Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

The Mikester

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Mikester

  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.
  16. Take a look here: My link
  17. The Hasegawa 109E is ancient and not all relevant any more. The Eduard 1/32 109 is not all a bad kit. It does have a couple of issues, eveything but the slight bulge behind the cockpit is easily correctable though, and IMO the bulge is really not that noticeable when built up anyway. For absolute accuracy the Dragon/CyberHobby kit is probably the best but it's a more complicated build than Eduard. The Eduard has very nicely done rivet detail which I like too. The Trumpeter just has too many problems to make it worthwhile unless you've got a well stocked spares box.
  18. The Hasegawa G-10 has all the necessary parts to do a G-14/AS. Just use the small wing bulges and the ealy style main wheels. You may have to source an earlier tail wheel, the G-14/AS was observed with both style tail wheels. Leo, is correct there is no conversion set and even if there was buying a G-10 would be much, much easier. Here's one I did:
  19. I agree, 81/82 seems "iffy" at best. For later war 75/83 or 81/83, 81/82 was observed on the 262 though.
  20. I'd wait for them to release a G-2 (if they do). 1. You'd need a new upper cowl piece. 2. The wheel bumps in the wings are realistically portrayed on the underside (concave) as well so you'd have a hole in the wing where your removed the bump. 3. Early spoked wheels and 7.92 MG not included in kit. The other mods required are fairly minor. I think we'll see a G-10 before we see any earlier variants since they've already included some of the necessary parts in the G-6.
  21. Exactly, the Beule are a complicated shape, easy to say "just scratch-build it" but much more difficult to execute with acceptable results. A more realistic approach (assuming you have the spares) is to use the Beule from the Hasegawa kit, which I has several of in my spares box. Hopefully someone will offer these as a separate item, the Allee Cat set looks nice but much of it is just convenience items, patches removed from control surfaces, molded on seatbelts removed, etc. These are all items that can be easily done to the kit parts, whether you want to spend the money for these time savers is up to you. I'd prefer a less comprehensive set at a lower price that just addresses the errors in the kit. I'm almost finished with kit, IMO here's what it would really benefit from: 1. Replacement Beule 2. New landing gear. The three piece landing gear assembly is over-engineered and rickety even when assembled with copious amounts of glue. I think Eduard might be doing a replacement set in metal. 3. A new spinner (included in Allee Cat set). Revell did a good job with the shape but it's poorly engineered and missing detail at the spinner base. 4. Decals: a word of warning, the decals are thick and resistant to solvent. Revell is fielding complaints on their quality and working to resolve them. The slection of A/M decals for the G-6 is staggering though so really not an issue. Obviously the kit will benefit from A/M exhausts and guns but this is true of Hasegawa as well. The Revell kit is more difficult to build than Hasegawa, this is primarily due to the multi-variant engineering. The parts fit well but you'll be filling and sanding in areas that you won't have to with the Hasegawa. The Revell kit is an upgrade over the Hasegawa kit in regards to a couple length and contour areas, although IMO these are areas that 99% of people wouldn't notice or get stressed about anyway. A couple of areas are major upgrades (the landing gear bay for one). But I think for most people the decision over what kit to go with will boil down to price. I live in Japan and the Hasegawa kits are very reasonably priced here (mid $30 range) so price really isn't an issue for me. I'm sure I'll buy a few more Revell kits (especially if they do an Erla G-10) but Hasegawa is still my preferred kit due to the engineering and ease of assembly. Whichever kit you choose will be a solid starting point that will take a little A/M to get up to snuff.
  22. We'll be kicking off a "build-off" at the LSM forums in a couple of weeks for this one. Five of us will be doing a concurrent build-up/review, we've got some knowledgeable 109 people and great modelers involved.
  23. I'm not going to start painting my 109's blue quite yet. The fact remains that there were two late war greens, what we've been referring to as RLM 82 and 83. I've read the "RLM 83 is blue theory", but to me at this point it's a theory.
  24. Thanks! The grass mat (this one is AUTUMN BROWN SAVANNAH GRASS MAT) is by Silfor, good stuff but a little pricey. They come in 12" x 19" sheets, It took 2 1/2 sheets of them to completely cover the piece 1/4" poster board that I use as a base, but actually two of them would suffice for the majority of 1/32 projects. I've been eyeing them for a long time and finally bit the bullet to buy six of the mats a few months back. Full range here, always had great service from these folks too: http://www.sceneryexpress.com/products.asp?dept=1042&pagenumber=1&sort_on=&sort_by=
  • Create New...