Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

CLICK HERE to see new posts in last 24 hours
Mark all forums read
Welcome to 72nd Aircraft. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Ju-87 D/G - Academy anf Fujimi nose length comparision; ... plus some background
Topic Started: Dec 1 2017, 12:08 PM (493 Views)
hobbykiller
Member Avatar
Beast
[ * ]
I thought it may be useful for some of you to read this and make your own opinion. Please don't consider my post as a final proof, it is just my own judgement and 0,02$ to "worldwide discussion". This is NOT to hate Fujimi and glory Academy.

The Ju-87D/G nose - was it indeed soooo long as modellers plans show?

Many books calls out the Ju-87D version had changed nose length due to engine change, and engine compartment had to be longer than B/R version. This is unreasonable statement, the new engine was nothing more than new version of the previous one.

A few facts:
Ju-87 B/R used Jumo-211 A or D engine
Ju-87 D/G used Jumo-211 J engine

Both engines had identical dimensions: length 2173mm, width 804mm, height 1053mm. They differed internally to get more power - 220PS starting power (Pferde Starke - German equivalent of the HP - beware, it is not 1:1 eqiv). Simplyfying, Jumo-211 J had increased compression ratio (1,37 vs 1,32 in Jumo-211 D) - this lead to many minor changes in the internals, usage of different spark plugs, and more durable materials in some places. Around 200HP was not enough to get significant performance change. Germans had to rethink whole plane.
All redesign work from Ju-87B to D was focussed to get improved performance, and everything was subordinated to this goal - engine compartment and covers plus canopy were redesigned to get improved air flow and less air resistance, and this was main reason of the shape change.

So, after all: a longer nose of the D/G version is somehow a myth. Most probably it's origins lay in fact the improved D nose has much more streamlined look, it lacks huge cooler under it, and the spinner is longer as well. Unfortunately all authors copypaste this "extra long-nose" conviction from a years, and now it is hard to fight with it.
In fact, engine cover was a little longer, but is not like plans show.
Hasegawa in 1/48 and Academy in 1/72 (which is - I believe more o less just resized Hasegawa) catched it correctly, i.e. shorter than modellers plans show, and according to real plane outline/similar length as B-version.

Wanna proof? I played with a good photo of the real plane and prepared a living gif, but please remember it is only indirect proof. It is best to download it and magnify to whole screen, I think. I am not sure if your browser start to show reading this post, it may look as three same frozen pictures, and if so - you have to click photo and it will open. Beware, a pics are a bit heavy (2-4MB) so be patient looking first time at the pic - it is taking a bit to load and start to loop.

Academy vs Fujimi comparision
Posted Image

Original source with a few plans comparision
Posted Image

Kit noses vs plans comparision
Posted Image

cheers, Mark
Goto Top
 
Ruudster
Member Avatar
Hero
[ * ]
interesting. Thanks for doing the work and posting!
Ruud van der Salm
SW WA
OMS-IPMS, Portland OR
Goto Top
 
Aaron_w
Member Avatar
Toady
[ * ]
hobbykiller
Dec 1 2017, 12:08 PM
Unfortunately all authors copypaste this "extra long-nose" conviction from a years, and now it is hard to fight with it.
It is amazing how myths develop simply through copy and paste from one source to the next without verification. There are many such examples out there, and you present a good argument that this may be another.

It is one of the reasons I don't trust plans, it seems far to easy to simply agree with the particular plans that fit your belief.
Aaron Woods
Goto Top
 
ca-15
Member Avatar
Hero
[ * ]
Thanks for the reasoning. It looks quite convincing. Has anyone got the Classic book on the Ju 87? If Eddie Creek did the plans, he is usually very meticulous.

Cheers

Michael
Michael Louey
Melbourne Australia
Goto Top
 
otard
Member Avatar
Ghost
[ * ]

Thanks for posting. This is interesting.
Ottar D. - Son, Norway
Goto Top
 
Blekster
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
This is some very informative information - thank you for sharing it with us. Out of curiosity, have you investigated the new Airfix Ju.87B-1 and Ju.87B-2 kits?
Goto Top
 
piero
Member Avatar
Beast
[ * ]
Many thanks !
Cheers
Giampiero
Goto Top
 
hobbykiller
Member Avatar
Beast
[ * ]
ca-15
Dec 2 2017, 10:55 AM
Has anyone got the Classic book on the Ju 87? If Eddie Creek did the plans, he is usually very meticulous.
Back to the modelling business :) and I found one unanswered question.

I have Classic book. Along with over 20 other books as well as German original documents.
There are few problems.

One is that original resources are sparse and factory plans are lost, so it is very hard to judge what modern modeller's plan is correct. I believe all are wrong. Actually I still believe original sources can be found somewhere in Russia since they grabbed all Junkers documentation. Unless some russian grunt has not used them as kindling, they shold lay in some archive. I hope. But, so far they have not seen the light of day. So no factory drawings. Anywhere.

Second problem is that Classic Ju-87 book "outsourced" drawings. Unfortunately they purchased quite known drawings from Maciej Noszczak, he is from Poland and well known here. His drawings are nice looking, with rivetting, and often contain errors, so beware. Beside of the nose shape, for example in Ju-87 D/G wing sections upper fairing changed significantly from B/R and on the drawings it is not reproduced, instead he used B/R fairing. And many more, and so on...

Third problem: with all respect to Classic Publications - I believe it is one of the best publication on the Ju-87 - I have impression they did not checked all available sources. Most of authors repeat dimension differencies in length between B and D versions as 40cm (11 100mm vs 11 500mm) while some of them claim there were no difference between B and D - for example very good German researcher and author, Manfred Grielhl (Air DOC publication). He has direct access to German archives, so for me it is quite understandable he may differ in some points from others. Fun fact is that plans included in his book are also wrong.

Fourth: for many years I collected every original document copy available to purchase (I imagine there are many more not known or unavailable to us). No single German doc I have shows such dimension differencies. But I have documents showing they were the same. For example Handbuch forJu-87B is showing the same length as Hanbuch for Ju-87D. I am far from taking this as final proof, I used to take only factory drawings, that is why I wrote all my work is only indirect deliberation.

Fifth, there exist single drawing in German document showing D nose outline, from starboard side. Hovewer simplified it comes from official Junkers tech document and shows good outline of the engine compartment - I used it for checking purposes in a mirror (for port side I had to).

Finally: it would be best to go Hendon and check nose dimensions.... but it seems nobody thought about it. Maybe some day I will :D

Below two new attempts, and again HEAVY gif's. 7 and 5 MB, it is taking time to load in memory to start. Best way to view is download (I am posting imgur-clickable), I think.

Here is material with different photo used (only starting is the same as above)
Posted Image

And here on the museum example.
Posted Image
cheers, Mark
Goto Top
 
piero
Member Avatar
Beast
[ * ]
Very interesting work, thanks for posting
Giampiero Piva
Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Links to Aircraft References · Next Topic »