Ju-87 Stuka

[maxmwill]

I'm in the process of building a Ju 87 801, but until tonight, I hadn't thought to check to see if anyone else had the same idea, or if anyone was building one. And, going down the thread, I noticed a few items discussed, which I have since learned were tried, as well as a suggestion I have for a whif if anyone might like to tackle it.

One was a mention of a Judy engine in a Stuka. This was a direct copy of the DB600 that was the Atsuki, and was installed in the D4Y1, which wasn't all that reliable, until the Y2 model was designed and produced. This used the, I think, Atsuki 22, which was more reliable.

The DB 601 was used in the V1 D model Stuka, but had less power than the JUMO 211, so it was put in.

If your heart is set on a Daimler installation, why not consider the DB 610, which was the pair of coupled 605s used in the He 177? If the mechanics modified the cowl tp allow more airflow for cooling, that might have been used on the 177, although, if you read Eric Brown's account of flying the Greif, you'd learn that it had a lot more problems than just engine fires.

The 4 engine He 111 looks pretty good, but it was done by Heinkel as the He 116, and used 4 Argus engines of lower power, but your model is identical with the 116.

Did you ever build the Japanese 119? I'd love to see that, as a while ago, I attempted to draft out a set of plans for an RC scale 119, but, like so much else, Life got in the way.

[Sauragnmon]

You wouldn't have to go so far as the 610 for a powerful Daimler.. the later 601's were rather powerful, consider the BF-109 mid-models.  If you want more, look at the 605, which was the successor to the 601's for the most part, including later fittings on planes like the 410 and late 109s.

[kerick]

If a turbo prop was mounted on a Stuka it would need to be pushed forward to allow the lighter turbo engine to balance the aircraft. Since the hopper/tank for the chemicals would need to be over the wing to keep it near the CG this may leave space for the cockpit between the engine and the wing. It would look weird but a Stuka with a long nose and painted yellow would be pretty weird already.
BTW it would keep the pilot from breathing chemicals during flight.

[Librarian]

I've always thought the Aichi M6A1-K Seiran looks very Stuka like but with retractable u/c. The floatplane version (both available as Tamiya kits in 1/72) can heft a pretty big centreline bomb too. Stick the bomb on the wheeled version with some underwing shackles and a neat whiff emerges.

[maxmwill]

Well, yes, but the D4Y was a lot closer to the Ju 87 in concept, while  having been based, broadly, upon the He 118.

But then a turbo-Stuka, yes, the nose would have to be extended, and, if anyone were to attempt it, one possible name for this, either service, crew nickname, or Allied code name would  almost have to be Pinnochio, or similar.

If a turbo  version would be desired, and one is of a lazier bent, then the nacelle off any already turbo prop model could suffice, with a bit of judicious sanding. filing. cutting, or other ambitious ways. Say a Herky bird nacelle, seeing as there are so many versions out, and have been for quite a while now, just for one example.

[Librarian]

Ah, but are we thinking whiff-world. I've seen a few D4Ys (inline version)painted up as Stuka replacements over the years but no one seems to try the Nanzan. If you look at the D4Y it can pass for an early Ju87 whilst the M6A1-K would be along the lines of the Ju87D variants; more refined, elegant. If you're a 1/48 man/woman/thing then there's a very nice conversion available here:

http://ncwebshop.de/epages/ncs244425151111.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/44425151111/Products/48-P001

Out of my league when discussing turboprops as I'm not keen .

[maxmwill]

Ah, but are we thinking whiff-world. I've seen a few D4Ys (inline version)painted up as Stuka replacements over the years but no one seems to try the Nanzan. If you look at the D4Y it can pass for an early Ju87 whilst the M6A1-K would be along the lines of the Ju87D variants; more refined, elegant. If you're a 1/48 man/woman/thing then there's a very nice conversion available here:

http://ncwebshop.de/epages/ncs244425151111.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/44425151111/Products/48-P001

Out of my league when discussing turboprops as I'm not keen .

Ah, looking at the Nanzan, while there might be some lines which might bear some similarity to the D model '87, the wing is not gulled.

As far as t'props are concerned, yes they are nice, light, and fairly powerful, given size, mass and relative fuel consumption. For example, when I was attending Spartan, during the powerplant phase of the course, one day one of the instructors brought in an Allison 250, which is one of the sweetest turbo prop engines in the world, better than AirResearch, Garret, Turbo Meca, or just about any other small turboprop and turboshaft engines in the world, and has been around for quite a while and is in just about anything small enough to be converted to a turboprop, such as the Hiller 12 helicopter(which design has been around since 1949), as well as the Beech Turbo Bonanza or any of the Cessna 100 series turbo prop conversions. When I looked at it, sitting in the shipping crate, I just had to try to heft it, and nearly tossed it at the ceiling it was so light(yes, really).

But, while there have been conversions, successful conversions from piston to turbo, such as the Basler DC3 conversion, and are flying around with new leases on flying life, others are not so successful, such as the Beech 18 Westwind conversion, which puts PT6s in the nacelles, and the nose has to be extended at least 6 feet(and that's the bare minimum), and at least a 100 pounds of lead put in the very point of that just to keep the CG within limits. And yes, it is fairly fast, and can carry a better load that the 985 powered Twin Beech, the biggest problem it has is that it is a ground looping fool, will  ground loop on a whim(usually the breeze's, but sometimes the bird's  whim), and to date no one has been able to figure out a fix for that, kinda like the fact that a successfully working exhaust system(y'know, like a muffler) has been designed for the Brantly B2 helicopter, and their engineers have been struggling with that for years and years.

If you need any more information on such, or if there is anything else I might be able to help with, feel free to ask, as in the real world, for my day job, I'm an A&P mechanic, and have learned a lot about these things, such as how to flag the rotor blades on a Hiller Killer, or why you can sit a few feet away plugging in aux power to a King Air while the engines are idling, and not get cooked(someone once asked me if that could possibly happen, because you are sitting in the jet blast, feet away from the jet efflux, and all you feel is warm, which is nice in Winter, and you're hawking scorched Jet A while waiting for instructions from the pilot to unplug.

[Librarian]

Stuka with some radials, one at each wing kink, dive brakes are mandatory, either big bomb, torpedo, or 30-37mm under hull. Some rockets or smaller bombs outboard of dive brakes.

I do like this though...another XF5F kitbash possibility.

Why did the Stuka have gull wings? Was it aerodynamics? The F4U was GWed to keep a short u/c with a massive propeller.

[maxmwill]

I think that was the same reason, fairly good size prop, the need to keep the mains short(reduce weight).

[KJ_Lesnick]

Some single seat Ju-87 ideas:

The G-4 (radial engined tankbuster with clear vision bubble canopy:

I like this design a lot actually, one idea could be to make a Ju-87 successor that has no defensive armament, just bombs and forward firing guns.  The name of the game would be more speed, more agility, and a heavier payload.  Think A-1 or XA-41

[kerick]

Why did the Stuka have gull wings? Was it aerodynamics? The F4U was GWed to keep a short u/c with a massive propeller.

Keep the main gear short and sturdy for rough fields?

[Captain Canada]

Love that twin engine one. Great idea !

[maxmwill]

Kinda like this P 40 twin:

http://www.aerofiles.com/curt-p40ctwin.jpg

[NARSES2]

I'm currently building the new tool Airfix Ju 87 and something is puzzling me. Now I've looked through my Putnam's and various other books, looked on-line and been through this thread and I'm still none the wiser. So hopefully someone here can enlighten me ?

The Airfix kit has a clear plastic box which is fitted so as the pilot can see through a clear vision panel that is located just forward of the rudder pedals. He looked down and slightly forward. However they would have you paint the underside vision panel of this box the same colour as the rest of the underside. So did the Stuka have a clear vision panel so the pilot could see below him ? If so was this usually covered by a panel ? If covered how did it open ?

Not important but it's piqued my interest. It also shows how modeling can still be educational even after all these years 

[DarrenP2]

I do always wonder How some German Aircraft would have preformed in the Far East against the Japanese. Stuka being one Me110, ME109, JU88 being others.