I was at the Internation Sea-Plane Fly-in last weekend in Greenville, Maine,
and saw what looked like a Stuka flying over the town and down the lake.

I got some blury pictures, so I know I didn't dream it. Anyone know anything
about this plane? I'd love to see it up close. It wasn't at the airport by
the time I got up the hill.

> wrote
> I was at the Internation Sea-Plane Fly-in last weekend in Greenville,
Maine,
> and saw what looked like a Stuka flying over the town and down the lake.
>
> I got some blury pictures, so I know I didn't dream it. Anyone know
anything
> about this plane? I'd love to see it up close. It wasn't at the airport by
> the time I got up the hill

Years ago ('79? '81?) there was a 5/8 (IIRC) scale homebuilt Stuka owned by
someone in Louisiana (I believe) w. some sort Lycosaurus engine w. a few
live exhausts. Never having been near an actual one, I had to give it the
twice over to reassure myself it was a replica. (It was rather large for a
homebuilt!)

A-mazing...

Bob W.

Yea, I remember going to a Fly-In at Stennis Mississippi and there was
the 5/8 Stuka taxing from the active runway. I was a great looking
experimental and looked very realistic.

Nick
PA28-180 'D'

Bob Whelan wrote:
> > wrote
>
>>I was at the Internation Sea-Plane Fly-in last weekend in Greenville,
>
> Maine,
>
>>and saw what looked like a Stuka flying over the town and down the lake.
>>
>>I got some blury pictures, so I know I didn't dream it. Anyone know
>
> anything
>
>>about this plane? I'd love to see it up close. It wasn't at the airport by
>>the time I got up the hill
>
>
> Years ago ('79? '81?) there was a 5/8 (IIRC) scale homebuilt Stuka owned by
> someone in Louisiana (I believe) w. some sort Lycosaurus engine w. a few
> live exhausts. Never having been near an actual one, I had to give it the
> twice over to reassure myself it was a replica. (It was rather large for a
> homebuilt!)
>
> A-mazing...
>
> Bob W.
>
>

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:59:54 GMT, "Steve Foley" >
wrote:

>I was at the Internation Sea-Plane Fly-in last weekend in Greenville, Maine,
>and saw what looked like a Stuka flying over the town and down the lake.
>
>I got some blury pictures, so I know I didn't dream it. Anyone know anything
>about this plane? I'd love to see it up close. It wasn't at the airport by
>the time I got up the hill.

N87LL is a Langhurst Replica JU-87, registered to a Mitchell Sammons of
Belgrade, Maine.

http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers/ju_ju87_m16.htm

The builder had apparently built one before, which crashed a few years back.

Ron Wanttaja

Pics weren't as blury as I had figured.

http://steve.foley.home.att.net/stuka1.jpg
http://steve.foley.home.att.net/stuka2.jpg





"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:u0DXe.9315$iv5.8721@trndny03...
> I was at the Internation Sea-Plane Fly-in last weekend in Greenville,
Maine,
> and saw what looked like a Stuka flying over the town and down the lake.
>
> I got some blury pictures, so I know I didn't dream it. Anyone know
anything
> about this plane? I'd love to see it up close. It wasn't at the airport by
> the time I got up the hill.
>
>

On 2005-09-19 21:50:28 -0400, Ron Wanttaja > said:

> The builder had apparently built one before, which crashed a few years back.


The plane that crashed in 2000 belonged to Den Burhans IV. He had just
bought it from the builder. His father, Denslow Faux-Burhans, went out
to taxi test it (father having more experience than son in
taildraggers) and apparently got inadvertently airborne, crashed, and
burned. Den IV was an ear, if not eye, witness.

My understanding is that the machine is highly CG-sensitive and flies
completely differently one-up and two-up due to the passenger
(radioman?) being aft of CG and pilot forward. Not that I have flown it
myself. I wasn't aware more than one was made, as this is a huge
project with well over 15,000 hours in it.

The crash was a sad, tragic business. Father was, and son is, good
people. .Den IV is quite a Luftwaffe expert and at one time had a
uniform and motorcycle and the whole fighter ace act. He is quite tall
so if you met him you'd remember him.

cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

Steve Foley wrote:
> Pics weren't as blury as I had figured.
>
> http://steve.foley.home.att.net/stuka1.jpg
> http://steve.foley.home.att.net/stuka2.jpg
>
>

Does it have the siren on the landing gear?

--

FF

Just as a matter of curiosity why not build a full size Ju-87?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

wrote:

> Steve Foley wrote:
>
>>Pics weren't as blury as I had figured.
>>
>>http://steve.foley.home.att.net/stuka1.jpg
>>http://steve.foley.home.att.net/stuka2.jpg
>>
>>
>
>
> Does it have the siren on the landing gear?
>

Fred, you didn't ask the most imortant question: does it have cup
holders? :)

As for the sirens I would be hesitant to use them. There are a lot
of WW2 survivors who moved here after the war who would I assume would
be upset hearing them.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:57:53 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:

> As for the sirens I would be hesitant to use them. There are a lot
>of WW2 survivors who moved here after the war who would I assume would
>be upset hearing them.

I'd suspect there are very few who were bombed more than once or twice by
Stukas. The JU-87 was dead meat without air superiority, and other than
(possibly) in Operation Torch, Americans ground troops probably had sufficient
air cover.

Ron Wanttaja

In article <kWZYe.29750$dm.25504@lakeread03>,
"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote:

> Just as a matter of curiosity why not build a full size Ju-87?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It would take too much engine and material. We are talking about
something affordable.

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:57:53 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> As for the sirens I would be hesitant to use them. There are a lot
>>of WW2 survivors who moved here after the war who would I assume would
>>be upset hearing them.
>
>
> I'd suspect there are very few who were bombed more than once or twice by
> Stukas. The JU-87 was dead meat without air superiority, and other than
> (possibly) in Operation Torch, Americans ground troops probably had sufficient
> air cover.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
>
I was not referring to just military personnel. A very large number
of civilians came under fire from Ju-87s. Even if it only happened once
it would leave an unpleasant memory. I was in the Army in Viet Nam, to
this day certain sounds or smells bring back unpleasant memories. The
same is true of most people who have experienced a traumatic event.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:57:53 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As for the sirens I would be hesitant to use them. There are a lot
> >>of WW2 survivors who moved here after the war who would I assume would
> >>be upset hearing them.
> >
> >
> > I'd suspect there are very few who were bombed more than once or twice by
> > Stukas. The JU-87 was dead meat without air superiority, and other than
> > (possibly) in Operation Torch, Americans ground troops probably had sufficient
> > air cover.
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja
> >
> I was not referring to just military personnel. A very large number
> of civilians came under fire from Ju-87s. Even if it only happened once
> it would leave an unpleasant memory. I was in the Army in Viet Nam, to
> this day certain sounds or smells bring back unpleasant memories. The
> same is true of most people who have experienced a traumatic event.
>

That's a good point. One might make a similar argument regarding
swastikas (yes, I know the Nazis didn't invent nor do they own the
swastika) on replica German aircraft and especially when one appears
on a non-replica homebuilt aircraft.

Leads one to wonder of the builder, "What was he thinking?"

--

FF

Then you must be upset about that Yak 52 (or chinese C-6 or whatever it
was) that was done up in FW-190 markings. Didn't notice if it had a
swastika or not.

John

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>

<<<snip>>>

>>
>
> That's a good point. One might make a similar argument regarding
> swastikas (yes, I know the Nazis didn't invent nor do they own the
> swastika) on replica German aircraft and especially when one appears
> on a non-replica homebuilt aircraft.
>
> Leads one to wonder of the builder, "What was he thinking?"
>
> --
>
> FF

Probably the same thing as the guys who build replica P-51's, P-47's,
P-38's, Spitfires, Hurricanes, etc. I wouldn't make a big deal over it...

KB

John T wrote:

> Then you must be upset about that Yak 52 (or chinese C-6 or whatever it
> was) that was done up in FW-190 markings. Didn't notice if it had a
> swastika or not.
>
> John
>

Actually one would have to be fairly close to an aircraft and
looking at it to see the markings. The siren's sound would be heard by
people indoors or out.

When the 33rd TFW came back from the Gulf War with 16 MiG kills some
unthinking people hung out a banner saying "welcome home storm
troopers." As a Jew who has no maternal family thanks to the Nazis I
could have taken offense, but I knew they intended no offense. As an
aside the 33rd also put 16 green stars (representing the 16 MiGs downed)
and a sign saying "biggest MiG parts distributor in South West Asia"
at each end of the TAC area of Eglin AFB.

One can't avoid offending everyone, but I think an attempt should be
made to offend as few as possible.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:09:22 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:

> When the 33rd TFW came back from the Gulf War with 16 MiG kills some
>unthinking people hung out a banner saying "welcome home storm
>troopers." As a Jew who has no maternal family thanks to the Nazis I
>could have taken offense, but I knew they intended no offense. As an
>aside the 33rd also put 16 green stars (representing the 16 MiGs downed)
> and a sign saying "biggest MiG parts distributor in South West Asia"
>at each end of the TAC area of Eglin AFB.
>
> One can't avoid offending everyone, but I think an attempt should be
>made to offend as few as possible.

Thanks for the insight, Dan... and the understanding.

The paint-job issue is a thorny one. About twenty-five years ago, I saw a
Cessna 140 with a WWII German paint job. I really did like the look, but would
have balked, myself, at adding the swastika to the tail.

I occasionally toy around with Fly Baby paint schemes, including military ones.
The trouble is, most of the American and allied schemes are pretty ordinary.
There are lots of Fly Babies painted like PT-19s, a few in pre-war Navy colors.
One of the Canadian Fly Baby crew is painting his like Montomery's Miles
Messenger...sand and spinach British camouflage, with invasion stripes and the
belly painted bright yellow.

But for exotic paint jobs, you have to go with the Axis. And then, you get into
the issues of the atrocities associated with the wartime period.

At one point I was contemplating a paint job like the Mitsubishi A5M "Claude"
fighter from pre-WWII:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/claudefb.JPG

It's a *very* attractive paint scheme..but then, there's the politics involved
in Japan's actions during the early to mid 20th century. I thought about
putting "FE-XXXX" markings on it (the US put "Foreign Equipment" codes on
captured aircraft). But I still have the fear that somewhere, somehow, seeing
it would cause someone pain. So I've bagged that idea.

Ron Wanttaja

German markings: Most swastikas were a small one on the vertical fin.
Leave it off if you want. German crosses, IMHO, are OK.

Japanese markings: as far as I'm concerned, copy them 100%. I seriously
doubt there are going be many people concerned about it, other than the
PC types who think the Japanese were "victims" because of the the nukes.
For them, I give a eye roll.

Some things, like the swastikas, can offend a race of people, even if
its historically correct, becasue of its connections.

OTOH, I know of no markings from the Japanese that would be offensive.
The rising sun, maybe, but I doubt it.

In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
the governments or political parties of those countries.

Remember, someone has to play the south in civil war re-enactments.
Thats history, not hate.

John

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0500, John T > wrote:

>In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
>markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
>aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
>the governments or political parties of those countries.

I certainly agree when it comes to historical aircraft or accurate replicas. If
I had a *real* JU-87, I'd put the swastika on the tail.

With a non non-warbird, though, or with what is essentially a "joke" paint
scheme (like that Cessna 140 with the Luftwaffe markings)....that's a little
different.

The issue about Japanese markings is not quite as bad, as you mention. Heck,
their aircraft today still carry the same "meatball" as in WWII.

Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
Buffalo:

http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg

Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0500, John T > wrote:
>
>
>>In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
>>markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
>>aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
>>the governments or political parties of those countries.
>
>
> I certainly agree when it comes to historical aircraft or accurate replicas. If
> I had a *real* JU-87, I'd put the swastika on the tail.
>
> With a non non-warbird, though, or with what is essentially a "joke" paint
> scheme (like that Cessna 140 with the Luftwaffe markings)....that's a little
> different.
>
> The issue about Japanese markings is not quite as bad, as you mention. Heck,
> their aircraft today still carry the same "meatball" as in WWII.
>
> Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
> Buffalo:
>
> http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg
>
> Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Well, in that case you could point out the Finns used the swastika on
their aircraft before being taken over by the Nazis, that for them it
wasn't a Nazi symbol, that the U.S. Army had an arm patch with a
swastika ( NM national guard? ), that the swastika has thousands of
years of history world wide as a sun symbol or good luck symbol etc.

It could be educational.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >,
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0500, John T >
> wrote:
>
> >In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
> >markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
> >aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
> >the governments or political parties of those countries.
>
> I certainly agree when it comes to historical aircraft or accurate replicas.
> If
> I had a *real* JU-87, I'd put the swastika on the tail.
>
> With a non non-warbird, though, or with what is essentially a "joke" paint
> scheme (like that Cessna 140 with the Luftwaffe markings)....that's a little
> different.
>
> The issue about Japanese markings is not quite as bad, as you mention. Heck,
> their aircraft today still carry the same "meatball" as in WWII.
>
> Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
> Buffalo:
>
> http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg
>
> Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I remember, about 40 years ago, looking at a Revell kit of a FW-190 and
seeing "The markings shown are not correct, as it would be against the
spirit of Democracy to include them in this kit."

What a load of PC crap! Who do they think we are -- somebody who can't
distinguish between an authentic representation of a combat plane from
some kind of Nazi fan?

John T wrote:
> German markings: Most swastikas were a small one on the vertical fin.
> Leave it off if you want. German crosses, IMHO, are OK.
>
> Japanese markings: as far as I'm concerned, copy them 100%. I seriously
> doubt there are going be many people concerned about it, other than the
> PC types who think the Japanese were "victims" because of the the nukes.
> For them, I give a eye roll.
>
> Some things, like the swastikas, can offend a race of people, even if
> its historically correct, becasue of its connections.
>
> OTOH, I know of no markings from the Japanese that would be offensive.
> The rising sun, maybe, but I doubt it.
>
I suppose China, Burma, Korea and the like would not be a good place
to fly your airplane if it has Japanese markings.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Those places don't exactly encourage homebuilding, or even private
pilots too much, do they?

John

John T wrote:
> Those places don't exactly encourage homebuilding, or even private
> pilots too much, do they?
>
> John
>

That doesn't mean they might not have an airshow sometime, now does
it? In any event my observation was about the Japanese markings and your
comment about no one being offended. I notice you didn't bother to
attribute.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
> >>
> >
> > That's a good point. One might make a similar argument regarding
> > swastikas (yes, I know the Nazis didn't invent nor do they own the
> > swastika) on replica German aircraft and especially when one appears
> > on a non-replica homebuilt aircraft.
> >
> > Leads one to wonder of the builder, "What was he thinking?"
> >
> > --
> >
> > FF
>
> Probably the same thing as the guys who build replica P-51's, P-47's,
> P-38's, Spitfires, Hurricanes, etc. I wouldn't make a big deal over it...
>

Please note my last sentence was IRT the immediately aformentioned
"non-replica homebuilt aircraft". Sky-Pups, for instance.

--

FF

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> ...
>
> Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
> Buffalo:
>
> http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg
>
> Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)
>

Which is one of the reasons I was quick to note that the Nazis
neither invented nor own the swastika.

--

FF

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0500, John T > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
> >>markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
> >>aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
> >>the governments or political parties of those countries.
> >
> >
> > I certainly agree when it comes to historical aircraft or accurate replicas. If
> > I had a *real* JU-87, I'd put the swastika on the tail.
> >
> > With a non non-warbird, though, or with what is essentially a "joke" paint
> > scheme (like that Cessna 140 with the Luftwaffe markings)....that's a little
> > different.
> >
> > The issue about Japanese markings is not quite as bad, as you mention. Heck,
> > their aircraft today still carry the same "meatball" as in WWII.
> >
> > Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
> > Buffalo:
> >
> > http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg
> >
> > Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)
> >
> > Ron Wanttaja
>
> Well, in that case you could point out the Finns used the swastika on
> their aircraft before being taken over by the Nazis, that for them it
> wasn't a Nazi symbol, that the U.S. Army had an arm patch with a
> swastika ( NM national guard? ), that the swastika has thousands of
> years of history world wide as a sun symbol or good luck symbol etc.
>

IIUC the Finns were NEVER 'taken over' by the Nazis.

During the Winter War, the Finns fought the Russians who
were cobelligerants with Germany. The Finns allowed German
troops on Finnish soil during or just after Operation
Barbaraossa which drew them into the Continuation war in
which they were allied with, but not 'taken over' by the
Nazis.

The terms of the armistice that ended the Continuation War
required Finland to fight any German units remaining on
Finnish soil. They did so, driving the last of them
accross the border into Norway.

The US sold buffaloes to Finland during the Winter War,
but they did not see combat until the Continuation War
during which the US sold Buffaloes to the Soviets.

Were there ever any Finnish Buffalo v Russian Buffalo
dogfights?

--

FF

wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:40:46 -0500, John T > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In summary, if someone wants to be touch-feely about historical aircraft
>>>>markings, I say, who cares! You cannot change the past, and replica
>>>>aircraft and paint schemes do not necessarily reflect the attitudes of
>>>>the governments or political parties of those countries.
>>>
>>>
>>>I certainly agree when it comes to historical aircraft or accurate replicas. If
>>>I had a *real* JU-87, I'd put the swastika on the tail.
>>>
>>>With a non non-warbird, though, or with what is essentially a "joke" paint
>>>scheme (like that Cessna 140 with the Luftwaffe markings)....that's a little
>>>different.
>>>
>>>The issue about Japanese markings is not quite as bad, as you mention. Heck,
>>>their aircraft today still carry the same "meatball" as in WWII.
>>>
>>>Heck, the thing to do would be to paint the Fly Baby like a Finnish Brewster
>>>Buffalo:
>>>
>>>http://www.classicairframes.com/images/ca4101_box.jpg
>>>
>>>Then just laugh when folks complain about the swastika. :-)
>>>
>>>Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> Well, in that case you could point out the Finns used the swastika on
>>their aircraft before being taken over by the Nazis, that for them it
>>wasn't a Nazi symbol, that the U.S. Army had an arm patch with a
>>swastika ( NM national guard? ), that the swastika has thousands of
>>years of history world wide as a sun symbol or good luck symbol etc.
>>
>
>
> IIUC the Finns were NEVER 'taken over' by the Nazis.
>
> During the Winter War, the Finns fought the Russians who
> were cobelligerants with Germany. The Finns allowed German
> troops on Finnish soil during or just after Operation
> Barbaraossa which drew them into the Continuation war in
> which they were allied with, but not 'taken over' by the
> Nazis.
>
> The terms of the armistice that ended the Continuation War
> required Finland to fight any German units remaining on
> Finnish soil. They did so, driving the last of them
> accross the border into Norway.
>
> The US sold buffaloes to Finland during the Winter War,
> but they did not see combat until the Continuation War
> during which the US sold Buffaloes to the Soviets.
>
> Were there ever any Finnish Buffalo v Russian Buffalo
> dogfights?
>
You are correct about the "taken over" term, it was ill chosen on my
part. It's my personal opinion Finland wasn't exactly autonomous once
the Nazis arrived.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:09:22 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:

> Actually one would have to be fairly close to an aircraft and
>looking at it to see the markings. The siren's sound would be heard by
>people indoors or out.

Not sure that the sirens operated unless in a dive. I think it took
dive velocity winds to make it shriek.

Corky Scott

wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:09:22 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Actually one would have to be fairly close to an aircraft and
>>looking at it to see the markings. The siren's sound would be heard by
>>people indoors or out.
>
>
> Not sure that the sirens operated unless in a dive. I think it took
> dive velocity winds to make it shriek.
>
> Corky Scott

That may be so, but the people I have met who have heard them said
they could be heard indoors. I would hope they could be turned off when
not needed. It would seem to me they would drive the aircrew nuts when
flying cross country.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The plastic kits coming out of Revell-Germany these days do not include
a swastika on the decals or the box art. Of course, it's still illegal
in Germany to have something with a swastika on it.

wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:09:22 -0500, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
wrote:


Actually one would have to be fairly close to an aircraft and
looking at it to see the markings. The siren's sound would be heard by
people indoors or out.


Not sure that the sirens operated unless in a dive. I think it took
dive velocity winds to make it shriek.

Corky Scott

That may be so, but the people I have met who have heard them said
they could be heard indoors. I would hope they could be turned off when
not needed. It would seem to me they would drive the aircrew nuts when
flying cross country.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Have read the very interesting comments thus far regarding the STUKA sited in Maine. One gentleman was correct. I guess the rest is opinion. I own the aircraft which is a 7/10's scale replica of the JU87B2 which was the only STUKA built by Louis Langhurst, completed in 1979 after 8,000 manhours of work. There were one or two other versions, built by others, who were perhaps using Mr. Langhurst's drawings, but I am not sure of that. This STUKA is the only flying version in the world, there being two static actuals in museums in Chicago and Britain. It does have a swastika on the vertical tail assembly and the rest of the paint scheme is the one used by Oberst Hans Ulrich Rudel who was the WWII Luftwaffe's highest decorated pilot. Oberst Rudel flew in my aircraft (N87LL) in November of 1980 and said its characteristics were true to the actual machine. I have used wind-driven sirens on the aircraft but they are not permanently fixed for various reasons including some of the ones mentioned by others in this forum. I have met a number of people who were actually on the receiving end of the STUKA. They seemed to have adjusted to the past and were not antagonistic toward me, preferring to the portrayal of the historical accuracy of the craft to something that is diminished by being politically correct. The actual sirens were activated when the dive brakes were extended when initiating the attack dive. The STUKA was equipped with the "ASKANIA" auto-pilot which retracted the brakes and trimmed for dive recovery in order to allow the pilot to recover from the high "G" forces of the dives. N87LL will be on the Discover Channel Canada in October and then, hopefully, in the U.S. this Fall/Winter, on a show entitiled "The Greatest Ever". Watch for it. N87LL has been in numerous air shows, OSHKOSH, opening ceremonies for the D-Day Museum in New Orleans, and a number of Commemorative Air Force events over the years. It was displayed in the San Diego Air and Space Museum for ten years after which it was owned by Mr. Roland Weeks of Biloxi, Miss. I purchased it from him three years ago and brought it to Maine a year ago. It is a very well built aircraft and does have touchy landing tendencies as someone pointed out. But, all in all it is a fine example of what a genius like Mr. Langhurst was capable of. I plan to have it in more shows as time and weather permits.

Mitch,

Thanks for the information. I was the poster who saw your plane over
Greenville. I was hoping to find it at the airport later that day.

then you stated "This STUKA is the only flying version in the world", are
you referring to your aircraft, or is Louis Langhurst's JU87B2 flying?

In any event, I'd love to get a closer look ar your plane. Maybe next year
in Greenville.


- Steve

"Mitch" > wrote in message
...

> Have read the very interesting comments thus far regarding the STUKA
> sited in Maine. One gentleman was correct. I guess the rest is opinion.
> I own the aircraft which is a 7/10's scale replica of the JU87B2 which
> was the only STUKA built by Louis Langhurst, completed in 1979 after
> 8,000 manhours of work. There were one or two other versions, built by
> others, who were perhaps using Mr. Langhurst's drawings, but I am not
> sure of that. This STUKA is the only flying version in the world, there
> being two static actuals in museums in Chicago and Britain. It does have
> a swastika on the vertical tail assembly and the rest of the paint
> scheme is the one used by Oberst Hans Ulrich Rudel who was the WWII
> Luftwaffe's highest decorated pilot. Oberst Rudel flew in my aircraft
> (N87LL) in November of 1980 and said its characteristics were true to
> the actual machine. I have used wind-driven sirens on the aircraft but
> they are not permanently fixed for various reasons including some of
> the ones mentioned by others in this forum. I have met a number of
> people who were actually on the receiving end of the STUKA. They seemed
> to have adjusted to the past and were not antagonistic toward me,
> preferring to the portrayal of the historical accuracy of the craft to
> something that is diminished by being politically correct. The actual
> sirens were activated when the dive brakes were extended when
> initiating the attack dive. The STUKA was equipped with the "ASKANIA"
> auto-pilot which retracted the brakes and trimmed for dive recovery in
> order to allow the pilot to recover from the high "G" forces of the
> dives. N87LL will be on the Discover Channel Canada in October and
> then, hopefully, in the U.S. this Fall/Winter, on a show entitiled "The
> Greatest Ever". Watch for it. N87LL has been in numerous air shows,
> OSHKOSH, opening ceremonies for the D-Day Museum in New Orleans, and a
> number of Commemorative Air Force events over the years. It was
> displayed in the San Diego Air and Space Museum for ten years after
> which it was owned by Mr. Roland Weeks of Biloxi, Miss. I purchased it
> from him three years ago and brought it to Maine a year ago. It is a
> very well built aircraft and does have touchy landing tendencies as
> someone pointed out. But, all in all it is a fine example of what a
> genius like Mr. Langhurst was capable of. I plan to have it in more
> shows as time and weather permits.
>
>
> --
> Mitch

Hi Steve,
I was probably not as clear as I should have been. There are no actual flying STUKAs in the world. Just static displays. N87LL, now owned by me, is the only Langhurst STUKA built by Louis Langhurst and is the only flying version of a STUKA in the world. I fly it whenever I can for enjoyment. I hope that we do get a chance to meet so that you can see the aircraft up close. It is a fine piece of craftsmanship that makes many AAF veterans think that it is the "real thing".
There are others in the US and even in Germany who want to construct a STUKA but it is a daunting task.


Mitch,

Thanks for the information. I was the poster who saw your plane over
Greenville. I was hoping to find it at the airport later that day.

then you stated "This STUKA is the only flying version in the world", are
you referring to your aircraft, or is Louis Langhurst's JU87B2 flying?

In any event, I'd love to get a closer look ar your plane. Maybe next year
in Greenville.


- Steve

"Mitch" wrote in message
...

Have read the very interesting comments thus far regarding the STUKA
sited in Maine. One gentleman was correct. I guess the rest is opinion.
I own the aircraft which is a 7/10's scale replica of the JU87B2 which
was the only STUKA built by Louis Langhurst, completed in 1979 after
8,000 manhours of work. There were one or two other versions, built by
others, who were perhaps using Mr. Langhurst's drawings, but I am not
sure of that. This STUKA is the only flying version in the world, there
being two static actuals in museums in Chicago and Britain. It does have
a swastika on the vertical tail assembly and the rest of the paint
scheme is the one used by Oberst Hans Ulrich Rudel who was the WWII
Luftwaffe's highest decorated pilot. Oberst Rudel flew in my aircraft
(N87LL) in November of 1980 and said its characteristics were true to
the actual machine. I have used wind-driven sirens on the aircraft but
they are not permanently fixed for various reasons including some of
the ones mentioned by others in this forum. I have met a number of
people who were actually on the receiving end of the STUKA. They seemed
to have adjusted to the past and were not antagonistic toward me,
preferring to the portrayal of the historical accuracy of the craft to
something that is diminished by being politically correct. The actual
sirens were activated when the dive brakes were extended when
initiating the attack dive. The STUKA was equipped with the "ASKANIA"
auto-pilot which retracted the brakes and trimmed for dive recovery in
order to allow the pilot to recover from the high "G" forces of the
dives. N87LL will be on the Discover Channel Canada in October and
then, hopefully, in the U.S. this Fall/Winter, on a show entitiled "The
Greatest Ever". Watch for it. N87LL has been in numerous air shows,
OSHKOSH, opening ceremonies for the D-Day Museum in New Orleans, and a
number of Commemorative Air Force events over the years. It was
displayed in the San Diego Air and Space Museum for ten years after
which it was owned by Mr. Roland Weeks of Biloxi, Miss. I purchased it
from him three years ago and brought it to Maine a year ago. It is a
very well built aircraft and does have touchy landing tendencies as
someone pointed out. But, all in all it is a fine example of what a
genius like Mr. Langhurst was capable of. I plan to have it in more
shows as time and weather permits.


--
Mitch

On 2005-10-06 15:59:05 -0400, Mitch
> said:

> This STUKA is the only flying version in the world, there
> being two static actuals in museums in Chicago and Britain

Mitch, thanks for an interesting post. If yours was the only one he
built, and I don't doubt you on that, what was the one in the Burhans
crash? Curious.

There is one in Russia that has been restored to airworthy condition,
however it did not fly at their big warbird show this year due to a
technical defect at the last minute. It appeared to be a Ju87 D.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/347/15890_airshow.html (only
mentions russian types)

http://military-en.rian.ru/article.html?art_id=37852 (this article
mentions the Stuka, and says it arrived from the UKraine -- and is a
replica! I know I saw an article with a photo of it, and it appeared to
be full size and DB 601 powered. I just couldn't find this article on
the Monino show with the Stuka photo again.

I liked this comment:

"Aircraft restorers are great people, who allow today’s young
generation to admire bygone warplanes and to compare them with modern
aircraft, Genrikh Novozhilov, general designer of the Ilyushin aviation
complex, noted during the official aircraft-transfer ceremony."

Somehow I think you and I and Mr Novozhilov would get along together.

--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

On 2005-10-07 15:26:39 -0400, Mitch
> said:

> I was probably not as clear as I should have been. There are no actual
> flying STUKAs in the world. Just static displays. N87LL, now owned by
> me, is the only Langhurst STUKA built by Louis Langhurst and is the
> only flying version of a STUKA in the world.

Mitch, and guys

Here is an update, to my comments. This page is a photo gallery from
the 2004 Monino show, and you can see that the Stuka there is a
replica. The second picture is the Stuka. This is NOT the same Stuka
nor the same picture that I saw from the 05 show... dagnabbit.

http://www.avialegend.ru/fotogalereya/

In fact, Mitch's replica looks more accurate, FWIW. Mitch, drop me a
line (my domain name for email is in the "organisation" section of my
message headers as an anti-spam measure). I'd like to do a story on
your plane sometime.

--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

On 2005-10-06 15:59:05 -0400, Mitch
said:

This STUKA is the only flying version in the world, there
being two static actuals in museums in Chicago and Britain

Mitch, thanks for an interesting post. If yours was the only one he
built, and I don't doubt you on that, what was the one in the Burhans
crash? Curious.

There is one in Russia that has been restored to airworthy condition,
however it did not fly at their big warbird show this year due to a
technical defect at the last minute. It appeared to be a Ju87 D.

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/87/347/15890_airshow.html (only
mentions russian types)

http://military-en.rian.ru/article.html?art_id=37852 (this article
mentions the Stuka, and says it arrived from the UKraine -- and is a
replica! I know I saw an article with a photo of it, and it appeared to
be full size and DB 601 powered. I just couldn't find this article on
the Monino show with the Stuka photo again.

I liked this comment:

"Aircraft restorers are great people, who allow today’s young
generation to admire bygone warplanes and to compare them with modern
aircraft, Genrikh Novozhilov, general designer of the Ilyushin aviation
complex, noted during the official aircraft-transfer ceremony."

Somehow I think you and I and Mr Novozhilov would get along together.

--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.

Not sure if this is the way to post a reply... The builder of the second JU87B replica and how that came about is not known to me. I had heard that he may have used some plans developed by Mr. Langhurst, who did sell some (I have two copies of the plans), but I am unclear on that whole story. I have only read the NTSB report of the accident because I wanted to learn of any sort of flight problems inherent in the replica. As far as I can tell, there are none...she flies beautifully...with characteristics of the "real" model. I have read of the replica for the Monino show...saw a few photos, and understand that it was not built to fly...maybe taxi. I do not know of the one in Russia.
Foregive me, but I did not follow how to send e-mail to you. There have been many articles written about N87LL, and recently, she has been on the Discovery Channel - Canada and Britain. Would be glad to discuss further with you.