This is the best I could do, allowing for much of the variables...:



Another issue mishandled by a wide variety of 1/48th makers is very plain to see here, often spurred on by this peculiarity: The subject's wings here are exceptionally thick at the root. However, in real life, the wings very visiby taper, like all wings, to quite a sharp leading edge towards the wing's tip (this made very plain by the outlines of the wingtip lights): This overall wing thickness taper requires here some quite accentuated dihedral just to keep the top wing surfaces close to flat...

Given the way the fuselage looks, I probably don't have to tell you Special Hobby's wings retain about twice the needed thickness towards the wingtips, after carving the maximum amount possible out of them without affecting the overhead plan view outine... The SH Barracuda's wingtips in fact start out at around THREE times the needed thickness in the box... The tailplanes were a little less terrible to thin, but roughly the same.

Another 1/48th model that has a very similar wing leading edge problems is the Pro-Modeller-Revell Dornier Do-217, where the effect is actually worse than on SH's Barracuda because the wings are ballooned throughout. The wingtip thickness difference here is more like four-five times if not more: Actually beyond belief when you compare it...

A much less obvious model with wing thickness troubles is the Revell 1/48th He-111, who has wings about half the depth of the fuselage when it in reality about a third or so...:



The kit wingroot profile is in yellow, the actual aircraft in red:



Note in the first photo the airfoil shape chosen by Revell/Monogram: It is an inverted airfoil shape and would likely not allow the aircraft to fly... Similarly, the SH's Barracuda and Eduard P-39 leading edges are so thick, compared to the aircraft, they don't look functional at all...

The Eduard 1/48th P-39 is well-known for this problem, though the Hasegawa P-39 in the same scale is very unusual in having far too thin wingtips (too little thickness is actually much harder to improve on than too much!)...

A minor-looking peeve of mine, in comparison, is that no 1/48th Spitfire replicates yet the wing leading edge "washout" the aircraft is famous for having... This would not be that noticeable if the schemes did not have a nice thin yellow leading edge, often with red square tapes on it, to loudly underline the issue with a giant felt pen...

Only two kits in 1/48th scale have ever depicted this "wingtip washout" feature, both recent Tamiyas: The P-47 and the new A6M Zero. (It is in fact not so much of a "washout", but instead is made by having the leading edge's most forward point -its "cutting edge"- lined up in a descending fashion towards the wingtips to have less dihedral than the main portion of the wing itself at its thickest point).

Well-known WWII fighters WITHOUT washout: Ki-43 Oscar, Me-109s, P-51s, P-39s, P-38s.

WITH washout, and sorely missing from all 1/48th kits, including the excellent ground-breaking 2008 Hasegawa kit: FW-190A (and D-9s, Ta-152 etc).

The FW-190 is particularly difficult to fix because lots of the rivet and panel line detail sits exactly in the worst spot, right at the outer wing's upper leading edge...

None of this will show in most drawings, which is exactly why they should never be relied on...

I'm now pretty sure Special Hobby thinks fancy drawings are the Alpha and Omega of serious kit research... Hopefully I have learned my lesson for good now...

Gaston

What is this wingtip washout you constantly talk about?

If by drawings you are referring to third party ones, then you are partially correct. If you are talking factory drawaings then I disagree with you as they were what the original subjects were built to.

I explain the "washout" in my post: Basically the leading edge has a different, flatter, dihedral than the thickest part of the wing itself.

This is intended to make the wingroots stall first and the wing tips last, to give the pilot adequate stall warning "rumble", while still having some stability and roll control by maintaining airflow over the ailerons, instead of dropping one wing. It does not increase absolute turn performance, but makes it more easily useable by making the turn's stall limit more perceptible.

The effect was really major on the FW-190A, which could use its strong ailerons to hold the stall and thus preferred to turn fight horizontally at low speeds (below 210-220 mph) where it out-performed any other european day fighters in prolonged sustained turns (including the Spitfire) but not in higher Gs in unsustained turns... Except for zooming once at high speeds, experienced FW-190A pilots never fought in the vertical plane, where the Me-109 was better and thus complementary, as was the Spitfire, which also avoided prolonged horizontal turns in combat (but like the Me-109 could make short sharp turns).

As for factory drawings, they come in two types: Components drawings with dimensions: Canopy alone for instance: They are indeed accurate...

Then there are the overall aircraft appearance drawings, showing all the components together and thus the whole aircraft, with or without dimensions: These are called factory "General Arrangement" drawings (GA drawings)and though they may be accurate in more recent computer-designed aircrafts (where components can be joined to make a whole), in WWII these were typically NOT accurate, and should NEVER be considered as such.

There are no accurate overall drawings of WWII aircrafts unless done by outside third parties, such as the model companies themselves, as Eduard did for the I-16, and Monogram for the B-26, despite having the advantage of having dug out original factory data from the factory's basement...

The Monogram B-26 has a few remaining errors in the fin (about 2 mm too long rudder chord and similar too short height overall) and the fuselage base of the nose cone is also about 2 mm too forward. The large fin/rudder errors are probably due to trusting the factory GA drawings...

Speaking of wing leading edges, the Monogram B-26, aside its well-known difficulties of fit, has a huge problem with its leading edges, despite the excellence of most of its shapes(cowlings/rudder excepted):

If you look at the left wing leading edge and the right wing eading edge, you will see the right wing's inboard and outboard leading edges are perfectly aligned, WHILE THE LEFT WING IS MOULDED COMPLETELTY DIFFERENTLY:

Inboard the left leading edge goes UP going outboard, then outboard the left leading edge goes DOWN going outboard. I can post pictures of this later for those who want to see it.

This error is really major, very accentuated, and cannot be corrected without making virtually an entirely new left wing...

Bending the outer wing up, to merely mitigate it, will immediately result in a concave upper surface to the left wing... basically the model needs a new left wing that matches the right wing it already has...

Even on an incredible fully rivetted metal finish build of a few years ago, the effect of the B-26's kinked leading edge is very visible, but can ignored unless you know about it...

Gaston

I found in my camera a good photo of the B-26 wing leading edge issue described above: It completely ruins, in my opinion, what was otherwise a very decent and correctable kit, considering its age:



The cowling is from Lone Star, good, but not easy to clean up or align. It woud be interesting to know if the Lone Star early B-26 short wing conversion alleviates the leading edge issue. For my part, there are symmetrical kits out there, and I don't see the point of building those that aren't unless you have to have the subject...

Carving out the problem here is a huge effort that will require scratchbuilding a new leading edge light and all the nacelle join detail, plus all of the underwing detail and re-creating the entire leading edge shape out of nothing...

Gaston

Twaddle; the angle of attacklessens, as the leading edge moves out. Basically the wing has a built-in twist; it has nothing to do with the dihedral


More twaddle; the 190 pilots preferred to use superior height (which they usually had) to make a slashing attack, dive through, and keep going. In a turning fight, Spitfire pilots found that they could turn inside the 190; it was in the rolling plane that they couldn't cope.

For the first point, I -never- said it had anything to do with the main wing dihedral, but it does mean if you draw a line along the peak of the leading edge of the wing, that line WILL have a flatter dihedral angle...

As for the relative performance and use of the FW-190A and the Spitfire, your total ignorance on this point is not your fault, as that misconception is in line the current (abyssmal) state of the knowledge, with the notable exception of the more experienced combat pilots of the era whose practical opinion obviously don't count as much as engineering theory in our great "scientific" age...

Johnny Johnson obviously didn't think the Spitfire Mk V out-turned the FW-190A...:



Quote: "I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind me like a leech-It could only be a question of time..."

"Vertical Turn" here is vintage slang for "Vertical Bank Turn": If you want to blind yourself otherwise please do so...

And, unfortunately for what one might assume of his closing comments about the Mk IX, sustained turns was one of the few areas the Mk IX offered no help in turns over the Mk V...: This is an RAE evaluation of the Mk IX vs the Mk V:

"At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. This manoeuvre was assisted by the negative 'G' carburettor, as it was possible to change rapidly from climb to dive without the engine cutting. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft in manoeurvrability, but the superiority in speed and climb of the Spitfire IX becomes outstanding."

Hundreds of combat accounts of the Spitfire Mk IX show an aircraft exclusively used in vertical combat to a remarkable extent (especially compared to the obsessive and successful horizontal turner that was... The P-47D!), and, unlike the P-47D, the Spitfire strenuously avoided any prolonged turn contests (but might have had a very tight initial radius)...

For good reasons, the P-47D was a feared turn fighter, as the Germans found out in their tests: Quote: "The P-47D (needle prop) out-turns our Bf-109G" Source: "On Special Missions: KG 200"


A few non-theoretical quotes from the now far away real world...:

A quote from Hurricane pilot John Weir (click on John Weir link): http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/s..._101/SF_101_03

"A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."

"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."

Quote from an Oseau demise witness (Jagdwaffe, "Defence of the Reich 1944-45" Eric Forsyth, p.202): "Many times I told Oseau the FW-190A was better than the Bf-109G........ Each turn became tighter and his Bf-109 (Me-109G-6AS) lost speed, more so than his (P-51D) adversaries."

Osprey "Duel" #39 "La-5/7 vs FW-190", Eastern Front 1942-45:

P.69 "Enemy (FW-190A/F) pilots never fight on the vertical plane.---The Messerschmitt posessed a greater speed and better maneuverability in a vertical fight"

P.65 Vladimir Orekov: "An experienced Fw-190A pilot practically never fights in the vertical plane"

Weirner Steiz: "The 190 was a much better aircraft than the 109: You could curve it"

Reichlin assessment team report of Dec 10, 1941 (FW-190A-1 vs Me-109F): "In terms of maneuverability, it (FW-190A) completely outclassed the Me-109. The Focke-Wulf could out-turn and out-roll the Messerschmitt at any speed."

Russian 1943 book:

"Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:

FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.

FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..."

S/L J. B. Prendergast of 414 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 2 May 1945 (Mk XIV vs FW-190A):

I observed two aircraft which presumably had just taken off the Wismar Airfield as they were at 800/1000 feet flying in a northerly direction and gaining height.-------The other E/A had crossed beneath me and was being attacked by my No. 2, F/O Fuller. I saw my No. 2’s burst hitting the water--------The E/A being attacked by my No. 2 did a steep orbit and my No. 2 being UNABLE TO OVERTAKE IT broke away."

Gray Stenborg, 23 September 1944 (Spitfire Mk XII): "On looking behind I saw a FW-190 coming up unto me. I went into a terribly steep turn to the left, but the FW-190 seemed quite able to stay behind me. He was firing at 150 yards-I thought "this was it"-when all of a sudden I saw an explosion near the cockpit of the FW-190, upon which it turned on its back."

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

"They also noted the obvious Focke-Wulf advantages: excellent all-round view without object distortion, good HORIZONTAL handling in all speed ranges,"

A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943.


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...bat-fw190.html

Quote: -"The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

My favourite quote of all:

-"the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

Love that "inevitably"

-"Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft)."

The above means it is not great for boom and zooming (shudder)...

-"Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good VERTICAL maneuver, and CONSEQUENTLY, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack"

-"In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver."

-"FW-190 pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers."

I could go on, but is it not funny how they ALL say the exact same thing?

Gosh! The conventional wisdom could not actually be wrong now could it? After all, we are all much smarter today than they were back then: Scientific Proof: IQ tests averages have risen 3 points every decade since WWII...

So these first hand conclusions are all, you know... Delusional... And that they all agree exactly is just, you know... Coincidence... Real sad...

Gaston

Oh and, just in case you thought any of the above has anything to do with the FW-190D-9 masquerading as a FW-190A, here is something to chew on:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...t-field-fw190d-9.pdf

Memorandum report on FW-190, D-9, AAF number FE-121, 20 May 1946

TSFTE/MLS/rah/26217

Office: TSFTE

Serial number: TSFTE 1988

Subject: Pilot's comments on handling characteristics of FW-190, D9


Quote: "1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."

Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."

By someone who at least knew how to handle the "Anton" at least...

Gaston

Um, everybody take cover . . . . . . . .

[quote As for the relative performance and use of the FW-190A and the Spitfire, your total ignorance on this point is not your fault, as that misconception is in line the current (abyssmal) state of the knowledge, with the notable exception of the more experienced combat pilots of the era whose practical opinion obviously don't count as much as engineering theory in our great "scientific" age...

Johnny Johnson obviously didn't think the Spitfire Mk V out-turned the FW-190A...:
Quote: "I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind me like a leech-It could only be a question of time..."
[/quote]
My "total ignorance" (you really do seem to be incapable of conducting a discussion without resorting to personal insults) comes from reading more than one book, reading the whole thing, and not just picking out the juicy bits that prove my theories. I note that you harp on about the Spitfire V (known to be outclassed by the 190,) but ignore the behaviour of the IX, so I'll quote from JEJ's biography, "E/A broke to starboard and climbed steeply and I had no difficulty in getting on his tail. Then followed a series of aileron turns, half-rolls, dives and zooms, but my aircraft was superior in every respect and I continued to get in the occasional burst. I saw several strikes in the cockpit and E/A went straight in from 4,000 feet."
A further quote,from when Johnson took over the Kenley wing"The IX was far more powerful, the Merlin 61 engine matched the airframe. The IX was a very good combination of airframe and engine. When we got the IX, we had the upper hand then, which did for the 190s! We could turn inside him and hack him down, which we did."
FAA pilot "Mike" Crosley said that, in their Seafire III (equivalent to the Spitfire V, but heavier,) if they removed the outer .303" and carried fewer cannon rounds, they were perfectly capable of coping with the 190s.
I reduce my total ignorance by reading many books; I recommend that you do the same.
One other small point; the Spitfire's dihedral was measured along the line of the mainspar, using incidence boards, not the leading edges of the wings.
Edgar
P.S. I have now taken Jessie's advice, and made use of the "Hide User" button, so I won't have to read any follow-up insults; it's a course of action that I can thoroughly recommend.

Ahhh, your old chestnut that drawings are never accurate.Please give this one a rest, it's become very old hat.

I agree with Edgar, as I'll trust the word of a Spit pilot over what you have to say.

Then actualy READ those words:

"E/A broke to starboard and climbed steeply and I had no difficulty in getting on his tail. Then followed a SERIES of aileron turns, half-rolls, dives and zooms, but my aircraft was superior in every respect and I continued to get in the occasional burst. I saw several strikes in the cockpit and E/A went straight in from 4,000 feet."
A further quote,from when Johnson took over the Kenley wing "The IX was far more powerful, the Merlin 61 engine matched the airframe. The IX was a very good combination of airframe and engine. When we got the IX, we had the upper hand then, which did for the 190s! We could turn inside him and hack him down, which we did."

First of all, to counter this argument, I think I did post the conclusions of the RAE tests of the Mk V vs the Mk IX: "At 15,000 feet there was little to choose between the two aircraft although the superior speed and climb of the Spitfire IX enabled it to break off its attack by climbing away and then attacking in a dive. At 30,000 feet there is still little to choose between the two aircraft (Mk V and MK IX) in manoeurvrability"

And indeed, there is no difference in sustained or unsustained turn performance, except that higher speeds obviously allow more use of unsustained turn high G turn performance...


Edgar's Johnny Johnson quotes illustrate the point perfectly: In SUSTAINED turns the Spitfires of EITHER Marks are inferior, and nowhere in Johnny Johnson's account of Spitfire Mk IX "Superiority" are sustained turns in question...

The Mark IX -and this is blindingy obvious of any account-, enabled the Spitfire a superior climb and superior speeds which in turn allowed higher Gs, at which its high G maneuverability was far superior to the pathetic high speed maneuverability performance of the FW-190A... As described by the Russian front line observation: "Drops another 220 m after levelling out from a 40° dive from 1200 m..."

Sustained turning can become an academic advantage for the FW-190A if the Spitfire is enabled by its climb and speed performance to use dive and zoom maneuvers, with harsh high G turns the FW-190A has no hope of matching...

I know the concept of an aircraft good at low G sustained turns and not at all so good at high G unsustained turns is a hard one for anyone to wrap their heads around (our current knowledge of these types of aircrafts, and the way their actual wingload works, appears way too primitive to make that distinction), but I would hope one day the arguments used against my position show an even minimal understanding of what I say...

Gaston

Gaston let me make myself a bit clearer on this matter.

I don't care for all your what aircraft was better in combat stuff. It doesn't really contribute much to the discussion about kit versus real aircraft dimensions.

What I do take umbrage with is your constant and inane argument about drawings NEVER being able to be used to produce an accurate kit.

Most people can accept a kit that has some small flaws, say a dodgy propellor, misshapen wheels etc. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that this is a hobby and it is supposed to be fun and dare I say it, relaxing.

Please, please give everyone a break from your a kit must be 100% accurate to be worthwhile and therefore not "fatally flawed" argument.