AndersN Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Nice comparison Anders, don't forget to fix your main gear struts though Regards David Haha, there are lots of things to fix on the Revell kit... But I won't bother fixing anything, except adding some cockpit details. I'm just happy to have something not vacformed looking like a He 219! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Thanks for posting the pics Anders, you're right, it sure does look like a Uhu, but to my eye, there is an issue with the nacelles and I think your pictures show the issue very well. I hope you don't mind, but I've used them to show where I'm coming from with the nacelles, using lines to show how the proportions are wrong on the Revell kit. I've drawn four lines parallel to the fuselage plane on each picture. I don't think I need to explain any more than that really?? Just my 2p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutik Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I have a question about the claim that the rear engine nacelles of the A-2 were reshaped after adding fuel cells (compared to the A-0 without that installation). Vaillant makes a note about this (reshaped nacelles) in the opening words of the book, but doesn't list that change in the large step-by-step list of the aircraft (sub)variants later in the book. They also don't name the source for that claim. In the appendix are a lot of books listed (which I don't have at my shelf), but the cited original german sources are user manuals, which may not nessessarely mention reshaped pasts if not relevant to maintenance or piloting procedures. Other articles I know do point out to changes (also shape changes), but not to enlarged rear nacelles at the A-2. To add more internal fuel cells into empty spaces without reshaping the outlines is also a common manufacturing practice. In most cases they deal with the extra weight by stronger internal structures and with the CG shift by adding counterweights and/or limits to the fuel/payload/trim/etc. instructions. Is there a written proof (German wartime reports, Allied foreign equipment research f. e.) or research about that this really happened, i. e. the A-2 nacelles were reshaped/enlarged to fit the fuel cells? Regards! - dutik Alburymodeler 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Dutik, Is there actually proof that there were fuel tanks added? I assume there may be filler points in the nacelles if this was the case? If we can find pictures of planes with filler ports, but the same shape nacelle as an A-0, that will put that story to bed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutik Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) The addition of fuel cells at the rear engine nacelles is a common within the sources. Size is called out to be 390 litre per nacelle. The A-2 nacelles at Udvar Hazy show them (in fact: removed panel and fuel filler ports). Images are elsewere at the forum to find, and inside the Vaillant book to. BTW, these extra rear-nacelle filler ports are not shown at some tech manuals made by Heinkel. Regards - dutik Edited December 16, 2012 by dutik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndersN Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Thanks for posting the pics Anders, you're right, it sure does look like a Uhu, but to my eye, there is an issue with the nacelles and I think your pictures show the issue very well. I hope you don't mind, but I've used them to show where I'm coming from with the nacelles, using lines to show how the proportions are wrong on the Revell kit. I've drawn four lines parallel to the fuselage plane on each picture. I don't think I need to explain any more than that really?? Just my 2p I completely agree with you, which is why I posted the pictures. But hey, it could be worse, it could be something that's hard to fix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougN Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) OK, here goes (and with thanks to David and Kyrre for the photos)... Thrust line. The Revell kit is off. Photos show to varying degrees that the front fuselage of the UHU is always angled above the thrust lines of the engines. To just how much of an angle may depend on whether the nacelle fuel tanks are fitted to the particular airframe, perhaps affecting the centre of gravity. But the front is never below the engine thrust line. This makes perfect sense, as the UHU was fitted with heavy calibre weapons that would have dropped significantly downwards upon firing. Revell has their kit with the engine thust line pointing the wrong way. Whether this is a function of the wing mounting they've used, or an error in the shape of the nacelles bears further investigation. Now to 310193... We know from the W.Nr that this airframe is an A-7, and therefore should be a good indicator of what to expect from the Revell kit. Note the back end of the nacelle, the height of this area above the fairing, and that the end of the wing root fairing is lower than the point at the end. This is at odds with the Revell representation, which has the pointed end well below if viewed perpendicular to the thrust line. The Zoukei Mura nacelle end looks spot on to me... For an airframe with the fuel tank inside. Which is what you would expect as they are known to have studied the NASM A-2 UHU. Whether this is correct for an A-0 variant without the internal nacelle fuel tanks (which is after all what the kit is supposed to represent) also bears further investigation. Steve I think that for me, anyway, the problem is that is some photos (like the one Steve posted) the ZM kits nacelles looks closer, yet in other photos, the Revell kits nacelles seem to match them better. However, the thing that sways me towards the Revell kit (at this time) providing a better basis for a 219 is the way the nacelles in the ZM kit seem to swoop up from the bottom rear and point upwards at the end. Again, this seems to match the photo Steve posted above, but not the majority of photos I have looked at (including Anders' photo above) It would be interesting to know what both companies used for their primary research that led them to the quite different shapes. Doug Edited December 16, 2012 by DougN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 It would be interesting to know what both companies used for their primary research that led them to the quite different shapes. Doug ????? AndersN, Alburymodeler and Ads 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted December 16, 2012 Author Share Posted December 16, 2012 Crikey Nige - where'd you unearth that? Superb - answers all my questions in one go - that's it - I'm off to cut plastic! Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodgem37 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I love that! Sincerely, Mark tomv87 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHatch Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Apart from scrutinising the He 219 at Udvar-Hazy, and studying much contemporary material, ZM have been working from some very large wartime drawings...and I mean a lot of them. I saw the plans while I was with them in Japan in 2010. I'd certainly not seen reference like this before. I wish I had that stuff in my collection. I'm afraid I really can't say the source of that stuff, as I just don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodgem37 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 'I wish I had that stuff in my collection. I'm afraid I really can't say the source of that stuff, as I just don't know.' This might be of help to start off with: http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/ Click on 'Heinkel' to the left. Then scroll to the bottom on the right. Sincerely, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Crikey Nige - where'd you unearth that? Superb - answers all my questions in one go - that's it - I'm off to cut plastic! Iain I dunnit on my own, wiff no elp atall..good innit.. Sorry, I couldn't resist.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOTR Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 'I wish I had that stuff in my collection. I'm afraid I really can't say the source of that stuff, as I just don't know.' This might be of help to start off with: http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/ Click on 'Heinkel' to the left. Then scroll to the bottom on the right. Sincerely, Mark Phoah, that is a good one! Thanks for that awesome link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHatch Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 'I wish I had that stuff in my collection. I'm afraid I really can't say the source of that stuff, as I just don't know.' This might be of help to start off with: http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/ Click on 'Heinkel' to the left. Then scroll to the bottom on the right. Sincerely, Mark No, this wasn't it. I'm talking about large engineering drawings and plans, not the Handbuch. These were large, old drawings...the sort you see in a draftsman's office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now