**** DONE: GB-40 1:72 Junkers Ju88 A-4 - Heavy Hitters III

[ednorth]

Revell 1/72nd scale Ju 88 A-4 with Yellow engines "Invasion of Yugoslavia, Greece & Crete" markings is in error.

The Ju 88 version used in Invasion of Yugoslavia, Greece & Crete was Ju 88 A-5,
as no A-4 was yet in service in MTO by that time (and by end of May 41 less than 200 made, all in 088/1xxx range by Junkers,
many still in testing, lacking props and prop-controls, and these were only in service from June or July 41).
During the summer about 70 A-4/D-1 stood around waiting for parts (prop controls mostly).
Licence producers (Arado, ATG, Henschel, ND-Dornier, Heinkel, SFW) Ju 88 A-4´s only appear from late summer 1941 onwards
(basically A-5s with Jumo 211 F/J engines, just early version A-4s)

No photos of KG 30s A-4´s in this Yellow, MTO and Shipping markings exist - this was too early.
Those few built and in service by June by going to units in N-Europe or east (KGr and KG 51), not MTO.

Further to this, the version of A-4 modelled is a later version A-4 (with the Aerodynamic balanced rudder top, not early A-4)
only built and delivered from October 1941 onwards.

Proof? one 4D+DT was Ju 88 A-4 W.Nr. 088/1440 lost in November 1941 (Lt. Klemm), was built in August 41.
Invasion of Yugoslavia, Greece & Crete was in 6 April to 1 June.

Seems Mr. Revell cheated big time on Modellers with this boxart and markings.
But the artist making the profile of 4D+DT as an A-4 is also in error.
Poor research, and contradicting known facts.

Eggert

 

[Bustedwing]

Well that's it, I'm quitting modeling and taking up golf. Researching the death out of it kind of takes some of the enjoyment of building models. At any rate, Some pictures of the bombs that might never existed as well !

 

[Wurger]

Looking good. IMHO these strips should be yellow though.

 

[Crimea_River]

Not sure how much you are tongue-in-cheeking but I hope you keep at it. The bombs look good.

 

[Crimea_River]

Looking good. IMHO these strips should be yellow though.

Depends. Red and blue stripes were valid for SD and PC bombs respectively.

 

[Wurger]

Depends. Red and blue stripes were valid for SD and PC bombs respectively.

Thta's true Andy, but the shape of the smaller bombs indicates the SC type rather. Those ones with the blue markings seem to be of the PC type so the marking is correct I would say. But that's the modeller's decision certainly. No problem.

 

[Bustedwing]

The decals only had the blue and red stripes. I may not use the blue striped ones. The kit comes with two of them and four of the other and yet only 4 hard points. As for Golf, pass maybe curling instead. I'm really not too concerned with the accuracy of the markings on the plane. What appealed to me about this kit was the high marks for quality and the version on the box looks hot, whether it actually existed that way or not, It's still a Ju-88 I can add to my collection. The Datsun 510 I'm building with a radial engine in it isn't exactly accurate either !

 

[fubar57]

PM sent Graham​

 

[ednorth]

Writing (Complaining?) on "research to death"is kind of bully words to say, scale modelling philosofy is to have everything as accurate as possible, Right?
So why be surprised some one comes along and challenges previous beliefs? As presented by Revell this model ( boxart / markings) fallis in "fiction" (what if) category.
Remove Yellow from Engines. It was not used by the time A-4 went into servive in MTO. Simple.

Also, moderator, deleting posts without good reason is bully practice, be warned, that is not in any general interest and should be frowned upon.
at same time I got mail on Flickr, thanking for Blue to Red correction on 56 FG F-80. How nice was that!

Ed

 

[Crimea_River]

Eggert, Graham is not being a bully and don't take his indifference on accuracy as an insult. Many of us, me included, strive for accuracy and welcome comments for corrections but others simply want to make models that look nice. Everyone has a right to enjoy the hobby as they see fit.

Thanks for providing the facts on this particular aircraft.

 

[Bustedwing]

Writing (Complaining?) on "research to death"is kind of bully words to say, scale modelling philosofy is to have everything as accurate as possible, Right?
So why be surprised some one comes along and challenges previous beliefs? As presented by Revell this model ( boxart / markings) fallis in "fiction" (what if) category.
Remove Yellow from Engines. It was not used by the time A-4 went into servive in MTO. Simple.

Also, moderator, deleting posts without good reason is bully practice, be warned, that is not in any general interest and should be frowned upon.
at same time I got mail on Flickr, thanking for Blue to Red correction on 56 FG F-80. How nice was that!

Ed

I believe this is the " Modeling" section of this particular website in that this is where people share their work building model kits not Smithsonian worthy copies of aircraft %100 accurate down to the spacing between rivets and number and size of cup holders in the cockpit. That being said, I would be interested in reading the documentation you used to come up with your analysis of this matter. I'm never too old to learn something new. While we are at it, what would be your take on Revell's 1:72 scale Ho 229 ?

 

[SANCER]

Hello Eggert, welcome to the forum.

Very interesting information that you share with us.
In the same way that the friend Andy (Crimea_River), I am a lover (almost bordering on madness) of perfection and detailed in this hobby. But it is something that the taste for what I do and the excellent support of WWII aviation connoisseurs and modelers in this group, have helped me to learn and know more and more of aviation and to develop my skills with their suggestions and constructive criticism. I will always appreciate it.

Everyone has our own level of taste for our hobby, and I always have in mind that the result of the effort in my construction, the first that should feel please or dislike, is only me.

I appreciate all the knowledge that you seem to have of aviation, thanks for sharing it and I would like to know if you are also a lover of plastic, cement and paints.
Something that you can show us in a thread of your own?

Saludos compadre

Luis Carlos
SANCER

 

[Crimea_River]

Hi Graham. I noticed your response to Eggert is embedded in his quote. It would be clearer if you make sure your response is outside of the square brackets of the quote string when writing your post.

 

[Bustedwing]

Hi Graham. I noticed your response to Eggert is embedded in his quote. It would be clearer if you make sure your response is outside of the square brackets of the quote string when writing your post.

Didn't realized I has done that.

 

[Wurger]

No problem Graham.. I have edited that. There is something wrong with the attachement going on. ... I noted a couple of server errors. So this might be the reason for.

 

[ednorth]

Mr Luis & et al.

As I said in post yesterday (the one that dissappeared, along with the 56 FS F-80 artwork) - I was active modeller - in early 1970/1980s -
but retired from that - space is still reserved in my storage room for both made-up-and-painted/assembled kits, mostly 1/72 but also 1/32,
as well as dosens unassembled kits (my hord, stash or treasure-trove).

Not repeating myself here, but moderators can search for this deleted post of last night (wherever thay are located within timezones).

Only, access to all that what helps modellers make models nowadays, like good paints, was limited in my area and era
(prior to internet search finding and ordering making all possible, but time nver comes back!)
My last London hobby shop visit was in 1992, then Barcelona 2007 (material bought still waits, withstanding expiry dates)

I politely decline show my own works (its outdated and not up to todays standard) but I can provide limited critics-view to Historical accuracy
on some types (in case I have anything to add that is ..)

*** - ***

But let me say this, go back to basics and start there, one evening reserching (googling) might even suffice
- I did that in my personal Ju 88 research (started in 1990s) and with all pages blank.
I may comment but that is to help improve - only in case of Revell, to expose!
Their modus operati seems be near to fiction than historical research. It may lay in who they colloborate with.

Like recently dried out Ju 88 A-1 in certain Norwegian Museum, that one is a hybird,
but Museum staff insits it is Original (It is, on two counts, but also rebuilt one at best, with hidden history of rejections and defects ...
It could have been cancelled, possibly WW2 looming on the Horizon saved it.

It can not be used as straight bases for A-1(modified), A-5 or A-4. Not same rear fuselage and lots of other detail differences.
Proven by records in Bundesarchiv, Germany. I gave them the first flight date but they wanted swallow all my info and write pronto book.
That was very fortunate (not happening) as Medcalfs anno 2014 books (published by Novel writer Frederik Forsyth / Classic) have lots of errors,
far too many to my liking (I contemplated suing author/publisher for fraud) but it was much criticised by German researcher (in seveal internet forums),
exposing some of its erros, surprizingly containing both old errors and also brand NEW errors!

But as Medcalf skipped Europe as research place, one just wonders if it fairer to say its just bad or a flop.

No, there were no Ju 88 A-0 or A-6/U´s. in fact A-0 as designation on many types is a mis-understanding for "Serie 0" (Nullserie, vorserie, preseries or pilot series )
But this was but a Batch number 0 (like F-16 Block 52, but inserte Null instead, for YF-16s! But not a designation...)
Understanding German language is a plus, also most Nordic languages, helps. (excause typos, my glasses are outdated)

At Junkers this was first used on (SFAIK) on Ju 86 and W.Nr. 086 / 0001 were first null after 86 meant "Parent factory",
other factories getting their own (designated) letters, and the early Ju 88 had this, and then revised, and Ju 88 B revised too.
(this is in same doc Medcalf failed find / stated in his book, but I have it, already had it for last ten years.)

Here, in Ju 88 A-4 (this posts subject) W.Nr. 088/1440 "4D+DT" (plus or minus any victory markins, thats totally unknown) this was made at Junkers own factories, that used both 088/0001 range and 1001 range (one thousand and one), althou fuselage, wings and tails they were not made at Dessau (that was their HQ). but assembled at Bernburg (that field was reduced to rubble postwar, but not the adjoining Luftwaffes Fliegerhorst, and even the concrete runways were removed!
The Soviets stole everything they could postwar. The west gave aid back.

The JFM Ju 88 A-1/5 series ending before 1000 and 1001 be first prodction A-4 (ff 13.01.1941)
Sorry no A-4s existed in BoB days! Many books claim so, but all are in error.
But I have done research at the Smithsonian (NASM Udvar-Hazy Center, to be precise May and October 2017), so Bustedwings can be busted again.
Camou on Ho IX V3 weave appears inverse, is darker on original, model kit has it inverse - and base colour is Green, not Dark-Gray.

List of RLM paint designations - Wikipedia

But I have it not as Go 229 (sic) but just Horten IX V3
(Gota 229 was to be full blown production version, but nothing of this had been started on at end of WW-2.)

German Designation (start with one basic here):
One basic thing RLM (German Reich Air Ministry) decided in early 1930s - Standardise of the current German aircraft designations. This was due manufacturers were all over the place in thers writing of their designations. Confusing the Bureuucras is a no-no, they must do their own It resulted in this. Preatty straightforward nummericalist..

RLM aircraft designation system - Wikipedia

Like USAAF (USAAC) had P-40C-CU (written exactly like that), similarily RLM abbrevated all manufactureres (design factories) and Junkers became "Ju" (no dot or dash) just Ju ,
and then added a number (from base of 8-xxx aircraft series, where 9-xxx was for engines, 108- was Gliders.) conversely writing "Ju 88" is correct (spelling) but Ju-88 is not. Amercans and some Brits used Ju-88 thrugout all wartime reports, (aka designation system P-40).

But today one sees this written up as "Junkers Ju" but Junkers was already abbrevated just Ju (so no John Jo please). Likewise its correct say Ho IX or Horten IX, but not Horten Ho.
Ho ho ho is reserved - for the man on that super-sled, just gone home this very weekend.

My Ho IX V3 image may be a little large, I can post other on my Flickr page if too large.

Best regards
Ed

 

[Bustedwing]

Mr Luis & et al.

As I said in post yesterday (the one that dissappeared, along with the 56 FS F-80 artwork) - I was active modeller - in early 1970/1980s -
but retired from that - space is still reserved in my storage room for both made-up-and-painted/assembled kits, mostly 1/72 but also 1/32,
as well as dosens unassembled kits (my hord, stash or treasure-trove).

Not repeating myself here, but moderators can search for this deleted post of last night (wherever thay are located within timezones).

Only, access to all that what helps modellers make models nowadays, like good paints, was limited in my area and era
(prior to internet search finding and ordering making all possible, but time nver comes back!)
My last London hobby shop visit was in 1992, then Barcelona 2007 (material bought still waits, withstanding expiry dates)

I politely decline show my own works (its outdated and not up to todays standard) but I can provide limited critics-view to Historical accuracy
on some types (in case I have anything to add that is ..)

*** - ***

But let me say this, go back to basics and start there, one evening reserching (googling) might even suffice
- I did that in my personal Ju 88 research (started in 1990s) and with all pages blank.
I may comment but that is to help improve - only in case of Revell, to expose!
Their modus operati seems be near to fiction than historical research. It may lay in who they colloborate with.

Like recently dried out Ju 88 A-1 in certain Norwegian Museum, that one is a hybird,
but Museum staff insits it is Original (It is, on two counts, but also rebuilt one at best, with hidden history of rejections and defects ...
It could have been cancelled, possibly WW2 looming on the Horizon saved it.

It can not be used as straight bases for A-1(modified), A-5 or A-4. Not same rear fuselage and lots of other detail differences.
Proven by records in Bundesarchiv, Germany. I gave them the first flight date but they wanted swallow all my info and write pronto book.
That was very fortunate (not happening) as Medcalfs anno 2014 books (published by Novel writer Frederik Forsyth / Classic) have lots of errors,
far too many to my liking (I contemplated suing author/publisher for fraud) but it was much criticised by German researcher (in seveal internet forums),
exposing some of its erros, surprizingly containing both old errors and also brand NEW errors!

But as Medcalf skipped Europe as research place, one just wonders if it fairer to say its just bad or a flop.

No, there were no Ju 88 A-0 or A-6/U´s. in fact A-0 as designation on many types is a mis-understanding for "Serie 0" (Nullserie, vorserie, preseries or pilot series )
But this was but a Batch number 0 (like F-16 Block 52, but inserte Null instead, for YF-16s! But not a designation...)
Understanding German language is a plus, also most Nordic languages, helps. (excause typos, my glasses are outdated)

At Junkers this was first used on (SFAIK) on Ju 86 and W.Nr. 086 / 0001 were first null after 86 meant "Parent factory",
other factories getting their own (designated) letters, and the early Ju 88 had this, and then revised, and Ju 88 B revised too.
(this is in same doc Medcalf failed find / stated in his book, but I have it, already had it for last ten years.)

Here, in Ju 88 A-4 (this posts subject) W.Nr. 088/1440 "4D+DT" (plus or minus any victory markins, thats totally unknown) this was made at Junkers own factories, that used both 088/0001 range and 1001 range (one thousand and one), althou fuselage, wings and tails they were not made at Dessau (that was their HQ). but assembled at Bernburg (that field was reduced to rubble postwar, but not the adjoining Luftwaffes Fliegerhorst, and even the concrete runways were removed!
The Soviets stole everything they could postwar. The west gave aid back.

The JFM Ju 88 A-1/5 series ending before 1000 and 1001 be first prodction A-4 (ff 13.01.1941)
Sorry no A-4s existed in BoB days! Many books claim so, but all are in error.
But I have done research at the Smithsonian (NASM Udvar-Hazy Center, to be precise May and October 2017), so Bustedwings can be busted again.
Camou on Ho IX V3 weave appears inverse, is darker on original, model kit has it inverse - and base colour is Green, not Dark-Gray.

List of RLM paint designations - Wikipedia

But I have it not as Go 229 (sic) but just Horten IX V3
(Gota 229 was to be full blown production version, but nothing of this had been started on at end of WW-2.)

German Designation (start with one basic here):
One basic thing RLM (German Reich Air Ministry) decided in early 1930s - Standardise of the current German aircraft designations. This was due manufacturers were all over the place in thers writing of their designations. Confusing the Bureuucras is a no-no, they must do their own It resulted in this. Preatty straightforward nummericalist..

RLM aircraft designation system - Wikipedia

Like USAAF (USAAC) had P-40C-CU (written exactly like that), similarily RLM abbrevated all manufactureres (design factories) and Junkers became "Ju" (no dot or dash) just Ju ,
and then added a number (from base of 8-xxx aircraft series, where 9-xxx was for engines, 108- was Gliders.) conversely writing "Ju 88" is correct (spelling) but Ju-88 is not. Amercans and some Brits used Ju-88 thrugout all wartime reports, (aka designation system P-40).

But today one sees this written up as "Junkers Ju" but Junkers was already abbrevated just Ju (so no John Jo please). Likewise its correct say Ho IX or Horten IX, but not Horten Ho.
Ho ho ho is reserved - for the man on that super-sled, just gone home this very weekend.

My Ho IX V3 image may be a little large, I can post other on my Flickr page if too large.

Best regards
Ed

The camouflage I did on the Ho 229 is completely of my own doing. I did not research it, I did not copy it from anywhere and it is certainly not what is depicted on the box art. I simply decided it would make an interesting night fighter and since I have two of the same kit I figured what the hell go for it. I think it turned out pretty slick myself !

 

[Crimea_River]

Me too. It's a what if anyway.

 

[ednorth]

Obviously, you need figure out why your brain refuses to co-op or process the info given.
Beeing in BC is no excuse.

But as its not real, your fantasy is at the helm, and not my troble,. Authenticity here is false, you claim you cheated (but busted in the process).
who cares, nobody. I find it personally "dark" and having too obvious/fictitios markings. You asked for it.
As night fighter it was not, just as an experimental type (no production was in fact authorized, yes all needed approval! )(

I checked tonight my copies of the relevant basic Luftwaffe Production Plans (1933 - 1945)
Copied several thousand pages in Germany last summer, with a German friend/helper/researcher.
and had copies of many more before that happened.

And guess what "8-229" appears in only one Reich Plan , LP 227/1, Page 2 of 8 "V-Muster" dated 15.12.44.
This production plan page is on Prototypes only, the next plan (Overview of LP 227, with LP 228/1. version and 2. version comparison)
dated 15.03.45 - it vanishes (not listed anymore) (so was it cancelled?)

And by mid March all production had grind to a halt due no more coal or transportation to carry any goods about.
And half of Germany West side industry workers was fleeing. Everything was collapsing.

So have textbooks been lying to us for decades of this "promishing new fighter Go 229" ???

Seems it was only on paper after all. But spinning up stories seems been too easy for eager
"not particularlily well informed" amateurs to purchase in incresingly re-cycled books,
probably Modellers fuelling "new" thirst for "new" models (and entire the "what if" fiction spinoff).

Is there emo for distest ? ?

And then same become offended when pointed at the errors they are doing in their modelling.

Since its designation is "just" Ho IX V3 (not Ho or Go 229) as that (8-229) is the planned designation of (40) Forty "V-Muster" prototypes, from Jan 45 at rate of one, three, five, seven, eight, eight, six and two in August 45.) Note: Actual made was only two or three, flown by wars end.

And you are busted, Mister, twice.
"Out"

 

[Bustedwing]

This is getting rather amusing. I do believe everything I read in text books. LHO acted alone and unassisted when he killed JFK and Chris Columbus discovered the New World ! Despite no concrete proof Sasquatches exist there's also no concrete proof they don't ! I will ad this final thought and be done with it. I can appreciate your being a stickler for authenticity, try and appreciate my enjoyment of building model kits for my own personal pleasure. And that's all I'm going to say about that.