Fw 190 D

[Erfolg]

I am coming near to completing a model of a Ta 152 H.

 

I have started to think about painting.

 

As the model is small 42" span, and has become semi-scale, as I can see errors principally in cross section near the top, nose, cockpit area, I feel justified in finishing as semi scale also.

 

I am aware that at least one Fw 190 D, apparently of JG 44, W Nr 211040, was finished with red and white striped under surfaces, as a home, target defence fighter.

 

As I am keen to see the model, and know which way is up, I intended finishing the Ta 152H in a similar finish. I have found that the normal blue under, with green/dark green splinter of grey/dark grey splinter, difficult to work out which way is which, if allowing to get some distance away.

 

Can anyone point to sites with examples of this red/white striped finish?

 

Erfolg

Edited By Erfolg on 09/10/2010 15:03:55

[TonyS]

Hi Erfolg - this is one example....

HERE

 

T 

[TonyS]

and HERE

 

T 

[Erfolg]

Thank you for the links Tony.

 

They have helped in finding more information.

 

I had thought that perhaps that red 13 was a one off. I now believe, know? that it was one of a Staffel, as a minimum. So not so unique.

 

Still will not be absolutely or approximately right, but near enough for me.

 

Thanks again Tony

 

 

[Ton van Munsteren]

Hope this helps

 

Go to halve way on the page

http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/456/2/7

 

Ton

[Erfolg]

Your inputs have been very helpful.

 

 I had read about the red and white striped Fw's.

 

I did not really believe that one existed, being so conspicuous seemed at odds with the purpose of camouflage. So I have been very surprised to discover that so many actually existed, visibility being the aim. I had thought if one existed it was something similar in circumstance to Spates Me 163b.

 

I do not suppose if anyone knows of a Ta 152 H in these colours?

[Evan Pimm]

No. There were three D-9's and one D-11 found at Ainring airfield after the final whistle, and all were eventually broken up. These aircraft have been subject to pretty heavy investigation, 'Doras of the Galland Circus' is the tome, and airfield defense of JV44's 262's was the aim. Apparently the never flew above a couple of thousand feet, and only as the jets were leaving or arriving, hence the garish markings, black humor of the personal markings, and the very real chance of being shot down by the airfield defenses. Interesting story, but.

Evan.

[Erfolg]

Evan

 

I came across  a reference to 4. Red,1.3.4 &13, all fw 190 D.  Of course this could be wrong.

 

I also came across some references to Fw 190 short nose aircraft, in similar if not the same markings.

 

In many respects for me I am not really that concerned, as I am trying to capture the spirit and recognize that a Ta 152H would not normally be used at low level. But I am more interested in keeping the model in one piece.

 

The history is interesting, as fact, and common views of what happened are often at variance.

[Evan Pimm]

You are not wrong, Erflog, those are the known aircraft, I don't have the book to hand, but I think the first 3 were D-9's and red 13 was the D-11 (no Cowl guns and the Jumo 213F engine). While the 152 was designed for high altitude work by the time it was in service there wasn't any high altitude bombing anyway so it was used, according to those that flew it anyway, mostly on low altitude fighter-bomber interception. Mostly used by Jg 301, and with yellow/red RvD bands. Heck, there was only a handful ever built so unless it's scale comp you want, you could even makeup your own 1946 scheme...

Evan.

[Erfolg]

Evan

 

It seems to be one of those aircraft, where there seems to be some contradictions in accepted history.

 

The numbers built is one. I have come across at least one reference which described how standard 190A fuselage was taken, inserting an 152 section into the rear section, which all agree (I think) was longer than the D version insert, using a standard Jumo conversion kit to assemble the engine to the airframe. This being done by subcontractors, whose records by the end of the second world war seem to be less than complete. Some talking of handfuls and others of greater numbers, even if those numbers were accepted, how many saw service, or were partially completed airframes, that were invoiced.

 

The wings are a puzzle to me. I had thought that these were standard 190A wings with extensions. From reading this seems unlikely, as the spars were made from sheet steel. I guess the wing was a new item, rather than a conversion.

 

I certainly have come to accept and agree that my assumption regarding high altitude use is probably only partially true. I came across an incident where a number of 152 H's, engaged some low flying Typhoons on staffing operations. The 152's shooting down two I think.. I have also read, that some of the aircraft were being flown by pilots other than the allocated pilot at the time of some reported incident.

 

I guess this operational fog of information is not surprising, given that those aircraft taken by the allies for evaluation and propaganda/moral boosting purposes, often have poor records. Some disappearing magically from the record, others having less than clear history regarding which aircraft is which, what were their works numbers etc.

 

As my model is not accurate, in some areas, it is at best semi scale. The back end,  where the insert section occurs, where the two ends are identical,  and logically in plan view at least, is parallel, plus the back is chunkier near the rudder, than a simple taper suggests. Plus the sides have a slightly grater cross sectional curve than I have built in, I have a curve, but I guess not quite enough to be truly scale.

 

I do wonder how scale, is scale, when many models are scaled up from small scale drawings, using known references of overall dimensions. I worried for ages, is the overall length from spinner tip to trailing edge of the rudder. How many good quality cross sectional views are available etc. I have done by best. Yet the more I know, the greater the deviations I find, in my model. But then I find variations in the full size examples in addition.

 

My own version will limit itself to the feel. Although not having seen many operational second world war aircraft at the time, being to young. I am old enough to have seen the detritus of war. Those aircraft were not the fine fit and beautifully finished aircraft of museums and even weathered models. But I guess I was seeing, damaged or crashed airframes that were not of immediate use to anyone. My first sight and flight on a Vickers Viscount, contrasted strongly with my image of previous aircraft, which had dull and beaten metalwork finish. 

[Evan Pimm]

Hmm, all my documentation shows at lest 68 152H built, photos of at least 3 lined up on an operational airfield, and one a Farnborough after the end, and flown at last twice by Eric Brown, and at least one in the US, and still at Silver Hill awaiting restoration. So far as the fuselage plug is concerned, it is the same as the D version, the 152 and 190 tail and plug being interchangeable. There is at least one photo of a D sporting the 152 tail... perhaps the reason for suspecting that the plug was longer is because the wing on the 152 is some 6" forward of the D position.

There are good drawings of all these versions available if you look around. Yes, the long and short winged 152's use a new wing, the long one is washed out to the aileron inner, then straight from there, the shorter one is more like the standard D wing, but both use hydraulic retraction, not electric. As for the later D's, only one survives in the US, recently restored is a D-13 ex JG 26. You should be able to find lots about that one.

Evan.

[Evan Pimm]

Erflog, my documentation indicates 17 D-11 delivered, 4 with a gyro gunsight. I was wrong, it seems about red 13, it was red 4 that was the -11. I have photos of another D-11 captured after the surrender, white 61. Like a lot of the late war 190's this one has natural metal wing undersurfaces and extension plug so there are lots of variations of colour you can choose. Very interesting study, the last months of the Luftwaffe. So far as the plug and tail, the D-9 parts catalogue lists the standard fin and the 152 fin as interchangeable as early as October 1944. Dunno where the idea that 152's and D's were different came from, all were based on the A-8 fuselage, and if FW reckon you can fit 152 tails to 190's, well, who are we to argue? I used to fly a 152 'some time ago' 100" long wing version, was a glider and quite difficult to land, took a long time to dump the wing lift after touch-down and I had to 'fly' it until the tail dropped, and the wing basically stalled. Land into wind in any breeze, much like a WW1 machine.

Evan.

[Erfolg]

Evan

 

I have been working from two principle document sources, with occasional reference to a few others

 

1) War planes of the Third Reich, William Green

2) The Focke Wulf 190 a Famous German Fighter, Heinz Nowarra

 

the less useful

 

3) Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, Vol 7, Owen Thretford

4) Wings of the Luftwaffe, Eric Brown & William Green

 

I have a few others of lesser use.

 

A significant help, especially for the fin area has been A free flight plan from MAP, Focke Wulf 190, H F Palmer,

 

I have had some issues in reconciling the drawings, with dimensions given. For instance

 a) FW 190 D, fus length 33' - 5.5", engine Jumo 213 A/E/F

b) TA 152 H , fus length 35' - 1.5" engine Jumo 213 E.

 

The Warplanes of the Third Reich  on page 233, suggests that a standard 190D was taken, and lengthened and the cockpit was moved back by 16". One of the other books suggests how much longer the insert was compared with the D. Trouble is I cannot at present find it.

 

In most respects it does not really matter, as my model does differ from full size. Some compromises I now regret, as I guess most modellers do (the gun cockpit area of the nose). Yet I do endeavour to be accurate, or at least know where I have deviated from the real outline. But then again......................................

 

I will post a picture where it is to date, for comment.

 

I have washed out the tips and broadened them slightly, at 42" span it is not big, but hopefully a better flier than my 36" version.

 

 

 

Edited By Erfolg on 13/10/2010 17:32:27

[Erfolg]

I have now discovered another error, the cockpit should have been further back. It is now a semi-semi-scale model. That is what happens when using lining paper, scaling up from a smaller model, and cross referencing to other sources.

 

As promised a picture to date, which shows the original 36" model, designed for a brushed 480 and nicad. Now has Brushless outrunner, which is to powerful for its own good and a lipo.

 

The plug for the canopy is shown along with the elevator

[Evan Pimm]

Erflog, don't sweat the cockpit position, FW did not move it from the A-8, D-9 position. What they did do was bolt an extension plug 772 mm long onto the original fuselage engine mounts, which moved the wing forward 420 mm, thus giving the visual illusion that the cockpit was moved back. They also added a 500mm spar extension to the centre of the wing, moving each u/c leg out 250mm from the A/D position. They also list the overall a/c dimensions of the H series as: Span, 14.4 metres, length, 10.7 m. They list the armament as 2x MG 151/20 in the wings and 1x MK 108 engine mounted. So no cowl guns to worry about. Your models look good and we will be looking forward to a flight report soon.

 Evan.

[Erfolg]

I have increased the length of the nose, I am not sure by precisely, I think about 10mm. The scale is about 1/12, as with many things with a convoluted back ground, it is difficult to unravel the steps you took and why. I am reasonably sure that the overall length is correctish, there has been considerable angst about the bits in between.

 

My pilot figure will be 1/10, that has been dictated by what I could find, there will only be the head anyway, so may not be obviously disproportionate.

 

I am now waiting for some very small servos, for the wings, to arrive, as standard 9g are two thick.

 

Once I have got them installed and removed I will start tissue covering the model.

 

It took a few weeks to get to a bare airframe, now progress has slowed. The original took aver 4 years, as progress stopped for a long period. I think, because I thought a 480 model would be marginal.  

 

I have re-read some of the data to hand, and it does seem although conceived for high altitude work, operationally most worked at low altitudes. At these low altitudes it does seem it was very effective in this role.

 

Do you still fly your 152?  Electrified, even as power assist, it would be a nice model

[Evan Pimm]

I no longer have the 152, I am currently flying a near 1/4 scale A-8 with my old D-13 waiting for an overhaul and repaint. All FW's seem to fly well, although I can only comment from my own models, all over 70" span. The Anton is the most neutral, the 152 was the most 'trainer' like and the D fits somewhere between. Experience has led me, and several other scale modellers, to believe that models of this type are best around 70 to 80" span, at that size they fly well, and you can still transport them in normal cars without too much of a problem. I have no experience of models as small as yours, nor any with electric propulsion so your comments about the flight characteristics will be waited with interest. Let us hear all about it!

Evan.

[Erfolg]

My experience with slope models is relatively limited.

 

From what i remember, weight is not necessarily a bad thing, in that it can allow the model to penetrate and the higher flying speed is useful in higher wind speeds.

 

Electrics small scale on a flat field are somewhat different. A high wing loading is often the way it is. Foam models keeping weights down easier. A consequence of this situation, is that older period models fly at higher that realistic speed, and landings can be quite abrupt, as the model is arrested by uneven grass (landing into long grass is far easier).

 

Many modellers are quite happy with very fast flying Spitfires etc. Many times you can almost see the vapour trail from the apparent rocket motor.

 

For me the biggest challenge is the launch. Where as a typical modern electric glider, now goes up at 45 degree angle. The small scale model, hand launched, rushes away parallel to the ground at high speed, my own all seem to have a slight roll to the left, not evident once at height, so a little up is required, which can lead to a quite a significant pitch up (I do use expo). After this phase it is about keeping the model in sight, as they can disappear quickly. 

 

From time to time I and others have lost models at considerable distances, when misjudging sink. . It is apparent, contrary what many argue, your glider is often between 1/4-1/2 mile away at some height. Clearly seen as a silhouette at height, not as easy to know what is happening when low down.. In the case of the small electric models even a few hundred yards, can cause viewing issues, particularly if making a mistake.

[Evan Pimm]

Indeed, you illuminate the biggest problem we ground based operators have. Typically, our stereo vision 'depth perception' only works out to 30 feet or so, after that we are relying on visual silhouette clues for orientation. Accepted wisdom says light colours on top and dark colours on the bottom, for just this reason, whereas these aircraft have got it all wrong. Not only are they light on the bottom and dark on the top, but the shades used tend to blend with the background (waddaya mean, it's supposed to?). I well remember flying my 152 round the circuit, with an observer, and as it turned away, and we are talking a fully equipped 100" scale model with flaps/retracts etc and big glow engine, it just shimmered, then disappeared. I think we both yelped at the same time, looked at each other in disbelief, then it just as quickly reappeared as the top of the model came into view. I have great respect for the German late war camo choices. There is one thing that might help, all the operational 152's were assigned to JG 301, and had those nice bright red and yellow tail bands so that will at least help with 'which way is front'. Obviously, the smaller the model, the bigger this problem becomes, hence my preference for the larger size when the colour choices are limited to schemes designed to hide the aircraft in the air. As I said, I have no experience with small likrice models.

Evan.