Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

CLICK HERE to see new posts in last 24 hours
Mark all forums read
Welcome to 72nd Aircraft. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
AZ Bf 109G-6
Topic Started: Jan 11 2018, 11:55 AM (596 Views)
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
Gents, I’m thinking of doing a OOB build of this kit. No extra detail or attempting to fix issues, etc —just a quickie to clear the mental decks and get the darn box off the closet shelf. Any hints, tips, or words of wisdom on problem areas?
Goto Top
 
woody
Hero
[ * ]
I'm working on one of these now. Although I am fixing a few things with my build, I'm not sure that even OOB it will meet your requirement for " just a quickie to clear the mental decks".
Cheers,
Woody
Goto Top
 
Barry Numerick
Hero
[ * ]
Building time is valuable. Don't waste your's; get the Fine Molds kit.
Goto Top
 
dknights
Member Avatar
The court of LAST RESORT!
[ * ]
Barry Numerick
Jan 12 2018, 03:52 AM
Building time is valuable. Don't waste your's; get the Fine Molds kit.
+1
David M. Knights
Fortes fortuna adiuvat

14 Finished: Special Armor V-2, Airfix P-51
15 Finished: SBS Gladiator engine
16 Finished: Brengun C2 Wasserfall, Merit SS-N-2 Styx, World's smallest diorama, Airfix Hurricane.
17 Finished: Japanese Carrier Deck, Belcher SS-4, Italeri AB41, PLAN Type 039A (not 72nd scale)
18 Finished: NONE
The bench:Platz T-33, Trump. T-34/85, Meng F-106, Airfix P-51 #2, Airfix P-40
Revell MiG-21F-13, Ace Citroen V-11
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
Thank you, gents. There seems to be a consensus building here!

:blink:
Goto Top
 
Chuck1945
Hero
[ * ]
Another +1 on putting the AZ kit in your 'donate' pile if you want it off the shelf and just build a FM Messerschmitt instead - talk about a trouble free build...
Chuck
Eastern WA, USA
Finished 2018:
Eduard Spitfire IXc, VIII, Monogram/Starfighter BFC-2
On the active bench:
Eduard Bf 110C, Hasegawa B-24D, SH P-40E
Goto Top
 
Graham Boak
Hero
[ * ]
I'm sure that if you were thinking of buying a Bf109G, then the correct advice is to go for the FM not the AZ. I have one of each, and looking at them I've no doubt that the FM is the better, but neither has been started yet so I can't be definitive on fit problems. However, I have made other AZ kits, and I find it difficult to believe that this one could be so totally unsuitable for a fun build. It isn't an early Pavla/ICM/AModel, is it?

If I was to throw out everything that was only equal to or worse than an AZ Bf109, then that'd certainly remove most of my stash!
Lancashire, UK
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
Graham Boak
Jan 13 2018, 11:14 AM
If I was to throw out everything that was only equal to or worse than an AZ Bf109, then that'd certainly remove most of my stash!
Thanks Graham! I can say the same about most of the old kits in my closet... :)

I own both kits, and have no doubt the FM is significantly superior! The AZ has softer detailing, the much-discussed (and to my eye quite noticeable) issues around the nose geometry, and no limited-run kit will fit like an FM. For a “serious” contest model, FineMolds is the easy winner.

But in spite of all that...I still find the AZ weirdly appealing! I’m looking at a closed-canopy, out-of-box build for a group display with some friends, and will also use it as a guinea pig for new-to-me paint brands. Some aspects of the kit, especially the quantity of molded-in interior detail and nice wheel wells, seem well-suited for such as that.

Yes...I’m waaay over-thinking this, but appreciate everyone’s patient comments!
Edited by MDriskill, Jan 13 2018, 03:51 PM.
Goto Top
 
Blekster
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I appreciate that I am a new face here, but if I may make a suggestion.

One thing that AZ did with their 109Gs that I do like is the tail section. It gives you the choice of a regular 109G tail or the tall tail in the same kit. Bonus being that you end up with a spare tail section. If you leave yourself the tall tail, it can easily be grafted onto a Fine Molds 109G-6 kit and you end up with a G-14 (something that Fine Molds forgot to give us). It is a very easy modification that takes all of a few minutes.
Goto Top
 
dixieflyer
Member Avatar
Hero
[ * ]
Blekster
Jan 14 2018, 09:15 PM
I appreciate that I am a new face here, but if I may make a suggestion.

One thing that AZ did with their 109Gs that I do like is the tail section. It gives you the choice of a regular 109G tail or the tall tail in the same kit. Bonus being that you end up with a spare tail section. If you leave yourself the tall tail, it can easily be grafted onto a Fine Molds 109G-6 kit and you end up with a G-14 (something that Fine Molds forgot to give us). It is a very easy modification that takes all of a few minutes.
Definitely some value there.

Warren
"History is the lie we all agree upon."
Goto Top
 
jvenables
Member Avatar
Hawk
[ * ]
Interesting thread. As I've said here before, I have not built a Messerschmitt since my teens but have been picking some up lately with a plan to build a "lineage" collection of 109s. I have not sought any specific kit brand, but simply looked for bargains with consideration to the marque and markings that appeal to me. So far, I have bought Fine Molds, Airfix, AZ, Heller, Zvezda, Hasegawa, ICM, Revell and HobbyBoss kits.

I am not concerned with perfect accuracy as I see envisage each model to be a representative "canvas" of the type to which I'll apply a finish and markings that appeal to me, covering several different air forces and theatres of operation. Nevertheless, this thread leaves me curious...

I am certainly aware that there has been some tit for tat regarding AZ Models' 109s on this forum and others and I appreciate reading the comments in this thread, but aside from a few replies advising that the FM kit is an easier build than the AZ kit, I am yet to see anyone comment on why this is so. Is it simply a case of "limited run" vs "mainstream"? Or is there some particular reason/s why the AZ kit is to be avoided and/or placed on the "donate pile"? Are we specifically referring to the G-6 kit or all of AZ's 109s?

Can anyone fill in the blanks?
James from Brisbane, Australia
Now living in Laos

Nil illegitimi carborundum
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
jvenables
Jan 19 2018, 11:01 AM
Or is there some particular reason/s why the AZ kit is to be avoided and/or placed on the "donate pile"? Are we specifically referring to the G-6 kit or all of AZ's 109s?

Can anyone fill in the blanks?
James, I haven’t built either kit, so I’m only qualified to fill in a few limited blanks! :huh:

The FM kits have a reputation for pretty much flawless fit, with little seam work required. Accuracy-wise they are considered top of the heap, the only questions being minor ones re: nose length and cockpit geometry. I may be way off-base, but to my eye they greatly resemble shrunken versions of the fine Hasegawa 1/32 scale kits.

All the AZ kits of DB 605A-engined variants share most basic parts (a lot of bits for the spares box will always be left over). The chief accuracy flaw, to my eye at least, is that the fuselage is too shallow at the firewall. This looks very odd in side view, and throws the wing incidence off as well, but from most angles they look OK. IMHO surface detail is nice, and the kits have a well-furnished cockpit and excellent wheel well detail.

The newer AZ kits of the DB 605AS and D variants (i.e., G-6AS, G-10, G-14AS) share wing and detail sprues with their other kits, but have new fuselage moldings with the late “refined” cowl. This fuselage corrects the depth issue, but the nose has questionable geometry in other areas, and quite soft-looking detail. The fuselage has some serious molding flaws; it requires a lot of surgery and splicing to fit the cockpit parts, and close up the halves at the proper width. AZ themselves has admitted as much, and pledged to correct this in future versions of the kit.
Goto Top
 
jvenables
Member Avatar
Hawk
[ * ]
Thanks mate. That enlightens me considerably, but the "issues" are not something that would bother me. My builds will be for my own satisfaction and enjoyment and will never be on public display or in a competition so as long as I can manage a clean build and an attractive finish, then I'll be happy.

As I indicated before, I don't really have much interest in Bf-109s and haven't built one since the late 1970's, but there have been some fantastic builds presented on this forum that have inspired me to add some to the collection.
James from Brisbane, Australia
Now living in Laos

Nil illegitimi carborundum
Goto Top
 
Graham Boak
Hero
[ * ]
The discussion about the shapes provided in the kit are totally irrelevant to any competition, for such things are not considered. the logic being that it is impossible to provide judges that are encyclopaedic in their knowledge of all the subjects that could appear in a competition. It is precisely the clean build and attractive painting that are judged.

It is only for personal use and satisfaction that getting the kit to appear more like the original is worthwhile.
Lancashire, UK
Goto Top
 
bosco
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Out of the box the FM wins hands-down. But the AZ kit is not to be entirely dismissed. The rear fuselage cross section looks more accurate to me, and the nose length is dimensionally more correct. There have been some shim corrections for the nose depth/wing incidence issue on the in-progress section of this forum that makes the nose profile look a heck of a lot better to me.

Best
Chuck
Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Help, I'm about to start... · Next Topic »