Dornier 217 K2 Italeri 1.72

[TonyW]

Here's the first one from me, the 1.72 Italieri  Do 217 K2.

 

Somehow all the bits cut themselves off the sprues and cleaned up their edges!

 

 

I've wanted to build the plane ever since seeing this view in William Greens Luftwaffe book back when I was at school. It's about time I got around to it really. More than fifty years have passed since having the idea!

 

 

.

[Thom216]

Gotta love a self-cleaning kit!

[81-er]

Welcome, Tony  A great choice of model there

 

James

[Wings unlevel]

5 hours ago, TonyW said:

It's about time I got around to it really. More than fifty years have passed since having the idea!

Will definitely be worth the wait!

[TonyW]

And we're off! First GB of 2024 is well and truly underway.

 

The Dornier has seen a bit of glue this morning with the wingtips cut off for the longer span parts needed. The inner halves are glued together and the undercarriage roofs added. The fuselage parts have had a quick squirt of black for the cockpit area. The amount of extra detailing, if any, will be decided once the cockpit parts are assembled and painted and then tried under the canopy. What's visible will decide how far I go there.

 

The guided weapons are nearly assembled, with the fins on the Fritz X bombs yet to be added. They look suitably busy as they are, with the racks and steady braces looking good as well.

 

I've also made up a few bases for potential use on GB builds.

 

 

 

 

 

A couple of questions need answers already.

An earlier discussion about the weapon load of these planes mentioned only one Fritz X being the likely loadout due to weight/range issues. Add to that, the difficulties of launching and guiding two missiles in one mission, I have to say I agree with only one X being carried. However:  the alternative loadout is a Hs guided bomb under one wing outer and a fuel tank under the other. Given that weight carried, would two Fritz X bombs also not be achievable in theory? The kit provides two inner pylons and two outer.

If one bomb would be carried, could/would the second inner pylon carry a drop tank or would the just outer one be plumbed and used?

 

Any help regarding weapon load would be gratefully received.

[PeterB]

Hi Tony,

 

I built an old Airfix Do 217E when it first came out and recently refurbished it as an E-4 with one HS 293 and one drop tank as at least one of my sources said that they could/would not normally lift 2 missiles, but needed the tank to counterbalance the load. The extended wing versions such as the K-2 were, according to Green, capable of carrying two missiles but there seems some confusion as to which pylon they went on. His illustrations like the one you have shown put them inboard but in the text I think he also says outboard of the engines.  Griehl's book "Do 217-317-417" it shows the outboard racks used in the short winged E but the Fritz seem to have gone on inboard racks between the engine and fuselage on the long winged K2, and his drawings definitely show two being carried. Because of their greater wing span the 293 maybe were carried outboard?  FYI the 293 weighed 1045kg and the Fritz 1650kg so they were a substantial load. As to external fuel tanks I am not sure - I had read somewhere that they sometimes carried an extra 700L tank in one or both of the bomb bays on missile missions, and petrol weighs around 0 .72kg per litre I believe, so adding in the weight of the fuel, racks, tanks and fittings, there is clearly a limit to how much extra fuel could be carried - particularly if the large 900L tanks were used. I think the max payload was something like 4500kg excluding normal internal fuel so with both internal tanks in use and 2 Fritz X's there would bit not much left if my calculations are correct. If two weapons were carried they would be dropped duuring 2 different bombing runs I suspect because as you say only one could be controlled at once.

 

Pete

 

 

Edited January 6 by PeterB

[81-er]

You're certainly not hanging about, Tony  I really like those bases as well, I should do something similar myself

 

James

[Adam Poultney]

Very interesting with those long wings!

[Thom216]

Got a good start here!

[TonyW]

1 hour ago, PeterB said:

Hi Tony,

 

I built an old Airfix Do 217E when it first came out and recently refurbished it as an E-4 with one HS 293 and one drop tank as at least one of my sources said that they could/would not normally lift 2 missiles, but needed the tank to counterbalance the load. The extended wing versions such as the K-2 were, according to Green, capable of carrying two missiles but there seems some confusion as to which pylon they went on. His illustrations like the one you have shown put them inboard but in the text I think he also says outboard of the engines.  Griehl's book "Do 217-317-417" it shows the outboard racks used in the short winged E but the Fritz seem to have gone on inboard racks between the engine and fuselage on the long winged K2, and his drawings definitely show two being carried. Because of their greater wing span the 293 maybe were carried outboard?  FYI the 293 weighed 1045kg and the Fritz 1650kg so they were a substantial load. As to external fuel tanks I am not sure - I had read somewhere that they sometimes carried an extra 700L tank in one or both of the bomb bays on missile missions, and petrol weighs around 0 .72kg per litre I believe, so adding in the weight of the fuel, racks, tanks and fittings, there is clearly a limit to how much extra fuel could be carried - particularly if the large 900L tanks were used. I think the max payload was something like 4500kg excluding normal internal fuel so with both internal tanks in use and 2 Fritz X's there would bit not much left if my calculations are correct. If two weapons were carried they would be dropped during 2 different bombing runs I suspect because as you say only one could be controlled at once.

 

Pete

 

 

 

Thanks Pete, a very informative reply.

Greens book mentions a 225 gallon fuel tank in the forward bomb bay for this Mk. The text says the Fritz X was mounted inboard between the engines and fuselage. I don't have the Griehl book but a second mention of two bombs being shown is reassuring.

I think I'll cover all bases and build the model with one bomb mounted and the other on some sort of trolley nearby. The trolley, the obligatory oil drums and maybe a figure or two should make a decent enough display. 

[Graham Boak]

The asymmetric load would be excessive with a Fritz X outboard, which is why they were carried inboard.  The normal load would be one FX and one drop tank on the opposite wing for balance.  Carrying  two FX would imply short range missions only, and asymmetric problems after dropping the first one.  I don't know whether this was actually impossible but have my doubts.  Plus second passes tended to be more dangerous.

 

It is common to see ideas of multiple carriage of all sorts of weapons, but realism sets in when it actually has to be done operationally.  Note that the He.177 is often presented with three FX, but photographs from service show only the centreline pylon in use.  Modellers are of course free to make "air show" representations.

[TonyW]

I've knocked off on the Dornier for the day .

The light in the shed was fading fast and the temperature was starting to drop. I like working in daylight in the shed and I'm too tight to run heating in there.

Progress was smooth. The fit and finish of the kit parts is a joy so far. The wing root join is pretty much invisible. The outer wing joints might need a smear of filler once dry, but that's probably down to my prep work. A bit of black was added to the tyres, props, engines and so forth. Weathering will follow tomorrow. 

 

[IanC]

Those bases do look good.

 

Is there any specific reason why you've attached the wings before joining the fuselage halves? 

[TonyW]

38 minutes ago, IanC said:

Those bases do look good.

 

Is there any specific reason why you've attached the wings before joining the fuselage halves? 

 

I follow the path of least resistance when I build, rather than the instructions. Builds happen in no particular order, just what feels right at the time. That attitude has tripped me up more than once though.

Adding the wings today means I can probably get the airframe together tomorrow. Once the fuselage is secured while drying, I can assemble the engines etc. I'm not in a race with myself but I don't like waiting on paint drying so to speak.

 

I usually have more than one build on the go to keep a flow going while I'm in the modelling mood. Past GB experience shows me that I start off well, taper off midway and then have a concentrated charge when the deadline is looming. GB extensions are often my lifeline! The FROG GB kicks off soon and overlaps this one. That will no doubt throw a spanner in the works. I'm working on a cunning plan though.

[81-er]

That's a great amount of progress for the first day, Tony  I know what you mean about liking to have more than one build on the go, as I do likewise to not be waiting around for paint drying as well. Though my bench has become a bit of a factory today with 4 new builds 

 

James

[TonyW]

More progress. Only one picture though and that was taken at the close of play this afternoon.

 

Engines were given a dusting with a metallizer powder, although once the cowls were fitted only the front of the fans can be seen. Turret gunners seat installed on one fuselage side and the cockpit assembly was painted black awaiting a bit of detailing. Wheels and tires painted along with the spinners and props.

The whole airframe got a satin black undercoat to see what's needed in the bodywork department. A bit of attention is needed here and there but fortunately nothing major.

 

The fuselage is dry fitted together at the moment to help the turret gunners seat dry nice and square inside. Tomorrow should see the fuselage buttoned up and a tiny bit of filler added to the mid wing joint on one side. The canopy top is just propped into place in the picture. Fit is near perfect and it's very clear as well.

The fit of the kit parts so far has been very good indeed.

 

[Retired Bob]

I have one of these K2 variants in the stash, I built the original version years ago but I remember it fit pretty well.  The William Green book was a great source of inspiration back in the day, I bought mine new for a tenner when that was a lot of money in the early 70's, I still have it, but it's rarely used these days.  You're making good progress with the Dornier, what colours are using for the top camo?

[TonyW]

I'm no expert, or even novice when it comes to Luftwaffe colours Bob.

The instructions call for two greens which would tie in with my rather dated understanding of German AF schemes. What greens are yet to be decided. I'm open to suggestion here, with a slight preference for Revell Aquacolor as I really like their take on RAF colours and might find their German colours as good.  

[Graham Boak]

For a Dornier 217, greens 72 and 73 are required.  How Revell copes with this I can't say.

[Retired Bob]

29 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

For a Dornier 217, greens 72 and 73 are required.  How Revell copes with this I can't say.

Graham has beaten to it, German bomber aircraft that operated over sea were generally camouflaged in the above greens, I'm not sure how you'd mix those with Revell paints.

[Graham Boak]

As the 217 was at least partially designed to a maritime requirement, and maybe because attacking shipping in the North Sea was one of its first roles. all bomber 217s were camouflaged with 72/73 rather than 70/71 as for the other German bombers.  Incidentally, Ju.88 bombers were always in 70/71 regardless of role, apparently to simplify production.  Yes, once in service schemes sometimes got a bit more exotic, especially later in the war.

[TonyW]

Thanks Gents, much appreciated.

 

I'll be taking a look at the paint racks in my LMS (City Center Cycles, in Ely)

[81-er]

You're making very swift progress on this one, Tony

 

James

[TonyW]

A trip to my LMS see's me back home with a selection of Vallejo airbrush paints. I've not used these before but thought them worth a go.

 

I've tried brushing a small sample of Vallejo RLM72 and RLM73 alongside each other on a piece of white paper. I struggle to see much difference between the two! The '72 is a tiny bit more grey but I suspect any difference between them once on the plane will be more luck than judgement.

 

Is this low level of contrast what's to be expected?

 

Under bright LED lighting...

 

 

Under natural daylight...

 

 

 

[modelling minion]

That looks about right to me Tony, there's not a lot of difference between 72 and 73 which is why the scheme was sometimes misidentified as being a single colour.