vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

In 1/5th scale the wingspan is closer to 114" for the H-1 model, correct? Which exact model are you doing? I am about to begin construction of an H-O version which actually has a slightly longer wing as it had rounded wingtips, ala ME 109 shape.

pimmnz

Vertical, photographically H-0, H-1 wing was the same. Beware the drawings, they might not be correct. Difference between H-0 and H-1 was more to do with engine boost, autopilot and cockpit pressurisation.
Evan, WB #12.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I have great documentation on this design and I have 4 view drawings plus full statistics. Along with a 3 view of the color scheme. There was more to the H-o than you think. It also had guns mounted in front of the canopy as well. Where the H-1 varient did not. This was a pre-production model and not sure if they even entered service. My documentation comes from my Chech books. I have enough valid, published docs to be legal for scale competition. I really like the color scheme as it is quite different than the typical version you see on the TA-152.

TA152

Only one prototype had round wingtips.Have read somewhere that it was the Ta152B.

pimmnz

The Ta at the Smithsonian (Silver Hill) is an H-O. Square wing tips, no cowl guns. Plenty of old and modern photographic evidence to the fact. The -B and -A planned versions often are drawn with cowl guns, but the -H versions, according to the record, were all fitted with 2 x 20mm in the wing roots and 1 x 30mm centreline weapon. The photos of the H-1 'Green 9' at Farnborough after the war show no cowl guns. Be wary of your drawings. If you are going to use them as documentation, back them up with photos illustrating your contention. The -C, by comparison, does have cowl weapons. None of these aircraft have rounded tips, long or short wing. Even the H-0 prototypes (GH+KS, GH+KT) have squared wing tips and no cowl weapons. So far as the record shows, no H type engine upper cowl had channels for the guns.
Evan, WB #12.

tdstaf

My Feedback: (11)

Also to note: the c model had a wing span of 36'and not 33 1/2 ' like that of the A model wing so I would check reference carefully on the size of the ailerons for that wing span.

TA152

The C wing was basicly a Ã…8 wing with an insert of 500mm in the centre section.

tdstaf

My Feedback: (11)

Cool. I new it was something like that.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

As much as it may disapoint some, scale modeling does not necessarily mean the aircraft existed. I have enough documentation on the varient I have chosen to satisfy the Scale masters, AMA, and Top gun rules as far as scale fidelity goes. Actual photographs of the real aircraft are not necessary. Reputable publications suffice. While my varient may not have had guns in front of the canopy, my documentation shows this to be the case, so it will need to be duplicated for static judging.
When I get a chance, I will scan in my views and colors for you to see. The books that I have are very well respected.

tdstaf

My Feedback: (11)

That's right It just has to match published documention.

pimmnz

OK, our rules and I think FAI, state that you must have at least three photos of the original aircraft in your documentation package. You have to prove that the aircraft actually existed. Local rules may differ, so if you can cook up what appears to be a really good set of drawings and artists renditions, then you could 'scale' anything you like. Seems to defeat the purpose of 'scale modelling' though, at least I think, anyway...
Evan, WB #12.

IL2windhawk

Excellent [8D]

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Your rules would be FAI. I would not consider the entire USA "local", and Top gun, AMA and the scale masters are quite serious events. No cooking up is needed, as the documentation I have fully complies. Maybe my docs will change somes opinion about this TA 152 H-0. My docs are valid.

tdstaf

My Feedback: (11)

The problem with the three picture rule limits modelers to few paint schemes so you constantly see the same ones done over and over. There is plenty of written documentation on how the groupes and stabs were formed, with there marking colors and paint schemes from there local operating locations. Aircraft would be transferred or consolidated and have either there original paint or that which was aplied in the field with what was available late in the war. Units had specific colors for each stab within the groupe so you can narrow it down to a specific aircraft from it werk number.

pimmnz

Vert, does it look a bit like this? Published 1970, Kookaburra publication.

pimmnz

And these are the 'scale' dwgs to go with it, from the same publication. Yeah, where we are, US comps are 'local'.
Evan

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

That is the plane, but my docs are a lot better. I have a five view, and the colors are very good. It is described as an H-o version. I will post mine tomorrow sometime. I gotta get my book to the scanner.

TA152

Sorry. But your 3 view is full of... wrongness
On your plan the wing have the same position as on the D9. On the Ta152 models, the wing was moved forward 42cm
And the insert in the tail is wrong from above.

pimmnz

OK, that will be interesting. Just 3 glaring problems with the Kookaburra drawings, the physical impossibility of fitting guns to exit where the gun channels are drawn, (the engine crankcase has to go somewhere), the wing is placed in the A/D position, whereas all 152 variants had the wing moved 710 mm forward, and the electrical operation of the U/C, again, all 152 variants used hydraulic actuation. The rounded tips are hard to justify, given that all piccies of long wing 152's show a square tip...
Evan, WB #12.

TA152

Look at the gunchannels on the C type.

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

My book was published in 2007 from CMK models which sells plastic model kits. http://www.cmkkits.com/en/books/fock...w-190-part-ii/

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Oh, but back to my original comment, a 1/5th scale TA 152 H-1 will have a much longer than 86" wing. He must have been thinking around 1/6th scale or something.

tdstaf

My Feedback: (11)

His original post said 113.7 wing 82 fuse.

pimmnz

Vertical, perhaps they do sell plastic kits, but that still does not make the drawings of this 'H-0' right. There is one at Silver Hill and it looks nothing like these drawings. Perhaps the manufacturer used the old Kookaburra drawings and simply embellished them? Whatever, it does not represent any known H-0 from the photographic record. As for using it in scale competition, and this is purely a personal feeling, you understand, it means that provided you can supply a convincing 3 view, and artists impressions for colour, then without the requirement to prove that it actually existed as a full size airplane, any imaginary aircraft could be flown in 'Scale' competition. Personally, I don't think that is the intention of 'Scale Contests' anywhere in the world, but I have been wrong before, and will be again...
Evan, WB #12.

JGrc

My Feedback: (29)

Yes, I'm building the H1 with square wing tips and rudder. 113 inches and change for the span. The C model looks like an A/D wing with the 500 mm center section and forward mounted wing. I will include this options after the prototype is flying since the wing saddle and fairing will not change.

JG