In the home stretch on this.
By the way since I shot these images I closed the engine compartment of 802/17. I will have 816/17 totally opened up.
I note also that when the original 802/17 was officially photographed it did not have crosses on the undersurface of the top wing. I note that several of the 8xx/17 series did not have these. So I will leave them off 816/17.
One further note 816/17 evidently did not employ a rear cockpit Parabellum for the usual ring. The weight incured by the two downward firing Spandau and their ammo reels were evidently the only armament.
I wonder if the Junkers D.I types were ever considered as escorts for this bird? As by definition to use 816/17 effectively the Germans would have to have air superiority. In the last days of the war this seems unlikely.
By the way there was an AEG J.I type that had the same CAS set up with 2 downward firing Spandaus.
Early Aviation
Discuss World War I and the early years of aviation thru 1934.
Discuss World War I and the early years of aviation thru 1934.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
KotS GB 2011 Junkers J.I JackFlash
JackFlash
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 01, 2011 - 07:26 PM UTC
OEFFAG_153
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 19, 2010
KitMaker: 1,473 posts
AeroScale: 1,450 posts
Joined: February 19, 2010
KitMaker: 1,473 posts
AeroScale: 1,450 posts
Posted: Thursday, December 01, 2011 - 07:44 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Some quick shots of the Benz Bz.IV with a bit of solder for sparkplug wires. Its easy to simulate the rubber boots that are covering the sparkplugs themselves.
Hello Stephen, very nice detailing going on, totally agree with Terri, the gun installation looks the business. Exactly how did you do the rubber boots for the plugs?
Best Regards
Mikael
JackFlash
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Friday, December 02, 2011 - 01:11 AM UTC
By the way I had an off line inquiry. No I didn't forget the metal push rods I'll slip them in place later tonight. Nice thing is they are easy to add.
Thank Mikael.
The rubber spark plug wire boots are little more than rubber sheaths at each end of the wire. The ends covering the spark plug and the distributer cap will not allow any exposure to the connections. I used accelerator over the joint for the wire then use semi-gel type super glue. The wires are solder, easy to bend and pose. They also take super glue (cyano) very well. These can be painted a dead flat rubber black as opposed to the semi gloss of the engine cylinders.
For me modeling the exposed end of the spark plug and its connection is a bit inaccurate. On the real deal the plugs would never be left exposed. The main concern was arching eletrical currents and sparks that could ignite fumes in the engine compartment. Even the ceramic shroud of the spark plug should be covered.
Thank Mikael.
The rubber spark plug wire boots are little more than rubber sheaths at each end of the wire. The ends covering the spark plug and the distributer cap will not allow any exposure to the connections. I used accelerator over the joint for the wire then use semi-gel type super glue. The wires are solder, easy to bend and pose. They also take super glue (cyano) very well. These can be painted a dead flat rubber black as opposed to the semi gloss of the engine cylinders.
For me modeling the exposed end of the spark plug and its connection is a bit inaccurate. On the real deal the plugs would never be left exposed. The main concern was arching eletrical currents and sparks that could ignite fumes in the engine compartment. Even the ceramic shroud of the spark plug should be covered.
thegirl
Alberta, Canada
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 6,743 posts
AeroScale: 6,151 posts
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 6,743 posts
AeroScale: 6,151 posts
Posted: Friday, December 02, 2011 - 01:59 AM UTC
Looking really good Stephen ! Still I shake my head on how in the hell could the pilot see with the engine blocking his view ............
Looking forward to the makings now and the fianl pic's
Terri
Looking forward to the makings now and the fianl pic's
Terri
Mgunns
Arizona, United States
Joined: December 12, 2008
KitMaker: 1,423 posts
AeroScale: 1,319 posts
Joined: December 12, 2008
KitMaker: 1,423 posts
AeroScale: 1,319 posts
Posted: Friday, December 02, 2011 - 04:06 AM UTC
Hello Stephen:
Your effort with the additional downward firing machine guns is noteworthy. I have looked at the photographs, and I still can't make heads or tails of the prototype in Spain, but when I see your model photos it is quite clear how they were installed. Good on ya for taking an arcane application and bringing it to the light of day, albeit in model form, it is truly a testimony to your modeling skill and ability to interpret those unclear photo's and apply it to the model.
I like your use of solder for the plug wires and boots. Very convincing. The more I see of this aircraft the more I like it.
Best
Mark
Your effort with the additional downward firing machine guns is noteworthy. I have looked at the photographs, and I still can't make heads or tails of the prototype in Spain, but when I see your model photos it is quite clear how they were installed. Good on ya for taking an arcane application and bringing it to the light of day, albeit in model form, it is truly a testimony to your modeling skill and ability to interpret those unclear photo's and apply it to the model.
I like your use of solder for the plug wires and boots. Very convincing. The more I see of this aircraft the more I like it.
Best
Mark
JackFlash
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 04, 2011 - 01:52 PM UTC
Thanks Mark! And thanks to webmaster & Kitmaker owner Jim Starkweather for getting us all back on track.
JackFlash
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 - 06:52 PM UTC
Ok here is the notice. It is done and after a clean up from decal setting solution and with the weather permitting I'll line her up for the camera.
JackFlash
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - 03:04 PM UTC
The weather out look is not good so I shot these indoors.
JackFlash
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - 03:08 PM UTC
Here are the engine shots. I went with a heavily shellaced version of the propeller as I had already done one with clear overcoating and contrasting laminations being apparant.
The outside view of the guns.
I may add some purple to the uppersurface of the wings. But the photo evidence of this production batch has most of these machines with colour added in the field. The truth about this airframe may be that she spent her whole existance at Adlershof under going testing. But in the history of close air support ops Junk. J.I 816/17 has her place.
When Germany began to loose air superiorty over the frontlines the use of such a machine became more impractical.
The outside view of the guns.
I may add some purple to the uppersurface of the wings. But the photo evidence of this production batch has most of these machines with colour added in the field. The truth about this airframe may be that she spent her whole existance at Adlershof under going testing. But in the history of close air support ops Junk. J.I 816/17 has her place.
When Germany began to loose air superiorty over the frontlines the use of such a machine became more impractical.
lcarroll
Alberta, Canada
Joined: July 26, 2010
KitMaker: 1,032 posts
AeroScale: 1,025 posts
Joined: July 26, 2010
KitMaker: 1,032 posts
AeroScale: 1,025 posts
Posted: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - 08:17 PM UTC
Stephen,
Very nice...........made more so by her uniqueness; truly one of a kind.
Cheers,
Lance
Very nice...........made more so by her uniqueness; truly one of a kind.
Cheers,
Lance
thegirl
Alberta, Canada
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 6,743 posts
AeroScale: 6,151 posts
Joined: January 19, 2008
KitMaker: 6,743 posts
AeroScale: 6,151 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 11, 2011 - 03:48 AM UTC
Nicely done Stephen
JackFlash
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Friday, December 16, 2011 - 05:51 AM UTC
Thank you Terri,
I ran accross this in some NASA documents.
". . A bewildering variety of two-seat army cooperation aircraft were designed, developed, and operated by the Germans in World War 1. Albatros, AEG, Roland, DFW, Halberstadt, AGO, Aviatik, LVG, Junkers, and Rumpler are only a few of the companies that produced army cooperation aircraft during the conflict. Some of these aircraft were designed for general-purpose reconnaissance duties, others for night bombing, and still others for the ground attack role in close cooperation with friendly ground troops. An interesting aircraft in this latter category, the Junkers J.I, is described here and is shown in figure 2.25.
The J.I biplane had a rather unusual appearance with thick, cantilever wings that were tapered in both planform and thickness ratio. Three-view drawings show that the aircraft was really a sesquiplane, with the bottom wing much smaller in span and chord than the upper wing. The small-chord lower wing, together with its position below the lower surface of the fuselage, afforded good downward visibility for the pilot in the front cockpit and the observer in the rear. The wings were connected to each other and to the fuselage by a rather complex cabane-strut arrangement. No interplane struts were used between the wings. Like all Junkers aircraft, the J.1 incorporated an all-metal structure. The wing was composed of 0.08-inch corrugated aluminum alloy skin riveted to an internal framework of aluminum alloy tubing. The engine and crew were encased in an armored shell formed from 0.2inch sheet steel. The aft portion of the fuselage consisted of a metal alloy frame covered with fabric in early models but with sheet metal in later versions. Power was provided by a six-cylinder, water-cooled, Benz Bz.IV engine of 200 horsepower. The aircraft was usually armed with two fixed, synchronized machine guns firing between the propeller blades and with a single flexible gun for use by the observer. Two downward-firing guns were sometimes installed for the observer, but the difficulty of aiming these guns from a low, fast-flying aircraft rendered them ineffective, and they were quickly removed. A radio link connecting the aircraft with friendly ground troops in the forward area was also generally provided.
The physical and performance data given in table I indicate that the J.I was a remarkable aircraft in many respects. The gross weight of 4748 pounds seems large for an aircraft of only 200 horsepower, and the useful load fraction of 0.19 is very low compared with the values of 0.30 to 0.35 shown in figure 2.20 for fighter aircraft. A low structural efficiency is accordingly suggested; however, the 0.20-inch steel shell of armor alone weighted 1036 pounds, according to reference 119, and no doubt contributed in large measure to the low apparent structural efficiency. The power loading of 23.9 pounds per horsepower is about the same as that of the B.E.2c and suggests a powered glider more than a fighting aircraft. The J-I, however, had a maximum speed of 96 miles per hour, could climb to 6560 feet in 30 minutes, and had an endurance of 2 hours, a very creditable performance for an aircraft of relatively low power. The good performance of the aircraft was due in large part to the low value of the zero-lift drag coefficient of 0.0335 and the high value of the maximum lift-drag ratio of 10.3. The J.I was among the most aerodynamically efficient of the World War I aircraft analyzed here.
The J.I proved in action to be a very effective weapon in ground-attack role for which it was designed. The prototype first flew in January 1917, but due to production difficulties the aircraft was not deployed in action until February 1918. Total production run was 227 aircraft. The Junkers J.I incorporated many advanced engineering features and was a truly remarkable aircraft. It has not received proper recognition in the literature of World War I aviation. . ."
I ran accross this in some NASA documents.
". . A bewildering variety of two-seat army cooperation aircraft were designed, developed, and operated by the Germans in World War 1. Albatros, AEG, Roland, DFW, Halberstadt, AGO, Aviatik, LVG, Junkers, and Rumpler are only a few of the companies that produced army cooperation aircraft during the conflict. Some of these aircraft were designed for general-purpose reconnaissance duties, others for night bombing, and still others for the ground attack role in close cooperation with friendly ground troops. An interesting aircraft in this latter category, the Junkers J.I, is described here and is shown in figure 2.25.
The J.I biplane had a rather unusual appearance with thick, cantilever wings that were tapered in both planform and thickness ratio. Three-view drawings show that the aircraft was really a sesquiplane, with the bottom wing much smaller in span and chord than the upper wing. The small-chord lower wing, together with its position below the lower surface of the fuselage, afforded good downward visibility for the pilot in the front cockpit and the observer in the rear. The wings were connected to each other and to the fuselage by a rather complex cabane-strut arrangement. No interplane struts were used between the wings. Like all Junkers aircraft, the J.1 incorporated an all-metal structure. The wing was composed of 0.08-inch corrugated aluminum alloy skin riveted to an internal framework of aluminum alloy tubing. The engine and crew were encased in an armored shell formed from 0.2inch sheet steel. The aft portion of the fuselage consisted of a metal alloy frame covered with fabric in early models but with sheet metal in later versions. Power was provided by a six-cylinder, water-cooled, Benz Bz.IV engine of 200 horsepower. The aircraft was usually armed with two fixed, synchronized machine guns firing between the propeller blades and with a single flexible gun for use by the observer. Two downward-firing guns were sometimes installed for the observer, but the difficulty of aiming these guns from a low, fast-flying aircraft rendered them ineffective, and they were quickly removed. A radio link connecting the aircraft with friendly ground troops in the forward area was also generally provided.
The physical and performance data given in table I indicate that the J.I was a remarkable aircraft in many respects. The gross weight of 4748 pounds seems large for an aircraft of only 200 horsepower, and the useful load fraction of 0.19 is very low compared with the values of 0.30 to 0.35 shown in figure 2.20 for fighter aircraft. A low structural efficiency is accordingly suggested; however, the 0.20-inch steel shell of armor alone weighted 1036 pounds, according to reference 119, and no doubt contributed in large measure to the low apparent structural efficiency. The power loading of 23.9 pounds per horsepower is about the same as that of the B.E.2c and suggests a powered glider more than a fighting aircraft. The J-I, however, had a maximum speed of 96 miles per hour, could climb to 6560 feet in 30 minutes, and had an endurance of 2 hours, a very creditable performance for an aircraft of relatively low power. The good performance of the aircraft was due in large part to the low value of the zero-lift drag coefficient of 0.0335 and the high value of the maximum lift-drag ratio of 10.3. The J.I was among the most aerodynamically efficient of the World War I aircraft analyzed here.
The J.I proved in action to be a very effective weapon in ground-attack role for which it was designed. The prototype first flew in January 1917, but due to production difficulties the aircraft was not deployed in action until February 1918. Total production run was 227 aircraft. The Junkers J.I incorporated many advanced engineering features and was a truly remarkable aircraft. It has not received proper recognition in the literature of World War I aviation. . ."
OEFFAG_153
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 19, 2010
KitMaker: 1,473 posts
AeroScale: 1,450 posts
Joined: February 19, 2010
KitMaker: 1,473 posts
AeroScale: 1,450 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 18, 2011 - 08:06 PM UTC
Hello Stephen
Great finish to a very interesting project. I do like these odd trench strafers.
Best Regards
Mikael
Great finish to a very interesting project. I do like these odd trench strafers.
Best Regards
Mikael