HK 1/32 Do335A help please!

[Out2gtcha]

 

 

That lower right pic does indeed at least make it look like it has some slight dihedral. 

[gunpowder]

The hk kit has some moulded in. I didn't think it did either

[Bill_S]

I have the Z-M kit.

 

 

Top is to the left in the photo. Camera angles and differences in colors can play tricks on the eyes, too. Whether it is supposed to have dihedral or not, I'm just going to go with it as is.

[gunpowder]

Slight tailplane dihedral noticable in  this shot

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Pfeiludvarsummer2013.jpg/1280px-Pfeiludvarsummer2013.jpg

 

Appears HK got it right. I never realised , a always thought it had no dihedral.

Edited May 27, 2016 by gunpowder

[Paul2660]

That is a good shot of the 335, with the AR-234 in the background.  It always impresses me just how large the 335 was.  Where as the AR-234 was a very small jet, for a twin engine aircraft.   Is that shot from the National Air and Space in DC?  

 

Paul C 

[Wurzacher]

The aircraft manual mentions the main wings having a dihedral of 6°. It does not mention dihedral of the cruxiform tail.

In my understanding the manual would mention such a dihedral at the tail. So, it had none.

[D Bellis]

Is that shot from the National Air and Space in DC?  

Yes, the Udvar Hazy Center in Chantilly, VA (near Dulles Int. Airport).

 

D

[D Bellis]

So, it had none.

Period photographs and photoraphs of the sole survivor indicate that it does have at least some dihedral (if only possibly flat across the top):

 

D

Edited May 27, 2016 by D Bellis

[D Bellis]

For anyone having trouble seeing it:

 

And, another view where the dihedral is clearly visible:

 

D

[Wurzacher]

IF it would have had a dihedral the German engineers would have mentioned this in the aircraft´s manual. A tail wing that is flat (possibly!) on the upper surface, with the lower surface of the tail wing (possibly!) tapering towards the outer face not for a long time has a dihedral. It´s simply a design feature.

 

Wartime pictures from multiple angles are no proof at all. Nobody knows the physics of the camera and the lenses used, among other stuff. It may be a hint, but no proof. At least for me.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Wurzacher

[Mark P]

I agree with post above. The only answer comes from verifyable plans or measurements of the actual subject. Cameras are certainly no measure as they can distort, especially with different lenses. 

 

Mark Proulx

[D Bellis]

So, the absence of information (pro or con) in a manual eliminates photographic evidence from multiple sources all shot at different angles? 

 

How does that make any sense at all? 

 

D 

[gunpowder]

I wonder HK models visited the real thing?

[gunpowder]

These from Karayas site give it slight dihedral too

 

[Brian79]

Does the Tamiya 48th scale kit have it?