Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

The Mikester

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Mikester

  • Rank
    Servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor
  • Birthday 02/08/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Yokosuka, Japan

Recent Profile Visitors

12,349 profile views
  1. Indeed and there is probably an even larger amount of people parroting misinformation they pick up and talking out the side of their neck which is why many people have developed an aversion to many of these self-proclaimed experts. There are several people who I hold in very high esteem on the subject of 109's, others should abide by the old Mark twain quote "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." We also have a segment of the hobby who have pretty much forsaken building models in favor of finding every possible flaw so they have an excuse not to build them. I'm concerned about accuracy, I'm also concerned about kit engineering and how to actually fix flaws on the kit. Some of these guys have no clue to go about that since they're no longer modelers or never really were to begin with. Most people found it pretty humorous, myself included. If you can't laugh at yourself occasionally you're taking a hobby way too seriously. I don't have a problem with people pointing inaccuracies on a kit, it's the ridiculous commentary and hyperbole that usually accompanies it. Someone posted an exceptionally well done Eduard 109G at another site and of course one somebody had to chime in with "nice job, too bad it's not 1/48". Really? If you wonder why some people don't have a lot of tolerance for rivet counters there's your answer. The heavy-handed commentary and more than a small measure of elitism that some people possess are every bit as responsible for the arguments as those of the "just build it" crowd. It takes two to tango. I'll pass. 1/48 is dead, it just doesn't know it yet! ;-)
  2. Brett Green's review from Hyperscale: 109 Review As a rule I trust Brett's reviews, he actually builds models but is conscious of accuracy as well and is usually pretty level headed. I think this kit is a definite upgrade over the older Hasegawa kit, however 1/48 is not my scale so mehhhhh....
  3. Relax, Gaston. He wasn't talking about you, nobody considers you an expert.
  4. In 1/32 you can use the Hasegawa G-10 to build a G-6/AS with some minor mods. You'll have to source some earlier propeller blades and oil cooler and you may have to trim the oil line bulges off the lower forward end of the cowl. The G-10 kit does include the smaller wheels and wheel bulges though. Maybe re-scribe a filler hatch or two as well, don't recall off the top of my head.
  5. The Erla G-10 review is behind schedule! Hopefully a couple more weeks and we'll have it up.
  6. I did a review of the Eduard set a couple of months back: http://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/1990-eduard-brassin-cockpit-for-revell-132-bf-109g-6/ The quality is very good but it is a little pricey.
  7. Wow! I think I paid about $35 for it. Books get crazy expensive when they go out of print.
  8. I've seen that too and I'm tempted to do it that way but still don't think I've seen any proof that JG 6 used RVD bands. Would make a good looking model though!
  9. I'm all for being open minded IRT to new information that comes to light but when we start changing conventions that we've used for a long, long time it just gets confusing as hell. So 83 is now bluish and 82 is dark green, what designator is light green? Do we have RLM 82, light and dark? I'd really prefer we stick to the standard conventions in the name of simplicity, historical correctness be damned! And on the subject of "RLM 84" what about the straw tinted variant? As far as the book I like it. I'm not really in 100% agreement with all the color interpretations, but there's a reason we call them interpretations! Some of the "K" schemes apppear a little far fetched, especially since Messerschmitt maintained a pretty fair degree of consistency of paint schemes from batch as opposed to other late war aircraft that were all over the map. Japo's "Messerschmitt Bf 109K Camouflage and Marking" is a great study of the subject.
  10. I'm not sure that this a problem with all the G-6 kits. My review sample had only a small amount of flash and only a couple of very minor sink marks. Perhaps your kit was just from a bad lot?
  11. Actually it was at Large Scale Modeller, Revell 109G-6 Review not LSP, I wrote that review along with Matt Low. We've already begun work on the Erla G-10 review and you can expect the same level of detail that we devoted to the G-6, although the Erla G-10 is a bit a harder due to the fact that's there's not exactly a plethora of information on it. Brett Green's assesment of the Revell G-6 was fair. He didn't point out every single issue but he certainly touched on the major ones and gave you a good feel for the kit. He failed to mention that the kit can be a bit fiddly, but it was an "in box" review so that's to be expected. Cheers, Mike
  12. Gaston, you don't build 1/32 (or build anything actually, at least that you finish), you most likely don't even have either kit in 1/32 in your possesion so you just regurgitate the same drivel you've been spewing for years about the 1/48 Hasegawa 109. If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously and why you've been banned from nearly every forum on the internet here's a good place to start.
  13. And what exactly makes the Revell G-6 the king? The price, it's new? First off the whole world doesn't pay $60 for the Hasegawa kit, I've never paid more than $35 for one. If you pay full retail all the time you're not trying very hard. BTW, the Revell G-6 is a $50 kit here in Japan. The Revell kit is more accurate in a couple of areas but it also has it's share of issues: MG 131 Beule are badly mis-shaped Oil cooler mis-shaped Mis-shaped propellers Spinner is slight improvement over Hasegawa in shape but still not 100% correct, additionally devoid of detail and poorly engineered Three piece landing gear struts difficult to assemble and rickety feeling once installed Cockit engineering leaves large gaps between fuselage and cockpit walls that must be filled after cockpt is painted There are more, but I'm not going to pick nits. The Hasegawa does have some issues too (well documented by now), although I seriously doubt 99.9% of modelers would ever notice or be concerned about the nose and cross section errors, these have been grossly exagerrated IMO. The Hasegawa goes together much easier than the Revell kit though, the engineering and fit are superb and no nonsense. Truth is both are very good kits and both have some errors. Which one you choose will probably depend on how much you can get it for and what type of build you want. Having built both kits I can say that I prefer the Hasegawa (and this is a sentiment expressed by several people who have built both) based on the fact that it just a much easier build. The Revell kit has more options and some great features but the multi-variant engineering causes some construction headaches. Certainly not the king, but another option which is a good thing.
  14. Really hard to say, many of the more exotic/interesting schemes were field applied. Factory mottles tended to be more consistent but there was still significant variation in the pattren, size and density of the mottles
  15. I think most were done in 74/75 but you might be able to find a few in 75/83. Also forgot to mention, if you're doing an Erla production G-14/AS the two bumps on the front of the lower cowl would not be present. If it's a Regensburg production leave them there.
  • Create New...