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I politely decline show my own works (its outdated and not up to todays standard) but I can provide limited critics-view to Historical accuracy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