Rivet counters take cover! Among Trumpeter's latest releases is a quarterscale kit of the mid-engined Me 509 paper project.

Link to Item



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

Neat looking bird there Rowan! I sure would like to see one in 72 scale, so I could add one to my collection. Not sure where I would put it once built however? Russell

As a side note for Luft '46 fans, the fin tip position of the horizontal tail surfaces on the AMT Ta-183 "Hucklebein" jet is supposedly not technically sound, which is claimed to be why the Mig 15 had them relocated at the base of the fin... This is what Il-2 designer Oleg Maddox said about it anyway...

This 509 made a very good impression in the box on me, but as a presumably failed design I think there are many much more exciting "what-if" subjects to be found: The retractable gear rocket interceptor Me-263(?) comes prominently to mind, the "Check Models" kit being exceedingly poor and crude-looking... That was a major improvement over the Me-163, and was likely not destined to be a failed design in comparison.

Gaston

Gaston

You may want to check your references about the MiG15 and its relationship to the Ta-183 Huckebein.

There are quite a few more reliable sources than the designer of a computer game that will show you that both aircraft arrived at their designs independent of each other.

You might also want to have a good look at a MiG15 as well, the tailplane is mid tail not low tail.

Kurt Tank tried to "improve" on Hans Multhopp's design in Argentina as the Pulqui and got it massively wrong.

He was a designer in some bureau or another, and his implication was that the tail tip elevator design WAS tried on the Mig-15, and did not work at all, hence the relocation in a lower position: This might mean the kit as supplied cannot fly at all the way it is portrayed, which is an important point since it was never flight tested...

I said that just because it would seem not to be a bad idea to lower the elevator position to match other somewhat similar designs that have actually worked... Now if there are similar fin tips on similar-looking short fat single-engine jets, you would have a point...

Gaston

Gaston, wrong again.

Oleg Maddox worked for the Russian Air Force on simulators, he had nothing whatsoever to do with designing aircraft. I found that out from a very quick internet search. I know that I would rather trust the research of those who actually worked on real aircraft and not virtual ones.

Focke Wulf had the Ta183 looking at flying sometime in the summer of 1945 and while Kurt Tank disagreed with Hans Multhopp on the placement of the tailplane, he let Multhopp prove that it would be able to fly.

Multhopp went to the US after the war and worked at Martin on the XB-51 programme and that adopted the same tailplane configuration as the Ta183.

I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but how was it "proven" that the Ta-183 could fly the way it is portrayed, since nothing like it has ever flown?

The problem with a T-tail on a short fuselage apparently, beyond the stability issues that also came up, is that in a stall the tailplanes are "blanketed" by the wings, and thus no easy or quick stall recovery can be done... Tank's later Pulqui II handling and performance is not confidence-inspiring as to the soundness of a very high T-tail on a short fuselage...

It is true this may not apply to the Ta-183, which I just found out used the horizontal tail surfaces only as a trim surface, and the elevators were actually in the wings in the form of elevons, just like a tailess type like the Me-163... So essentially the Ta-183 is a tailless design, unlike the Pulqui II...

Apparently in the IL-2 game they did not know about this, or maybe they changed the tailplanes to work as elevators, as a concession to what was known to work(?)... (I've never played the game btw) Given that the horizontal tail surfaces do not work as elevators on the Ta-183, I'll concede to you that we just don't know if it would have worked or not, so I'll agree modifying the model's tail would no longer be something I would think of as important...

Interesting thread on the issue:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/ta183-vs-vampire-19263-2.html

You have to wonder why the Ta-183 design was changed so much with the Pulqui II, given that Kurt Tank had more knowledge by then...

Gaston

The reason Kurt Tank changed the design for the Pulqui was so he could avoid a huge spar engine mount carry through. By mounting the wing higher on the fuselage he avoided a massive single piece forging.

I guess we will never know how the Ta183 would've flown, but why would you feel the need to modify the position of the tailplane? That sounds like a waste of time to me.

That IL-2 game.... I swear to god.

Getting back on topic, I just finished building this Me 509 kit and it builds up very easy but one thing that did give me trouble was finding room enough room to add enough weight ahead of the C of G to prevent it from being a tail sitter.

Here is one pic of the finished model.

BTW, I used spare Bf 109 markings on my model. The kits decals are good, I just not like how they looked and decided not to use them.

Matrixone

Wow Les, she looks great! Where did you manage to stuff enough weight into the nose on the bird? Russell

Thanks Russell,
There were a few empty spaces near the nose where I was able to place lead weights but I had to be creative and carefully shape the lead to fit the area where it was to be placed so there was no wasted space.

Matrixone

Beautiful build Les, it's one cool lokking aircraft. Just wondering about the spinner, is there room in there for some ballast? A lot of folks forget about that hiding spot.

Cheers, D

Hi Les

Beautiful build as usual!

@ Damian - I've started tinkering with the kit and I've certainly been looking greedily at the space in the spinner to fit some weights. I'm planning on reducing the length of the undercarriage legs by about 6mm to give them a chance of actually fitting the wheel wells and "weighting" the tyres - which will risk making the kit even more of a tail-sitter.

All the best

Rowan

Well heaven help us when somebody comes out with a resin powerplant for it, all hope will be lost. Perhaps it will need to be supplied with an A-frame ladder which will conveniently attach to the fuselage and prop it up ??

Hmmmm. . . . slinks off to the drawing board . . . . thinking of pending P-61 builds . . . . . hmmmmm

Cheers, D

Hi Damian

I'm undoubtedly making a rod for my own back by messing with the undercarriage - especially as the one thing I really need is a simple OOB build to get me back into modelling after a lengthy enforced break! But sometimes it's impossible to resist meddling when something just doesn't make sense as moulded...

All the best

Rowan

Thanks Damian and Rowan!

Yes there is room inside the spinner to add a little lead weight but the problem with that idea is there is not that much strength in the way the spinner backplate attaches to the fuselage and I did not attempt it for fear of it coming apart after the model was finished.

I did consider shortening the landing gear legs on my model but knowing all the extra weight this model would have on it I decide to leave it as is, when I can afford to buy new kits again I want to build this kit again and will try to shorten the legs a bit on the next one.

Matrixone

Maybe it just needs a casually-attired female mechanic leaning up against the rear quarter, Les. It's what I'll do with mine, I think! Good call on shortening those legs. Your model is a benchmark I'll do my best to match- cheers!

chuk

Thanks chuk!

Any aircraft can be improved by having scantily clad female aircraft mechanics hanging about.

Matrixone