An observation/question from Great Scale Modeling 2006

Ju-88s had an attachment on the tailwheel that allowed them to be towed. By hooking the towbar to the castering tailwheel, you could, in essence, put it anywhere.

I've got photos in my collection of JU-88s on the Eastern Front pushed into buildings with holes cut into the walls, so the ground crew could do engine maintenance under better operating conditions. That's basically the same situation you're outlining.

Jeff

OK, mea culpa.  After some digging, I did find that the Ju 88 (and probably most larger bombers) had attachment points on the tail wheel for hooking up a ground towing bar/tractor.  Makes sense, now that I think about it - there are certain places (hangars, revetments) where you couldn't really manuver the plane under its own power, and it's too big to be simply manhanlded like you might do with a smaller fighter.

That having been said, I'm afraid I still don't see the need for the Mistel to be so close to and pointing at the building like that.  Why would the pilot put the aircraft into a position from which ground towing is the only way to extract it, if it wasn't necessary - and can you imagine what other pilots would say to him if he did?  It's sitting on a concrete apron, so soft ground isn't an issue.  There would have been plenty of room for the pilot to bring the craft close the edge of the concrete, then swing it around so that it could simply taxi forward again when the maintenence is done.  The figures and the tree indicate that the weather is warm and mild, and it's not inside a building anyway, so the need to place the aircraft in a covered space for the engine work doesn't seem to apply.  And moving a large aircraft across soft ground at an undeveloped field, putting it into a revetment for protection from attack, the need to do maintenence inside some sort of building, or if the aircraft cannot move under its own power are the only reasons I can really think of that would require a towing tractor.  Well, very late in the war jets were sometimes towed into takeoff position and again off the runway after landing, due to their high fuel consumption, limited engine life, and German shortages of petroleum, but that's a different issue altogether.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while there may be a technical means to extract the plane from its present position, I still don't see why it would be in that position in the first place.  As I mentioned originally, it seems that the placement of the aircraft was dictated by the artistic considerations of the scene, and that the realities of operating an aircraft were simply not considered.  Not a mistake as such, but a relatively minor omission.

Tom Goetz

Tom,

The plane could have been towed there too. Maybe because the surrounding buildings have the tools necessary to do the needed work on the plane. Maybe simply because it's more comfortable there.

My question from GSM 2006 is: what's the scale for the U.S.S. New Jersey?

Regards,

It's all relative Tom. I've seen planes on ramps at local airports parked in the strangest of places.

Back at Teterboro airport, I saw a corporate jet pushed nose-first off the edge of the ramp. I wondered why it was there, why no one was trying to extract, and why no one was paying attention to a 25 million airplane stuck in the mud.  It was pushed there because the owner didn't pay his ramp fees. It was obvious that the aircraft wasn't going to be moved until the fees were paid, because the nose wheel was up to its axle in the soft ground. Initially, I thought it had rolled off the end of the ramp, but I was told it was put there on purpose by the airport management.

There's all sorts of reasons to explain why it's that close...perhaps he didn't want a huge diorama base. Maybe the "mechanics" didn't want to walk that far to the storage shed. Maybe the ramp is jam-packed with aircraft and there's no other room. Maybe it's a very small airbase. Maybe that's where the aircrew has their Saturday night parties. Maybe it's because aircraft were kept very close to the treelines (where a building might be located) to keep them hidden from Allied jabos.

The problem with many dioramas is that they're a collection of figures, vehicles, etc. that for whatever reason, don't convey a story. Good dioramas tell the viewer a story and it's instantly understandable. It's like one person having his head turned when the team photo is snapped. No one remembers why his head was turned, but it's obvious there was a reason.

Dioramas are problematic, because a good dio has to strike a balance of commonality. The figures and environment have to contribute to the story in some aspect, yet have to be distinct enough to tell several small stories on their own. A diorama is a single snapshot of a moment in time. A perfect example is to take a series of photos of an event, or even a video, then select one frame from that series. That single frame is your diorama. The frames leading up to, and after, your selected frame can easily tell the whole story, but viewed individually they might not make any sense. Nailing it in one frame is an accomplishment.

Personally, I never really considered the angle of the aircraft to be an issue. There's more than enough reasons for that aircraft to be where it is, but we can't see the "frames" leading up to where it is at that particular moment in time. Unless this is based on a film or a photo, those missing frames are in the modeler's imagination.

Jeff

Drew,

Gary's USS New Jersey is 1/192 scale. 16 feet = 1".

Regards,

Jeff

I don't have any real problem with the proximity of the plane to the edge of the concrete or the building, although I'd guess that it would be unusual to have so large a plane so near such potential obstacles.  As you say, there could be any number of reasons why you might want to bring it in closer.

But I'm still troubled by the facing of the plane.  If I had to guess, I'd say the Mistel ended up facing that direction simply because that was the most efficient way to keep what is a fairly large model on a relatively modest sized base without having it overhang too badly.  An altogether admirable decision from the perspective of creating the diorama itself.

But it still doesn't make much sense to me when I look at the scene as "real life" - that is, the reality that this diorama is depicting.  The plane could not have been towed into that position - tail draggers get towed backwards, so there's no way it could have been put into that location by that means.  And trying to push a tail dragger with a tow bar anchored to its tail wheel would be like trying to push a tricycle backwards by hanging onto the front wheel - you'd have no control over where the front of the plane went as the tail wheel pivoted.  Besides, why push a plane into a position that it could taxi into by itself?

So you have a situation where the plane could have easily put itself into that position, but would then be unable to extricate itself without the use of a tow.  Certainly not a problem if it was, as mentioned before, being put partially inside a building to give some cover to the "black gang" while they worked on it.  But on an otherwise clear and open airfield, in good weather?  Kind of like putting a small sail boat into a slip from which it could only emerge backwards - I'm sure you could do it, but why would you want to?

Tom Goetz

Jeff Herne wrote:

Drew, Gary's USS New Jersey is 1/192 scale. 16 feet = 1". Regards, Jeff

 

Thanks, Jeff.

Regards,

You guys are missing one very important point regarding the placement of aircraft. . .they can be pushed by human beings too.

Don

I agree that even fairly heavy vehicles mounted on tires can be pushed by pure muscle power - on flat pavement I can push my car (a large 4 door sedan) by myself with some effort, and several people can move it easily.  And it is likely that relatively small aircraft, such as many World War II fighters or modern civilian light aircraft, could be manhandled without too much problem, at least on a hard surface.

While weight alone is not the only, or even the most important criteria for such an aircraft to be pushed manually, it is worth noting that the Mistel combination would weigh at least 10 tons unloaded - a substantial weight by any means.  But more importantly - where would these pushers apply their efforts?  The wings are too high to reach, and the rear tail surfaces are all elevators and rudders - not the sort of thing I'd want people pushing hard on if I had to fly the plane ("Hey, I just heard something snap.  Do you think it's important?"  "Nah, just keep pushing!").  I suppose it might be possible to use a combination of pusing on the gear struts and the rear fuselage, where it is low enough to reach, but how you would steer such an effort I have no idea, since only the tail wheel actually rotates.  If you were pushing the plane backwards (steerable, at least) you could also add several people on the front of each tailplane, but to what point?  If you have to move it backwards, why not do it the easy way and use a tow tractor?  And it seems like it would be an enormous amount of work (if it could be done at all) to manully move something like the Mistel forward, especially when you could accomplish the same thing very easily by taxiing it.

My objection to the placement of the Mistel has never been the actual physical practicality of getting it into the position it is portrayed in - it is rather the motivation for doing so.  Military combat pilots are highly skilled and highly motivated people.  They operate in an environment where even a relatively modest mistake can be fatal, for themselves and others.  Under those circumstances, WHY would an experienced combat pilot (I rather doubt they assigned raw rookies to fly Mistels) deliberately park his plane in such a manner as to be unable to extricate it by his own efforts - especially in a situation where there was no obvious need to do so?  Rather like a championship NASCAR driver who couldn't parallel park his own car - embarassing at the very least, and it might call into question his judgement and other skills.  If I found out that a pilot, when bringing his plane over for maintanence, didn't have enough sense to swing it around so that it could taxi away when the work was done, I'd have to wonder about his judgement.  And I'd hardly be eager to fly with him.

As was mentioned before, a diorama tells a story.  And this part of this particular story just doesn't make much sense to me, I'm afraid.

Tom Goetz

The aircraft in question is on a hard surface.
The pilot didn't necessarily put it there.
Once the aircraft is on the ground and in the maintenance guys hands,the pilot doesn't have much say as to where the maintenance is done or how the aircraft is moved there or moved in general.
As the hood is up, so to speak on the FW, I would venture to guess the pilot is no longer needed at this time.
Tom,  you're reading too much into it!

Don

I never intended to make a big deal out of this, and I apologize if it seems like I am overreacting - I guess I'm just a compulsive question-asker.  As I stated in my earlier posts, I think the diorama  is beautifully done and a very compelling piece of work.  As I examined the scene, however, it just seemed to me that it had been composed primarily around an idea - "Mistel undergoing maintenance near the edge of an airfield."  Various elements were then added in to provide life and interest to the composition, and the whole was arranged to provide an artistic flow, as well as to conform to what is, relative to the size of the scene, a fairly small base, producing a wonderfully detailed and complex scene.

But it just seems to me that at least some of these elements, from the placement of the plane down to some of the small details, were added primarily as (very well done) artistic enhancements rather than as part of a coherent backstory.

Just a couple of examples.  Those oil drums on the field, next to the table on the starboard side of the Mistel - what are they doing there?  They're not too hard to move empty, but why would you put empty oil drums on the field, especially when you already have a table there?  Full, they are difficult and awkward to move by hand.  They, like the table, were obviously put there after the plane was in place, since I cannot imagine any circumstances where a large plane like that would be moved with obstacles like that in its way.  So what possible reason would compel hard working maintenance guys to bring two of these drums out onto the field and just dump them (one of them isn't even upright) near the table?  Seems like a lot of extra work for no apparent reason.  If you need something that is in the drums, wouldn't it be easier to walk the 20 feet to the edge of the field and get it, rather than go to all the work of hauling the drums out onto the field, and then having to remove them again when you are done, in order to clear the way for the plane to be moved?

The control cable / tail wheel panel on the tail of the Fw 190 is open - why open it if you aren't working on it?  To get close enough to open it, you would have had to move that large wheeled ladder platform several feet at least, probably around to the rear of the Fw 190's tail.  If you are not done working on it, why move the ladder so you couldn't reach it anymore?  On this one, however, I will concede a possible explanation - waiting for a part, perhaps?  Still, it does seem a bit odd to have the panel open with no apparent reason.

Another example.  The lamp over the door on the shed - why is it there?  The existence of such a lamp implies a source of electricity, which I don't see.  I hardly think you'd put an entire generator into the shed just to light one tiny lamp from time to time - and besides, you'd have to go into the shed and start the generator in order to get the lamp to turn on.  I suppose maybe large battery - vehicle type perhaps - but even then it seems like rather a waste of power.  If the shed is connected to an external power grid, where are the signs of that - insulators and exterior wiring?  I concede the difficulty of trying to add power wires stretching away from the shed, but there should at least be some sort of obvious connection point.  Why would you need a lamp on the outside of a tiny shed on the edge of an airfield, anyway?  This implies that people will be making frequent use of the shed after dark - couldn't you just use a flashlight instead?

The soldiers - where did they come from and what are they doing there?  I don't mean the maintenance crew, I mean the guys in SS-type camo combat uniforms and helmets.  There is even one guy, standing by the nose of the Mistel, wearing what appears to be a winter white camo combat uniform - in the middle of summer?  Why are some of the men wearing combat uniforms, rather than the more comfortable and casual work coveralls, as are most of the guys working on the plane?  And if they aren't Luftwaffe maintenance personnel, what are they doing on a Luftwaffe airbase, placing various things (why steel I-beam girders, for example?) into a tiny shed on the edge of an airfield?

That wheeled ladder platform is another question.  Specifically, why is it that height?  If it is a standard piece of maintenance equipment, it is too tall - it is above the top of one of the tallest airplanes in the Luftwaffe's inventory, the Ju 88, making it useless for things like working on the bomber's engines.  But if they put it together specifically to work on the Mistel, it is too short - it doesn't get you high enough to give you easy access to the Fw 190.  While I can imagine the mechanic who is lying on the port wing of the 190 getting there by climbing rather precariously (while holding his doubtless very heavy tool kit) onto the railing of the platform and then the wing, it seems like it would have been much easier and safer to build the plaform about 5 feet higher, so he could simply step from the platform onto the wing.  Given the difference in height, moving those heavy and awkward cowling machine guns from the wing down to that platform and then the ground would have been pretty hairy too, even with two guys.

And I suppose I should add, on a purely historical note, that the first examples of the Mistel S2 depicted in this diorama did not come out of the factory until November and December, 1944.  Training with these aircraft occured primarily between December 1944 and February 1945.  While some of the S2s did survive to be captured by the Allies later that spring, I rather doubt that you would find this sort of leisurely maintenance scene in, say, early May 1945 - which is the only possible time that this specific aircraft could have been in worked on by Luftwaffe personnel while there was green foliage on the trees.

As I mentioned before, a beautiful piece of work.  But one in which in many cases the artistic elements seem to have taken precedence over a coherent story line - detail for the sake of detail, rather than in support of specific events.  And in case anyone is interested, yes, I do this sort of intense analysis with my own work too.

Tom Goetz

I'll bet your a kick at a museum!


Don

Yes, I have to admit that I can be a bit of a pain about stuff like that, although more with movies than museums.  Most musuems do a pretty good job of getting the details correct - that's their whole reason for existing in the first place.  But don't get me started on movies!  I remember being so hopeful when they were working on the movie "Pearl Harbor".  And they did in fact do a pretty good job with a few parts of it, and it was fairly impressive visually.  But c'mon - the crew cabin of an He 111 exploding because a Spitfire put a few rounds into it?  Green A6M5 model Zeros attacking Pearl Harbor - just because the director didn't like the gray ones?  I could go on and on.

Incidentally, for one of the very best film sequences I've ever seen of German warplanes in combat, check out (believe it or not) the first few minutes of "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe".  A stunning, and as far as I could tell, very accurate depiction of He 111s attacking London during the Blitz.  It's pretty incidental to the main story line, which is why I was so pleasantly surprised at the obvious effort they put into it.

Tom Goetz

tomgoetz wrote:

Incidentally, for one of the very best film sequences I've ever seen of German warplanes in combat, check out (believe it or not) the first few minutes of "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe".  A stunning, and as far as I could tell, very accurate depiction of He 111s attacking London during the Blitz.  It's pretty incidental to the main story line, which is why I was so pleasantly surprised at the obvious effort they put into it. Tom Goetz

I agree! I'm sure it was CGI, but the planes looked great. They really lent the opening scene a lot of emotional weight. The fact that they got the details so right helped set the scene even for those who'd never even heard of an He 111.

Regards,

This is what we call a redirect...

Check out these animations...these are done by an "enthusiast" in Japan...not some fancy Hollywood CGI studio.

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/index.htm

Jeff