discussion Revell 1/48 Mistel

[Guest]

Has anyone ever built this? Just found one in my stash that I had forgotten all about. I know it has a checkered history. I believe that the 190 is an old Tristar kit that wasn't, apparently, too bad in its day.


The Ta154 can be built as an original standalone aircraft as all the cockpit parts are included. To make it as a flying bomb, you have to cut the fuselage to fit the bomb nose.


It was, with PE, released by Dragon at one point in its history according to Scalemates. Not been able to find a proper review though.


View attachment 249603

 

[papa 695]

I've never built it Graham but nearly bought it once.


But I'm sure someone has built it on here not sure if it was Peter or not.

 

[Guest]

I've never built it Graham but nearly bought it once.
But I'm sure someone has built it on here not sure if it was Peter or not.

Cheers Ian. I got this dirt cheap when The Works were selling off Modelzone stock. Got this and a 1/48 P-47 Thunderbolt. Don't know why, but they were cheap

 

[peterairfix]

Has anyone ever built this? Just found one in my stash that I had forgotten all about. I know it has a checkered history. I believe that the 190 is an old Tristar kit that wasn't, apparently, too bad in its day.
The Ta154 can be built as an original standalone aircraft as all the cockpit parts are included. To make it as a flying bomb, you have to cut the fuselage to fit the bomb nose.


It was, with PE, released by Dragon at one point in its history according to Scalemates. Not been able to find a proper review though.


View attachment 149949

I have built this one and you do have to cut the fuselage to put the nose on and it needs alot of weight in the nose.


As for the fw


not a bad kit but does need a bit bashing hear and there.


And the mistel goes together quite well.

 

[peterairfix]

PS it's on page 16 of aircraft under construction

 

[Robert1968]

I always wanted one of these Graham and when Modelzone was alive and kicking there as one ( I think it was about £40/ £50 and the wife promised it me for xmas but Santa never came that year.


I'll have to trawl the tinternet to find one.


Your a lucky guy


Regards


Robert

 

[Gern]

I always wanted one of these Graham and when Modelzone was alive and kicking there as one ( I think it was about £40/ £50 and the wife promised it me for xmas but Santa never came that year.
I'll have to trawl the tinternet to find one.


Your a lucky guy


Regards


Robert

There's LOADS of 'em on ebay at the moment Rob. Between £25 - £30 so quite good - I got one some weeks ago. On first look there's lots of cutting and drilling to do for the framework that connects the two aircraft so mine's pretty near the bottom of my 'to do' pile!

 

[Guest]

Mmmmmm, we could have a Mistel 'Buddy Build' Dave

 

[Robert1968]

There's LOADS of 'em on ebay at the moment Rob. Between £25 - £30 so quite good - I got one some weeks ago. On first look there's lots of cutting and drilling to do for the framework that connects the two aircraft so mine's pretty near the bottom of my 'to do' pile!

Cheers Dave I'll take a look

 

[Guest]

Cheers Dave I'll take a look

Amazon.co.uk have some for £21.45 + £2.95 P+P. The also have the 1/72 JU88 version for £19.99

 

[Gern]

Mmmmmm, we could have a Mistel 'Buddy Build' Dave

My 'to do' pile is huge, so it will be a while until I even think of building this one Graham. I'd also like to see a build review before I start to see if there are any issues. So shall we say a 'buddy build' is unlikely unless something changes? Unless you can wait a year or two, or three, or ....

 

[Guest]

My 'to do' pile is huge, so it will be a while until I even think of building this one Graham. I'd also like to see a build review before I start to see if there are any issues. So shall we say a 'buddy build' is unlikely unless something changes? Unless you can wait a year or two, or three, or ....

Anything interesting near the top of the pile Dave?


The build that Peter started, see post #5 above, shows that there is some issues. This is hardly surprising for an ageing Monogram kit but, by all accounts, for a simple build, the FW is supposed to be quite good in shape etc. Main thing is wing fit but it won't be the only kit that needs work on the wings......


I am almost tempted to build the TA as a whole aircraft, all the bits are there I believe just a bit sparse on the instructions.

 

[Gern]

Still finishing my Bandai X-Wing - decals are not my favourite activity and there are dozens of them! I've also got a couple of aircraft builds on the go. Nothing good enough to show here as yet though. If I do end up with summat worth showing, I'll post pics.


I'll be doing a Tamiya 1/48 aircraft build soon - I've got a few to choose from and a holiday coming up at the end of the month. That's not my usual scale, but it would be interesting for me to find out if I can build a 'shake and bake' kit without creating problems for myself - which I usually manage to do with aircraft builds!

 

[colin m]

Ok you Mistel potential builders. Why was the duo ever conceived, what was its purpose ?


I can only imagine a long range type of thing, but I'm still not sure it makes sense....

 

[Guest]

Ok you Mistel potential builders. Why was the duo ever conceived, what was its purpose ?
I can only imagine a long range type of thing, but I'm still not sure it makes sense....

The one shown above, in one article I read, was intended to be flown towards a formation of bombers. At the right point, the FW190 pilot would release the 'flying bomb' to get into the formation where he would detonate it by remote control. It was estimated that any B17 within a few hundred yards would be damaged to the point of being forced out of the air.


Imagine what a dozen or so of these could have done to allied bomber formations had they worked. As far as I know, it never happened, another case of too late an idea. Although the idea was not new.


Not all combinations were intended as flying bombs though. Some, as you suggest, were intended to extend the flying range. I am sure Steve will be along at some point with a more detailed history but if you check out the build thread mentioned in post #5 above, there is quite a bit of discussion in there.

 

[stona]

A short history of composite aircraft potted, without writing a book, I can't possibly include everything!


The origins of the concept lie in the need to increase range. The very earliest were airships carrying a 'heavier than air' aircraft. The British tried this with a Sea Scout airship and BE.2c Fighter.


Soon combinations of two aircraft were being tried. By 1937 the British were testing the Short-Mayo composite, named after Robert Mayo then of British Imperial Airways,comprised of a lower S.21 flying boat (Maia) and an upper Short S.20 float plane (Mercury). Mayo's combination was a solution to the problem of carrying mail quickly between Britain and North America.The concept was not pursued by the British though it did appear again early in the war before being finally abandoned by Portal in May 1942.


It was the Germans who developed the 'Mistel method of towing' initially with a glider attached to and below a powered aircraft. Early examples were composed of a Kl 35 aircraft above a DFS 23 glider, later a Bf 109 E was fitted above the same type of glider.


Once war was declared the eventual method by which the Mistel concept would be employed was a combination of the composite aircraft concept and the ideas of a certain Siegfried Holzbauer about delivering large bombs (literally Grossebombe) on British ships. He imagined a jet powered combination with the smaller aircraft embedded into the lower bomb, but the concepts are not dissimilar.


This led to work on the first offensive Mistel combination, the project was code named 'Beethoven', which would comprise a Bf 109 F and Ju 88 A-4. The Germans developed sophisticated control circuits and fitted auto-pilots as well as developing huge and powerful war heads. These were not simply a large bomb.The Mistel warhead, Schwere Holladung (SHL) 3500 contained 1,700 Kg of explosive in a hollow charge and was a sophisticated design for sinking ships or blow open reinforced concrete walls as found on command bunkers and heavy gun emplacements as well as to destroy factories and other industrial targets. The assembled Mistel was actually called a Beethoven-Gerat (Beethoven device).


The initial attack using the new system was to have been made on Scapa Flow.


I can't go into the various testing and operations of this weapon, suffice to say it didn't work as well as expected.


There were several types of 'Mistel' actually built and flown operationally. The Mistel 1 was the most numerous.


Mistel 1 was a Bf 109 F and Ju 88 A combination.


Mistel S1 was a Bf 109 G and Ju 88 C combination


Mistel S2 was a Fw 190 A and Ju 88 G combination.


Specifically the Fw 190/Ta 154 combination as can be built from this kit.


It was the RLM that asked Focke-Wulf to look into this in July 1944 following the appearance of the first Junkers built Mistel 1s. The Ta 154 had not met expectations and was on the verge of cancellation, so Focke-Wulf jumped at the chance to save the contract, albeit in somewhat modified form. Focke-Wulf drawings for a warhead carrying Mistel combination date from mid July 1944. It is unlikely that any of these were completed, so building the version with a warhead may be verging on a what if.


There are however other drawings of a Fw 190/Ta 154 Mistel described as a 'Sprengstofftrager' or explosives carrier. This is the version intended for use against bomber formations and comprised a Fw 190 and Ta 154, the latter without the warhead but simply packed with explosives. The explosives would be detonated by the pilot of the separated Fw 190 controlling aircraft at what he deemed the appropriate time. Some sources suggest that six of this version were completed and test flown at Eschwege. Whether any were used operationally is not known.


There were all sorts of weird and wonderful Mistels proposed, from a double Me 262 to a Bf 109/Fi 103 (V1) and many more, but they were never built.


Cheers


Steve

 

[Guest]

See, told you he would


Many thanks Steve.

 

[Guest]

I have the same kit in my stash which was being sold off in 'cheap' book store . It was bought because I have built the TA154 and thoroughly enjoyed the build. Kit went together very well as I recall but the wings sagged very badly. I used section of 10swg piano wire to act a straightener/stiffener.

 

[stona]

No worries, since you mentioned range, which was the original impetus behind the early British and German efforts, I should add that some of the late war German designs were also about increased range. One example for an ultra long range pathfinder (fuhrungsmaschine) would have comprised a Fw 190 A-8 and Ju 88 H-4 (a stretched Ju 88 G-1 carrying much more fuel, designed as a long range zerstorer). The composite would have carried well over 10,000 litres of fuel, though its not clear where the Germans would have found this at a time when most of the Luftwaffe was effectively grounded by a lack of fuel. It was yet another project that never got off paper.


Cheers


Steve

 

[Gern]

Anything interesting near the top of the pile Dave?
The build that Peter started, see post #5 above, shows that there is some issues. This is hardly surprising for an ageing Monogram kit but, by all accounts, for a simple build, the FW is supposed to be quite good in shape etc. Main thing is wing fit but it won't be the only kit that needs work on the wings......


I am almost tempted to build the TA as a whole aircraft, all the bits are there I believe just a bit sparse on the instructions.

If you do want to build the Ta I have the stand-alone kit and could send a copy of the instructions. PM your address if you're interested.