Quote from: Gondor on November 11, 2021, 04:49:32 AM
I think you have the engine front's and rears on the wrong ends Dizzy. The fronts are the more rounded parts where the rear is a much more defined taper.

No, that's correct, but the massive PSR work after moving the nacelles back certainly changed their shape, esp. at the rear end.

Glad you like the thing, though. 

Quote from: Old Wombat on November 11, 2021, 04:08:33 AM
Hmmm, Google Translate decided that Pulkzerstörer was Swedish (English Pulkzerstör ), when told to translate from German, it came up with Bulk Destroyer as the English equivalent.

Pretty sure that's not the "contextual" translation.

The term would roughly translate as "formation destroyer", doubly appropriate because it is useless in a dogfight and can only be used for shooting at bombers flying in formation, or because you can use it to break up said formation.

Quote from: Snowtrooper on November 11, 2021, 07:10:54 AM

Quote from: Old Wombat on November 11, 2021, 04:08:33 AM
Hmmm, Google Translate decided that Pulkzerstörer was Swedish (English Pulkzerstör ), when told to translate from German, it came up with Bulk Destroyer as the English equivalent.

Pretty sure that's not the "contextual" translation.

The term would roughly translate as "formation destroyer", doubly appropriate because it is useless in a dogfight and can only be used for shooting at bombers flying in formation, or because you can use it to break up said formation.

Good work Dizz.

Seems on the large size for only one crew though.

Well, the cockpit is very roomy (and mostly empty!), but the original design had two bomb bays (in front and behind the main landing gear wells) and was probably optimized for the fast bomber role that the Me 262 could not really fulfill. Then add additional fuel above the bays for a sound range, and you get this bloated layout. Aerodynamically it's pretty clean.

Whew ugly- great job!   I can really see the work you put into it. 

-Dave

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on November 12, 2021, 03:39:41 AM
Well, the cockpit is very roomy (and mostly empty!), but the original design had two bomb bays (in front and behind the main landing gear wells) and was probably optimized for the fast bomber role that the Me 262 could not really fulfill. Then add additional fuel above the bays for a sound range, and you get this bloated layout. Aerodynamically it's pretty clean.

I thinks the too small wings that make the fuselage look bloated.
If I ever get my hands on another one i'll build it with bigger wings and engines.  Maybe 1/48 Me 262?

Yup, the wings really look diminuitive on the massive fuselage. I really have doubts about the design's usefulness, from an operational point of view. Starting and landing the P.1099 must have been a PITA, with long runs and high speed. It would AFAIK have been 3 tons heavier than a comparable Me 262, and this was already not a STOL aircraft.

I like that Dizzy, nice job 

I like it!!

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on November 12, 2021, 03:39:41 AMWell, the cockpit is very roomy (and mostly empty!), but the original design had two bomb bays (in front and behind the main landing gear wells) and was probably optimized for the fast bomber role that the Me 262 could not really fulfill. Then add additional fuel above the bays for a sound range, and you get this bloated layout. Aerodynamically it's pretty clean.

There were two designs, p.1099 the heavy fighter and the P.1100, the bomber.  The latter had an offset canopy a la Sea Vixen and a glazed nosecone.  Planet have the old CMK one in the range.
CMK did the P.1099B too - I have one to rebuild and that has a three man crew, apparently.
From what I've seen, and TBH I've not looked at all, Revell fudged the kit to get an extra kit out of the same moulds with minimal effort.  The engines on their P.1099A are wrong as they modelled the B which I think had them moved forward for CoG reasons due to the rear mounted barbettes.  I prefer their A kit, the B just looks clunky. The CMK one, although it lacked the detail, is a much better B.