Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Models / January 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Is there a general, no frills 1/48 Ju-88 out there?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
crw59@earthlink.net - 30 Dec 2007 20:50 GMT
Seems that Dragon has the only 88s in production and they are all
specialty versions, anti balloon, tank buster, etc.

was a "regular" Ju 88 ever made or are the Dragon kits all there is to
work with? If so I'll probably go with the tank buster...

thx - Craig
Rufus - 30 Dec 2007 21:20 GMT
> Seems that Dragon has the only 88s in production and they are all
> specialty versions, anti balloon, tank buster, etc.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> thx - Craig

Define "regular"...I have a DML Ju 88G-1 the looks sort of "regular".

Signature

     - Rufus

MQM107 - 30 Dec 2007 21:22 GMT
> Seems that Dragon has the only 88s in production and they are all
> specialty versions, anti balloon, tank buster, etc.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> thx - Craig

Craig

Revell/Monogram ( as a Promodeler) once released a Ju 88 A-4 which
itself was based on the Dragon/DML kit. It still can be found on Ebay
and at swap meets. Also DML has released and I think Rereleased a C-6
version of the Ju 88. But be aware that while all of these kits look
very good in the box, it takes some work to get results that will be
very pleasing. Dry fitting, filling and sanding will bocome old
friends. One thing to also remember is DML started out with molds to
do the basic version and with the intent to do Ju 188's, the stretched
fuselage version,etc. so fit will always be somewhat of a problem. I
don;t know what can be built out of every boxing, but I suspect there
are lots of options.

Mike
Pat Flannery - 31 Dec 2007 02:42 GMT
> Seems that Dragon has the only 88s in production and they are all
> specialty versions, anti balloon, tank buster, etc.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>  

Revell-Monogram did a 1/48th scale Ju-88A-4 as part of their ProModeler
series; here's a couple of reviews of it:
http://www.modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/miesleju88.htm
http://www.modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/grenvilleju88.htm

Pat

Pat
Rufus - 31 Dec 2007 02:48 GMT
>> Seems that Dragon has the only 88s in production and they are all
>> specialty versions, anti balloon, tank buster, etc.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Pat

Was that a new kit, or a reboxed DML?  Nice looking, in any event.

Signature

     - Rufus

Pat Flannery - 31 Dec 2007 04:24 GMT
> Was that a new kit, or a reboxed DML?  Nice looking, in any event.

Reboxed DML.
If you read the reviews of it, the fit was nothing to get excited about,
as MQM107 pointed out.
This surprised me (I never built one) as the ProModeler He-111 from DML
molds had excellent fit, as well as a really outstanding canopy on it
that has almost no optical distortion, meaning it's really worth your
time to detail the cockpit, as in this model you can actually get a good
look at it.

Pat
Rufus - 31 Dec 2007 05:09 GMT
>> Was that a new kit, or a reboxed DML?  Nice looking, in any event.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Pat

I got one of those 111's waiting...

...I got my DML Ju 88 off a discount table for $10 some years ago, as I
recall.  I wasn't really looking for one, but for $10 I couldn't just
leave it there.

Signature

     - Rufus

Pat Flannery - 31 Dec 2007 22:00 GMT
Rufus wrote:t.
>> This surprised me (I never built one) as the ProModeler He-111 from
>> DML molds had excellent fit, as well as a really outstanding canopy
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I got one of those 111's waiting...

Really nice model. Did you get the bomber version or the V-1 carrier?
One thing you really notice with one in that scale is how small the
engines are in relation to the aircraft; it looks like a power-assisted
glider of some sort.
You can see why Heinkel made it so streamlined; they had to to get any
sort of reasonable performance using that few horsepower.
As I said, it's well worth detailing the cockpit, as it's quite visible
when finished.

Pat
Rufus - 31 Dec 2007 22:12 GMT
> Rufus wrote:t.
>>> This surprised me (I never built one) as the ProModeler He-111 from
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Pat

Actually, I think mine is the original release torpedo bomber...and it's
one of the few models I have that I may finish per the box scheme - I
really like those white nacelles.

Yeah, that's a big wing alright.  It's a graceful looking shape though,
like a Hawker Hunter.  I think I've managed to collect all of the Eduard
etch for it, as per my usual...I may not have the bomb bay set.  Can't
mount the torps with the bay doors open - for an etch-junkie like me
that's a real dilemma...

Signature

     - Rufus

Pat Flannery - 01 Jan 2008 00:41 GMT
> Actually, I think mine is the original release torpedo bomber...and
> it's one of the few models I have that I may finish per the box scheme
> - I really like those white nacelles.

It also comes with a pair of heavy bombs if you want to use them instead
of the torpedoes.

> Yeah, that's a big wing alright.  It's a graceful looking shape
> though, like a Hawker Hunter.

Heinkel really got stuck on that wing shape. Although it looks great and
is no doubt very aerodynamic, it must have been very difficult to build
due to its complex shape. For starters, it has a inverted gull wing
shape to it, but it's so minor in the way that the wing sweeps up from
the engine nacelle that you can't really picture it having any
aerodynamic effect, while still making the wing's structure more complex.
At least it was a improvement construction-wise over the wing the early
model He-111 with its curved leading edge.
My favorite is still the He-112 fighter, which looks like he was
designing a racing plane rather than a fighter:
http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/wwii/he112-d.gif
The Japanese bought a few of those, and their pilots were appalled by
the high wing loading on them.
Either that wing is too small, or that horizontal stabilizer is too big,
but something is very wrong there. :-)

> I think I've managed to collect all of the Eduard etch for it, as per
> my usual...I may not have the bomb bay set.  Can't mount the torps
> with the bay doors open - for an etch-junkie like me that's a real
> dilemma...

Especially considering how odd the bomb bay would look with the vertical
bomb cells.
Maybe you could build the bomb bay atop the alternate underside panel
without the underbelly ordinance shackles and figure out some way the
two could be swapped as desired?

Pat
Rufus - 01 Jan 2008 01:17 GMT
>> Actually, I think mine is the original release torpedo bomber...and
>> it's one of the few models I have that I may finish per the box scheme
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Either that wing is too small, or that horizontal stabilizer is too big,
> but something is very wrong there. :-)

I always figured the only real reason for using an inverted gull wing on
an aircraft was to allow the use of shorter, stiffer landing gear legs.
 I've got a hardbound book on "German Aircraft Landing Gear", but I
haven't opened it in some years, so I'm not up on the state of the tech
at Heinkel at the time.  I guess it also allows some additional design
features for dihedral and lateral stability, but yeah, I'd think overall
it would be a heavier design and maybe it was that heavier structure in
the carry-through that allowed the gear to function at the shock rates
they were capable of being built to at the time...but that's speculation.

I could see that 112 being very sensitive in pitch looking at that stab,
and yeah - you could snatch on the G way too fast; short wing, high
loading = fast airplane and the ability to over-control it.  I seem to
recall a read where the optimum stick force per G has been determined to
be about 8-12 pounds/G, and that the P-51 was the first combat aircraft
to get that incorporated into it's design, or one of the first.

>> I think I've managed to collect all of the Eduard etch for it, as per
>> my usual...I may not have the bomb bay set.  Can't mount the torps
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Pat

I think the vertical bomb bay is an interesting oddity, that's why I'm
in a quandary about how to build my kit...which means I'll probably end
up buying another one and building two.  It is a nice kit, and the one
that got me to venture off just collecting German jets in 1/48.

Signature

     - Rufus

Pat Flannery - 01 Jan 2008 01:50 GMT
> I always figured the only real reason for using an inverted gull wing
> on an aircraft was to allow the use of shorter, stiffer landing gear
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> function at the shock rates they were capable of being built to at the
> time...but that's speculation.

And in the He-111 the wing goes out from the fuselage horizontally till
it reaches the nacelles, then angles up, so you aren't saving any
landing gear length.

> I could see that 112 being very sensitive in pitch looking at that
> stab, and yeah - you could snatch on the G way too fast; short wing,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> combat aircraft to get that incorporated into it's design, or one of
> the first.

The 112 looks like it's going to use up a lot of runway on takeoff, but
it's that huge horizontal stabilizer that really throws me.
Maybe they thought it was going to need a lot of control authority if it
stalled, which it looks like could be a fairly common occurrence given
the small wing, particularly if you got into a maneuvering dogfight.
The aircraft looks like it's designed for speed first and foremost, with
maneuverability and pleasant handling taking a back seat.

> I think the vertical bomb bay is an interesting oddity,

I'm trying to remember how exactly that worked... did each bomb cell
have a individual door or doors on it?

> that's why I'm in a quandary about how to build my kit...which means
> I'll probably end up buying another one and building two.  It is a
> nice kit, and the one that got me to venture off just collecting
> German jets in 1/48.

That's gong to be a fairly limited collection if you only stick to
operational ones, or advanced versions of ones that were built.
I went with 1/72 scale ones of all the designs, and there are _way_ too
many kits of those out there.
I've got ones I don't even remember the correct designations of anymore.
:-)

Pat
Rufus - 01 Jan 2008 02:52 GMT
>> I always figured the only real reason for using an inverted gull wing
>> on an aircraft was to allow the use of shorter, stiffer landing gear
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> it reaches the nacelles, then angles up, so you aren't saving any
> landing gear length.

Yeah, I'm thinking of the most glaring examples like the Stuka and Corsair.

>> I could see that 112 being very sensitive in pitch looking at that
>> stab, and yeah - you could snatch on the G way too fast; short wing,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> The aircraft looks like it's designed for speed first and foremost, with
> maneuverability and pleasant handling taking a back seat.

Yeah, that's about my take on it - bank and yank.  It took me a while to
figure out why roll rate is so important, but once I did it makes
sense...but what you've got with the 112 looks like how you get GLOC...

>> I think the vertical bomb bay is an interesting oddity,
>
> I'm trying to remember how exactly that worked... did each bomb cell
> have a individual door or doors on it?

Two big doors like on a B-17, but individual chutes for the bombs.

>> that's why I'm in a quandary about how to build my kit...which means
>> I'll probably end up buying another one and building two.  It is a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Pat

Heh...that's what I'm intentionally trying to do by building in 1/32 -
limit myself.  My evil plan was to build WWII subjects in 1/48 and jets
exclusively in 1/32, but there's been so many nice 1/32 WWII subjects
coming out of late that it's become a lost cause...

Signature

     - Rufus

Pat Flannery - 01 Jan 2008 08:22 GMT
>> And in the He-111 the wing goes out from the fuselage horizontally
>> till it reaches the nacelles, then angles up, so you aren't saving
>> any landing gear length.
>
> Yeah, I'm thinking of the most glaring examples like the Stuka and
> Corsair.

On the He-112 there is a true inverted gull wing.
Something like that would have looked really wild on the He-111.
As far as the He-111 goes, I thought the way I described it above was
how it worked, and in looking at 3-views in my books with He-111s in
them, in some drawings it does.
In other drawings it looks like it starts slanting upward immediately
after leaving the sides of the fuselage, and increases its angle at the
nacelles; in still others it starts going up halfway from the fuselage
to the nacelle, and stays at that angle all the way to the tip.
At best it doesn't decrease the gear length, and may well demand
slightly longer gear struts.
Considering that some of these aircraft still exist, you would think
this could be pinned down.
They did indeed get rid of the curved leading edge to simplify
construction, and also deleted the dread surface evaporation cooling
system mounted outside the nacelles on the underside of the wing's
leading edge.
This was of course going to return on the He-177 with equally poor
results, and get dropped from its design also.
They were going to stick it on the He-100, but again it just didn't work.
I think Heinkel got way too hung up on streamlining as a means of upping
performance a bit (right until the He-177 arrived...which looked like
wings and a tail grafted onto a 4" x 4" piece of lumber) no matter what
the cost in complexity or man-hours for construction. By the time he
figured that out with the He-100 it was too late - and* *Messerschmitt
had a lock on fighter production.
I read an interesting article once that argued that the Japanese
Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien "Tony" was almost a exact copy of the He-100, and
particularly in regards to the fuselage they do have a striking
resemblance...and the Japanese did purchase three He-100Ds in 1940 for
their navy, so I assume that Kawasaki looked them over pretty well.
The Soviet MiG-1 and LaGG-3 apparently also copied features from the
aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_100

>>> I could see that 112 being very sensitive in pitch looking at that
>>> stab, and yeah - you could snatch on the G way too fast; short wing,
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> to figure out why roll rate is so important, but once I did it makes
> sense...but what you've got with the 112 looks like how you get GLOC...

I keep picturing the guys at the factory looking at the framework of the
wing, and saying: "Now let me get this straight...you want to put smooth
skinning over _that_? Oh, mien Gott." :-D
The thing's getting close to being a piston powered version of the
Natter as far as wing and tail area are concerned.
I'll tell you one thing...if it ever stalls with that big of a tail on
it, it's going into a nose dive in no time flat.
It would look great chasing a Gee-Bee Super Sportster around at the
Thompson Trophy Races though.
Sort of aerodynamic finesse meets brute force. :-)
About the only thing we had that got that hung up on streamlining was
the Hughes H-1 racer.

Pat
Rufus - 01 Jan 2008 08:57 GMT
>>> And in the He-111 the wing goes out from the fuselage horizontally
>>> till it reaches the nacelles, then angles up, so you aren't saving
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>
> Pat

If it does stall that's kind of what you want - a rapid lowering of the
nose, straight ahead...but you also want the impending stall to warn you
that it's coming so that you can take action to relax the AOA before it
happens - had that problem with the T-45A initially...the thing stalled
so gently that a pilot got no warning of the impending departure until
he was in deep stall and fully departed.  The basic Hawk doesn't have
the issue - it was the alteration of the wing plan form for the T-45
config that did it, and we had to add tripper strips to get it to stall
more aggressively.

It was also spec'd to be spinable, but you have to really work to get it
to spin.  And I mean REALLY work...I never could get the sim to spin,
only spiral.  The test pilots could do it, but I never could figure out
how to do it out from watching them.

Signature

     - Rufus

Pat Flannery - 01 Jan 2008 09:26 GMT
> If it does stall that's kind of what you want - a rapid lowering of
> the nose, straight ahead...but you also want the impending stall to
> warn you that it's coming so that you can take action to relax the AOA
> before it happens - had that problem with the T-45A initially...the
> thing stalled so gently that a pilot got no warning of the impending
> departure until he was in deep stall and fully departed.

That is a highly undesirable characteristic in a trainer*. Someone
should have spotted that in the wind tunnel test stage.

>   The basic Hawk doesn't have the issue - it was the alteration of the
> wing plan form for the T-45 config that did it, and we had to add
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> spin, only spiral.  The test pilots could do it, but I never could
> figure out how to do it out from watching them.

*Although it has a interesting Darwinian touch to it. This way you can
save money by weeding out the trainee pilots that aren't on their toes
early in training via attrition or simple pure terror as they pull out
of a stall-induced dive at ten feet off the ground... while at the same
time encouraging the rest of the trainees to get their wings as quickly
as possible, so they can move onto something safe, like a FA-18. :-)
Were you around in the old Buckeye days?
I've never had a chance to talk to a pilot of one of those, (oddly
enough, in North Dakota we don't get many Navy aircraft) how did they
handle?

Pat
Rufus - 01 Jan 2008 10:09 GMT
>> If it does stall that's kind of what you want - a rapid lowering of
>> the nose, straight ahead...but you also want the impending stall to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> That is a highly undesirable characteristic in a trainer*. Someone
> should have spotted that in the wind tunnel test stage.

The problem with wind tunnels and computational aero is that neither of
them do a very good job of predicting dynamic behavior - that's why
there'll always be flight test...and that's where this trait was
discovered, in advance of Fleet intro.  By the time the jet got to the
ramp the trippers were fairly well configured.

>>   The basic Hawk doesn't have the issue - it was the alteration of the
>> wing plan form for the T-45 config that did it, and we had to add
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Pat

I did manage to get the T-45 sim to depart once...but I had to "break
it" to do so...recovered at about 1500 AGL...but that's another story...

I was part of the Fleet intro team for the T-45A...and since the sim was
standing up and there were no students in the pipeline to put hours on
it, I sort of became the local "test-student/test pilot" for the sim
folks.  I spent an average of a couple hours a week flying the sim, and
giving them feedback on the flight model updates, but tried not to
become proficient enough at any one task to more than "student
proficient".  I do have to say that of all the military jet sims I've
flown, the T-45A was the most tasking...but any Cessna pilot could still
fly the jet, IMO.  Since I didn't have much armament to play with, I
spent most of my time shooting carrier approaches and landings...got
pretty good at them, considering I was just spotting the deck without a
velocity vector.  In fact, I was better at hitting the boat tan I was at
hitting the FCLP spot ashore...scarred the crap out of me to try it at
night though, even in the sim.  I always diverted to shore and did night
bounces whenever they turned the sun off on me...hey, I can dial up a
TACAN even after dark.

VT-21 was standing up with the T-45 (they were the first), the initial
IP Cadre had six T-45s when I left.  There were still T-2s and TA-4s
around and operating...and VT-21 was actually considering qualling me in
the jet, seeing as I was getting so much sim time, was already a
licensed civilian pilot, and knew more than they did about the jet from
an engineering standpoint and might have been a help to them in the air.
 But I got another opportunity and moved on before that could happen.

I did manage to see a guy shell out of a T-2 on about a 1/4 mile final
at 1200 AGL during a single engine emergency...turned out he secured the
good engine on approach and just shelled.  I was later told that you
don't want to actually give students the option to eject too early in
the training program - he could have made the runway dead-stick from
where he was...man, talk about a fireball...

I also took a student out to dinner that had DOR'd for having "no
apparent fear of death", as he put it. He had been doing well through
T-2's, but his first trip to the boat in the TA-4 scared the snot out of
him because of the added speed, and his attention in the cockpit had
begun to wander - particularly in the landing pattern...he'd break and
just start a spiral into the ground and the IPs were having to snatch
the jet from him.  Some of the other students that knew me suggested
that I talk to him about civilian careers in Naval aviation, seeing as I
had one and he didn't want to completely separate from the Navy...so I
joined him and his wife for dinner one night, and we had some
conversation.  They were a nice young couple...I hope things worked out
for them.

I had to watch out while I was working with the Training Command...word
got around pretty quick that I had some gouge, and I was always careful
not to spend much time with the students lest I interfered with their
instruction - I was there to instruct the Instructors, not the students.

Signature

     - Rufus

Mad-Modeller - 01 Jan 2008 03:57 GMT
Pat typed:

> And in the He-111 the wing goes out from the fuselage horizontally > till it reaches the nacelles, then angles up, so you aren't saving any
> landing gear length.

Perhaps the reson lies in the 111's start as a commercial type.  The
DC-3 had a similar wing formation.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Pat Flannery - 01 Jan 2008 09:00 GMT
> Perhaps the reson lies in the 111's start as a commercial type.  The
> DC-3 had a similar wing formation.
>  

True, I hadn't thought of that, but I can't see any reason why a
commercial plane would need it either if a military one didn't
Upswept outer wings seemed to be fairly common on 1930's designs, I
don't know it it's stability related or has something to do with
preventing the wingtips from hitting the ground during bad weather
take-offs and landings or colliding with underbrush on poor grass strips.
Now this, on the other hand is just asking for a wingtip to hit the
ground:
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/Prototypes/Brabazon.htm
Did any major model company ever do a model of that?

Pat
Rufus - 01 Jan 2008 09:21 GMT
>> Perhaps the reson lies in the 111's start as a commercial type.  The
>> DC-3 had a similar wing formation.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Pat

I think it goes back to how they could do the math for the structural
design at the time - it was probably easier to design a straight (flat)
load bearing carry-though, but they still needed the outer panels angled
for some lateral stability.  If you've ever seen a T-6 wing disassembled
into it's three component sections it's also similarly constructed.

When I was as GE there were guys there that had been around long enough
to remember doing calculations using real splines and spline weights -
some of them still had spline weights sitting on their desks as
souvenirs of the old days...not to mention slide rules.

It's hard even for a pre-PC, mainframe kiddie like me to imagine doing
computational fluid dynamics or structural analysis using sticks,
weights, and slide rules, but that's how it was done before
computers...and where modern computational spline function mechanics
hails from.

Signature

     - Rufus

Pat Flannery - 01 Jan 2008 10:41 GMT
> When I was as GE there were guys there that had been around long
> enough to remember doing calculations using real splines and spline
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> computers...and where modern computational spline function mechanics
> hails from.

Imagine in the days when they had to figure out the structural loads on
wooden aircraft frames... and had a situation where no two pieces of
wood used on the aircraft were ever going to be identical in physical
characteristics or mass-for-volume.
In his book "Giants Of The Sky", Bill Gunston has the strange story of
this behemoth:
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown-Dice/2996/tarrant-tabor.jpg
The Tarrant Tabor, built by Mr.W.G. Tarrant of Byfleet, Surrey.
Up till this point, Mr. Tarrant had specialized in building large wooden
buildings (and it shows, doesn't it?).
When Mr. Tarrant wanted to get someone who could handle the structural
mathematics and stress loads for his giant wooden triplane bomber/flying
building, he knew right where to go - The Admiralty Air Department - and
they knew right who to send him: Letitia Chitty, who at 19 years old had
done her bit in The Big One for King and Country when dragged away from
Newnham College, Cambridge, by a RN press gang to design airplanes for
them and ended up working a year later on the largest aircraft ever built.
Ms. Chitty must have been aghast at what was being asked of her, but she
was the Bulldog Breed and went right to work on it.
Things were going okay on the Tabor project, until all the Grade A
Spruce ran out and they had to build it out of American White Wood.
Ms. Chitty knew there were problems here, as White Wood was only good
for 3,500 lbs per square inch, as opposed to the 5,500 lbs per square
inch of Grade A Spruce. So it was going to be _way_ overweight.
But they got the thing built, and in May of 1919 it went proudly rolling
down the runway, revved its engines up to full power, and as the thrust
line on the upper ones was above the center of  mass of the aircraft,
drove the aircraft's nose into the ground and hurling the pilot and
copilot to their deaths as the aircraft ended up sticking tail-first
into the air with its forward fuselage smashed clean up to the leading
edge of the wings.
Well, Ms. Chitty wasn't responsible for the aircraft's overall design,
just getting it stressed right.
And it did stay amazingly intact despite never getting airborne:
http://www.pigstompers.net/Triplane-Madness/Tarrant-Tabor_04.jpg
Mr. Tarrant quit the aircraft business, but Ms. Chitty went on to great
things:
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/centenary/timeline/1930.shtml

"1937 - Letitia Chitty (1897-1982)
During WWI, Letitia Chitty worked for the Air Ministry where she met
Pippard. Inspired by him she returned to Cambridge and changed course
from the mathematics to engineering, graduating with first class honours
in the Mechanical Sciences Tripos in 1921, the first woman to do so.
Her career was unusual for a woman at this period. Continuing at the Air
Ministry, she worked with Richard Southwell (Imperial College Rector
1942-1948) and Pippard and then joined Imperial as Research Assistant in
1934. She and Pippard worked on aircraft structures, she undertaking
much of the mathematical work and on stresses in arches of the voussoir
type particularly and loading of wheels. Later she undertook major work
on stresses of large dams in the middle east. WWII work included
research into submarine hulls under shell attack, stresses in extensible
cables and pulley blocks for barrage balloons, for the Director of
Scientific Research of the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply.
Chitty became Lecturer in 1937. She retired in 1962 the 1st (of 2) Lady
Fellows of Royal Aeronautical Society, the 3rd Woman Corporate Member of
Institute of Civil Engineers and the 1st woman to be appointed to a
technical Committee of Institute of Civil Engineers 1958. She was
awarded 4 Telford Premiums for papers written in collaboration with
Pippard. Besides engineering and mathematical writing she produced a
book called An Alphabet of Flowers containing plant drawings and notes
on her holidays. In retirement she continued to attend College and
continued to work until she was over 80.
In her later years, she was even interviewed by Vogue magazine."

Yes, she was interviewed by Vogue Magazine; she also has a engineering
award at Cambridge named after her...The Bulldog Breed...backbone of the
nation!
And although many thought her "Alphabet of Flowers" was a bit odd in
that it had around a page of differential calculus regarding the
structural strength of each part of the flower in question, it
never-the-less was not without a peculiar charm in its presentation. :-D

Pat
Rufus - 01 Jan 2008 23:10 GMT
>> When I was as GE there were guys there that had been around long
>> enough to remember doing calculations using real splines and spline
[quoted text clipped - 81 lines]
>
> Pat

...smacks of "A Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown"...in wich
it turns out that much of the same math involve in designing a bra can
be used to design the forward sections of helos.

Signature

     - Rufus

Mad-Modeller - 02 Jan 2008 04:02 GMT
Ah, the ancient ancestor of the Airbus Cattlecar!
;)

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Mad-Modeller - 01 Jan 2008 03:52 GMT
> Rufus wrote:t.
> >> This surprised me (I never built one) as the ProModeler He-111 from
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Pat

They had experience with the He 70 and one engine.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Pat Flannery - 01 Jan 2008 08:31 GMT
>> You can see why Heinkel made it so streamlined; they had to to get any
>> sort of reasonable performance using that few horsepower.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> They had experience with the He 70 and one engine.
>  

It sure does bear a resemblance to the He-70 Blitz scaled up to two engines.
Interesting how they felt the need to get the two engines as close to
the centerline as possible.
They're almost cutting into the cockpit glazing, particularly on the
starboard side.
It must have been very noisy in that cockpit with the props that close.

Pat
Don McIntyre - 31 Dec 2007 11:38 GMT
> > Was that a new kit, or a reboxed DML?  Nice looking, in any event.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Pat

Um, Pat, the He 111 kit was never a DML mold. It was an original
Monogram. In fact, IIRC Bill Koster designed the molds.

Craig,
 If you want a cheap, no frills kit, and one that kinda looks like a
Ju 88 you may want to consider Hobbycraft's kit. It ain't the best,
but like I said, it does look like a Ju 88 when finished. This is one
of Hobbycraft's earlier kits, so it may have issues  with decals,
flash, fit, etc. That being siad, I've got one in the stash and it
doesn't LOOK too bad, but it's not DML quality either.
Pat Flannery - 31 Dec 2007 22:28 GMT
> Um, Pat, the He 111 kit was never a DML mold. It was an original
> Monogram. In fact, IIRC Bill Koster designed the molds.
>  
I'd heard it was a DML mold that DML never released, and Monogram got
the molds for it, either that or Monogram got help from DML on doing the
molds unless I'm confusing it with the Ju-88.
It it was pure Monogram, then I applaud them, because this was
definitely a cut above their standard kits, and looks like a DML kit.
> Craig,
>   If you want a cheap, no frills kit, and one that kinda looks like a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> doesn't LOOK too bad, but it's not DML quality either.
>  

I was looking for a review of that one, but didn't spot one on the
Modeling Madness website.
They did list a 1/72 scale AMT one, which is odd, as I remember the AMT
one being in 1/48th scale.
Ever build the odd-scale Lindberg one? They also had a He-111 in a odd
scale.
Our family had a designer of stained glass windows for churches who was
visiting from Germany come over a lot of years back when I was in High
School,  and he saw my Lindberg He-111, and was very fascinated by it.
He always wondered what it would be like to fly in one, but
unfortunately his Hitler Youth group never had the chance to. =-O

Pat
Mad-Modeller - 01 Jan 2008 03:52 GMT
> > Um, Pat, the He 111 kit was never a DML mold. It was an original
> > Monogram. In fact, IIRC Bill Koster designed the molds.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> They did list a 1/72 scale AMT one, which is odd, as I remember the AMT
> one being in 1/48th scale.

Could be the AMT release of the Frog Ju 88 that they are referring to.

> Ever build the odd-scale Lindberg one? They also had a He-111 in a odd
> scale.

1/64th IIRC.

> Our family had a designer of stained glass windows for churches who was
> visiting from Germany come over a lot of years back when I was in High
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Pat

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Pat Flannery - 01 Jan 2008 08:50 GMT
> Could be the AMT release of the Frog Ju 88 that they are referring to.
>  

I did track down a picture of the box top of the kit; it is indeed
supposed to be in 1/48th scale:
http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers_kits/amt_ju88x.jpg
This came out at the same time as their Hs-129 and Meteor kits.
So it's probably not the greatest of models based on the quality of
those two.
It's confusing to look for, as AMT also released a Ju-88 in 1/72 scale.

Pat
SL - 31 Dec 2007 17:34 GMT
> Seems that Dragon has the only 88s in production and they are all
> specialty versions, anti balloon, tank buster, etc.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> thx - Craig

Hi Craig,

Other's have pointed out the main things regarding the Dragon kit.

But as to the normal kit I am not 100% sure though obviously check out the
A-4 version of you can hold of it.

However if not try looking ofr the DML Mistel kits as if I remeber correctly
a few of these versions are also supplied withthe full glazing for the 88 in
case one wants to build a trainer version of the Mistel (I actually fancy
doing one myself).

All the best for the New Year also from a rainy Edinburgh.

Cheers,
Stephen
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.