discussion REVELL'S MISTEL V Ta 154 & Fw 190

[peterairfix]

View attachment 84158

View attachment 84159

View attachment 84160

View attachment 84161

View attachment 84162

View attachment 84163

View attachment 84164

Here we go as voted for (sort of) it's 225 pieces and 14 spures of plastic heaven,the Fw 190 is well detailed but has some flash on it.
The mistel is a lot better with plenty of detail as well so i hope i can make a good job.And as a bonus there were two sets of decels.

Peter t

View attachment 197181

View attachment 197182

View attachment 197183

View attachment 197184

View attachment 197185

View attachment 197186

View attachment 197187

 

[stona]

Great stuff Peter. Composite aircraft are some of the weirdest things ever contemplated, right from the earliest mail planes right up to these German weapons. I'm looking forward to seeing this one.

It's going to be a fair size in 1/48.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Dave W]

I saw this one in 'The Range' in Southend Yesterday for the same price.I will see how yours goes together then might get one myself.

 

[Guest]

Interesting subject Peter. Will be a nice build!

Good luck

 

[monica]

nice Peter, will be watching this one, as I did vote for it,looking forward to seeing how it all works out for you,

good luck,

 

[flyjoe180]

Watching with interest. Did the bomb aircraft fly with it's gear down all the time? That would slow things down somewhat, not to mention if the bomb aircraft had an engine failure. Guess the fighter could ditch it any time.

 

[stona]

Watching with interest. Did the bomb aircraft fly with it's gear down all the time?

No. The front undercarriage assembly was to be jettisoned by explosive bolts after take off. If this system didn't work then 'a makeshift skid that can be jettisoned after take off will be needed or take off will have to be accomplished by means of a take off trolley' according to a report written by a Herr Schopfel of the Focke-Wulf Entwurfsburo, following a visit to Junkers at Dessau to see how they were converting the Ju 88.

The oleo pressure in the main undercarriage was to be increased from 60 to 97 atmospheres to cope with the weight of the second aircraft.

The Ta 154/Fw 190 Mistel was really a last ditch effort by Focke-Wulf to save the aircraft from the RLM's axe. Focke-Wulf drawings for the combination are dated July 1944. It is not known for sure whether any were actually completed though some sources suggest that six were built. These may have been test flown at Eschwege, but no further details are known.

Cheers

Steve

 

[flyjoe180]

Thanks for that Steve. So the main gear was fixed then?

 

[Guest]

Very interesting subject, I will be watching this one. Apparently the Fw 190 is actually an old mould, and it is quite detailed! Nice one

John

 

[stona]

Thanks for that Steve. So the main gear was fixed then?

No, that retracted normally. Not much is known about the Ta 154 as a Mistel component but it would have used the same control system as that developed at Junkers by Heinrich Hertel and Fritz Haber. There were no direct connections between the control surfaces of the two aircraft but a system of servo-actuators was used. Haber wrote.

"Control of the Mistel during cruising flight used open loop control principles governed by the Mistel's speed. The control rods of the upper aircraft were linked to potentiometers, the movement of which regulated, after attenuation and amplification, the power supply to the electrically driven servo-actuators fitted to the carrier aircraft's flaps, ailerons,elevators and rudder."

The undercarriage control did have a direct link, and I think the throttles did too. There was no concern about excessive control forces in cases of this sort of control. Some of the carrier's engine gauges were also reproduced in the upper aircraft. A photo of the cockpit of the upper Fw 190 component of a Mistel S2 shows the fuel pressure, engine tachometer, manifold pressure and oil pressure gauges, as well as various selector switches, throttles etc for the lower Ju 88.

The system worked very well. Haber continued.

"Pilots were unanimous in their opinion: flying the composite did not present any problems. Later, it transpired that there was hardly any need for conversion training. Tests successfully demonstrated that the servo system gave pilot the impression that his control column and rudder pedals were mechanically linked to the aircraft below him, though this was not the case."



This technology is relevant today where the control forces required of many large aircraft far exceed the strength of the pilot.

Cheers

Steve

 

[flyjoe180]

Very interesting stuff Steve, thanks. Servos were nothing new but the connection between the two aircraft is very clever. My question regarding the landing gear on the bomb aircraft related to the possibility of failure of one of the two engines which would be detrimental to the overall performance of both the bomb and carrier aircraft especially with the landing gear down. You answered my question nicely, cheers. Sorry Peter for detracting from your build, look forward to seeing it.

 

[tr1ckey66]

Hi Peter

Very interesting aircraft. I'll be keeping up with this.

Cheers

P

 

[stona]

Very interesting stuff Steve, thanks. Servos were nothing new but the connection between the two aircraft is very clever. My question regarding the landing gear on the bomb aircraft related to the possibility of failure of one of the two engines which would be detrimental to the overall performance of both the bomb and carrier aircraft especially with the landing gear down. You answered my question nicely, cheers. Sorry Peter for detracting from your build, look forward to seeing it.

Servos were not brand new technology but they were hardly used in the control circuits of WW2 aeroplanes (unless the Americans used them in some of their later bombers). Most had direct, geared, cable connections to the control surfaces and a few used hydraulically boosted systems or servo tabs which are a bit of a misnomer in this context.

The actuators used in the Mistel's were the only ones to go into relatively large scale production, at least in Germany.

Apologies from me too! I'm looking forward to the model and how the real thing worked might not be entirely relevant

To cheer us up here's an image from Robert Forsyth's Mistel book, based on the original Focke-Wulf drawings for this particular combination.



It might help getting the geometry of the model right!

Cheers

Steve

 

[peterairfix]

I have made a small start it just the. 190 cockpit as from the pics all parts washed,primed painted and all completed.

Peter t

View attachment 84228

View attachment 84229

View attachment 197251

View attachment 197252

 

[ojays]

No. The front undercarriage assembly was to be jettisoned by explosive bolts after take off. If this system didn't work then 'a makeshift skid that can be jettisoned after take off will be needed or take off will have to be accomplished by means of a take off trolley' according to a report written by a Herr Schopfel of the Focke-Wulf Entwurfsburo, following a visit to Junkers at Dessau to see how they were converting the Ju 88.The oleo pressure in the main undercarriage was to be increased from 60 to 97 atmospheres to cope with the weight of the second aircraft.

The Ta 154/Fw 190 Mistel was really a last ditch effort by Focke-Wulf to save the aircraft from the RLM's axe. Focke-Wulf drawings for the combination are dated July 1944. It is not known for sure whether any were actually completed though some sources suggest that six were built. These may have been test flown at Eschwege, but no further details are known.

Cheers

Steve

Thought these may be of interest.

View attachment 84230


View attachment 84231


Gregg

View attachment 197253

View attachment 197254

 

[stona]

Those combinations of a Ju 88 with a Fw 190 A (top) or Bf 109 F (bottom) were the ones that were produced, and used, in some numbers.

Here's a line up of 6./KG 200 Mistels at Burg.



They packed a punch but were terribly vulnerable if intercepted on their outbound flight as these P-51 gun camera pictures show.





Cheers

Steve

 

[Wendall]

Nice work so far Peter. It is the oddest looking winged thing I've ever seen and that's for sure

Jason

 

[ojays]

Also have these.

View attachment 84232

View attachment 84233

View attachment 84234


Gregg

View attachment 197255

View attachment 197256

View attachment 197257

 

[stona]

Nice shots of the Mistel at Farnborough Gregg. For fairly obvious reasons the Ju 88 does not have a warhead fitted. Junkers developed a system whereby the Ju 88 cockpit could be exchanged for a warhead, or replaced for delivery and training flights, relatively quickly. It was supposed to take one day and required a team of six mechanics, two armourers and a crane capable of lifting four tonnes, according to Junkers anyway.

For the scratch builders and 'what iffers' there were several other combinations proposed. Upper component first.

Fw 190 A and Fi 103 (V1)

Arado 234 C and Arado E 377 (the latter a purpose built unpowered aircraft)

He 162 and Arado E 377 (this time a powered version)

Me 262 A-2a/U2 and Me 262 (the lower Me262 without cockpit but powered)

Fw 190 A-8 and He 177 (expected to have a range of 3,300 Km)

There was at least one other proposal which did not involve the lower component becoming, effectively, a guided missile. This was the 'Fuhrungsmachine' and ultra long range path finder to be composed of a Fw 190 A-8 and Ju 88 H-4. the Fw 190 would act as the Ju 88s escort once the two had separated.

Other combinations had been tried and found wanting. Of the many my personal favourite, simply because it looked good, was the Me 328 (with an Argus pulse jet bolted to the fuselage side) and Do 217 K.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Guest]

Nice start Peter.

This model is really interesting, with many possibilities as well.