Your 'What if?' Builds.

[GrauGeist]

LMAO!

[Lucky13]

Well....it has a tail!

[muller]

Looking great so far Terry

[B-17engineer]

Agree with Keith!

[109ROAMING]

Great work mate

[Airframes]

Thanks chaps. I've got a bit more done, and it's moving swiftly towards the painting stage.
PIC 1 shows the screw holes in the fuselage filled with Milliput and, on the rear fuselage, a radio access hatch has been engraved, and is awaiting clean-up.
PIC 2 The screw holes on the underside of the wing have also been filled, and the slot for the arrestor hook plated over, to simulate a sheet metal panel. The tiny tail wheel will definitely be replaced with something larger, more in keeping with a Luftwaffe fighter operating from grass strips, and a suitable item has been sourced from ther spares box, to be fitted later.
PIC 3. A hand hold and the rear fuel tank filler hatch have been lightly engraved on the port fuselage side. These will be outlined in pencil, after the model has been painted. Also visible here is a small 'hatch cover', added to the top decking imediately behind the cockpit, which also covers a rectangular hole. A 'Panzerglas' headrest/armour will be scratch-built and fitted to the front of the headrest support later, and possibly a DF loop, on the rear cockpit decking. Holes have been drilled on the underside of the fuselage, near the wing root, to accept a scratch-built retractable step later.
PIC 4 With the wings and tailplanes in place, this is what the model looks like to date. The main landing gear had to be fitted before joining the wings, but, as they retract, they won't cause a problem at the painting stage.
Those who are familiar with the 'Zero' will no doubt spot the bl**dy big error!
For those not so familiar, the gear legs are the wrong way around!!
I test fitted them probably six or seven times, so how the heck I managed to do this, I don't know! I'd thought of cutting the mounting/swivel pins, and correcting the problem, but decided to live with it, and the leg doors will be modified and fitted to the'wrong' side. Of course, I could always use the excuse that Arado modified the gear design, in order to allow quicker and easier wheel changes! Sounds good enough to me!!
There is still a small amount of filler required here and there, notably along the cowling joint on the port side, but once that's done, it's time for the main aim of the exercise - the paintwork!
More soon, and thanks again for your interest.

[imalko]

Just one question Terry... If this is supposed to be a German version of Zero, shouldn't then the tail wheel be of larger dimensions? Frankly I can't remember a single German aircraft with such tinny tail wheel (except maybe Fi-156 Storch) as was apparently usual on Japanese fighters.

Looking great so far.

[Airframes]

Yes Igor, I mentioned it in the text. I'll be replacing the very tiny tail wheel with a larger one from the spares box. That small wheel, with its solid tyre, might have been OK for carrier decks, but it would just dig in and cause problems on a wet, grass airfield. I'd like to be able to replace the main gear wheels also, but there's not much I can do about those, without converting the wheel bays. As this is a 'just for fun' exercise, I won't be doing that!

[109ROAMING]

Great progress Terry! good on ya too doing it just for fun

look forward to more

[imalko]

I apologize Terry. I went through your text in a hurry and must admit I haven't read everything. I was paying greater attention to the progress photos then to reading what you wrote.

Good point about grass airfields and carrier decks. I was thinking the same thing when I posted my comment.
Your Ar 290 Zero will look great when finished, no doubt about that.

[jamierd]

I have studied your photo extensively terry and compared it to the tamiya kit of the ar290 and clearly the angle of the dangle from the flip flop valve to the oojamawotsit indicate yours is clearly the shot tail version
all it took was a little maths and a lot of Bs for me to work it out and also of course knowing that your photo was taken just after lunch on a tuesday i will now astound the aircraft world with my knowledge of nothing very much really

[Vic Balshaw]

Looking good Terry and such speedy progress

[Airframes]

Thanks guys, and it's no problem Igor - I guessed you'd missed that bit in the text!
Vic, there's not that much to the kit, built OOB. Although the Bf109 from this company received a lot more attention with scratch-built detailing, I'm keeping this one simple, with the colour scheme being the important consideration.
Jamie, your vast knowledge astounds me - I would never have though to measure the angle of dangle from the flip flop valve! Great work mate, as I can now confirm that this is a Ar290A-1/R1.
Incidentally, this aircraft was the first in the Arado poduction series to divert from the normal numbering sequence, by using the '2' prefix for a single engine fighter. Arado numbering would normally be, for example Ar196, where the '1' denotes a single engine type, with twin engined aircraft bearing the '2' prefix, for example Ar234. It is thought that the '290' number was allocated because other twin, or multi-engined designs were already in production or development, and the '290' was far enough out of sequence to avoid confusion. Also, research to date indicated that there was a requirement to align the type with the FW190 whilst at the same time providing a cover against allied intelligence, whereby it was hoped that the Ar290 would be thought to be a further development of the Focke Wulf fighter, helped, no doubt, by the similarities in shape.
Unfortunately, as is often the case in areas of research where little information exists, it is very possible that this could be an instance of bovinus effluentis......

[109ROAMING]

Originally Posted by Airframes

Incidentally, this aircraft was the first in the Arado poduction series to divert from the normal numbering sequence, by using the '2' prefix for a single engine fighter. Arado numbering would normally be, for example Ar196, where the '1' denotes a single engine type, with twin engined aircraft bearing the '2' prefix, for example Ar234. It is thought that the '290' number was allocated because other twin, or multi-engined designs were already in production or development, and the '290' was far enough out of sequence to avoid confusion. Also, research to date indicated that there was a requirement to align the type with the FW190 whilst at the same time providing a cover against allied intelligence, whereby it was hoped that the Ar290 would be thought to be a further development of the Focke Wulf fighter, helped, no doubt, by the similarities in shape.
Unfortunately, as is often the case in areas of research where little information exists, it is very possible that this could be an instance of bovinus effluentis......

Ah! you learn something new everyday here! thanks Terry

[GrauGeist]

Well, the deviation from the typical Arado designation could have been attributed from the chaotic late-war conditions...look at the Ar340 for example, it was a twin engined bomber concept...or the Ar234C, which was a four engined design...

So perhaps they had the "2" as a prefix for two possible tail configurations?