Greyhead

If I was going to depart from my usual two-winged variety of model and build a “warbird” what should it be? The Spitfire is undoubtedly a beautiful aircraft but the elegant functionality of German designs won the day and in particular the evil looking Stuka.

First I bought the Osprey Combat Aircraft book “Junkers Ju87” then scoured the plans handbooks, found one in a nice size for the Laser 70 and sent off my money. Why re-invent the wheel? No point in designing your own if someone’s already done the hard work for you! When the plans arrived I started the modifications, as always not everything was to my liking; non-scale aileron hinges, no hinge line shrouds etc. etc.

I then made a BIG mistake; the local model shop had a Stuka kit at a bargain price, cheaper than the cost of the cowl, spats and canopy for the plan version, so out came the “plastic money”. Take my advice; if you buy a kit make sure that it’s designed to a level of accuracy that you will be satisfied with, modifying plans is one thing but modifying a kit is another!

Built as intended the model may have performed well but with all the extras I added it flew like a pig and after major repairs was sold on with the advice that it needed a better pilot then myself. I always build light, giving due thought to strength of course, to allow for the weight and drag produced by all the extra bits and pieces that need to be stuck onto a scale model, but when starting with a kit you are fairly limited.

The model itself turned out quite nicely, it actually won best scale model at our club Bring a Model Night; I’ll explain some of the finishing techniques latter and post some close-ups.

Attached Images

	stuka13.jpg (101.4 KB, 57 views)
	stuka 14.jpg (69.8 KB, 41 views)
	stuka12.jpg (61.5 KB, 48 views)

wonwinglo

Looks superb Grahame,those wingtips I think are the big problem with this aeroplane,narrow chord at the tips with a thin wing section,very prone to tip stalling, not helped by the bulk of the spatted undercarriage either,at least you gave it a go.
I have the plan somewhere for the old Complete-A-Pak' example,your building standards do you credit,put it down to the design.

__________________
'And there I was oil on my goggles from a broken pipe,then I looked at the altimeter,all I could see was the makers name !'
www.wonwinglo.scale-models.net/

George

From a floaty thing builder it looks good, but pardon my ignorance in this matter, fly with a two bladed prop when the full size has three blades in your case or more in others. :

Greyhead

George

I used the three blader for static display but as these are quite expensive a standard prop was used for the "testing" flights. If these had proved OK then the three blader would be used all the time.

Grahame

George

So basically you do the same as I do for the warships. I use cheap plastic props to get the correct size and pitch then when satisfied I buy the necessary size ones in brass. Sorry for the silly question

Greyhead

To all intents and purposes the kit needed the same modifications as the plan:

The firewall needed to be moved back to allow for the 4-stroke engine; without a proper plan it was a matter of “guesstimation” and lots of trial and error using cardboard templates.

The cockpit area was non-existent, a typical sports model design for “head & shoulder” pilot. With that greenhouse of a canopy something had to be done. Formers were fret sawed out to give the pilot and gunner somewhere to put their legs and some formers and sheeting omitted, the fuselage was going to be too weak so some ply doublers were added to bridge the wing seat gap. I decided to make the canopy opening and this proved much easier than I’d thought. It was cut into four sections, plastic “H” sections glued to the fuselage, square section with a slot glued to the pilot and gunner sliding sections then finally a litho plate cover. The control panel was made using the same method as described in my “Another Parnall Elf” thread.

Attached Images

	stuka11.jpg (64.9 KB, 34 views)
	stuka07.jpg (39.4 KB, 39 views)

wonwinglo

The office looks good Grahame,surprising what cam be done with a bit of ingenuity and a bit of scrap material,I hate to see those head and shoulders things with no detail added,that really was a thin wing section on the Junkers Ju.87.

__________________
'And there I was oil on my goggles from a broken pipe,then I looked at the altimeter,all I could see was the makers name !'
www.wonwinglo.scale-models.net/

Greyhead

Barry

I think the thin section at the tips coupled with the extreme taper of the wing may have had something to do with the models flight characteristics. With hind sight the choice of an aircraft that had a penguin (a flightless bird) as its emblem was quite apt!

Grahame

Greyhead

I used a few useful Plastic Bits & Pieces scrounged from various sources.

The machine gun shrouds are made from the tops of ¼”” jack plugs (as used for guitar leads).

The cowl air scoops are from Biro pen tops, 7 in all.

The exhaust stubs are plastic tube, heated and pushed onto a shaped piece of wood to produce the fishtail and bent to the correct curve. They are glued to a piece of thin ply and recessed into the cowl; not just stuck on the outside!

Where the wings “crank” there is a half round cover, this proved to be very difficult to make from balsa as suggested but was easy from a plastic rod cut in half, when heated it formed easily around the LE.

Attached Images

	stuka02.jpg (112.8 KB, 26 views)
	stuka06.jpg (41.2 KB, 27 views)

wonwinglo

From past experience spats & wheel pants are real levers ! even springing the undercarriage inside the spat with a pre-formed coil as Modelplan suggested on the Hawk Speed Six still had its problems,especially if the strip was far from perfect on landing,I even tried pivoting the front portion of the spat so that it rode with the undercarriage leg,the problem is real aircraft land in ground effect almost vertically on their gear and then the compression springs or oleo legs take effect,with our models the legs bend backwards ( sometimes alarmingly as witness strikes on the wing show ) its all a compromise as there is only so much give in those legs,one of the most successful systems developed I found by accident on my old Boeing Stearman PT-17 undercarriage,after a few bad landings the legs started to show cracks and play develope,I had this crazy idea to cut blocks of ordinary eraser rubber into the rear buffer shape at the aft upper portion of the leg,as the leg swung back it compressed against the rubber block ! crude but it worked,a sort of damper more than a springing device,the only problem is you must secure this against hefty ply or hardwood otherwise it will just push everything back with it and cause more damage,aircraft such as the Gloster Gladiator,Stearman with those cantilever faired undercarriages can easily use this system,so there you have it,every scale model brings with it its own seperate set of problems,it just needs a person like yourself Grahame to solve them ?
I like your ingenuity with your detail bits,if you look around it is surprising what you can use,I once used ladies hair curlers for Vickers guns on a world war one aeroplane,those round ones with the slots cut out of them just ask to be converted into guns.

__________________
'And there I was oil on my goggles from a broken pipe,then I looked at the altimeter,all I could see was the makers name !'
www.wonwinglo.scale-models.net/