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:
Me 109 G kit questions; various kits and there issues
Topic Started: Sep 18 2017, 11:12 AM (840 Views)
nsmekanik
Beast
[ * ]
I am not by any stretch an expert on the 109, so as far as I am aware the Finemolds kits are the gold Standard of 1/72 109 kits. I am aware of what mist of the apparent issues with the AZ line of 109's are, and, as far as I have not seen a Finenolds kit of the G-6 to 14, what is the general consensus of the Rights and wrongs of the Hasegawa, Academy and Revell kits of those 109's?
Goto Top
 
Chuck1945
Hero
[ * ]
Finemolds does have the G-6, in at least two different boxings, this Finnish one is perhaps preferred because it has both the standard and Erla Haube canopies.

Academy is virtually a clone of Hasegawa as I recall so all of Hasegawa's issues apply to it as well. Hasegawa's wing is too thin making the underside of the fuselage from the trailing edge of the wing forward too high (fuselage is too shallow) and this carries forward right through the nose. Dihedral is also too shallow but that is relatively easy to fix if it matters to you. AZ has perhaps the best 1/72 cockpit and well done main gear bays but has shape problems regarding the wing/fuselage join. If Barry sees this, I am sure he can provide chapter and verse on all of these kits.
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
 
nsmekanik
Beast
[ * ]
Thanks Chuck, much appreciated :)
Goto Top
 
Graham Boak
Hero
[ * ]
The Revell kit has three main flaws, in my opinion. The propeller has too small a radius. The undercarriage legs are mounted too far apart. The engine cowling is not asymmetric. Some people don't like the canopy but it didn't bother me.

I have a Finemolds G-10, but I don't know of a G-14.

If you are considering the older subjects, then the Heller K is at least as good, except that the prop goes round the wrong way, and (again) it lacks asymmetry on the cowling bulges. (To be fair, I don't think this was realised when the kit was tooled, but that's too bad.)
Lancashire, UK
Goto Top
 
nsmekanik
Beast
[ * ]
Thanks Graham :)
Goto Top
 
Barry Numerick
Hero
[ * ]
Buy the Fine Molds kits. Period. The only competition would be the Zvezda 109 F-2, but it is a snap-tite and has a few problems of its own and omissions of its own.
Goto Top
 
nsmekanik
Beast
[ * ]
ok thanks for that Barry :)
Goto Top
 
nsmekanik
Beast
[ * ]
:huh:
Goto Top
 
jvenables
Member Avatar
Hawk
[ * ]
Chuck1945,Sep 18 2017
05:51 PM
AZ has perhaps the best 1/72 cockpit and well done main gear bays but has shape problems regarding the wing/fuselage join.

I have almost zero first hand knowledge of any Bf-109 model kits out there, as until recently Luftwaffe subjects just haven't rocked my boat. But I do read many of the reviews and build articles of such subjects just out of interest and this is the first I have heard of any such issue on the AZ kits.

As I have posted here recently, I am planning to do a few Bf-109s soon and have added a few AZ kits to the stash. I have read only good things of these kits other than a little "tit for tat" from those who favour one brand name over the other.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, could you expand on this comment? What is the specific shape problem and/or wing to fuselage join problem? Given the good reputation of the AZ kits, I don't imagine it is too serious, but if you can elaborate, I'd be keen to know before I start building.
James from Brisbane, Australia
Now living in Laos

Nil illegitimi carborundum
Goto Top
 
nsmekanik
Beast
[ * ]
Have a look here Barry's AZ G-14 build
Goto Top
 
Chuck1945
Hero
[ * ]
jvenables,Sep 19 2017
07:35 AM
...
At the risk of hijacking the thread, could you expand on this comment? What is the specific shape problem and/or wing to fuselage join problem? Given the good reputation of the AZ kits, I don't imagine it is too serious, but if you can elaborate, I'd be keen to know before I start building.

I had hoped Barry would elaborate on this. I guess he did though with his "in progress' article. See here http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/...?showtopic=4611

In my opinion it comes down to what you are seeking. The best overall shape for later series 109s (F, G and K) is Fine Molds. The others all require correction to the extent their shape issues bother you. I must confess to having built the Academy G back dated to an F before the Fine Mold kits came out without attempting to correct the fuselage depth and could live with the results. Likewise I built the Revel 1/72 G-10 long ago, ignoring the gear leg spacing and replacing the prop and canopy
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
 
Barry Numerick
Hero
[ * ]
Chuck, you're right. There is nothing more I can add to what I've said in that thread. The AZ kits can be built to an acceptable standard. But once I noticed the skinny nose and wing incidence issue, they were spoiled for me. I just can't unsee that problem. If there were no Fine Molds kits, I would make do with AZ, probably by casting up some corrected noses in resin. But with the excellent Fine Molds kits, why bother? They are still a generation ahead on the AZ kits in finesse, despite being quite a few years older. And don't get me started on their G-6/AS through G-10 versions. The nose is really a step backward for those variants. Curiously, the Avias seem to be much better. But remember to trim about 1/8" from each prop blade.

Sorry to seem like such a cheerleader for Fine Molds. I have no ax to grind other than a 45+ year quest for a really good 109 F through K. About 20 years ago (as I've mentioned in prior threads here) Woody, Rob Willis and I embarked on the accurate 109 project. We attempted to use the best parts of all the then-current 109s, along with a liberal amount of scratch building, to come up with the ultimate 1/72 scale Bf 109 G-6 and G-10. In our minds, we pretty much succeeded, at least to the standards we had set, and the G-10 was released in resin by Rob's company, Hawkeye Designs. At the end of that project I was so sick of seeing small 109 parts that I moved to 1/48th scale 109s for years. The Fine Molds kits brought me back. Since I intend to assemble a rather large collection of 109s, I went back and forth between the two scales. 1/48th at the time offered better detailed kits and most of the line was available. But in 1/72 the eye can take in a large number of models as a single unit. And I grew more and more to admire the jewel-like quality of a well build small scale model. So with the Tamiya 109 E and FM later versions, I was set. The Jumo powered variants remain an open question. I'm just about done battling the AZ kit, which can be seen of this site.

One final thought. Eduard intends to shrink down their excellent 1/48th scale 109 to 1/72. They claim it will be 3-4 years until they get around to it. So, we could wait and hope they do as good a job as they did with their Spitfire Mk. 9. Or dress up the FM kits with an aftermarket cockpit and use a riveting tool. To be honest, I think it will be hard to improve on the Fine Molds kit's shape.
Goto Top
 
jvenables
Member Avatar
Hawk
[ * ]
Thanks Barry & Chuck.

It doesn't sound like something that would bother me in the slightest. Many years ago it would have stressed me to the point of the dreaded "AMS" but about a decade ago I realised I had lost too many valuable modelling hours, had pushed too many unfinished models aside and was not enjoying the hobby because I was spending far too much time fretting over such issues. These days I tend to build almost OOB, correcting only the glaringly obvious detail omissions or gross shape issues and focus instead on trying to attain a finish that, in my eye, reflects the way the subject would (or could) have appeared at an arbitrary point in history.

Quote:
 
...I grew more and more to admire the jewel-like quality of a well build small scale model. So with the Tamiya 109 E and FM later versions, I was set

I know I am taking the thread off topic again here, but I remember reading (though I cannot recall where... possibly Hyperscale or Britmodeller) that the Tamiya 109E has a minor fuselage length problem. From your comment, I assume there no credibility to this claim?

Also, I have read conflicting comments about the mainplane position on the Airfix 109E. Every Airfix Bf-109E I have seen built looks very much the part to my eye and it seems like the kit represents great value for the modelling dollar. Is there a genuine problem with the wing?
James from Brisbane, Australia
Now living in Laos

Nil illegitimi carborundum
Goto Top
 
Chuck1945
Hero
[ * ]
The gripe against Tamiya being too short is probably not true. Barry has a straight OOB build of the Airfix 109E here somewhere and compared to highly regarded plans, Tamiya's cockpit is set marginally too far back which makes the rear fuselage too short by a smidgen although the overall length is about right. The Airfix wing is perhaps 1mm too far forward

Ah, found the article
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
 
nsmekanik
Beast
[ * ]
Thanks for the input everone :) I guess the real question then would be is relative to the AZ kit errors, how bad are the Hasegawa/Academy And Revel kits comparatively speaking? One issue I've had with my AZ kit is the propeler blades do not appear to be at 60° and therefore won't line up with the spinner openings so I had to cut 2 of the blades off.
Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »