Revell me109g10

[72modeler]

Boy, Howdy, as we Texans like to say!

The G-10's are a real conglomeration of detail differences, made even more confusing by the various manufacturers. I have found the link I have attached below to be a very good basic starting point for reference on all the Bf-109 variants- hope you will find it useful and a good place to start.I also have included a link to the excellent IPMS Stockholm article on the G-10's, IIRC, I seem to remember some discussion about the Revell G-10's undercart mounting points not being far enough apart, as supposedly the gear struts were increased in track, but for the life of me, I can't lay my hands on that reference, and I don't remember the Revell kit's issue in this regard, although I believe Loon Models made a 'corrected' resin G-10 wing to address this alleged problem.. Maybe one of the '109 experts can lend their expertise?

Mike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants

http://www.ipmsstockholm.se/home/messerschmitt-bf-109g-10-in-detail/

Edited January 21, 2016 by 72modeler

[Graham Boak]

I recall something about the Revell kit and its undercarriage but said nothing because I feared I was confusing this with the Italeri F. Either way, this was easily treated by cutting a couple of holes and moving the u/c outboard a touch. There was no difference in the undercarriage on the real thing. No doubt the Loon model will be far superior.

Edit having gone and looked - and only then read all the following posts - inboard it is.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Graham Boak

[vppelt68]

Inboard, I believe, not outboard? Regards, V-P

[tempestfan]

I'm not particularly intimate with 109s, but decreasing the track on an aircraft that was difficult to handle on the ground and on T-O/landing due to its narrow track anyway would not have been the cleverest of ideas, especially taking into account the ever decreasing time allowed new pilots on training.

I think the 1/72 kit is heavily influenced by the 1979ish 1/48 kit, and IIRC that one was based on a (then) unrestored airframe held at Pima or somewhere else in the sunnier parts of the western US. And I also think this kit was considered best post-Emil 109 allround for quite some time, in any scale.

No idea how well it has stood the test of time, but the groundlaying work on late 109s probably was done by John Beaman. I've never managed to get his comprehensive work (Last of the Eagles ?), but the Squadron in action #57 seems to be more or less a condensation of the earlier book. Both still may hold some value as well.

[Troy Smith]

I'm not particularly intimate with 109s, but decreasing the track on an aircraft that was difficult to handle on the ground and on T-O/landing due to its narrow track anyway would not have been the cleverest of ideas, especially taking into account the ever decreasing time allowed new pilots on training.

I think the 1/72 kit is heavily influenced by the 1979ish 1/48 kit, and IIRC that one was based on a (then) unrestored airframe held at Pima or somewhere else in the sunnier parts of the western US. And I also think this kit was considered best post-Emil 109 allround for quite some time, in any scale.

No idea how well it has stood the test of time, but the groundlaying work on late 109s probably was done by John Beaman. I've never managed to get his comprehensive work (Last of the Eagles ?), but the Squadron in action #57 seems to be more or less a condensation of the earlier book. Both still may hold some value as well.

The old Revell 1/48 Bf109 G-10 is still very good.

the only real issues is that the exhausts are too high up the nose, but it does not scream wrong at you though. Dave Lochead at Kiwi Resin pointed this out.

It is based on Beaman's work, and matches his drawings. It's still a good builder, the prop blades are a bit too short, and the canopy is thick.

Last Of The Eagles is a fascinating piece of work, but somewhat dated, it was written in 1976 and an awful lot more info has come to light since, it was an excellent piece of work for the time and information available.

cheers

T

[Giorgio N]

I'm not particularly intimate with 109s, but decreasing the track on an aircraft that was difficult to handle on the ground and on T-O/landing due to its narrow track anyway would not have been the cleverest of ideas, especially taking into account the ever decreasing time allowed new pilots on training.

I think the 1/72 kit is heavily influenced by the 1979ish 1/48 kit, and IIRC that one was based on a (then) unrestored airframe held at Pima or somewhere else in the sunnier parts of the western US. And I also think this kit was considered best post-Emil 109 allround for quite some time, in any scale.

No idea how well it has stood the test of time, but the groundlaying work on late 109s probably was done by John Beaman. I've never managed to get his comprehensive work (Last of the Eagles ?), but the Squadron in action #57 seems to be more or less a condensation of the earlier book. Both still may hold some value as well.

My understanding is not that the G10 had the track reduced but that the Revell kit places the gear legs too far outboard, they have to be moved closer to the fuselage.

Speaking of the various cowlings, how difficult would be to convert a kit to the Erla stype cowling ? There doesn't seem to be any conversion in 1/72 scale for one of these aircrafts

[Vlad]

I've just taken my one off the shelf, definitely missing chin bulges. And yes, the undercarriage is attached too far outwards, but mine is built wheels up (and converted to a K-4 so fully covered landing gear) so that's not an issue.

But, it does capture the shape of a 109 very well, it looks good built up. I think that's the point, if you were hunting 100% accuracy you would probably be building a different kit, but it's very good for what it is and an excuse to splash some colour around according to a profile you like even if it's not "exact".

On the subject of Loon Models, their resin fuselage and wings are excellent but expensive, probably not what our OP is after. Since it was brought up though, yes, you can't make an Erla built G-10 from the Revell kit (at least not without major surgery) since the engine cowling on the port side is a completely different shape (starboard is probably passable although the contour is a bit different). This means no Hartmann's G-10 if you care about that detail being correct.

[Vlad]

Speaking of the various cowlings, how difficult would be to convert a kit to the Erla stype cowling ? There doesn't seem to be any conversion in 1/72 scale for one of these aircrafts

Loon Models does new resin fuselage halves tailored to the Revell kit to turn it into an Erla G-10.

[Duncan B]

Indeed the Revell G10 has it's undercarriage leg mounting points too far outboard as it comes, fairly easily sorted though. IIRC there was something wrong with the cowl shape or fastener layout on the right hand side too.

Many years ago when I first started making Luftwaffe stuff I made one of the Loon Models G10 ERLAs, I also used the Loon Models wing so there wasn't very much of the Revell kit left in the end. I can recommend the Loon Models ERLA conversion and the wing with dropped flaps etc. One thing I did miss at the time was to thin the upper wing bulges a bit so they stand a bit too proud on my model. Both large and small bumps are supplied with the resin wing.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/73101-me109g10-erla-built-kgj27/?hl=%2Bloon+%2Bmodels

Duncan B

[tempestfan]

My understanding is not that the G10 had the track reduced but that the Revell kit places the gear legs too far outboard, they have to be moved closer to the fuselage.

Ah OK, now I see the point - I mismatched the info on three of the above posts. Thx for the clarification, reading them again I make sense out of it.

BTW, Schwarze 12 is quoted as being from Nahaufklärungsgruppe 14. Would that imply some sort of camera fit ?

[Duncan B]

I think I can just about make out the shape of the camera surround (under the 12) on the last 2 photos.

Duncan B

[vppelt68]

I've just taken my one off the shelf, definitely missing chin bulges.

They are separate parts A19 and A20, holes for which should be drilled in step 4 and attached in step 11. When I built my poor mans' cheap and easy Finnish G-6/AS I left mine off. Regards, V-P

[Vlad]

They are separate parts A19 and A20, holes for which should be drilled in step 4 and attached in step 11. When I built my poor mans' cheap and easy Finnish G-6/AS I left mine off. Regards, V-P

I stand corrected, it's been a while since I built mine so all I was going on is the finished item, I obviously just had a brainfart and forgot to put them on.

[Giorgio N]

Doh, I had forgotten about the Loon Models fuselage conversion ! Thanks for pointing this to me.

Duncan, I saw your build after a brief search on the web for this conversion, nice model ! Seems that some shops have this conversion, however it's quite expensive, I'm toying with the idea of trying to modify G-10 kit into an Erla built aircraft with some scratchbuilding...

[Wolfgang]

The main shortcomings of the Revell G-10 are the too wide undercarriage, a too small prop, a not so well shaped canopy. Another minor fault is the shape of the big fuselage bulges. The foward part has a curved row of engraved rivets and is slightly pronounced, which is wrong and based on a missinterpretation from some paintings.

In Pre- Fine Molds or AZ-Model times, it was a good idea, to kitbash the Revell G-10 with Hellers K-4

Some years ago, I did a Erla G-10 and a G-6 /AS based on kitbashing the Revell G-10, with the loon fuselage, Academy G-6 wings and some Heller parts.

Not realy perfect and German only, but some pictures may be interesting

http://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=27245.0

Edited January 21, 2016 by Wolfgang

[Dave Fleming]

Vlad, I believe the Revell kit does in fact have the chin bulges, though I don’t have one immediately to hand!

It does

[72modeler]

I don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest or muddy the waters, but I finally found the IPMS Stockholm Bf-109G-10 photo reference I remembered that showed the increased track of the landing gear. I have attached a link to the walkaround, and it sure looks to me as if the track is wider than on earlier versions. Help us,Obie Wan Messerschmitt, you're our only hope! I think this feature is also modeled on the Loon Models resin wing for the G-10, which I do not have for comparison. Comments?

I'm not committing glue to styrene until I know for sure.

Mike

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/10/stuff_eng_detail_bf109g10_wings.htm

[Graham Boak]

I think comparative photos and other information is needed to establish that. However, if so, then we can forget any idea of earlier airframes being converted into G-10s. The undercarriage on the Bf109 is mounted directly onto the main fuselage frame, permitting the fuselage to be easily mobile with the wings removed. This is clearly very helpful for major servicing, damage repair, etc. This main frame is the major structural feature of the aircraft, a complex assembly that has been criticised for its high production cost. It would not have been a simple matter to extend this frame into the wing to carry the loads that the undercarriage transmits.

I'm also very surprised that such a feature has escaped the attention of earlier researchers.

[72modeler]

Graham,

You make a very good point. I myself have no idea which statement regarding the track of the G-10 compared to say, a G-2/4/6, is correct, either; I just remembered seeing the walkaround I listed, as well as discovering when I compared the distance center to center between the landing gear strut mounting holes on my Revell G-10 against my Hasegawa G-6 and G-14, the Revell kit had the wider track. For what it's worth, I have a Fine Molds G-2, G-4, G-6, G-10, and K-4, as well as the Hasegawa G-6 and G-14, and the distance from center to center between the strut mounting holes is a scale 4 feet for all of them; the same measurement on the Revell G-10 is a hair under 4 feet 6 inches.....confusioin reigns!

I just found a few more photo references that show the landing gear attachment on G-2's through G-6's, so I have listed links to them below for examination and possibly enlightenment. As Butterfly McQueen said in Gone With the Wind, "Lawsy Miss Scarlett- I don't know nuthin' 'bout berthin' no babies!"

Mike

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/705547/tags/bf/

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Bf109/9765.html

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/705547/tags/bf/

[goose]

I'm not too bothered about 100% accuracy

Just fancy one painted and different decals to the other one I've built

[Vlad]

I'm not too bothered about 100% accuracy

Just fancy one painted and different decals to the other one I've built

Then as I said your choices are nigh on endless. Assuming you went for the brown/green on your first build, your main alternative would be dark green over medium grey for the camouflage (RLM 82 or 83 over 75). You could go with the faded yellow-green-ish undersides sometimes called RLM 84 instead of the typical blue RLM 76, bare metal wing undersides were fairly common as well. Eastern front machines tended to have yellow rudders and/or yellow bands on the nose if you want a splash of colour that isn't the RV fuselage band.

You could actually look up the AZ Models 109G-10 range, they have at least 3 different kits (WNF and Diana built machines and another boxing for Diana built machines in foreign service). That gives you 9 different schemes to get inspiration from.

http://www.model-making.eu/zdjecia/4/4/3/7903_1-904.jpg

http://www.model-making.eu/zdjecia/0/5/4/9119_1-auto_downl.jpg

As for the undercarriage connection:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Bf109_G10_1.jpg

The picture is not 100% clear from that angle but seems to have them in the "usual" place. I can't remember if that plane is restored or a replica, but I assume those guys did their research. It's certainly possible the connection was widened, but that would then require the oleo strut to shorten as the leg came up, or for the attachment to swivel inwards, both of which add mechanical complexity to an already tightly tuned system. It may be that Revell was onto something but I would not use their kit as evidence, only shots of the real plane can be trusted.

[vppelt68]

C´mon. A plastic model kit manufacturer places the landing gear struts in a kit two millimeters more apart than others and we are seriously discussing whether that might actually have been correct...

But regarding fixing this kits minor flaws, I believe an educated shopper gets his replacement prop and canopy as extras in some AZ Model Bf 109 kits. The excess cowl panel/rivet line is easily fixed with putty. Even I got the landing gear fixed in a moment! That leaves only the spinner in pieces to be replaced or bettered, or left as is, like I did. Let´s enjoy the kits, whatever we want to do with them.

Finnish AF had two G-6/AS planes, I´ve made just one... I guess I´ll have to build the second one too, and after all this positive commenting me thinks sticking with Revell in this case! Regards, V-P

[Wolfgang]

I am not realy convinced, regarding the ipmsstockholm walkaround. MW wrote 2 things. First:

undercarriage track was considerably widened, resulting in the prominent "gaps" between the leg and the inner end of the wheel well.

If you compare this picture with other 109 legs, it seems in the first moment, Martin Waligorski is right. But if you look closer, the legs join the wings/fuselage at the same point like other 109s. The "gaps" look to me more like missing pieces of metal sheet.

109 G-10 from IPMSstockholm Walkaround

109 G-2/4

He also wrote:

and the wheel covers split into two-part assemblies.

But even the early 109 E had these two part wheel covers. It was a common feature and not a special design for the G-10 / K-4

Last point: If Martin Waligorski is realy right, this would mean that all other experts did miss this part. Possible, but hard to believe.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Wolfgang

[Spitfire31]

I am not realy convinced, regarding the ipmsstockholm walkaround. MW wrote 2 things. First:

If you compare this picture with other 109 legs, it seems in the first moment, Martin Waligorski is right. But if you look closer, the legs join the wings/fuselage at the same point like other 109s. The "gaps" look to me more like missing pieces of metal sheet.

109 G-10 from IPMSstockholm Walkaround

109 G-6

He also wrote:

But even the early 109 E had these two part wheel covers. It was a common feature and not a special design for the G-10 / K-4

Last point: If Martin Waligorski is realy right, this would mean that all other experts did miss this part. Possible, but hard to believe.

Good analysis. In fact, you beat me to it – I also compared Martin's photo (top) and the 'enface' photo of a G-2 or G-4 (?) and came to the same conclusion.

Also, as Graham Boak points out above, it's difficult to imagine such a fundamental design change being allowed to disrupt and delay manufacturing at that late stage of the war.

I think that we can safely forget this pseudo issue.

Kind regards,

Joachim

[MDriskill]

I am not realy convinced, regarding the ipmsstockholm walkaround. MW wrote 2 things. First:

If you compare this picture with other 109 legs, it seems in the first moment, Martin Waligorski is right. But if you look closer, the legs join the wings/fuselage at the same point like other 109s. The "gaps" look to me more like missing pieces of metal sheet.

He also wrote:

But even the early 109 E had these two part wheel covers. It was a common feature and not a special design for the G-10 / K-4

Last point: If Martin Waligorski is realy right, this would mean that all other experts did miss this part. Possible, but hard to believe.

Thank you Wolfgang, I think you have nailed all points exactly.

I do vaguely recall reading comments elsewhere about "increased track" on these late machines, but if true I would speculate this was an adjustment to the extended angle of the gear leg, and not a change to the attachment of the gear. In the latter case you would also see revisions to the wheel well openings, etc.,. which is not evident.

Back to the Revell 1/72 G-10, I compared it to other kits and the drawings I have around, and if the gear leg attachment points are too far outboard it is by a tiny amount only, half a millimeter or so. It would be easy to fix. IMHO (this may get me in trouble!) the kit is actually closer to being correct than the Loon "fixer," which if my memory is correct moves the legs totally inboard of the wing-to-fuselage joint. As plainly seen in photos, this joint is more or less centered on the base of the leg.