[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by Merritec

I really wish a Corgi representative would be on this forum, or be available for questions. I would love to hear Corgi's side of why they made it the way they did. There must of been some reason for the things they do, even if it was based on an inacurate model kit. At least we would know why and then could buy or not buy based on these desisions. Somebody in the research dept has the reason for this, maybe they even have a photo that none of the other members can find. This could quickly put all fears to rest.

Why does Corgi refuse to interact with it's collectors?

How much would it cost to have some PR with your customers?

It is like they are trying to get people to stop buying their products.

I Just sent Corgi an email regarding concerns found on this forum. If they return my email, I will post comments here.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

I have found four different sources now that pretty much indicate it was an error on the part of Corgi to have bomb racks out board of the engines on this model. Ju-88 A-6/U was based on the Ju 88A-4 which did not have hard points to support a rack as Corgi model portrays. Variant that did support this was the Ju 88A-5 which was a stop gap interim when engine problems arose with the Ju 88A-4 line. Really hard to attach bomb rack when the wing structure is not designed to support it. That and the mission role the Ju-88A-6/U performed would not really indicate that heavy of a weapons load. Maritime mission usually range was at a premium and not ordinance carrying capacity.

Question - Why would the A5 be designed for this and not the A4? I'm assuming here from what you have said that a A5 is an A4 with different engines?

I just can't fathom why they would go to the bother of re-designing a wing structure to include these hard points just for an interim version that only replaces the A4 till they have the engines sorted.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by Merritec

I really wish a Corgi representative would be on this forum, or be available for questions. I would love to hear Corgi's side of why they made it the way they did. There must of been some reason for the things they do, even if it was based on an inacurate model kit. At least we would know why and then could buy or not buy based on these desisions. Somebody in the research dept has the reason for this, maybe they even have a photo that none of the other members can find. This could quickly put all fears to rest.

Why does Corgi refuse to interact with it's collectors?

How much would it cost to have some PR with your customers?

It is like they are trying to get people to stop buying their products.

Wouldn't we all!!!

[hworth18]

Found this pic on the web... It doesn't show a bomb, but it does look like a hardpoint on the outside of the engines..

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by timbo

Question - Why would the A5 be designed for this and not the A4? I'm assuming here from what you have said that a A5 is an A4 with different engines?

I just can't fathom why they would go to the bother of re-designing a wing structure to include these hard points just for an interim version that only replaces the A4 till they have the engines sorted.

From material I have on hand and a couple of sources on line indicate that the Ju 88A-5 was stop gap measure to allow for the Ju 88A-4 production to come on line. Ju 88A-5 was based on the Ju 88A-1 with the addition of extended outer wing panels. I found reference in Squadron publication that reads" The Ju 88A-5 could carry an additional ETC 250 bomb rack under each wing outboard of the engine nacelle. These racks were capable of carrying two 550 pound bombs, but were seldom used operationally." The information regarding Ju 88A-4 states that bomb loads were carried either internally or inboard ETC racks. This is followed by remark that optional outboard rack found on Ju 88A-5 was deleted on Ju 88A-4 series. No real reason is given, but does point to outboard bomb racks not being a modification that was to successful. Hard to say could have even been a stress issue with regards to the wing itself. The seldom used statement is supported by the lack of pictures of this optional bomb rack modification. As for why the Ju 88A-4 would not have hard point to support outboard rack that the Ju 88A-5 had,, weight sounds like a plausible answer.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by Cruver Collecter

From material I have on hand and a couple of sources on line indicate that the Ju 88A-5 was stop gap measure to allow for the Ju 88A-4 production to come on line. Ju 88A-5 was based on the Ju 88A-1 with the addition of extended outer wing panels. I found reference in Squadron publication that reads" The Ju 88A-5 could carry an additional ETC 250 bomb rack under each wing outboard of the engine nacelle. These racks were capable of carrying two 550 pound bombs, but were seldom used operationally." The information regarding Ju 88A-4 states that bomb loads were carried either internally or inboard ETC racks. This is followed by remark that optional outboard rack found on Ju 88A-5 was deleted on Ju 88A-4 series. No real reason is given, but does point to outboard bomb racks not being a modification that was to successful. Hard to say could have even been a stress issue with regards to the wing itself. The seldom used statement is supported by the lack of pictures of this optional bomb rack modification. As for why the Ju 88A-4 would not have hard point to support outboard rack that the Ju 88A-5 had,, weight sounds like a plausible answer.

Thanks - that makes some sense.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by hworth18

Found this pic on the web... It doesn't show a bomb, but it does look like a hardpoint on the outside of the engines..

What version is this harry?

[Cruver Collecter]

I received some feed back from Corgi on the discrepancies noted in the AA36704 Ju 88. The short note thanked me for pointing out discrepancy and stated that information had been passed on the there Design & Development team for further investigation. Note also stated not to hestitate with any future inquiries. Maybe Corgi is more open to customer feedback and that would most definitely be a good thing.

[hworth18]

I picked this Ju-88 up Friday from Onmark and I have to say it is very nicely done and probably the best one to date.. My only complaint is with the outer bomb/hardpoints which, if were on the real plane, would eliminate any aileron movement and make flying the aircraft almost impossible.. Luckily, I had some extra time on my hands Saturday night so I decided to see just how hard it would be to modify the plane and make it correct.
First off, the hardpoints are not only superglued on the wings, but the wings have been drilled out for locating pins underneath. This isn't that bad though as I broke of the locating pins inside the holes, trimmed them down and sanded them flush which filled the holes nicely. Once I sanded the area down I shot it with Tamiya's Matt black, which is a little too matt, so I will also check out Testors to see if it is closer to the exact finish. The modifiaction does look better to me and probably a little more realistic, but I am debating whether I should glue the extra bombs in next to the drop tanks or leave them off completely.
I know this plane flew anti-shipping missions and it just doesn't make sense that they would fly over a vast area of water with no offensive weapons in which to attack any shipping they found.

[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by hworth18

I picked this Ju-88 up Friday from Onmark and I have to say it is very nicely done and probably the best one to date.. My only complaint is with the outer bomb/hardpoints which, if were on the real plane, would eliminate any aileron movement and make flying the aircraft almost impossible.. Luckily, I had some extra time on my hands Saturday night so I decided to see just how hard it would be to modify the plane and make it correct.
First off, the hardpoints are not only superglued on the wings, but the wings have been drilled out for locating pins underneath. This isn't that bad though as I broke of the locating pins inside the holes, trimmed them down and sanded them flush which filled the holes nicely. Once I sanded the area down I shot it with Tamiya's Matt black, which is a little too matt, so I will also check out Testors to see if it is closer to the exact finish. The modifiaction does look better to me and probably a little more realistic, but I am debating whether I should glue the extra bombs in next to the drop tanks or leave them off completely.
I know this plane flew anti-shipping missions and it just doesn't make sense that they would fly over a vast area of water with no offensive weapons in which to attack any shipping they found.

You could consider that your model is configured for the maritime reconnaissance mission it also performed. Just curious does model have four inboard ETC bomb racks?