michael_hase

Thank you very much! Most comprehensive and very fast replies from you all!!! Final question(s), please.... 1. Fighter type control stick? I assume yes 22. Standard RAF Radio sets in the cockpit? Again, yes What do you think? Now, let´d get started with the project🙂 Cheers and have a nice Sunday Michael

I Hi Kari, thank you for the info. I have these for the Mk. IV and Mk. VI Mosquitoes already. The info given with these decals however don´t answer my questions😪.... Cheers Michael

A good afternoon from Germany, perhaps one or more of you will be able to assist with my planned project of one of the BOAC DH Mosquitoes I want to build in 1/72nd-scale. Many thanks for the input coming in advance.... Basically I would like to have the three following questions answered, please: 1. Did these Mosquitoes carry 50 or 100 gallon underwing tanks? 2. A bit more into the detail.... The BOAC Mosquitoes I want to build were converted FB Mk. VI. How do you think were the gun and ejection ports etc. faired over? Simply with some linen or something alike and then painted or - as we would do with the model - with some putty to have an even surface? 3. The bomb bay or cannon bay was used for "passenger transport" and therefore added with felt and a mattress. The FB Mk. VI however had two compartments, the one in front which initially housed the 20mm cannons and now was empty due to the dismantling of the guns and the rear compartment which could have been used as "bomb compartment". Which of these two was actually the place where the passenger could be placed for the airlift? How did this passenger enter this compartment? Via a ladder from the front- or rear part of the compartment? Any info and suggestion would be gladly welcome. All the best from Nuremberg Michael

One of my favourites. There is an excellent photo section on AMI made by Danielle Lang: http://www.aussiemodeller.com.au/pages/History/Aircraft/Lang_Vengeance.html What is the issue with the SH-kit´s fuselage? Can you please explain this a little more in detail? Thanks alot Michael

Dear Pierpaolo, excellent build and paint-job. perfect weathering for a 1/72nd-scale model. I do not dare to comment on the exact fading of the colours of RNZAF aircraft as I simply do not have the knowledge for but I like this model. And when Alan gives you a positiv reply - chapeau! What decals did you use from Ventura. I assume the roundels? I have V7273 and V7285 which may have the correct blue for roundels. The other markings - I assume - are from Sky models? Hope to get their set which afaik is oop. Hope to see more from you! Best regards from Nuremberg Michael

A colleague of mine posted this a year ago: https://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=63943.0 Obviously these ar Messerschmitt-drawings for the 109 G according to the captions I asked him to send me the ipg of picture 20 and 21 enlarged via mail. Hopefully he will do so. If you have a look at the drawings the camouflage for the fuselage (20.jpg) also is interesting. The caption says that that there should be a soft demarcation line of 5cm between the camouflage colours on the fuselage. Cheers Michael

Gentlemen, this is more an historic topic I am afraid and we do not know too much yet. Please forgive my mistakes/faults with the language but I hope I will be able to work out the point of this thread concerning the historical facts. Firstly , as mentioned previously, please don´t mix the completely different official saw-tooth pattern for 109s with the question arising from the drawing colleague dov from Austria kindly presented to us. In this drawing the demarcation lines of this shown camouflage between the two colours RLM 74 and RLM 75 scheme were supposed to be painted with a somewhat frayed painting which might have covered around 100mm of "overspray". Thus not a soft edge oder hard edge of the whole camouflage demarcation pattern as seen on many Britsh aircraft of that time but a definitely frayed/ragged view within this standard camouflage pattern. This should be seen even on older contemporary pictures as Graham noticed correctly. Older books unfortunately are not always that helpful as more recent researches discovered many new views and info. Older aircraft - as long as they were and still are in original condition - may be a little proof for the one or other assumption but not seen as proof or fact in general. Sometimes it was discovered that the plane - for ages been regarded as "original" - was more or less skillful "refurbished" in the 60ies or 70ies without valuable documentation of what was done with and to the respective aircraft. Also, please do not argue with "there were a lot of variations and everything available was taken". Definitrely not. There were very strict and stringent orders by RLM for the manufacturers until the end of the war also concerning paints and paint schemes. This resulted from the tight time schedule for manufacturing the aircraft etc. Each new aircraft was to be tested, inspected and accepted by the RLM through their representatives. This was done until the end. Yes, there were some more diversions from these schemes towards the last months of the war however these were mainly due to the different sub-contractors for special parts. These mainly were wooden parts which required other paints than those used on the metal frames. And sometimes there was repainting at the different units, too. But here we have an official drawing with a certain patern for demarcation lines between RLM 74 and 75. You clearly can distinguish a new MTT-Regensburg made 109 G/K from one made by Wiener-Neustadt (WNF) or Erla. Basis for these weres the RLM-orders, however there were differences with - mostly -the fuselage panting (pattern and blotches). This nowadays is accepted as fact. I happen to know Mr. Kiroff who owns the RLM-archive and also works as advisor for many museums and paint manufacturers for model paints. He owns a company doing these original RLM-paints for museums etc. We discussed this topic pretty frequently and always enrage - with regard to standard camoufalges - hearing or reading the sentence : "they took every paint available" This is nonsense but unfortunately not to be extinguished from the books until today. In our case there is this RLM or manufacturer´s drawing of which we do not know much or anything about. At first we should work out when this was issued, which RLM-number (DV...) and if this only was preliminary or in fact an order which had to be executed by the manufacturers, e.g. MTT, Wiener Neustadt, Erla and their subdivisions and subcontractors. And then - with regard to the work involved with this pattern and the deteriorating situation and desperate need for aircarft in 1944/45 - if this already was to be done on the aircraft. There are a lot of orders idling around which had been reversed or stooped immediately after their issue which makes things not easier at all. And many infos/orders are simply gone and were destroyed towards the and and after the war. I hope to get some more info from our German historians to be able to add some more info. Cheers and happy modelling Michael

Very interesting! I did not know about this drawing before. I linked your post to our German "Modellboard" and asked if any of our specialists there might be able to give more background info. The Finnish G-6 shows the standard pattern for the fuselage of that time which has no connection to the two details "D" and "E" you have shown. According the aforementioned drawings all layers of RLM 74 and 75 of a "109" at least should be painted with "ragged" edges of up to some 100mm width. In 1/72 this would be appr. 1.3 - 1.4 mm and would clearly be visible on every model. Honestly I never have seen this before neither on an original aircraft nor on models. Do we have to re-write the "book"? Let´s hope to get interesting and historically well funded replies! Cheers Michael

Gentlemen, I do not know if this topic has been discussed elsewhere as I didi not find any posts during my research here. However I remmeber having talked about the FiAF Hurricanes with some members of this forum last year but unfortunately lost my material on this topic. This then was in connection with the Hurricane in Finbland (HC-452). My simple question is, when was the - external and -internal bullet-proof windshield introduced with RAF-Hurricanes? Are there dates or relyiable info? I understand that initially there was a rounded windshield to which later an external frame with a armoured glass panel was added. Then a flat windshield with frame was introduced to which an external bullet-proof panel was attached. Last version was the flat windshield with internal armour. Both latter version must look the same seen from the outside? Please correct me if I am wrong. Best regards Michael

Exactly! I will check this one as well. Did you have a look at the position of the exhaust stubs Best wishes for 2021 Michael

My favourite in the older days was the Heller Bf 109 F a wonderful kit and nobody cared about the dimensions etc. I had the Beaman booklet myself but unfortunately sold it.In many ways outdated (Bf 109 G-10 A and B but still something for the history. M,

Dear Troy, dear fellow-modellers, correct, Honestly, I wanted to be polite as I know Petr Muzikant well and had some discussions on his G-6. The upper fuselage half in the picture is the AZ with the "issues" we discovered, the one below is the extended FM-fuselage. However I assume that nobody except a 109-buff really sees the difference, As in many cases with our hobby it dpends on how deep you dig or want to dig. I want to have an almost correct model and therefore I cope with th ese things. For me 2,0 mm in 1/72 are a " difference". But I do not critiizise anyone simply doing his or her models without taking care of these details. I wish you all a peaceful and pleasasnt Christmas week-end this year and "happy modelling" Yours Michael

Ok, now I have the point. I definitely had mixed up two different things with these armour plates. Many thanks! Best regards Michael

Good morning, sorry for havening been obviously impoliote however I spent a few days in hospital and away from the office. Perhaps you, Troy, have pictures showing the two different styles of added armour and their frames from the outside. When reading through the posts I asked myself about the technical way these were fixed. Yiou were speaking of a "unviersal" windshield. Am I right assuming that this was built to have pre-fabricated fittings for additional armour? From the outside, does it look similar to the "first up-armoured" windshields? Just to make sure that we don´t compare pears with apples... (I think you use the same expression in GB). We have pictures of the excellently restored Hurricane in Tikkakoski. Is there a good picture showing an early Hurricane with outside-fixed galss armour? Is there really any visual difference from the outside without closer look? Thanks for enlighten me shortly before Christmas😉 Best regards Michael

Gentlemen, the "correct length" has been a topic here in Germany ever since I can think about "Messerschmitts" and - believe me - this goes some time back.... There are also slight differences due to the different types of tailfins/rudders attached to the G-6 and subsequent sub-types, e.g. G-14, G-10 etc. 9020mm incl. rudder is common sense nowadays concerning this type. A couple of years ago we at "Modellboard" here in Germany have done some 1/72nd-comparisons on the then available 109 F and G-Types based on measurements taken at Tikkakoski and Cosford which I hade taken before. To avoid the rudder discussion we have only taken the fuselage and subdivided it into the four parts without rudder. Please have a look at the whole thread - it almost is self-explanatory. https://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=61607.msg949739#msg949739 However we haven´t taken Tamyia´s new G-6 into this survey as it hasn´t been on the market then. Quite honest, all of the older 109 G-6/F-subtypes have their "+" and "-" mostly with regard to the diameter and the width of the fuselage. Most of them simply are too narrow and with some of them the proportions are somewhat "incorrect". The old Aitfix G-6 and the Heller ones are the least "correct" followed by the too tny Hasegawas and their Eastern-European derivatives. But still, they look like Bf 109 G - thus zthey are Bf 109 G. AZ´s G-6 - as excellent as the kit technically is - has the front part in our opinion out of the centre which gives the impression that this part is too small and "out of the middle". FM -is two mm too short. I have extended the fuselage. Buit this is something only for the rivet-counter. Still it looks like a Bf 109 G. Tamyia´s 109 G-6 in 1/72 seems to be the best game in town today. Happy Christmas and happy modelling! Yours Michael