Bf110 Options

[Wez]

I've just acquired an Eduard 1/72nd Bf110. For those of you who haven't seen it it's a beauty!

Typically, I don't want to make an E model, I want to make a C, does anybody know if I can make a C from an E? I'm not very familiar with the Bf110, the documentation I have isn't particularly helpful but I think I can with very little effort or changes (AFAIK the E was a Jabo orientated airframe vs a fighter airframe). Can anybody confirm this?

Regards

Wez

Edited July 20, 2012 by Wez

[Duncan B]

I've just acquired an Eduard 1/72nd Bf110. For those of you who haven't seen it it's a beauty!

Typically, I don't want to make an E model, I want to make a C, does anybody know if I can make a C from an E? I'm not very familiar with the Bf110, the documentation I have isn't particularly helpful but I think I can with very little effort or changes (AFAIK the E was a Jabo orientated airframe vs a fighter airframe). Can anybody confirm this?

Regards

Wez

The most obvious differences I can think of (without resorting to the Kagero books which I can recommend) are that the tail wheel size and strut would be different as were the main wheels size and the vent on the nose (under the guns) would need to be removed. The pitot tube was in a different location and there were some changes to the seating which would be obvious even in 1/72, other changes in the cockpit wouldn't be too obvious. On the plus side the canopy was the same (although the gun stowage cutout might have been faired over?) and you could still use the ventral bomb rack if you were building a C1/B, C4/B or a C7. Think of the E's as modified D2's and look for the differences between them and the C models.

According to Kagero the E was built as a multi role type and was certainly used that way. Should be a reasonably easy conversion depending on how detailed you want to be.

Just had a quick look in the Eduard box and found that the earlier nose and wheels are included so they probably have plans to release a C or D anyway along with a G model if the sprue for the canopies are anything to go by.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Duncan B

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

The most obvious differences I can think of (without resorting to the Kagero books which I can recommend) are that the tail wheel size and strut would be different as were the main wheels size and the vent on the nose (under the guns) would need to be removed. The pitot tube was in a different location and there were some changes to the seating which would be obvious even in 1/72, other changes in the cockpit wouldn't be too obvious. On the plus side the canopy was the same (although the gun stowage cutout might have been faired over?) and you could still use the ventral bomb rack if you were building a C1/B, C4/B or a C7. Think of the E's as modified D2's and look for the differences between them and the C models.

According to Kagero the E was built as a multi role type and was certainly used that way. Should be a reasonably easy conversion depending on how detailed you want to be.

Just had a quick look in the Eduard box and found that the earlier nose and wheels are included so they probably have plans to release a C or D anyway along with a G model if the sprue for the canopies are anything to go by.

Personally I suspect we'll see all of Eduard's 1/48th Bf110's to appear in 1/72, that means a C, D, E ,G-2 and G-4, so I'm waiting as I fancy a G-2 with 37mm flak cannon. Incidently, Eduard have released a set of decals for the Bf110E, which includes a nightfighter version that uses the big belly tank. Also the resin gun bay and wheels look very nice too!

thanks

Mike

[Seahawk]

I've just acquired an Eduard 1/72nd Bf110. For those of you who haven't seen it it's a beauty!

Typically, I don't want to make an E model, I want to make a C, does anybody know if I can make a C from an E? I'm not very familiar with the Bf110, the documentation I have isn't particularly helpful but I think I can with very little effort or changes (AFAIK the E was a Jabo orientated airframe vs a fighter airframe). Can anybody confirm this?

Regards

Wez

It's a common marketing technique to issue the least popular variant of a new kit first. All the enthusiasts rush to buy it and then you get another bite at the same market by subsequently issuing the variant everybody really wanted in the first place. The classic example of this is the Revell Fw200 Condor, which first came out in the C-8 missile carrier variant, of which few were built and fewer saw service as actual missile carriers, before being released in the classic Condor patrol bomber configuration most buyers really wanted.

From what I've seen of the Eduard sprues most, if not all, of the parts for C and D variants are already there on the sprues (eg fuselages with and without the long tail, Dackelbauch under-fuselage drop tank, various wing drop tanks, fins and wheels), so I expect to see the same parts being marketed in different boxes with different transfers as various variants. Impatient soul that I am, I'll probably buy the 110E and use some of the transfers for other variants from the aftermarket Eduard 110 sheet on it - after working out which parts I need for my version. The kit does appear to consign the very disappointing Airfix offering to the dustbin of history.

[Chuck1945]

As mentioned, the parts are all there for a later C, a D an the E. The little plug for the upper fuselage just aft of the canopy makes it possible for Eduard to even do the early C with the offset rear gun trough in the fuselage. The only let down I have seen in the kit are the woefully undersize props

[Wez]

The most obvious differences I can think of (without resorting to the Kagero books which I can recommend) are that the tail wheel size and strut would be different as were the main wheels size and the vent on the nose (under the guns) would need to be removed. The pitot tube was in a different location and there were some changes to the seating which would be obvious even in 1/72, other changes in the cockpit wouldn't be too obvious. On the plus side the canopy was the same (although the gun stowage cutout might have been faired over?) and you could still use the ventral bomb rack if you were building a C1/B, C4/B or a C7. Think of the E's as modified D2's and look for the differences between them and the C models.

According to Kagero the E was built as a multi role type and was certainly used that way. Should be a reasonably easy conversion depending on how detailed you want to be.

Just had a quick look in the Eduard box and found that the earlier nose and wheels are included so they probably have plans to release a C or D anyway along with a G model if the sprue for the canopies are anything to go by.

Thanks for the info Duncan, just the sort of thing I was after

It's a common marketing technique to issue the least popular variant of a new kit first. All the enthusiasts rush to buy it and then you get another bite at the same market by subsequently issuing the variant everybody really wanted in the first place.

This is true and also bloody annoying - I wish they wouldn't do that.

Wez

Edited July 21, 2012 by Wez

[Wez]

The only let down I have seen in the kit are the woefully undersize props

Not sure what you mean there Chuck, I've dug out two sets of plans (Aircraft Monograph No.3 and Ian Stair's from an old edition of Scale Models), they look spot on for diameter against both sets. They do look a bit narrow in chord but that could just be a difference in the pitch the kit blades are set to vs they way they're drawn in the plan, on that basis I'd agree they look a bit anaemic.

Wez

[Duncan B]

From what I've seen of the Eduard sprues most, if not all, of the parts for C and D variants are already there on the sprues (eg fuselages with and without the long tail, Dackelbauch under-fuselage drop tank, various wing drop tanks, fins and wheels), so I expect to see the same parts being marketed in different boxes with different transfers as various variants. Impatient soul that I am, I'll probably buy the 110E and use some of the transfers for other variants from the aftermarket Eduard 110 sheet on it - after working out which parts I need for my version. The kit does appear to consign the very disappointing Airfix offering to the dustbin of history.

The E used both the long and the short fuselage depending on variant, same with the Dackelbauch so Eduard have given us a lot more than just the option to build an E in the box. Decals aren't difficult to come by or to cobble together so I can see lots of custom builds appearing even if Eduard don't issue the whole family.

I'm still going to build the 2 Airfix 110's I have just to use up some of the decal options I have but I won't be buying any more of them now unfortunately, another opportunity missed for Hornby I'm afraid. I suspect the same will happen to the new Airfix 109 if Eduard downscale their 1/48 offering too.

[Seahawk]

Not sure what you mean there Chuck, I've dug out two sets of plans (Aircraft Monograph No.3 and Ian Stair's from an old edition of Scale Models), they look spot on for diameter against both sets. They do look a bit narrow in chord but that could just be a difference in the pitch the kit blades are set to vs they way they're drawn in the plan, on that basis I'd agree they look a bit anaemic.

Wez

Oh, no! Don't tell me Airfix Weedy Prop Syndrome has spread to Eduard! If so, as with Airfix, it's inexcusable, demonstrating an ignorance of elementary geometry and/or flight theory.

[Duncan B]

Personally I suspect we'll see all of Eduard's 1/48th Bf110's to appear in 1/72, that means a C, D, E ,G-2 and G-4, so I'm waiting as I fancy a G-2 with 37mm flak cannon. Incidently, Eduard have released a set of decals for the Bf110E, which includes a nightfighter version that uses the big belly tank. Also the resin gun bay and wheels look very nice too!

thanks

Mike

I've just received the Eduard catalogue included in a delivery from them and it has profipack Bf110G-2s and G-4s as new releases, kit numbers 7085 and 7086 respectively.

I have received the resin wheels, gun bays and extra decals and can confirm that they are very nice indeed.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Duncan B

[Chuck1945]

Not sure what you mean there Chuck, I've dug out two sets of plans (Aircraft Monograph No.3 and Ian Stair's from an old edition of Scale Models), they look spot on for diameter against both sets. They do look a bit narrow in chord but that could just be a difference in the pitch the kit blades are set to vs they way they're drawn in the plan, on that basis I'd agree they look a bit anaemic.

Wez

Undersize was perhaps not the best word choice. You are correct in that Eduard seems to have the correct diameter on the props, but after five minutes looking at 110 C/D/E prop pictures in Vasco's Messerschmitt 110 Bombsights Over England book, they are far too narrow. While the term 'toothpick prop' has been used to differentiate between Mossie and Lancaster paddle blade and narrow-chord props, in Euard's 110 case, the props truely are toothpick shaped. Won't keep me from building a few, but it is oh so frustrating to have such a gorgeous kit marred by such an obvious goof.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Chuck1945

[Duncan B]

I started one of mine this afternoon and it falls together, the engine nacelles are a marvel of engineering, the oil coolers drop into place into the nacelle with not a gap or joint needing sanded, never mind filler. The cockpit detail is amazing, rivet detail on the Radio Op's saddle support is there even though it is almost invisible to the naked eye. It is a very impressive kit and well worth the money in my opinion. The props do look a little skinny though, maybe I'll hang back from gluing them in place for just now.

I'm withdrawing my earlier remark about my intention to build the Airfix 110's I have in the stash, not a chance now, looks like my son will be getting them for him to build instead.

[Wez]

Undersize was perhaps not the best word choice. You are correct in that Eduard seems to have the correct diameter on the props, but after five minutes looking at 110 C/D/E prop pictures in Vasco's Messerschmitt 110 Bombsights Over England book, they are far too narrow. While the term 'toothpick prop' has been used to differentiate between Mossie and Lancaster paddle blade and narrow-chord props, in Euard's 110 case, the props truely are toothpick shaped. Won't keep me from building a few, but it is oh so frustrating to have such a gorgeous kit marred by such an obvious goof.

I won't be building mine any time soon - too much other stuff on the go (none of it modelling unfortunately), hopefully somebody will have issued a correction by the time I'm ready to make mine.

Wez

[Touvdal]

Regarding the prop, i think the it look right, seen here held aganst the drawing by Martin Lebl.

what a great kit

cheers

Jes

[Duncan B]

Regarding the prop, i think the it look right, seen here held aganst the drawing by Martin Lebl.

what a great kit

cheers

Jes

Thanks for putting our minds at rest about the props, it would be a crazy mistake for Eduard to make having put so much effort into the rest of the detail they have included. I wish my painting skills were up to bringing out all the cockpit detail.

[BigPhippsy]

I've been wondering why there seems to be enough parts to make one and a half aircraft in the 48th Eduard 190's I have. Are they just over runs then?

[Chuck1945]

Regarding the prop, i think the it look right, seen here held aganst the drawing by Martin Lebl.

(picture omitted)

what a great kit

cheers

Jes

Jes,

Hopefully you are correct. In Vasco's 110 book I mentioned earlier. photos on pages 31, 43, & 44-45 all make me think Eduard's prop is too narrow in chord. However, I since i think (perhaps wrongly?) the the Bf 110 C/D/E used the same prop as did the Bf 109E, this morning I compared the Eduard prop to the one in the Tamiya Emil, and they are rather close in appearence. I do hope I was mistaken on the Eduard prop chord since I can foresee making several different kits of the C/D/E as well as the nightfighter G when it comes out.

I've been wondering why there seems to be enough parts to make one and a half aircraft in the 48th Eduard 190's I have. Are they just over runs then?

Not sure what you mean by over-runs, but the extra parts permit different different versions of the 110C/D/E to be assembled. For example there are two different fuselages because some models had had an extended rear fuselage (what others here have called a "boat tail").

[BigPhippsy]

I can see the sense in adding various bits to make different variants, but the FW 190 A8 R2 I have made had an additional fuselage, and other items repeated sometimes three times (cowlings etc) It just seems like there was a bit much in there extra than just variant options. Could be wrong mind.....

[Duncan B]

Thought I'd post a photo of the cockpit from the kit as it is amazing for the scale, forgive my dodgy photography.

[Touvdal]

Looking nice Duncan.

just your radio cases must be Rlm 66

cheers

Jes

[Duncan B]

Looking nice Duncan.

just your radio cases must be Rlm 66

cheers

Jes

Thanks for reminding me, I was in a bit of a rush and forgot to paint them before taking the photos! I also forgot to dry brush the ends of the MG FF magazines now that I look at the photo again, doh.