26_01-37-14

 

 

I have B.V.211, B.V.212 & F.W. P.II....B.V.212 I build....and exchange on some as unbuild B.V.212 ..😁

So I have a couple of pennies on these models:

- B.V. 211 not bad but have problem with section fuselage where the rear of the engine ends and the tail boom begins;

- B.V.212 have only problem with uncorrect view main wheel bay;

- F.W. P.II - it's catastrophic model, because as I think this project have tail, fin and adapted wing  as on FW-190D or Ta-152H, in addition, the nose section with canopy was most likely like Flitzer, engine nacell was probably closer to Me-262 nacell....what is left of the model of a Special Hobby?  That's right - nothing!!!

- FW Flitzer 

unlike Revell probable have correct fuselage dimension ( not one of the German engines, scaled down to 1:72, will not fit inside the Revell fuselage!) but have uncorrect nose section with canopy - here Revel is more accurate.

 

In general all this model have poor intake, exhaust, cockpit and wheel bay interior e.t.c.

 

Objections that this is Luft'46 are not accepted, because, with the exception of P.II, a lot of original design documentation (including mock-up)

for these projects has been published on the Internet.  According to P.II, but not enough, as far as I remember, only the original cutaway  is published.

 

B.R. 

Serge 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's many a step between paper drawings, and even mock-ups, to the flying example, and even further (sometimes) to the in-service type.  Remember that the Me.262 started as the Bf.109TL, and gradually changed until it reached the fighter in JG 7's hands.  So by all means say that these models don't match some of the project drawings,  but project drawings of these types show progressive differences anyway,  As for suggesting that the interior wheel bay is incorrect - are you being serious here?   Or juts pointing out that the kits lack detail

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

But there's many a step between paper drawings, and even mock-ups, to the flying example, and even further (sometimes) to the in-service type.  Remember that the Me.262 started as the Bf.109TL, and gradually changed until it reached the fighter in JG 7's hands.  So by all means say that these models don't match some of the project drawings,  but project drawings of these types show progressive differences anyway,

Bf.109TL & Me.262 these are structurally different aircraft, while Bf.109TL is a project and Me.262 is its evolutionary development embodied in metal.  In the case of the aircraft shown here, their projects were not embodied in real samples, so do I understand correctly that You are proposing to go not to conformity with real paper projects, but to conformity with a certain ephemeral fantasy that exists only in the heads of model manufacturers developers, and  does this fantasy of modelers exist only because they were too lazy to collect and study documentation on these projects? 

Or should I believe that the Turks from Pioneer-2 did not make the wrong and crooked-oblique Ta-183 that did not correspond to any known factory drawings, but good only because maybe, probably, it could someday be so?

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

 As for suggesting that the interior wheel bay is incorrect - are you being serious here?   

O.K.  Let's take what we know from B.V.211.

This is the only known real part from B.V. 211:

http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-01.JPG

 

http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-02.JPG

and its 

drawings:

http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-06.JPG

it is she who determines the entire internal filling of this aircraft:

http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-04.JPG

now we take the BMW-003 engine (for example, from the He-162 Dragon model) and try to install it according to this cutaway:  

http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-05.JPG

inside the BV.211 model from Special Hobby ....does not work?  And it cannot work, because the Special Hobby wheel bay are wrong!

Exists the laws of internal layout, which depend on the external aerodynamic structure, besides, You can never cram more into less, i.e.  You will never be able to shove wheels from the Ju-88, for example, into the wheel bay of the Me-109.

Only that.

What structural  could the main wheel bay be?

From the side of the canopy, they are limited by a partition that is visible on the cutaway , from above they are limited by a power part, most likely the front part of the BMW 003 engine is visible there, which is logical, since in this way the engine is convenient to maintain and inspect.

 

B.w. Graham are You have in collection models B.V.211, B.V.212, FW.P.II and FW.Flitzer or not?

 

 

B.R.

Serge

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I am making is that many things will change between the paper and the metal, and that being strongly dogmatic about what is "right" and "wrong" cannot be justified.  I obviously except examples where the physical geometry of the model parts are inconsistent with themselves, but I would also point out that many kit wheels will not fit into kit wheelwells, even on models of real aircraft and with acceptably correct dimensions, because of the limitations introduced by the modelling process.

 

You might consider the different shapes of those actual aircraft claimed to have their origins in late-war Germany.  MiG 15 vs J-29, for an example.  Is one person or company's journey from paper to metal therefore somehow right and the other wrong?  No.  Had Tank continued on to develop his work, the end result would have looked different to the paper.  Do you know what this would have looked like?  No-one does. 

 

The entire principle of the Luftwaffe 46 mania is not to reproduce examples of paper studies, but to represent how such designs might have appeared in real life (even when Luftwaffe '56 might seem more appropriate...)   As such these models are indeed ephemeral fantasy.  Which is ok - I don't have these particular kits but have made (for example) the Treibflugel.  Though I must admit to generally preferring the idea of more realistic possibilities than the frenzy of early jets drawn by people determined to show their productivity and inventiveness for fear of conscription for the Eastern Front should they flag.  

 

Now whether some of these kits actually represent legitimate engineering possibilities is another matter.  But then the basic concept is pure fantasy.  Paying too much attention to detail is like pinning mist to a wall.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aardvark said:

Now we take the BMW-003 engine (for example, from the He-162 Dragon model) and try to install it according to this cutaway:  

http://alternathistory.com/files/users/user4907/Blohm %26 Voss BV P 211-05.JPG

inside the BV.211 model from Special Hobby ....does not work?  And it cannot work, because the Special Hobby wheel bay are wrong!

There's a lot more wrong besides the wheel bay for that matter. 

Where's the fuel pump? Oxygen? Or is this some mythical EV/tesla variant? 
Doesn't show in the sketch.

 

Quote

Exists the laws of internal layout, which depend on the external aerodynamic structure, besides, You can never cram more into less, i.e.  You will never be able to shove wheels from the Ju-88, for example, into the wheel bay of the Me-109.

Quite. Which is why I don't like the whole '46 to begin with but that's a completely other discussion.

 

Fun, whimsical plane-shaped objects. Perfect WHIF material.

 

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Had Tank continued on to develop his work, the end result would have looked different to the paper.  Do you know what this would have looked like?  No-one does. 

The Pulqui II is a good indicator however.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this subject is that it would be nice if the manufacturer would pay more attention to engineering accuracy like how a BMW 003 fits inside the fuselage. I would certainly choose the better engineered model to build.

 

Any way ts a bit of fun and I need a break from the fw190 I'm trying to finish at the moment 🥵

 

Edited by Walter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Sorry to hear that Walter, but I've got every confidence in you.

 

Could be a lot worse, I'm wrestling with a unicraft kit in a Blitzen Group build, see link below.

 

See, I told you, you have nothing to worry about !

 

Cheers Pat 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While this is a bridge too far for my liking, some Luft -46 items do hold more appeal than others. My favourite has to be the Amerikabomber (Me 264) I got mine on ebay and was missing one full sprue ! but Special Hobby was kind enough to send a replacement my way. Lucky me they had it in store, lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Making the same point as above: the Me264 was a real aircraft that was cancelled.  Not an early paper project with next-to-nil chance of getting through the design process with its more "imaginative" features retained, let alone making it into service in 1946!   Better drawing something exciting than being posted to the Russian Front.  Nothing wrong with making models of paper projects, or indeed production versions of aircraft that were cancelled in the prototype stage.  But for some of these examples fantasy takes over from 1946.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a whole forum on BM for this kind of thing which, I must admit, is pretty well hidden away. Even though I knew it existed, it's just taken me a couple of minutes to track it down, but here it is at:

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/forum/151-what-if/

 

There are some interesting projects and discussions in it, it's well worth a look.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need more of this sort of thing in 1:48, although it was nice to see Amusing Hobby have some plans to do a few in the coming year.  @Walter following you reporting your own thread, what would you like me to do with your topic?  Leave it WWII, put it in What-If, or C) neither of the above?  I realise the issue with Whiff getting a little less exposure where it is (I've forgotten where it is right now :shrug: ), but then again where would be better for it without putting a stick in the organisational spokes of the forum wheels? :hmmm: We're open to suggestions as always, but reserve the right to ignore silly ideas completely :wicked:

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mike said:

We really need more of this sort of thing in 1:48, although it was nice to see Amusing Hobby have some plans to do a few in the coming year.  @Walter following you reporting your own thread, what would you like me to do with your topic?  Leave it WWII, put it in What-If, or C) neither of the above?  I realise the issue with Whiff getting a little less exposure where it is (I've forgotten where it is right now :shrug: ), but then again where would be better for it without putting a stick in the organisational spokes of the forum wheels? :hmmm: We're open to suggestions as always, but reserve the right to ignore silly ideas completely :wicked:

It looks like Modelcollect is planning to break into 1/48 Luftwaffe ‘46:

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

Edited by OttovonLindberg
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Each to their own, but not currently for me. I did the Revell Flitzer 20 years ago and although I quite enjoyed it at the time, I wouldn't do another one as I can't see the point of modelling something that never existed.  It's not like I need a concept model to persuade the RLM to give me money to move a project on.

I can see the point in modelling things that were seriously considered for development, as modelling has a long and venerable tradition of being used as a design or promotional tool to explain a concept or idea that somebody is trying to advance, but do these ideas qualify?

I wish you good luck, but I won't be investing. I'm out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 3DStewart said:

Each to their own, but not currently for me. I did the Revell Flitzer 20 years ago and although I quite enjoyed it at the time, I wouldn't do another one as I can't see the point of modelling something that never existed.  It's not like I need a concept model to persuade the RLM to give me money to move a project on.

I can see the point in modelling things that were seriously considered for development, as modelling has a long and venerable tradition of being used as a design or promotional tool to explain a concept or idea that somebody is trying to advance, but do these ideas qualify?

 

I'm not interested either, but many modellers make things that never existed.

Link to post
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...