Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
Leo Etgen

Revell 1/32 scale Bf 109 G-10 Erla Test Shot Build

Recommended Posts

The kit was engineered to allow them to do everything from the G-1 to the K-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Cant be true the Erla looks totaly different in the front where the standardG-10 and K would have the small bulges.

so if they will do a G-1 it wont look right not with this fuselage anyway and i hawe compared the G-6 witch looks as the G-1 to K should do, and the Erla is fatter in the front of the oil cooler and the sides.

Cheers

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kit was engineered to allow them to do everything from the G-1 to the K-4.

and I am sure they will eventually do everything from the G-1 to K-4. I was just curious if anyone had heard what they will issue next?

G-6/14AS is my top pick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant be true the Erla looks totaly different in the front where the standardG-10 and K would have the small bulges.

so if they will do a G-1 it wont look right not with this fuselage anyway and i hawe compared the G-6 witch looks as the G-1 to K should do, and the Erla is fatter in the front of the oil cooler and the sides.

Well, all I know is that that's what the guy who designed the kit said in an email to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Well if that so then The G-1 to G-5 would look wery strange, its not even possible to do an standard G-10 out of it.

But the G-6 kit should do both for the G-1 to G-5

Cheers

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I am sure they will eventually do everything from the G-1 to K-4. I was just curious if anyone had heard what they will issue next?

G-6/14AS is my top pick!

a BF109G14as would be at the top of my list. A K4 will have some different panel lines, but also would be a much wanted kit!

gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

I have no idea which version they will do next as the only 2014 schedule for Revell of Germany that I have seen makes no mention of anything aside of the Bf 109 G-10 Erla. However, a Bf 109 G-6/AS or an early G-14/AS will almost certainly be based on the existing G-6 sprues as can be inferred by the fuselage halves which were clearly designed to accommodate the "half-moons" that these aircraft were fitted with. The later production Bf 109 G-14/AS fighters built by Messerchmitt Regensburg were fitted with the large chin bulges much like the Bf 109 K-4 and the existing Bf 109 G-6 fuselage halves do not have these so possibly this version will either not be offered or new fuselage halves will be made? Any thoughts?

Horrido!

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

They could just make the chin bulges separatly like Fujimi did to their 1/48 kits.

Cheers

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

They could just make the chin bulges separatly like Fujimi did to their 1/48 kits.

Cheers

Boris

One of the things I disliked about the Fujimi kit was the add on lumps and bumps.

On a semi-related note, what are the differences between a G-14AS and a standard (non-Erla) G-10? I've read that a good number of later model AS's were fitted with the larger oil cooler and a few even had the lower bulges on the bottom of the cowling. If true, is the only real difference the larger wing bulges (which not all G-10's were fitted with) and the higher oil filler cover? I wonder how many books got it wrong when identifying G-10's in vintage pictures, especially ones that don't show all of the pertinent details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11bee,

Maybe I can help: G-14AS lower CWSD G-10 high CWSD, AS lower oil fill 10 higher oil fill, most AS small wheel bulges most 10s large wheel bulges, tall rudders different lower end shapes could be called early/late, AS no 30mm cannon some 10s with a panel lower starboard fuselage for those 10s with 30mm. The G-6 kit has 3 tall rudders the G10 Eral kit has another rudder with a rounded lower edge shape like found on the Hase G-10 kit HTH but I probably missed something important

Mike Horina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

According to The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Part 2 by Ritger the ways to identify a Bf 109 G-6/AS or G-14/AS as compared to a Bf 109 G-10 built by Mtt or WNF are the following: the G-6/AS and the majority of G-14/AS fighters were fitted with the Fo 870 oil cooler wile the G-10 and some G-14/AS were fitted with the deeper Fo 987 oil cooler; the DB 605 AS used the same 38.7 liter oil tank as the DB 605 A whereas the DB 605 D of the G-10 used a 50 liter oil tank and thus the filler point immediately behind the spinner on the port side is mounted higher; the DB 605 D had larger rocker covers thus necessitating the chin bulges. However, some Bf 109 G-14/AS aircraft were fitted with these as well so that particular feature is not concrete. Furthermore, aircraft fitted with the DB 605 D had the cold weather start device hatch located on the starboard side mounted higher than those fitted with the DB 605 AS. Any comments or corrections are appreciated.

Horrido!

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

According to The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Part 2 by Ritger the ways to identify a Bf 109 G-6/AS or G-14/AS as compared to a Bf 109 G-10 built by Mtt or WNF are the following: the G-6/AS and the majority of G-14/AS fighters were fitted with the Fo 870 oil cooler wile the G-10 and some G-14/AS were fitted with the deeper Fo 987 oil cooler; the DB 605 AS used the same 38.7 liter oil tank as the DB 605 A whereas the DB 605 D of the G-10 used a 50 liter oil tank and thus the filler point immediately behind the spinner on the port side is mounted higher; the DB 605 D had larger rocker covers thus necessitating the chin bulges. However, some Bf 109 G-14/AS aircraft were fitted with these as well so that particular feature is not concrete. Furthermore, aircraft fitted with the DB 605 D had the cold weather start device hatch located on the starboard side mounted higher than those fitted with the DB 605 AS. Any comments or corrections are appreciated.

Horrido!

Leo

So if you have a picture that doesn't show the oil filler cover (or werk number), there may be no way to be sure if you are looking at a G-14AS or G-10? The reason I ask is that as I read more on late war Bf-109s (it's an addictive subject), I am seeing pictures labeled in one book/website as G-10's, while in another book/website shows the same pictures and labels the aircraft as G-14AS's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello 11bee,

Thats right can be very hard if you dont se the right things,if there are any as said same cowlings on different AC.

Look at Sandtners Me109G-14/AS black 4 for a long time they called it G-10 but it was a G-14/AS

Cheers

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11Bee

The port side as you indicated the lower oil fill location. On the starboard side the same thing will apply to the CWSD which is also lower. Not high up where most kits have a panel line. Another thing maybe is that the rudder on the 14AS has a flat lower edge. All the G-10 pics I have seen have a rudder like the 32nd Hasegawa 109G-10 kit. Rounded bottom edge with a small light on the end tip.

Mike Horina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

The only fool proof way to distinguish a G-14/AS and a G-10 is by the werknummer. The positions of the oil tank filler and cold weather start hatch are also generally used to distinguish between the two. This will work with the majority of cases although it should be pointed out that even here there is some elements that can lead to confusion. For example, "Red 2" often associated with Eberhard Gzik is currently identified as being a Bf 109 G-14/AS. Previously, this machine was identified as a Bf 109 G-10 due to it having the deeper oil cooler and the oil filler hatch is mounted in the high position. It does not have the chin bulges that were necessary for the DB 605 D and thus it is now thought to be a Bf 109 G-14/AS but with some features often associated with the Bf 109 G-10. As an aside the werknummer often assigned to this aircraft (W.Nr. 490 642) is now thought to be erroneous as the photographs of it were taken in October 1944, some two months before that particular machine was manufactured. Any comments or corrections will be very much appreciated as we are all learning new things about these aircraft.

Horrido!

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, First off, regarding "Rita" It's an Erla built G-14/AS which is why the lower cowlbumps are missing. As with Erla built regular G-14's, some of the later batches has the deeper oilcooler and bigger oiltank. In other words, Hasegawa made a poor choice of markings as this one can't be done without some surgery. On the plus side off course, is the fact that there's no need to relocate the oil filler hatch.

I can't recall having seen a single Mtt Regensburg built G-14/AS that DIDN'T have the deeper oilcooler and lower cowlbumps though so those can easily be made from the Hasegawa G-10 kit.

The Revell G-6 could be used for anything between G-1 and G-6/AS + the Erla built G-14/AS by simply adding version specific inserts. The Erla G-10 can be an Erla G-10 only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

The only fool proof way to distinguish a G-14/AS and a G-10 is by the werknummer. The positions of the oil tank filler and cold weather start hatch are also generally used to distinguish between the two. This will work with the majority of cases although it should be pointed out that even here there is some elements that can lead to confusion. For example, "Red 2" often associated with Eberhard Gzik is currently identified as being a Bf 109 G-14/AS. Previously, this machine was identified as a Bf 109 G-10 due to it having the deeper oil cooler and the oil filler hatch is mounted in the high position. It does not have the chin bulges that were necessary for the DB 605 D and thus it is now thought to be a Bf 109 G-14/AS but with some features often associated with the Bf 109 G-10. As an aside the werknummer often assigned to this aircraft (W.Nr. 490 642) is now thought to be erroneous as the photographs of it were taken in October 1944, some two months before that particular machine was manufactured. Any comments or corrections will be very much appreciated as we are all learning new things about these aircraft.

Horrido!

Leo

So it sounds like all Revell needs to do is release a "standard" (non-Erla) G-10 with optional low oil filler ports (similar to what they did with the G-6), then do the same thing with the starboard cold weather start hatch. If possible, also throw in an extra rudder. They could leave the chin bulges and larger oil cooler and (by simply filling two unused hatches) we could at least get one variant of the G-14/AS. Or if they really wanted to be nice, they could provide the smaller oil cooler and separate chin bulges and then modelers could make pretty much any sub-variant of this aircraft.

Fingers crossed....

Probably a dumb question but did Erla produce any G-14A/S airframes? If so, were they in the same configuration as their G-10 or did they feature the bulges on both side aft of the engine cowling?

Thanks to everyone for their responsse, I am learning a great deal about this subject. Previously, I thought I was on top of all the details associated with late-war 109's. I only now realize how complicated this subject really is.

Edited by 11bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 11bee

Yes, Erla did produce a small number of Bf 109 G-14/AS fighters compared to Messerschmitt Regensburg which produced the vast majority. These aircraft had the "half-moons" as was normal for G-6/AS and G-14/AS machines. Only the Bf 109 G-10 Erla had the odd asymmetrical cowling. I hope this helps and any comments or corrections will be appreciated.

Horrido!

Leo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. His review of the previous Revell G-6 was pretty fair. He noted most (not all) of the defects on that kit, while also praising the good points. Seemed pretty even-handed to me.

His review of the G-10 also seems to be decent. He noted a couple of issues but was also complimentary on the majority of the kit.

LSP had a crackin' review of the earlier G-6 on one of their forums, hopefully they will devote some time to the new G-10 as well.

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

Edited by The Mikester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing not mentioned in any reviews is the flash abpnd the sink marks that plague the G-6 kit.

I hadnt looked closely until i watched Phil Florey's review.

Sink marks all over sime of the sprues others fine.

Very average qc indeed and hoping the G-10 is better and the same for the rest of the family.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

I bought 2 G-6 and I must say that there was difference in the flash department the first one was ok but the other was a lot more,omn the Erla nearly none.

Cheers

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

My apologies Mike. I've corrected my initial post. Great job on the G-6 review, looking forward to what you and Matt come up with for the Erla G-10.

Regards,

John

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...