72modeler Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I am soooo confused! While reading a previous post and discussion on the problems with Fine Molds/Italeri Me-410 kits, I was prompted to dig out my Fine Molds Me-410A, Me-410B1/U2/R4, Italeri Me-210 and Bilek Me-210 kits,and the ItaleriMe-410, as well as my copy of the Mushroom Me-210/410 monograph and the Motorbooks International Aircraft Archives Fighters of WW2, both of which have 1/72 scale drawings. Here is what I discovered: Actual published dimensions of the Me-410 are 40' 11" length and 53' 7 3/4" span (I hope I am correct in assuming that the overall length is measured from the tip of the spinner to the tip of the tailcone.) The published length for the Me-210 before the fuselage was stretched approximately 1' 1" is 39' 10" (William Green book) Dimensions as depicted in the MM book drawings: 40' 9" length and 52' 9" span Dimensions as depicted in the MBI book drawings: 40' 9" length and 53' span Height of the engine cowling at the firewall is 3' 9" Width of the engine cowling at the firewall is 3' Length of the fuselage from the vertical panel line at the front edge of the windscreen to the tip of the tailcone is 37' for an Me-410 and 36' for an Me-210 as depicted n the drawings. Here comes the confusing part! The fuselage halves of all four kits match almost perfectly in length and dimension to each other, but are 1' short when compared to the Me-410 profile fuselage drawing, but match the Me-210 profile fuselage drawing. In addition, I know there has been a lot of discussion on the size of the engine cowlings, with the FM kits being oversized, and the Italeri kits being correct. Here is what I discovered: The height of the cowling at the firewall as depicted in the drawings in both books agrees at 4' The width of the cowling at the firewall i s also in agreement at 3' The cowlings of both Fine Molds kits are 3" over in both width and height to the dimensions in the drawings The cowlings in the Italeri kits are 3" under in both width and height to the dimensions in the drawings. It would seem that the fuselages in all four kits are based on the Me-210, not the Me-410. The length and height match almost perfectly to the Me-410 profile drawing until you get to the 3rd vertical panel line aft from the rear edge of the canopy. If you shift the fuselage half of any of the four kits approximately one scale foot aft, the fin/rudder/stabilizer root/tailwheel well line up almost perfectly. The fuselage halves of all four kits line up almost exactly to the profile fuselage drawing of the Me-210 as depicted in the MM book. The length of the fuselage looks like it can be easily corrected with A 1' 1" plug added at approximately the 3rd panel line aft of the canopy h the drawings. It also appears that the engine cowlings in both the Italeri/Bilek Me-210 and Me-410 are slightly undersized, and the cowlings in both of the Fine Molds kits are slightly oversized. I have no idea if the drawings in either book are correct- you know how it goes with drawings, but it does appear that you can build a more accurate Me-210 than a 410 from the available kits. (I do have the Matchbox Me-410 but didn't use it for comparison.) I sure hope there's somebody in the brotherhood who can share more light on this subject- I am loathe to start on a build of either version until I get other opinions. If I am way out of line or missed the boat entirely, I apologize in advance, but it's such a nasty-looking airplane, I want to do one justice when I build a 210 and a 410. (Can somebody measure the Me-410 that used to be at St. Athan, IIRC? Help! Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalea Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Great. I'll take back what I said about Italeri nacelles. I only compared width, not height. Length (including spinner) was too hard when they were still in the plastic bag. I've got mine out again to see what else can be measured.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I've always though that the Italeri engine cowls looked a little under sized but I put that down to staring at my FM 410 for too long during it's build. I was under the impression that the 210 fuselage after modification was the same length as the 410 fuselage with the main difference being the larger engines and the changes to the outer wing. Renumbering the aircraft design to 410 was really a piece of politics. Duncan B Edited to make my statement clearer 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denford Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 A good case for a new kit (Revell or Airfix) LIDAR scanned or otherwise measured from the example at Cosford. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) According to my understanding, the modified Me.210 has the same fuselage as the Me.410, but the aircraft is an extra 8 inches (Green) longer overall because of the bigger engines on the latter. The reason all the kits have the same length (right or wrong) is because they are depicting the same fuselage. Accepting the drawings, then adding a spacer will allow you to make a better model of either an Me 410 or a modified Me 210. You then have to modify the shape to that of the shorter (original) Me 210. There are considerable differences in shape at and aft of the rear of the canopy. I don't have your references, but rely upon Midland's Petrick&Stocker (Messerschmitt Me 210/Me 410 Hornisse) and Schiffer's Mankau&Petrick (Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410). There the length of the modified Me 210 is given as 12.137m, and that of the Me 410 as 12.48m. The difference of 0.34m seems to be the same as Green's quote of 8in for the longer engines. This confirms that the fuselage lengths are the same. The length of the early Me 210 is given as 11.183m, giving a fuselage stretch to the modified design of 0.954, or about 3 ft. P&S does say that some sources give a length of the Me 410 as 12,56m, which rather implies that they disagree. However this difference is only some 3 inches, which doesn't seem to be large enough to feature. Edited February 25, 2016 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 Graham, Didn't consider the possibility of longer engine cowlings between the Me-210 DB-601-powered, and the Me-410 DB-605-powered versions! Re-examining the profile drawings in the MM book,it shows the DB-601 cowlings are a scale 6" shorter than the Me-410 units. When I researched the dimensions of the the two engines, they both listed as having an overall length of 68 inches- according to the same sources, the displacement was the major change, from 33.9L to 35.7L; If that is indeed correct, I'm taking a wild guess that the extra length depicted in the DB-605-powered Me-410' cowlings on the drawings might be due to a larger supercharger impeller? Regardless, I was measuring the length of the fuselages on the short fuselage Me-210 and Me-410 profile drawings, not just the overall length of the airframe; all of the kits have the same fuselage length, which matches the length on the drawing of the Me-210 with the short fuselage. The Fine Molds Me-410A and B kits do have engine cowlings that are approximately 6" longer than the Italeri/Bilek Me-210 cowlings, so it seems they got that part right! (Measuring from the spinner backplate to the firewall on the Me-210 and Me-410 MM profile drawings, there is a 6" difference in length, I assumed these two points would be constant on the two versions. On the Me-210 it scale 4' 9" between those two points and on the Me-410 it is 5' 3") What do you think, sir? Help me,Obie Wan- you're my only hope! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I'd expect the Stair/Lloyd (IIRC) drawings to have been measured from the St. Athans/Cosford example. IIRC the Matchbox kit matches the drawings very well, and I'd not be surprised if the MB instructions contain the small blurb acknowledging the RAF Museum's assistance in preparation of the kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) The Me.210C had the DB605s, which should be the same length as the DB601. The Me410s had the DB603, which is 44.52 litres. The DB603s certainly has a larger supercharger, but this was fitted to the DB605AS and DB605D in the Bf 109 without any change in overall aircraft length. However, there may have been something in the individual installation, like the position of the wing, that meant moving the engines 8in forward in the Me 410. That is assuming the change in length did come from moving the engines forward, which I think is fairly safe but a look at the positions of the exhausts should help there. I don't have the plans you are working from, but if they only show 13in extension to the fuselage, between the early "tadpole" Me 210 and the later Me 410, then I wouldn't trust them. The Midland books has a photo of a Messerschmitt drawing noting that the increase in length is 954mm. There is another drawing quoting an overall length of 12193mm, or exactly 1m over the early version. Also, at least two such drawings quoting the Me 410 at 12560mm. Which suggests that ideas were fluid - these General Arrangement drawings were largely meant as guides and are often taken out of context. It is the detailed production drawings that present the true dimensions and shapes - plus hopefully the final official documentation for the type, although errors have been found in those. Added; 11183 mm is 36 ft 8 in, as a length for the short Me 210. 12133 mm is 39 ft 10 in as a length for the long Me 210. 12480 mm is a length of 40 ft 9 in for the Me 410. That's rounding to the nearest inch, so small errors might creep in. For example, I have text quoting the length as 12.15m directly opposite the plans showing length at 12.133mm. Edited February 25, 2016 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 It's the 'bulk' of the Finemolds 410 cowlings and spinners that is the problem rather than the length. IIRC the FM cowlings need to be thinned by roughly the thickness of the plastic to get to the correct scale size. In a rather unscientific experiment I've just compared a Finemolds 109 spinner to the FM 410 spinner (they were both basically the same with the exception of the cannon muzzle) and the latter is the same length but has a diameter of several mm more than the 109's, this additional few mm continues onto the engine cowlings themselves and so gives the extra bulk on the Finemolds 410's cowlings. I have never read the actual reason for the extended cowlings on the 410 other than to accommodate the new engine, did the diameter of the props increase? (don't go measuring the Cosford example's props as they were trimmed much later) Duncan B 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I have a propeller disc diameter for the Me 410 of 3400 mm. As the distance between the mainwheels stayed constant at 5220 mm on all variants, I rather doubt that the disc diameter was any smaller on the Me 210. The propellers are wider in chord, as was the German practice (and indeed happened with other nations too). I don't see that the spinner diameter needed to have been the same on the Me 410 as on the Bf 109: but that's not saying they weren't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I think (off the top of my head) that the spinners and props were the same diameter for the later 109 and the 410 but I'll have a look through my books later. I do remember reading some other modeller's corrections to the Finemolds 410 where they used aftermarket 109 spinners as part of the correction but that is not to say that they got that detail correct of course. Duncan B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 To Graham and Duncan- thank you both for your input and observations! These are the overall lengths as listed in the specs section of the MM book- dunno if they are correct or not: I apologize for the fact that we still cling to standard measurements on this side of the pond! (But, being a former earth science teacher, I do know how to convert from one to the other!) Me-210, short fuselage: 11.83m or 36.7 feet Me-210, long fuselage and Me-210c: 12.15m or 39.6 feet Me-410, 12.48m or 40.9 feet Yep- the Me-210's up to the c-models were fitted with DB-601's, the Me-210c's had DB-603's and the Me-410's had DB-605's, according to the specs in the MM book. After reading your comments re the exhaust location, Graham, I looked at the profile drawings again and found that the exhausts on the DB-605-powered Me-410 were indeed 6" further forward than the exhausts on the DB-601-powered Me-210, so it looks like your comments regarding the engine being shifted further forward was bang-on! Does this information help in any way? Duncan- it does look like if you sand off a little from the top and bottom of the FM cowlings, you can eliminate the 3" in height that they seem to be oversize- that is, if the bloody drawings are accurate! Whew! Maybe I'll just open up my new Eduard Fw-190A-8 and forget about the Me-410 for the time being! Too much to hope that Airfix goes to Cosford and gives us a proper kit! Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Mike, don't give up on the Finemolds Me410, it will eventually go together and look half decent. Here's mine. I'm going to look through my photos of the preserved Me410 at RAF Cosford as I have a picture of the open engine cowling. I'll post it up here when I find it. Duncan B 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 There's an error in the quoted lengths for the Me 210 that you give from the MM book. 11.83 m is not 36.7 ft but 38.8. The number should be 11.183 m. i wonder if that mistake is why the MM drawing of the early Me 210 is too long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Here are a couple of photos of the Cosford Me410 I took a few years ago, I hope they are of use. Duncan B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Graham, You are correct! My proofreading and typing is as bad as my modeling prowess, I fear! The posted length is 11.183m in the MM book and I mistyped. These old Mk 1a eyeballs ain't what they used to be. Wiping the egg from my face as I type this... Duncan, Great build and great photos- thank you! Gives me something to shoot for, that's for sure! Mike Edited February 25, 2016 by 72modeler 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRK4m Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Yep- the Me-210's up to the c-models were fitted with DB-601's, the Me-210c's had DB-603's and the Me-410's had DB-605's, according to the specs in the MM book. After reading your comments re the exhaust location, Graham, I looked at the profile drawings again and found that the exhausts on the DB-605-powered Me-410 were indeed 6" further forward than the exhausts on the DB-601-powered Me-210, so it looks like your comments regarding the engine being shifted further forward was bang-on! Does this information help in any way? Mike Totally wrong - Me 210A had DB-601s (like Bf 109F), Me 210C had DB-605s (like Bf 109G, so no difference in cowling length), while all Me 410s had really large DB-603s (like Do 217M/N). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 Somedays it doesn't pay to get out of bed! I transposed the engine types on the Me-210c and Me-410A...sorry, KRK4M, but I appreciate your setting me straight! I did find the DB-601 and 605 engine length listed at 85 inches and the DB-603 as 102 inches, which would definitely explain why the Me-410 drawings show longer cowlings forward of the forewall If you all have seen these before, please forgive me, but the Me-210 clip shows some great operating features! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk4Aiscs3jM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je5ySCoUrvY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAcgUPjb16Q Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 If we are discussing dimensions of Me 210/410 and their 1:72 kits - please note rather huge differencies in height of canopy between Italeri and othres... I noticed this for Italeri and Frog/Revell from my measurements (and regarding drawings which I was following - the Frog/Revell is better) from but from photos of ready models, which I've seen in net, it should concern also Finemolds and Matchbox - they have more appropriate, smaller canopy then Italeri. Can anybody give comparing photos from the stash kits? Regards Jerzy-Wojtek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 JWM, I pulled the transparencies from my Fine Molds Me-410, Italeri Me-410, Italeri Me-210, and Bilek Me-210, and compared them. Without taping them together and fitting them to their respective fuselages, I did lay the parts against the plan view and profile view drawings in the MM book and the Aircraft Archives drawings, which were done by Ian Stair and traced by AAP Lloyd- I have no idea as to the accuracy of either set of drawings- you know how that goes! (I couldn't get to my Matchbox Me-410 kit, but as I recall, the transparencies were pretty thick and simplified, compared to the others. I have the Falcon vacform Me-410 transparencies, but they're up in the attic (loft?) and I don't remember which kit/s they were intended for. The results: The Italeri Me-210 and Me-410 clear sprues are identical and the canopies are undersized in height, as compared to the drawings and the other kit canopies, but are OK in plan view. The Bilek Me-210 canopy is oversized in height, but is OK in plan view. The windscreen is more upright than any of the other kit windscreens, and the angle needs to be reduced quite a bit to match the drawings. The Bilek kit does give each of the panels that could be opened up as separate pieces as well as the pieces for a closed canopy. Framework on the Bilek kit is poorly defined, but is very well done on the other kits. The Fine Molds Me-410 canopy matches the drawings in profile and plan niew; the windscreen also matches the drawings in plan and profile view. I also observed that it appears only the Fine Molds kits portray the lower nacelle/gear doors correctly, as asymmetircal in contour- all of the other kits, including the Italeri Me-410, give this area as a symmetrical gradual taper. hard to describe, but if you look at the real airplane or the drawings, you will see what I mean. (That might be why I found my Matchbox Me-410 lower wings/nacelles in the box with my Me-210 kits, as they also portray this area much closer to the drawings!) Again- I have no confidence in the accuracy oif the drawings, but they are the only two sets I had in my references. I also do not know if the contour and shape of the landing gear doors on the Me-210 was perhaps different than those on the Me-410, but I don't think so. Hope this helps! Mike This would be a great candidate for an Airfix new-tool...plus, they have the Cosford example to measure and photograph- just need to be sure not to mold clipped props! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalea Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 I just had a moment of madness. I contemplated comparing the spinners from various Bf 109G kits to see if any of them came close to the front end of either nacelle (Italeri with a spacer? Fine Molds sanded down?). Then I remembered ALL the discussions on the size of Bf 109 noses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 In the new book "Messerschmitt Bf109", by JC Mermet and C-J Ehrengardt, it is stated that the Me210 spinner (ref. 9-12078.30) was chosen for the Bf109F. Which incidentally lead to a mistake in the overall length given in the Bf109 manuals, not corrected until the G-10 and K-4. The correct length being 9.02m. The book says nothing about how the later different rudders might have affected this. Sorry if this is seen as a diversion from the main subject of the thread, but I found it interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Ties nicely into our discussion about the Bf109G-AS too. Duncan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popeye Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) Part of the problem with the FineMold engines is that they are oversize. Also part of the problem is the orientation of the "firewall" and corresponding orientation of the gondolas in front and behind the firewall. FineMold has the engines perpendicular to the ground while in fact they should be perpendicular to the wing data line. I did modify my Me 410 B-3, using modified engines from the Matchbox kit and correcting the orientation as far as possible. But you know what? comparing the finished model with Wolfgang Henrich's superb unmodified FineMolds 410 A doesn't really show that much of a difference. Edit: and the same holds true when I look at Duncan's fine rendition ! So you really don't have to despair.... If I look hard enough and if Photobucket plays along I might be able to show a pic or two if interested.... Rolf Edited March 3, 2016 by popeye 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popeye Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Hi Mike. After some head scratching remembered a thread on 72nd which might help you to compare and motivate tackling the 410 - modified or unmodified see: http://z15.invisionfree.com/72nd_Aircraft/index.php?showtopic=5013&st=0 have a look and enjoy if you want..... Rolf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now