Question on the Zvezda 1/48 Bf109F kits

[Jennings]

First let me say, the engineering and fit of just about every part of this kit is astounding. Lots of other manufacturers could take *serious* lessons from Zvezda.

That said, has anyone else experienced a problem with the lower wing (outboard) insert panels? Mine are like 0.5mm narrower than the opening. I've seen pics of built up models where they appear to be a perfect fit like the rest of the model. I'm wondering if I left out the structural stuff in there that you don't see anyway, if it might help?

Anyone have any experience to share??

Tks!

J

[HistnScale]

Built both the F-2 and F-4 kits. The F-2 had the gaps around the panel and the F-4 did not.

HTH,

Dave

[Jennings]

Cool thanks! It's the F-2 I'm working on.

[mawz]

yep, the F-4 definitely doesn't have the gaps, just fitted those panels today on mine.

[ch9862]

First let me say, the engineering and fit of just about every part of this kit is astounding. Lots of other manufacturers could take *serious* lessons from Zvezda.

That said, has anyone else experienced a problem with the lower wing (outboard) insert panels?

I'd say lesson 1 is: do not over-engineer, use 1 part lower wing like everyone else. Same goes for the engine cowling, since I have no desire to show the engine.

I'd put in the panel you refer to before anything else - had issues with them in both of my builds.

My 2 cents.

[Jennings]

I'm not sure why they made those panels separate in the first place. Odd.

[mawz]

I'm not sure why they made those panels separate in the first place. Odd.

I suspect it's engineered to allow for kitting the rare F's with wing cannon, given the design of the insert. What baffles me is why the F-2 doesn't fit and the F-4 does, unless there's some difference in the underwing area here and Zvezda used different inserts (certainly possible, given the wing was designed for the possibility of armament, particularly on the F-2)

[Jennings]

Well they retooled the wing, since the cutout for the wheel well is different between the F-2 and F-4 kits, so that would account for the difference in fit. Even using CAD and CNC, the resulting tools won't be 100% identical down to the micron.

I don't get why they'd have engineered it that way even if they were doing Galland's aircraft. That was one (or two?) Fs out of thousands.

[mawz]

Well they retooled the wing, since the cutout for the wheel well is different between the F-2 and F-4 kits, so that would account for the difference in fit. Even using CAD and CNC, the resulting tools won't be 100% identical down to the micron.

I don't get why they'd have engineered it that way even if they were doing Galland's aircraft. That was one (or two?) Fs out of thousands.

One bird, but guaranteed sales if they do a run, because it's a unique aircraft and tied to a famous ace, even if he only flew the F-6/U in combat once Galland did get a Spitfire kill with it and it was the testbed for the planned F-6 production run.

The engineering would also likely allow for the RZ65 testbed as well, if someone was to mold RZ65 launchers.

[ChesshireCat]

Well they retooled the wing, since the cutout for the wheel well is different between the F-2 and F-4 kits, so that would account for the difference in fit. Even using CAD and CNC, the resulting tools won't be 100% identical down to the micron.

I don't get why they'd have engineered it that way even if they were doing Galland's aircraft. That was one (or two?) Fs out of thousands.

Jennings,

the surface detail of the f4 wing compared to the F2 wings are different. Some F4 have the early wheel well bays, so do your research.

gary

[Jennings]

Yeah, I'm aware of that, thanks :) Depending on what you read, NO F-2s had aft fuselage reinforcements, ALL F-2s had squared off wheel wells, ALL F-2s had aft fuselage reinforcements, NO F-2s had square wheel well openings, etc, etc, etc. In short, unless you can prove it with a photograph, there is no "always" and no "never" when dealing with a 109 :)