Jump to content

Do we really need another 109 kit?


Recommended Posts

Ken -thanks again for the kind words - I appreciate it.

I spent most the weekend and tonight painting my Kitchen but finally got to sit down and do some modeling though.. My philosophy on building is when I hit something that needs improvment I ask myself is it visible, is it worth doing, and am I able to actually pull it off.. This isn't really a glitch in the kit, it's a matter of preference, but not at all happy with the kits super charger intake grill. I decided I need to make a new one as it's very visible, the kit par is rather obviously sub-par here (wish they had molded it like Tamiya did on thier 1/48 scale kit) and I am actually able to make simple shapes such as this - so I went ahead and did it.

This new supercharger cover will improve the overall look of the finished kit. I imagine eduard will release this in etch but I didn't fell like waiting, and spending $30 for it. This is just some styrene strips carefully glued together - it's not perfect, but it's much more realistic than what the kit provides (only took a couple hours to build).

32_109E_23.jpg

Here is another shot that shows the rear. While looking at this shot I noticed another "glitch" with this kit. While this is an obscure one, the fact is that the 109E had a slight gap between the top of the rear cowling and the front of the gun cover. The Tamiya 1/48 109E actually has this detail molded.

I learned about this from Gregg Cooper many years ago - Gregg is one of the most knowledgeable modelers I have ever known, and is a master painter to boot!

This is a shot from Gregg's article that illustrates how this gap should look. You can find this in reference photos as well (if you know what your looking for).

bf109e3gc_13.JPG

Here is a link to Gregg's full article on building the 109 (very good and well worth looking at)

Gregg Coopers 109E article

Here is a shot of what the Eduard kit provides. As you can see it's missing that slight gap. I'm not sure if I am going to fix it or not, but thought I would let anyone who cares about such thinks know.

32_109E_24.jpg

Thats it for now

Regards,

Frank

Edited by FrankC
Link to post
Share on other sites
My philosophy on building is when I hit something that needs improvment I ask myself is it visible, is it worth doing, and am I able to actually pull it off..

I noticed another "glitch" with this kit. While this is an obscure one, the fact is that the 109E had a slight gap between the top of the rear cowling and the front of the gun cover. The Tamiya 1/48 109E actually has this detail molded.

I'm not sure if I am going to fix it or not, but thought I would let anyone who cares about such thinks know.

Regards,

Frank

Hi Frank, would it be possible to thin the rearmost edge of the engine cowling and gently taper the gun cover panel slightly to create the gap?

I'll be interested to see what you do.

Nice work on that scratch-built supercharger grille. Well worth the extra effort :thumbsup:

:cheers:

Edited by geedubelyer
Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, this 109 is awesome. I am usually a modern jet modeller, but the more I look at these WWII planes the more I want to build one. It seems that modifications are alot easier to replicate on the more simple built WWII birds. Great job on this beauty!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Se7en, Geedubelyer, Jman!

Hi Frank, would it be possible to thin the rearmost edge of the engine cowling and gently taper the gun cover panel slightly to create the gap?

I'll be interested to see what you do.

Geedubelyer - this is actually a harder problem than I think I want to deal with on this particular build. I might be able to shim the engine cover and taper the gun cover some more - but it might create some problems with the engraved details on the cowling (especially if they go crooked). I think I'll just put this one off until my E-3 or later. I want to finish the build - the next one will be more detailed as I will know what to expect beforehand. T

It seems that modifications are alot easier to replicate on the more simple built WWII birds.

Well- this is a really nice kit - not much to add. Making others more accurate- well that can be less easy..

Anyway - a small update..

Slowly moving forward.. I have attached the gun cover top to the fuselage. I also found a small detail that will interest anyone wanting to build this kit. My reference shows that the 109 didn't have a panel line running between the rear and front part of the gun cover. Eduard has simplified construction by making this a three part piece, but it should be a one part piece (with no panel line). I used some filler and erased that line, then went back and carefully emphasized the panel line where it would be on the real plane.

32_109E_25.jpg

Over on the left side - In addition to filling in the seam and enhanching the gun cover panels, I replaced the molded on vent behind the starter hole with a piece of aluminium - to make it look more like a vent.

32_109E_26.jpg

I also did some work on the pit - I decided to use a Quickboost Revi 12D sight as it is significantly more detailed than what the kit provides. I also added the power cord and attached it to the dash where the power reciptical for the gun sight was located. I added knobs made from CA to the filter pump control lever (right side) and the fuel "control" (left side) as photos of these levers show them to have round knobs rather than disks (as provided by Eduard). This is really easy to do - simply dab CA onto the end of the part until it builds up into a round ball shape.

32_109E_27.jpg

Thats it for now - thanks for looking.

Edited by FrankC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys - thanks again for the comments - I'm still here, I just build slower than others. This is slower than usual because we are remodeling our kitchen and living room!

I got the new wing gun ports installed and I am liking them MUCH better than the kit supplied ports. I checked references closely and they look pretty good. This illustration shows where the MG-17 gun would be located - note how far back that muzzle is! I actually added the muzzles.. They are completely invisible to the naked eye - only if you shine a light straight down there can you see anything - and even then it's just the opening in the muzzle.. My advice is don't bother to add those gun muzzles to the wings. Just block off the ends of the tube.

32_109E_28.jpg

So I am continuing on, dry fitting as I go. I noticed that there is a rather large gap just where the fuselage and wing meet at the flap well. This will have to be boxed in of the flaps are down. Also - there is a huge hole in the gear well just on the other side of the landing gear. The cockpit floor and rear firewall show through and you can even see through it. It will look better with the gear leg in, but I am just going to box it off - I hate looking into "voids" where there shouldn't be any. If you don't box this one off - ensure you at least paint the bottom of the pit area black!

32_109E_29.jpg

Moving along and I had a "What the F***" moment.. When I put the splitter plate into the radiator grill everything is perfect until I flipped it over! Look at that line on the front of the radiator lip! Yowsa - how the heck did this happen? I'm not sure if this is a kit gaf or mine.. You might want to check that out before gluing that lip in there. Also - the rear part has a slight, but still noticable error in it's alignment as well. I'll need to fix these before moving along..

32_109E_30.jpg

Thanks for looking!

Frank

Edited by FrankC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely brilliant work Frank!! I love the restraint you've used in weathering the cockpit, less is definitely more in this case as it looks so realistic!! I've been away from ARC forums for awhile and this is the first In-Progress thread I've looked at in months, what an amazing build to "stumble" upon. I'm hooked now so I'll be eagerly watching for your continued updates :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty damn good Frank! Congratulations!

By the way, this may interest you:

My reference shows that the 109 didn't have a panel line running between the rear and front part of the gun cover.

You are absolutely right. The gun cowl of the real 109 is a single part. In the book "German Aircraft interiors", there is a wartime photograph of an abandoned Emil showing both gun cowl and engine cowl separated from the aircraft. A great photo as it also shows the internal detail of the gun cowl.

Keep the great job! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I am continuing on, dry fitting as I go. I noticed that there is a rather large gap just where the fuselage and wing meet at the flap well. This will have to be boxed in of the flaps are down. Also - there is a huge hole in the gear well just on the other side of the landing gear. The cockpit floor and rear firewall show through and you can even see through it. It will look better with the gear leg in, but I am just going to box it off - I hate looking into "voids" where there shouldn't be any. If you don't box this one off - ensure you at least paint the bottom of the pit area black!

32_109E_29.jpg

Hey Frank-

Since you're devoting so much time to making this "right", you don't want to simply block off those wing roots with flat panels...

3579-27.jpg

The rest of your work is looking excellent so far... I'm doing a full Monty build review for the IPMS Journal, and I've got a whole list of gripes about this thing over on the IPMS boards. Like I said over on HS, your supercharger intake looks MUCH better than the kit POS, and you're right about the stick and seat... thank God I still have one of the 1/32 Cutting Edge Emil interiors and extra seats! ;) I had two, but used one in an ongoing conversion project (Matchbox kit turned into Udet's D-ISLU), so I am junking the kit's seat and O2 regulator, and using the CE units in their place.

Let me know if there's other detail info you might need- between parts manuals, pilot manuals, maintenance manuals and thousands of photos, I've got more stuff on the Emil than I know what to do with, LOL! :)

Keep up the good work!

Lynn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone - thanks much! I'm glad others are as interested in this subject as I am!

Hey Brian - was wondering what ever happened to you. Glad your back - if you are looking for an awesome kit to get your interest kick started, this is it!

Im loving this model

Since you're devoting so much time to making this "right", you don't want to simply block off those wing roots with flat panels...

3579-27.jpg

Lynn

Hey Lynn,

I don't visit the IPMS boards... I wrote an article for the Journal once! Ask me about that sometime - lol..

As to your photo - a brilliant example of "DON"T EVER TRUST A REFIRBISHED AIRFRAME"! It would be incorrect to model what this photo shows on a wartime subject! So I disagree and would say that blanking it off with flat panels would be far more correct. But they aren't entirely "flat" You can see the seam in the top and bottom (where the cover fits). hard to explain but it's certainly visible (but obscure except to someone like myself).

I'll post photos tonight to show what I am talking about, but that flap well opening is filled on the real war era aircraft. You wouldn't want to display it as shown in this photo for a war era plane, same for the gear wells - covered in real life, open in the museum. So it's either fabric covered or there is a cover that fits over it. I have known about it for some time - but the photos don't really show in detail what it is, just that it's blocked off. This photo of yours seems to indicate it's possibly fabric covered! If that's not the case - this plane is missing the cover that goes over that opening.

Cool that you have all that info on the 109! I would have liked info on the gun wells for the E-1, but now it's not really important as it's closed up. I will be doing a full blown open opened up bird at some point (not an E-1 though). Im not sure what other detail I need at this point - I'll be super detailing the landing gear for sure!

Also I will be redoing the control surfaces - they look like absolute crap to me. This is the only real mistake they made - wish they had done them like they did the Hellcat. But I won't gripe too much - the rest is great (well except the missing cowling vent)..

Regards,

Frank

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey everyone - thanks much! I'm glad others are as interested in this subject as I am!

Hey Brian - was wondering what ever happened to you. Glad your back - if you are looking for an awesome kit to get your interest kick started, this is it!

Im loving this model

Hey Lynn,

I don't visit the IPMS boards... I wrote an article for the Journal once! Ask me about that sometime - lol..

As to your photo - a brilliant example of "DON"T EVER TRUST A REFIRBISHED AIRFRAME"! It would be incorrect to model what this photo shows on a wartime subject! So I disagree and would say that blanking it off with flat panels would be far more correct. But they aren't entirely "flat" You can see the seam in the top and bottom (where the cover fits). hard to explain but it's certainly visible (but obscure except to someone like myself).

I'll post photos tonight to show what I am talking about, but that flap well opening is filled on the real war era aircraft. You wouldn't want to display it as shown in this photo for a war era plane, same for the gear wells - covered in real life, open in the museum. So it's either fabric covered or there is a cover that fits over it. I have known about it for some time - but the photos don't really show in detail what it is, just that it's blocked off. This photo of yours seems to indicate it's possibly fabric covered! If that's not the case - this plane is missing the cover that goes over that opening.

Cool that you have all that info on the 109! I would have liked info on the gun wells for the E-1, but now it's not really important as it's closed up. I will be doing a full blown open opened up bird at some point (not an E-1 though). Im not sure what other detail I need at this point - I'll be super detailing the landing gear for sure!

Also I will be redoing the control surfaces - they look like absolute crap to me. This is the only real mistake they made - wish they had done them like they did the Hellcat. But I won't gripe too much - the rest is great (well except the missing cowling vent)..

Regards,

Frank

Oh, it's not the ONLY place they missed the boat...

fuelhatch.jpg

cockpit_bulkhead.jpg

radface.jpg

wheelhub.jpg

winghatch.jpg

seat.jpg

regulators.jpg

ammobox.jpg

Yes, there's more... now, I admit, I am a tough sell, since I've been studying this aircraft since I was in grade school, but some of these things are really, really basic mistakes- the sort of thing that they could have gotten right with a 5 minute Google search, or just by looking at the photos in my first book... which I know they have, because I personally gave one to Vlad at the Anaheim Nationals. Let's just say I'm not as impressed by the kit as you are, mostly because I see a lot of missed opportunities.

I am glad we have it, make no mistake... and none of this stuff constitutes a "fatal flaw" which relegates the kit to the dust bin... but still, it's frustrating to see yet another manufacturer miss the boat on so many small details.

More shortly...

Lynn

Link to post
Share on other sites
As to your photo - a brilliant example of "DON"T EVER TRUST A REFIRBISHED AIRFRAME"! It would be incorrect to model what this photo shows on a wartime subject! So I disagree and would say that blanking it off with flat panels would be far more correct. But they aren't entirely "flat" You can see the seam in the top and bottom (where the cover fits). hard to explain but it's certainly visible (but obscure except to someone like myself).

There was a plug which went in that hollow recess, which sometimes stayed, and sometimes didn't...

Plugged wing roots:

Bf 109E-3, 2./JG 2

e3_2JG2_rote11_berlindoberitz_02.jpg

Bf 109E-3, WNr 1190, 4./JG 26 (yes, the exact same aircraft that currently resides at Duxford... this is a January 1940 photo)

e3_4JG26_we4-_WNr1190_winter40_clos.jpg

And open wing roots:

Bf 109E-1, 2./JG 26 (taken 9 May 1940):

e1_2JG26_beimstart_9may40_01a.jpg

Bf 109E-4, 4./JG 2:

e4_4JG2_we12-_fall1940.jpg

Bf 109E-4, II./JG 11:

e4_iijg11-schumacher_02.jpg

And as to the gap behind the cowling... those things got beat to he|| in service, but they were supposed to match up fairly well, as you can see in this pic:

Bf 109E-4, Gruppenkommandeur in JG 53:

e4_gpkdrjg53.jpg

Making the cowlings "mismatched" is certainly accurate, since cowlings would be swapped around from plane to plane and one might not fit the next very well, but leaving it "close" like the kit is not a bad thing. As to the wing roots, I'd say it's your choice, but open wing roots ARE ACCURATE.

Cheers,

Lynn

Edited by lritger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Lynn,

Believe it or not I also have studied this airframe in great detail over the years. Here some work I did clear back in 1999 on a 109 E-1.. The kit in question was FAR more broken than this one - the TAMIYA 109E ! I'm glad I finally figured out how to take photos! I actually have this kit so close to finished -I really should finish it!

http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/bf109efc_1.htm

So what's the fuss? I don't think any of the issues you are pointing out are really all that bad - simply because they are easy to fix. The oxygen regulator can be made and painted to look extremely nice OOB - I think mine stacks up to the CE one actually (with Paint on it of course). I think I (and others) have shown that with some SIMPLE details you can make a very detailed pit! I figure there will be some sort of "etch" that will be put out to cover this kind of thing - but I dont' want to pay $30 for it so I am just doing it myself. If I could see the regulator better, I would have done more work on it - but as it is its fine IMHO

The seat was easy to fix - sanding stick.. It looks like a 109E seat when you fix it. The CE seat looks nice too - that padding is cool. I am not saying it couldnt' have been better - I am saying it's not that bad..

fuel hatch - your kidding right? This is bothersome to you? I mean it's not that hard - I know you understand.. So why the snarky comments? The Hasegawa 109G has a horribly shaped nose (and I am not just talking about the spinner) - thats impossible to fix, rescibing a fuel hatch might take 10 minutes if you waste 9..

The rear deck is odd - the thing that annoys me about it is the piano hinge - it looks completely wrong. But to fix it all I need to do is scribe and add the hinge from stretched sprue - I dont' think this is a big deal. Could it be done differently - I guess- but it's just not bad. Once painted it should look fine - even OOB.

The gun access pannel is raised - I noticed but didn't think it looked bad. I can't comment on that as I can't really see it on photos and haven't seen one in real life. I assume you have and find it no good? I guess that could be, but it doesn't look all that bad to me but I'll take a closer look at it.

The radiator faces square? Well that's obscure - but not so bad and certainly easy to fix. I don't honestly mind but am glad to see the info, I'll make sure I square mine up.

As to the wheels - well that's obvious, and been covered by Brett and many others - disappointing for sure.. The fix is aftermarket.. I'll be using Aires wheels as they look fantastic.

Everykit has these kinds of issues - the thing that turns most people off is the cost - but the costy is reflected in that it comes with etch and the comprehensive decals. If you were to buy the base kit and the etch, and decals - you would easily spend $75.. So this kit is actually competitvely priced with 1/32 Hasegawa kits ($45 for the base kit).

I guess the things that bother me the most are the things that are harder to fix. The cowling gap and control surfaces for instance. Also - it was a real chore to put that engine in there with the cowling closed. That shouldn't have been that hard. I wish they had designed the kit to be closed up first. Clearly it's designed to be opened up first - and that is going to cause many people who are not used to this kind of engineering to howl..

I will still take this kit every time against any other 109E kit on market in 1/32 scale. Not only that - but I fully look forward to the E-3 and E-4 of which I will certainly buy and build.

EDIT: haha - so it can be either. I have several shots that show it only coverd. Since your photos show it occurs in both states -I'm almost 100% certain that there isn't a plug but that that piece is fabric covered - and the covering was removed for maintence and not replaced.

great stuff!

Regards,

Frank

Edited by FrankC
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Lynn,

Believe it or not I also have studied this airframe in great detail over the years. Here some work I did clear back in 1999 on a 109 E-1.. The kit in question was FAR more broken than this one - the TAMIYA 109E ! I'm glad I finally figured out how to take photos! I actually have this kit so close to finished -I really should finish it!

http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2000/bf109efc_1.htm

So what's the fuss? I don't think any of the issues you are pointing out are really all that bad - simply because they are easy to fix. The oxygen regulator can be made and painted to look extremely nice OOB - I think mine stacks up to the CE one actually (with Paint on it of course). I think I (and others) have shown that with some SIMPLE details you can make a very detailed pit! I figure there will be some sort of "etch" that will be put out to cover this kind of thing - but I dont' want to pay $30 for it so I am just doing it myself. If I could see the regulator better, I would have done more work on it - but as it is its fine IMHO

The seat was easy to fix - sanding stick.. It looks like a 109E seat when you fix it. The CE seat looks nice too - that padding is cool. I am not saying it couldnt' have been better - I am saying it's not that bad..

fuel hatch - your kidding right? This is bothersome to you? I mean it's not that hard - I know you understand.. So why the snarky comments? The Hasegawa 109G has a horribly shaped nose (and I am not just talking about the spinner) - thats impossible to fix, rescibing a fuel hatch might take 10 minutes if you waste 9..

The rear deck is odd - the thing that annoys me about it is the piano hinge - it looks completely wrong. But to fix it all I need to do is scribe and add the hinge from stretched sprue - I dont' think this is a big deal. Could it be done differently - I guess- but it's just not bad. Once painted it should look fine - even OOB.

The gun access pannel is raised - I noticed but didn't think it looked bad. I can't comment on that as I can't really see it on photos and haven't seen one in real life. I assume you have and find it no good? I guess that could be, but it doesn't look all that bad to me but I'll take a closer look at it.

The radiator faces square? Well that's obscure - but not so bad and certainly easy to fix. I don't honestly mind but am glad to see the info, I'll make sure I square mine up.

As to the wheels - well that's obvious, and been covered by Brett and many others - disappointing for sure.. The fix is aftermarket.. I'll be using Aires wheels as they look fantastic.

Everykit has these kinds of issues - the thing that turns most people off is the cost - but the costy is reflected in that it comes with etch and the comprehensive decals. If you were to buy the base kit and the etch, and decals - you would easily spend $75.. So this kit is actually competitvely priced with 1/32 Hasegawa kits ($45 for the base kit).

I guess the things that bother me the most are the things that are harder to fix. The cowling gap and control surfaces for instance. Also - it was a real chore to put that engine in there with the cowling closed. That shouldn't have been that hard. I wish they had designed the kit to be closed up first. Clearly it's designed to be opened up first - and that is going to cause many people who are not used to this kind of engineering to howl..

I will still take this kit every time against any other 109E kit on market in 1/32 scale. Not only that - but I fully look forward to the E-3 and E-4 of which I will certainly buy and build.

EDIT: haha - so it can be either. I have several shots that show it only coverd. Since your photos show it occurs in both states -I'm almost 100% certain that there isn't a plug but that that piece is fabric covered - and the covering was removed for maintence and not replaced.

great stuff!

Regards,

Frank

Fabric... of course! That makes perfect sense, and probably accounts for the "indented" look you referred to earlier. You could do that with lead foil, and it would look great... cool! :)

You're absolutely right that this is head and shoulders above any other 1/32 Emil on the market, no question. And I fully admit that I'm much pickier than your average modeler when it comes to THIS particular subject- especially Emils. :) There are lots of things I like about the kit, such as:

- gorgeous, delicate engraving with subtle rivets- the sort of thing other (cough *TRUMPETER* cough) manufacturers could learn from

- the gear legs and doors

- the photoetch pieces they supplied (BTW, I didn't get an "errata" fret in mine... wonder if they've fixed the master? We'll find out!)

- the prop assembly, what a gorgeous piece of work

- the canopies

- the cockpit floor with the PE pieces looks great together

- the overall shape looks pretty good to me- I'm not sure if the "hump" Brett refers to is really an issue, I've got some interesting period photos of that area that show it's not a straight taper

- the MG 17s... good Lord, but those are sweet!

So it's not a throwaway, not by any means. But yes, things like the fuel hatch are annoying, because neither I nor anyone else should HAVE to fix them, had they been done correctly in the first place. The hatch was just a straight-up bonehead error- other things, like the deep slat wells and steps in the flaps, were molding limitations (and the radiator faces might fall into that category), which I can live with and fix. It won't stop me from recommending this kit, or from building several of them, but I won't hide my disappointment that Eduard made a number of basic detail errors on the kit. But rather than just gripe about them, the article will demonstrate how to fix them as well. I don't think that's an unfair position to take. :)

Cheers!

Lynn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lynn,

I saw the disscussion on the hump but since I can't really fix the hump -so I simply accept it. At least it still looks like a 109! Kinda like that 109G nose problem..

Speaking of the gear.. I was looking at Bretts build - and I think the gear legs might be at the wrong angle - they don't look quite right to me. I need to research it more, but the photos you posted seem to show the real plane sits differently. The gear seems to be swept more forward . Again - it could be some sort of paralax distortion on the real subject, but I am going to take a long hard look at the gear sweep on this one. Something just looks wrong to me - not sure what it is (yet).

Nothing wrong with being picky - I'm sure you are enjoying your build as well.

Regards,

Frank

Fabric... of course! That makes perfect sense, and probably accounts for the "indented" look you referred to earlier. You could do that with lead foil, and it would look great... cool! :)

You're absolutely right that this is head and shoulders above any other 1/32 Emil on the market, no question. And I fully admit that I'm much pickier than your average modeler when it comes to THIS particular subject- especially Emils. :) There are lots of things I like about the kit, such as:

- gorgeous, delicate engraving with subtle rivets- the sort of thing other (cough *TRUMPETER* cough) manufacturers could learn from

- the gear legs and doors

- the photoetch pieces they supplied (BTW, I didn't get an "errata" fret in mine... wonder if they've fixed the master? We'll find out!)

- the prop assembly, what a gorgeous piece of work

- the canopies

- the cockpit floor with the PE pieces looks great together

- the overall shape looks pretty good to me- I'm not sure if the "hump" Brett refers to is really an issue, I've got some interesting period photos of that area that show it's not a straight taper

- the MG 17s... good Lord, but those are sweet!

So it's not a throwaway, not by any means. But yes, things like the fuel hatch are annoying, because neither I nor anyone else should HAVE to fix them, had they been done correctly in the first place. The hatch was just a straight-up bonehead error- other things, like the deep slat wells and steps in the flaps, were molding limitations (and the radiator faces might fall into that category), which I can live with and fix. It won't stop me from recommending this kit, or from building several of them, but I won't hide my disappointment that Eduard made a number of basic detail errors on the kit. But rather than just gripe about them, the article will demonstrate how to fix them as well. I don't think that's an unfair position to take. :)

Cheers!

Lynn

Link to post
Share on other sites
<snip>...As to the wheels - well that's obvious, and been covered by Brett and many others - disappointing for sure.. The fix is aftermarket.. I'll be using Aires wheels as they look fantastic. <snip>

Frank,

I saw those Aires wheels, and they look nice at first, but then you might notice the spokes look a bit odd. Check out this analysis by Charlie Metz on LSP (discussion starts on post #33 - analysis on post #35):

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.ph...30&start=30

The Eagle Editions wheels ( http://www.eagle-editions.com/ep29-32.htm ) would seem to be the ones to get, but they are quite pricey indeed!

I say, press on old boy! I am a few steps behind you and you've helped my build immensely! :thumbsup:

Cheers,

Doug

Edited by DougN
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

Just to add a little to your interesting discussion I would like to point out some innacuracies I have noticed. I do have a kit for less than 24 hours but on my first, quick look:

[1] Please look at the small bulges on lower engine cowl (those covering engine head covers and oil piping) - they are of wrong shape and incorrectly placed;

[2] The tailwheel has spurious tyre shape;

[3] The tailwheel well contour looks as if it is to small and to shallow when looked from profile;

[4] Placement and presence (sic!) of few access hatches / covers on lower and upper wing surface needs attention and further verifying;

[5] The bulge over MG 17 synchroniser seems to be less subtle than it should be;

[6] The droptank (useless on E-1 but present in the kit) is of wrong shape and lacks details.

Moreover I wonder why both types of canopy hasn't been added as both can be easily observed on E-1's.

Will it be a second E-1 issue with other canopy?

I bought the kit and I am happy I do have it, it is far better than older issues of Hasegawa and Matchbox but I feel really disapointed by those shortcomings, specially when points 1, 2, 5 will require more than one minute work or replacement (tyre).

Best regards,

Kuba

Edited by Kuba Plewka
Link to post
Share on other sites
Gentlemen,

Just to add a little to your interesting discussion I would like to point out some innacuracies I have noticed. I do have a kit for less than 24 hours but on my first, quick look:

[1] Please look at the small bulges on lover engine cowl (those covering engine head covers and oil piping) - they are of wrong shape and incorrectly placed;

[2] The tailwheel has spurious tyre shape;

[3] The tailwheel well contour looks as if it is to small and to shallow when looked from profile;

[4] Placement and presence (sic!) of few access hatches / covers on lower and upper wing surface needs attention and further verifying;

[5] The bulge over MG 17 synchroniser seems to be less subtle than it should be;

[6] The droptank (useless on E-1 but present in the kit) is of wrong shape and lacks details.

Moreover I wonder why both types of canopy hasn't been added as both can be easily observed on E-1's.

Will it be a second E-1 issue with other canopy?

I bought the kit and I am happy I do have it, it is far better than older issues of Hasegawa and Matchbox but I feel really disapointed by those shortcomings, specially when points 1, 2, 5 will require more than one minute work or replacement (tyre).

Best regards,

Kuba

Kuba, just to touch on the tailwheel tire... I think they may have mastered the tire from the one mounted on WNr 4101 at the Royal Air Force Museum... the photos below are pretty conclusive in this regard. The tire resembles a P-51 tailwheel tire more than a 109... tell me if you agree. It definitely does not match standard 109 tires, although it won't be too difficult to reshape... I haven't measured the diameter yet, though, so I don't know if it's too small or not. The tail wheel well looked a bit shallow to me too, but I thought it was hardly worth mentioning- it will be very easy to correct with sandpaper or a file.

P-51 tailwheel tire:

P1010158.jpg

Bf 109 tailwheel tire, in service:

e4_1JG21_we2_01.jpg

Bf 109E-3 WNr 2422 tire (Swiss AF Museum):

2422dw11.jpg

Bf 109E-1/E-3 WNr 4101 tire (Royal Air Force Museum):

4101-39.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lynn,

I totally agree with you - it seems that Eduard has copied the tire of W.Nr. 4101.

Copied from W.Nr. 4101 is the "cover" or maybe I will call it "a patch" on the wing, behind the main spar, close to fuselage (seen on this photo)

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/4...tbd.midfuse.jpg

that is not present on other Emils if my memory does not cheat me.

Best regards,

Kuba

Edited by Kuba Plewka
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug, Kuba, and Lynn

Woa - great info on the wheels and tail wheel!

I also started looking more closely at the hatches after Lynn pointed out the fuel filler hatch is incorrect. I haven't gotten very far yet.

There is a very small blister that is visible that is further behind the cover for the wing spar bolt - that is missing.

I haven't really looked at the tail wheel - but if it's square it's not right. Hopefully easy to fix - otherwise the Aires set for the 109F offers a tailwheel that should be right.

I agree with the blister on the synch gear - but that seems to tie into the cowling being higher and showing that gap beween the front cowling and the gun cover.

I have managed to get the cowling on - and had to use spreaders to get a good fit. I don't see how you can get that cowling to fit right and still have it removable - I am abandoning any idea of making a removable cowling - this was the icing on the cake for me. I'll either make it fully open, or fully closed the other open will require far too much effort - I salute those of you able to pull that off though!

I'll post some more shots tonight.

Regards,

Frank

Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank,

I saw those Aires wheels, and they look nice at first, but then you might notice the spokes look a bit odd. Check out this analysis by Charlie Metz on LSP (discussion starts on post #33 - analysis on post #35):

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.ph...30&start=30

The Eagle Editions wheels ( http://www.eagle-editions.com/ep29-32.htm ) would seem to be the ones to get, but they are quite pricey indeed!

I say, press on old boy! I am a few steps behind you and you've helped my build immensely! :)

Cheers,

Doug

Y'know, I got the Quickboost wheels as part of the review package, and I was thinking something wasn't quite right with them but couldn't put my finger on it... thanks to you, I now know exactly why they looked odd to me. I just hadn't gotten around to comparing them to photos.

Guess I'm going back with my first option, an idea I cribbed from Erik Whipple... I'll cut the center hubs out of the True Details Bf 109B-E "tractor tires" and use those with the kit tires.

Thanks Doug!

Lynn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...