JU-87B to C

I have been wanting a 72nd C for years, my holy grail kit. Hasegawa did a 48th kit back in 2010 if you can find it.

It also had inflatable bags in each wing and the fuselage to help it keep afloat if ditched and other emergancy equipment. But with the wings un-folded, the only visible differance would be the hook. It was also intended to carry a torpedo as well as bombs.

The only thing stopping me converting a B is that i really want the wings folded.

Bish

I have been wanting a 72nd C for years, my holy grail kit. Hasegawa did a 48th kit back in 2010 if you can find it.

It also had inflatable bags in each wing and the fuselage to help it keep afloat if ditched and other emergancy equipment. But with the wings un-folded, the only visible differance would be the hook. It was also intended to carry a torpedo as well as bombs.

The only thing stopping me converting a B is that i really want the wings folded.

 

 

Me as well, but if im understanding you correctly i can take a B and put a tail hook on it and it would essentially be a C las long as I kept the wings unfolded?

Tankluver

I can’t find any JU-87C kits but from what I’ve gathered from my research the big difference between the two was that the C variant had folding wings, a tail hook and a rubber dinghy. Am I wrong in this or am I missing anything obvious? 

Correct. Though i imagine there might be a visible line where the wing folds. The fold is where the wing changes angle, right next to the raised piece which runs the width of the wing. Running a sharp blade down the outside edge of that should replicate it.

Also, keep in mind that the C's that were built were based on the B-1 with no siren and the early style exhaust. Of course, if you want to portray a what if, your could use any B.

Interesting that Junkers chose the pivot and fold design like Grumman used with their designs, compared to a simple upwards fold like most other designs, or the rear fold like the Fairey Swordfish.

stikpusher

Interesting that Junkers chose the pivot and food design like Grumman used with their designs, compared to a simple upwards fold like most other designs, or the rear fold like the Fairey Swordfish.

 

The 87 needed folding wings due to the size of the lifts, 13m x 14m and the Stuka had a 13.8m wingspan. Given the launch method the upward folding design might not have been possable in the hangers.

I understand completely about the elevator size constraints. Im just surprised at the design. The vast majority of carrier aircraft designs went with the upwards fold. The Fleet Air Arm clipped the wing tips on their F4Us, and went with a double fold on Seafires to deal with the overhead space clearance. 

The German carriers were to use launch trolleys to launch the aircraft via steam catapaults. A method i believe was considered for the Essex Class. The aircraft would have been lifted onto the trolleys in the hanger. This would have meant limited clearance. Given the Stuka's attack method, a second fold might have weakened the wing in a diving attack. And i imagine clipped wings would have reduced payload.

The pivot and fold does seem a complicated way of folding the wing, i don't know if the mechanisim was any more complicated than other designs.

But i think we have to also remember that the Germans were very new to this. Unlike other nations they did not have years of experiance with carriers and their aircraft.

I would eventually like to do a folded winged Stuka one day. I think itd be best to practice on cheaper B-1 1/72 kits and then master the cut and the method of creating the fold. From there maybe spend the money on a good kit to modify. Thanks for the clear up on it being a B-1 model!