Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
Leo Etgen

Hasegawa versus Revell - Bf 109 G-6 Length

Recommended Posts

Hello all

I have a question regarding the dimensional accuracy of the 1/32 scale Bf 109 G-6 kits by Hasegawa and Revell. The general consensus of opinion for some time now has been that the Hasegawa kit is a bit too short (some two millimeters) and that most of this error is concentrated in the nose area, specifically in the area between the Beule and the windscreen, if I remember correctly. Most reviews, including the detailed one at http://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/1238-132-messerschmitt-bf-109g-6-early-and-late/ state that the new Revell release is quite accurate dimensionally-wise, both in terms of the fuselage and wingspan. For what I understand, the length of a 1/32 scale Bf 109 G-6 should be about 264 millimeters without the spinner which adds another 18 millimeters. The Hasegawa kit measures some 262 millimeters and the Revell kit measures some 264 millimeters for what I have read (without the spinner). Is this information correct? I am hoping for objective and informed responses. Many thanks.

Horrido!

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mike

That was the specific thread that I had in mind when I wrote my question. However, now that Thierry Laurent has posted the length of the gun breech panel based on blueprints which confirms that the Hasegawa kit indeed is in error the question is solved for me. I should point out that it appears that the spacing of the MG 131 gun troughs is in error on the Revell kit; hopefully A2Zee Models will eventually incorporate a new upper cowling in their correction set.

Horrido!

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question regarding the dimensional accuracy of the 1/32 scale Bf 109 G-6 kits by Hasegawa and Revell. The general consensus of opinion for some time now has been that the Hasegawa kit is a bit too short (some two millimeters) and that most of this error is concentrated in the nose area, specifically in the area between the Beule and the windscreen, if I remember correctly. Most reviews, including the detailed one at http://forum.largescalemodeller.com/topic/1238-132-messerschmitt-bf-109g-6-early-and-late/ state that the new Revell release is quite accurate dimensionally-wise, both in terms of the fuselage and wingspan. For what I understand, the length of a 1/32 scale Bf 109 G-6 should be about 264 millimeters without the spinner which adds another 18 millimeters. The Hasegawa kit measures some 262 millimeters and the Revell kit measures some 264 millimeters for what I have read (without the spinner). Is this information correct? I am hoping for objective and informed responses. Many thanks.

I can count rivets with the best of them, and often do. But no human being on the planet is able to discern such a tiny difference in a 3 dimensional object like that. I wouldn't lose ANY sleep whatsoever over a 2mm difference in the nose of a 1/32 model. You could stand them side by side and I would defy anyone to tell me which one was 2mm longer than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can count rivets with the best of them, and often do. But no human being on the planet is able to discern such a tiny difference in a 3 dimensional object like that. I wouldn't lose ANY sleep whatsoever over a 2mm difference in the nose of a 1/32 model. You could stand them side by side and I would defy anyone to tell me which one was 2mm longer than the other.

Nor should you lose sleep over someone losing sleep over a 2mm difference, true? Just sayin'

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that thread over on LSP, and I thought I'd entered a rivet counter's convention!!! One guy must have had a serious vendetta against Revell, and I just laughed at him. The revell kit is the new king unless somebody like Zvezda upscales their 109's. Folks just don't want to admit that their $60 kit is no better than a $27 kit. We saw the same whining with the 1/72nd scale JU88, and some of them still won't admit it! Technology just moves on, and the better mousetrap you get today maybe surpassed tomorrow. Just life!

gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor should you lose sleep over someone losing sleep over a 2mm difference, true? Just sayin'

Bill

:D/>/> :D/>/> :D/>/> :D/>/> :D/>/>

All the Hasegawa 109s are imaginative fiction, and the length is among the smaller of their numerous troubles: The cockpit sill width is too wide over a much smaller dimension than the length, so the error there is a lot bigger than 2 mm over the whole length: On the 1/48th kit it is around 7% off in width while the 2 mm length error amounts to about 0.8%... The cockpit width error is similar or worse on the 1/32 kits... (Actual cockpit sill width 625 mm, canopy top width 360 mm, max fuselage depth 1288 mm at rear of tilting canopy)

So most people keep talking about a fuselage length error that is proportionately almost ten times smaller than the fuselage width error...

This 7% is actually made worse by the belly flattening out straight, reducing the fuselage depth by well over 3% at the engine firewall, since the nose is less than maximum depth and thus takes the same height loss over a smaller distance, totalling probably around 4%... This seems to have given the whole kit a "nose up" look, squeezing the exhausts upwards, certainly on the entire 1/48th range at least.

This adds up to an 11% discrepancy (1950s Aurora territory you know), completely distorting the nose's appearance. I would think 11% in width beats 0.8% in length, but hey, what do I know?

Hasegawa fixed the spinner on the F but not on all the G/Ks, so that looks awful too. I have barely looked at the 1/32 Revell kit, and I still know it beats the Hasegawa by planetary amounts...

Robertson

Edited by Robertson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D/>/>/> :D/>/>/> :D/>/>/> :D/>/>/> :D/>/>/>

All the Hasegawa 109s are imaginative fiction, and the length is among the smaller of their numerous troubles: The cockpit sill width is too wide over a much smaller dimension than the length, so the error there is a lot bigger than 2 mm over the whole length: On the 1/48th kit it is around 7% off in width while the 2 mm length error amounts to about 0.8%... The cockpit width error is similar or worse on the 1/32 kits... (Actual cockpit sill width 625 mm, canopy top width 360 mm, max fuselage depth 1288 mm at rear of tilting canopy)

So most people keep talking about a fuselage length error that is proportionately almost ten times smaller than the fuselage width error...

This 7% is actually made worse by the belly flattening out straight, reducing the fuselage depth by well over 3% at the engine firewall, since the nose is less than maximum depth and thus takes the same height loss over a smaller distance, totalling probably around 4%... This seems to have given the whole kit a "nose up" look, squeezing the exhausts upwards, certainly on the entire 1/48th range at least.

This adds up to an 11% discrepancy (1950s Aurora territory you know), completely distorting the nose's appearance. I would think 11% in width beats 0.8% in length, but hey, what do I know?

Hasegawa fixed the spinner on the F but not on all the G/Ks, so that looks awful too. I have barely looked at the 1/32 Revell kit, and I still know it beats the Hasegawa by planetary amounts...

Robertson

Gulp! I've never looked at the underside of my Hasegawa kits all that much!! And the interiors are something I'm just beginning to dig into. Still it may just be me, but something on the upper spine just seems to be not right. (Hasegawa) I hope it's just me. Right now revel has the football, and I'd hope they'd improve upon their new offering. Something like an even better interior, and perhaps some better weapons to build a Jabo. Would really make my day to see Zvezda do their two "F" series planes in 1/32nd scale. As for a G14, and a G14AS, I think they are just around the corner.

gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that thread over on LSP, and I thought I'd entered a rivet counter's convention!!! One guy must have had a serious vendetta against Revell, and I just laughed at him. The revell kit is the new king unless somebody like Zvezda upscales their 109's. Folks just don't want to admit that their $60 kit is no better than a $27 kit. We saw the same whining with the 1/72nd scale JU88, and some of them still won't admit it! Technology just moves on, and the better mousetrap you get today maybe surpassed tomorrow. Just life!

gary

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D/>/>/>/> :D/>/>/>/> :D/>/>/>/> :D/>/>/>/> :D/>/>/>/>

All the Hasegawa 109s are imaginative fiction, and the length is among the smaller of their numerous troubles: The cockpit sill width is too wide over a much smaller dimension than the length, so the error there is a lot bigger than 2 mm over the whole length: On the 1/48th kit it is around 7% off in width while the 2 mm length error amounts to about 0.8%... The cockpit width error is similar or worse on the 1/32 kits... (Actual cockpit sill width 625 mm, canopy top width 360 mm, max fuselage depth 1288 mm at rear of tilting canopy)

So most people keep talking about a fuselage length error that is proportionately almost ten times smaller than the fuselage width error...

This 7% is actually made worse by the belly flattening out straight, reducing the fuselage depth by well over 3% at the engine firewall, since the nose is less than maximum depth and thus takes the same height loss over a smaller distance, totalling probably around 4%... This seems to have given the whole kit a "nose up" look, squeezing the exhausts upwards, certainly on the entire 1/48th range at least.

This adds up to an 11% discrepancy (1950s Aurora territory you know), completely distorting the nose's appearance. I would think 11% in width beats 0.8% in length, but hey, what do I know?

Hasegawa fixed the spinner on the F but not on all the G/Ks, so that looks awful too. I have barely looked at the 1/32 Revell kit, and I still know it beats the Hasegawa by planetary amounts...

Robertson

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.

Edited by The Mikester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Sometimes I wish this forum had a like button, because I would like that comment about a billion times. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But no human being on the planet is able to discern such a tiny difference in a 3 dimensional object like that.

2mm is 5/64 of an inch. That is an easily discernable difference for a whole lot of people, myself included. Now, whether that should bother someone in their hobby is a personal preference. A difference like that would at least give me pause to think about whether I should fix it or not. And if I saw a kit maker or aftermarket product maker claiming that 2mm can't be seen, and they weren't going to lose any sleep over such a "tiny difference", I'd be leery of buying their products.

But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

YAWN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2mm is 5/64 of an inch. That is an easily discernable difference for a whole lot of people, myself included.

You'd need to prove that to me. Sorry, but I just don't believe your spatial perception is that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I just don't believe (people can see 2mm) (Mustang doors dropped after engine shutdown) (etc. etc.)

I've noticed you don't believe a lot of things. Doesn't bother me, but it does tell me that when you say "I believe..." or "XXX was this color" that I should never take that at face value.

Let's be clear what I am talking about: if you set a Hasegawa 109 on a table, by itself, could I detect that the length forward of the windscreen was 2mm too short?

No, but then again, I don't particularly care about 109s. However I can sure see the issue with, for example, Dragon P-61s where the booms are too long forward of the wing LE, pushing the cowl forward too much, and as I recall that issue is less than a 2mm error. But it is obvious to anyone who knows what P-61s look like. Likewise if Lynn Ritger were to say that he can see a shortness in the Hasegawa nose just from looking at a fuselage half, I'd believe him.

Now, if you set a Hasegawa kit next to a Revell one, could I see a 2mm difference in nose length? I bet I could. I know I could, because a couple of years ago I saw a display someone made of 1/144 Corsairs, modified from F-toys F4U-1s, and the difference in length between their -1s/-4s and -5s/-7s/AU-1s was plainly visible. In 1/144 scale the difference in length between the -1/-4 and -5/-7 is almost exactly 2mm. Proportionally more on a 1/144 kit that a 1/32? Yes, but 2mm in the nose is still 2mm in the nose, and would be visible in a 1/144 Corsair, a 1/72 Hien Otsu compared to a Hien Hei, or a Hien Hei compared to a Hien II (actually 3mm, granted...), or a 1/32 109.

Funny that the guy who makes such a big deal about the "horrid" shapes of the 1/48 T-33 kits available says a 2mm difference in cowl length "can't be seen".

Now, getting back to that 109 - if that 2mm was spread out along the whole length of the Hasegawa kit, I could see the difference being hard to see even if set next to a Revell. But I can't see how, if sat side-by-side, someone wouldn't notice that the "look" was different, and probably also that one was shorter than the other. But then, I used to work with guys who could pick up a random bolt and call out the diameter down to the 64th of an inch, and thread pitch, without using a gauge. Or guys who worked in a machine shop and could turn stuff on a lathe and only needed to break out calipers when they got under a 64th of an inch of where they needed to be. That is without comparing to a prototype, which was (and is) magic to me. And yet, folks did it, consistently, day in and day out.

Believe it... or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed you don't believe a lot of things.

:D/> :D/> :D/>

Oh and Mikester, I just finished these two last week, but I guess your contentless post has to be consistent right?;

P9275601_zps73a6d2d9.jpg

P9275595_zps5dbdf746.jpg

Robertson

Edited by Robertson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this the part where the heroine beats on the hero's chest and says "I hate you I hate you I hate you!" C'mon guys. You'll wake up tomorrow and be back in love more than ever.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...