Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6 Revell 1:32

[modelldoc]

Hi,

that's are test sprues, but looks nice:

http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/testshots-vorgestellt-messerschmitt-bf-109-g-6-revell-132/2013/#more-20735

modelldoc

[afspret]

Wow, all I've got to say is this: Not another 109 kit!?!?!?!

Why can't we get a new 1/32nd Hurrican/Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Tempest or an Allison 'Stang?!?!?!?

Edited April 24, 2013 by afspret

[stevehnz]

'Cause folks just love to model ww2 axis, pretty much doesn't matter what scale or genre, aircraft, armour, ships/subs. Don't as me why, its just so.

Steve.

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

I am glad that Revell of Germany has released this kit and will be waiting to see just how good is it once it is released. The Hasegawa and Trumpeter versions suffer from numerous small errors so it will be interesting to see how the Revell kit compares to both. It appears that there are quite a lot of options included which complicates building but is a plus in my opinion as it gives you much more flexibility without having to buy aftermarket. If I am not mistaken, Special Hobby has announced a 1/32 scale Tempest and PCM has a very nice 1/32 scale Hurricane I available.

Horrido!

Leo

[Andreas Beck]

The parts breakdown just LOOKS complicated. I have built two testshots. The breakdown is at least very thoughtful although some may wish an alternative arrangement here or there. The main improvement over the Has` kit is the correct cross section of the fuselage (height). All improvements on the kit , if there is a desire, can be done by the modeler. But this is a future discussion. The fit of parts is good and the build is straight forward without any problems. There are some very clever design ideas e.g. the landing gear construction.

[nerdling]

Wow, all I've got to say is this: Not another 109 kit!?!?!?!

Why can't we get a new 1/32nd Hurrican/Sea Hurricane, Seafire, Tempest or an Allison 'Stang?!?!?!?

Probably because they know that the 109 will sell no matter what. In the end it all comes down to what will make the most money for the company.

[toadwbg]

Wow, all I've got to say is this: Not another 109 kit!?!?!?!

All I got to say is "Someone else is complaining about another 109 kit?"

[Robertson]

The main improvement over the Has` kit is the correct cross section of the fuselage (height).

Wasn't the 1:32 Hasegawa kit way too wide as well? Width at cockpit sill opening should be 625 mm as per blueprints: That works out to 19.5 mm in 1/32...

The 1/48 Hasegawa Gustav was way too wide at the cockpit, being 672 mm vs 625... I was under the impression the 1/32 Hasegawa was just as bad... Good stuff the new Revell is at least the correct depth!

Robertson

[Andreas Beck]

Yupp, the cockpit width is also corrected.

Hasegawa worsened their 109 G kits with the then new designed fuselages of the K (and late Gs)

[Collin]

Looks like with this new 1/32 kit...you can make slight variation on the 109G-6 Late or 109G-14 models, tall tails/Eral hoods/smaller oil cooler scoop under the nose. Am I off the mark here?

Cheers

Collin

[CorsairMan]

Probably because they know that the 109 will sell no matter what. In the end it all comes down to what will make the most money for the company.

With so many 109s and 190s out there... and no end in sight....that's got to be right.

[hacker]

more interested in the Spitfire Mk II in 1/32. Would like to see how that looks

[The Mikester]

Classic example of why I so rarely visit this site any more. Here's a novel concept if you're not interested in 109's, how about just avoiding threads about 109's? Obviously we'll make an exception for those of you being held at gunpoint and being forced to open and comment on this topic. Here's another, if you want a 1/32 (insert name of boring, non commercially viable subject here) write Hasegawa, Tamiya, Revell, etc. and let them know about it rather than whine about it in a thread about 109's. They make the models and I seriously doubt they're trolling ARC looking for their next subject.

With so many 109s and 190s out there... and no end in sight....that's got to be right.

Really?

New tool, semi-modern:

Fw 190A-1/3: ONE! (low pressure injection molded, difficult to build)

Fw 190A-5/8: ONE!

Fw 190D-9: ONE!

This is "so many"? So I guess this means the 1/32 P-51 market is absolutely saturated with two new tool, modern kits?

New tool, semi-modern:

Bf 109E-1/7: THREE

Bf 109F2/4: TWO

Bf 109G-1/6: TWO (Revell will be 3)

Bf 109G-10/K-4 ONE!

These are grouped by virtue of kits sharing more or less the same sprues. The Hasegawa 109G2-G6 are virtually identical in terms of plastic in the box.

The Trumpeter 109 kits are not even taken seriously by most people due to the multitude of problems they suffer from but I've included them anyway. This hardly reads like a plethora of 109's in 1/32 to me.

[billw]

Classic example of why I so rarely visit this site any more. Here's a novel concept if you're not interested in 109's, how about just avoiding threads about 109's? Obviously we'll make an exception for those of you being held at gunpoint and being forced to open and comment on this topic. Here's another, if you want a 1/32 (insert name of boring, non commercially viable subject here) write Hasegawa, Tamiya, Revell, etc. and let them know about it rather than whine about it in a thread about 109's. They make the models and I seriously doubt they're trolling ARC looking for their next subject.

Really?

New tool, semi-modern:

Fw 190A-1/3: ONE! (low pressure injection molded, difficult to build)

Fw 190A-5/8: ONE!

Fw 190D-9: ONE!

This is "so many"? So I guess this means the 1/32 P-51 market is absolutely saturated with two new tool, modern kits?

New tool, semi-modern:

Bf 109E-1/7: THREE

Bf 109F2/4: TWO

Bf 109G-1/6: TWO (Revell will be 3)

Bf 109G-10/K-4 ONE!

These are grouped by virtue of kits sharing more or less the same sprues. The Hasegawa 109G2-G6 are virtually identical in terms of plastic in the box.

The Trumpeter 109 kits are not even taken seriously by most people due to the multitude of problems they suffer from but I've included them anyway. This hardly reads like a plethora of 109's in 1/32 to me.

I totally agree. There are many aircraft/model kits that I have no particular interest in, but I don't take it personally when another one of them is released in a new kit. Just more variety in the hobby. I have zero interst in jets, for example, but I'm not bothered in the least when Tamigawa or whoever released a new one. I hope they sell a lot of them, make a profit, stay in business, and hopefully produce a kit I really want. Along with other modelers I would love a new tool P-40B/C, but I don't upset because a new 109, or P-51, or F-16 comes out in stead. They're going to make the kits they think they can make a profit on, as it should be.

BW

[Leo Etgen]

Hello Collin

Yes, it does appear as if there will be a number of options available if the sprue shots show what will be included in the boxing. In addition to the options you listed I see they also included the rear cockpit cover with and without the relocated battery box for the standard G-6 or that fitted with MW 50. Hasegawa omitted that feature and also messed up the drop tank on their kit whereas the drop tank included in the Revell of Germany kit appears to be more accurate.

Horrido!

Leo

[CorsairMan]

Classic example of why I so rarely visit this site any more. Here's a novel concept if you're not interested in 109's, how about just avoiding threads about 109's? Obviously we'll make an exception for those of you being held at gunpoint and being forced to open and comment on this topic. Here's another, if you want a 1/32 (insert name of boring, non commercially viable subject here) write Hasegawa, Tamiya, Revell, etc. and let them know about it rather than whine about it in a thread about 109's. They make the models and I seriously doubt they're trolling ARC looking for their next subject.

Really?

New tool, semi-modern:

Fw 190A-1/3: ONE! (low pressure injection molded, difficult to build)

Fw 190A-5/8: ONE!

Fw 190D-9: ONE!

This is "so many"? So I guess this means the 1/32 P-51 market is absolutely saturated with two new tool, modern kits?

New tool, semi-modern:

Bf 109E-1/7: THREE

Bf 109F2/4: TWO

Bf 109G-1/6: TWO (Revell will be 3)

Bf 109G-10/K-4 ONE!

These are grouped by virtue of kits sharing more or less the same sprues. The Hasegawa 109G2-G6 are virtually identical in terms of plastic in the box.

The Trumpeter 109 kits are not even taken seriously by most people due to the multitude of problems they suffer from but I've included them anyway. This hardly reads like a plethora of 109's in 1/32 to me.

10 models of the 109 in 32nd scale is just supporting the notion that its a popular airframe with modelers. Which is exactly what we were saying. Throw in the 109s in 48th and 72nd and you have a lot more. People buy them and that's why they are produced.

Not sure of your argument or why you are attempting to make one.

[Slartibartfast]

He's just complaining about the complainers. Don't know why he's limiting the count to "semi-modern". That doesn't represent the true depth of the market. You can still get the hoary old Revell "Me-109G" Green Hearts kit if you want.

[Hal Marshman Sr]

I don't see anyone griping when they bring out one Spitfire after the other. personally can't stand the things. There, I said it, and I'm glad..Don't think much of the Hurricane either. For some perverse reason, the only WW-II british airplane I do like is the B.P. Defiant, but I can't explain why. Hal Sr

[Slartibartfast]

"only WW-II british airplane I do like is the B.P. Defiant, but I can't explain why."

You like underdogs? Bet you like P-39s and P-40s, too.

[Hal Marshman Sr]

Slartibartfast, P-47s, Allison engined P-51s, Bf-109s, FW-190s (Going through a Longnose kick right now). Like Zeroes, but seldom model them, although I do have a Rufe ready for paint, I'll build a P-40, or a P-39, as well as the very occasional Spit

(I did do a Mk I some years back.). Aside from that and the BP Defiant, the only other British plane I like is the SE-5a. I have a Defiant nearly finished that I've not touched in at least 8 years, and another in the stash. Oh, Do have a partly built Lysander that I started for some unknown reason. Wierd bird. Hal Sr

Oh Yeah, at that time, I didn't know the early Spitfires didn't have the door crowbar painted red. Hal Sr

Edited April 27, 2013 by Hal Marshman Sr

[Jennings]

You like underdogs? Bet you like P-39s and P-40s, too.

Below 15,000' the P-40 kicked serious butt. It could out dive and out maneuver most of its opponents. It got a bad rap because it was overshadowed by the P-51, but I've met several folks who flew both, and they all had very high praise for the P-40 - as long as you stayed at low altitude with it. It could absorb an *enormous* amount of punishment that the P-51 couldn't.

[G.R.Morrison]

Jennings, here's a testimonial from one of those opponents; Prof. Dr. Ludwig Franzisket was Adjutant of the I Gruppe, then Staffelkapitän of the 1./JG 27, and one of the first three "Afrikans" to be awarded the Ritterkreuz:

"The appearance of the Tomahawks (in the Battle of Sollum, June 1941) was not very impressive. These units flew a very clumsy and tight formation, massed in immobile groups of thirty to forty aircraft. The tactics of the Bf 109s was to gain superior altitude very quickly and to dive down single-handed. The British squadrons answered only with an excited twisting and weaving. However it was a deadly mistake for a Bf 109 pilot to try and enter a dogfight with the Curtiss's. I have seen the death of two or three comrades in dogfights with Curtiss's, among them Leutnant Heinz Schmidt in June 1941." (Schmidt, a 6-victory ace of 3./JG 27, was KIA 28.June 1941, 10km West of Capuzzo)

GRM

[mawz]

Below 15,000' the P-40 kicked serious butt. It could out dive and out maneuver most of its opponents. It got a bad rap because it was overshadowed by the P-51, but I've met several folks who flew both, and they all had very high praise for the P-40 - as long as you stayed at low altitude with it. It could absorb an *enormous* amount of punishment that the P-51 couldn't.

While it is true that the P-40 was a decent performer at low altitude, it hardly 'kicked butt', the P-40 was inferior in performance at low altitude to the Allison Mustangs in pretty much every regard (Faster, better range, more manoeuvrable at speed). Unfortunately its toughness was a weakness as much as a strength, the overbuilt and not terribly clean airframe cost it performance outside of a dive. It was pretty agile at low altitude though, at least in comparison to non-Japanese aircraft, but like the Zero you could turn or you could keep your speed, they bled energy very fast.

Its biggest advantage in toughness though was the chin-mounted radiator, that essentially put all of its weak points in the same place, and arguably the hardest to hit, right at the front. The P-51's much cleaner installation had the downside of making centre & rear fuselage hits far more likely to hit something vital.

There's fairly good reasons why the Allison P-51's stayed in service until they ran out of replacement parts & airframes while the P-40's generally got retired as soon as replacement airframes became available (Hell, the RAF retired its last Mustang in 1947-1948, it was an Allison-engined model). And while the early P-51's certainly had high loss rates, they also often ran higher risk missions (low-altitude recon over defended territory) than P-40's did. When used in the same role the loss rates were broadly similar.

Personally I think it's a pity that they didn't keep the Allison Mustangs in production alongside the Merlins. The Merlin Mustangs were superb long-range fighters, but the penultimate Mustang at low altitude was probably the Mk.1A, with its heavy 20mm armament.

Edited April 28, 2013 by mawz

[Jennings]

It's a lot less about the airplane than it is about the pilot. The P-40 stayed in service with great success in the CBI well into 1944.

[ChesshireCat]

Below 15,000' the P-40 kicked serious butt. It could out dive and out maneuver most of its opponents. It got a bad rap because it was overshadowed by the P-51, but I've met several folks who flew both, and they all had very high praise for the P-40 - as long as you stayed at low altitude with it. It could absorb an *enormous* amount of punishment that the P-51 couldn't.

I've also heard similar comments about the P39 / P400 airframe.

gary