Mig88 Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 Hello! Here are a pair of Revell 1:72 Messerschmitt Bf 109G-10s which I finished two years ago. This kit turned out to be a disappointment. I had two boxings, one from the very first issue and one from later on. The first already had some flash and second was worse, both needing plenty of cleaning up. Fit of parts wasn't great either. Besides, the kit has some serious flaws. The modifications/additions I made on each kit were as follows: - The propeller was replaced by a Quickboost resin replacement part with the correct shape. - The kit comes with a short G-6-type tailwheel which is correct for early G-10s but not for both kits I was doing. Replaced by a Quickboost replacement long tailwheel. - The supercharger intake comes moulded solid and is somewhat oversized. Replaced by Quickboost replacement part. I had to make a new baseplate. - The head armour comes moulded solid. Made a new one with a partial clear section. - Added battery box to rear cockpit. - The dotted line on the engine covers are wrong and I used filler and paint to cover them - The big flaw is in the undercarriage bays. The kit has the wheel wells ending at the wing root when they should go further into the fuselage and this causes the undercarriage legs to be too far outboard. I managed to extend them. This required plenty of work which affected the wing root join. - I modified the wheel axles so that the wheels would be slanted outwards instead of sitting in the vertical position. When I first showed photos of these kits in G+, someone pointed out that I had missed the canvas covers of the insides of the wheel wells since I had left them in a metallic unpainted finish typical of late-war Bf 109s. Oh well, next time! Both kits were painted and varnished by brush. Firstly: 5/2105, ZNDH (Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia), Klagenfurt, Austria, 1945. Decals from a Blue Rider sheet. Of the two this is the one I am happiest about. The cockpit parts before assembly. The wheel wells. The top is the unmodified kit part and below my correction. Modified head armour. Added battery box. Quickboost supercharger intake with new baseplate. Secondly: White 4, II/JG7, Luftwaffe, northern Germany, at the end of 1944. This was one of the kit's options. Thanks for looking and, as always, all comments are welcome Miguel 27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorby Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Very nice job on both of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitfire31 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Great work correcting the Revell kit and amazing finish, especially considering it's brushed! Kind regards, Joachim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberleutnant Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Unusual decals on the first one - you can see the influence of the Luftwaffe. Nice job though. If the kit was easy it would be boring right?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Nicely done! I do like the Croat one although I might be a bit biased because a I built a ZNDH machine last year using the AZ Model kit as a base! Mike. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig88 Posted February 12, 2019 Author Share Posted February 12, 2019 Thank you very much everyone! On 11/02/2019 at 09:01, Oberleutnant said: If the kit was easy it would be boring right?! Right! But you can expect that from certain kits. This was very unexpected in kits like this from Revell! Miguel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted February 12, 2019 Share Posted February 12, 2019 I like what you've done with these, for all your hassles they look great. Thanks too for the good info about them. Steve. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Both are very nice, but if I remember correctly, the track of the undercart was widened on the G-10/K compared to earlier variants. The Revell kit made the mounting points further apart, IIRC, but failed to depict the cutouts in the wheel bays that were inboard of the main gear struts. See the link to detailed photos and description of the G-10 as published by IPMS Stockholm. There has been a lot of controversy over this subject, so maybe the article will be helpful. That being said, it takes nothing away from all the improvements you made to both models, regardless of whether or not the information is accurate, The improvements you made in the supercharger intake and cockpit really improved the kits. Nice job! Mike http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/10/stuff_eng_detail_bf109g10.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapam Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Very nice work! The surface detail suggests a very nice kit, but I take onboard your comments about fit and accuracy. Definitely your extra effort and attention paid off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 On 2/10/2019 at 2:38 PM, Mig88 said: This kit turned out to be a disappointment. They look great for being a disappointment ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig88 Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 Thank you very much everyone for your comments and praise. 4 hours ago, 72modeler said: Both are very nice, but if I remember correctly, the track of the undercart was widened on the G-10/K compared to earlier variants. Thank you for the info and link Mike. Indeed I had no idea about this. Checking the photos it seems the position is somewhere between what Revell did and what I did if you follow the panel line from the radiator forwards, though it's hard to tell. I have the AZ Model kit of The G-10 in my stash together with other variants (a G-6, G-14s, etc) and I've just taken a look and they all come in the same place, precisely centred with this panel line! Miguel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, 72modeler said: Both are very nice, but if I remember correctly, the track of the undercart was widened on the G-10/K compared to earlier variants. The Revell kit made the mounting points further apart, IIRC, but failed to depict the cutouts in the wheel bays that were inboard of the main gear struts. See the link to detailed photos and description of the G-10 as published by IPMS Stockholm. There has been a lot of controversy over this subject, so maybe the article will be helpful. That being said, it takes nothing away from all the improvements you made to both models, regardless of whether or not the information is accurate, The improvements you made in the supercharger intake and cockpit really improved the kits. Nice job! Mike http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1999/10/stuff_eng_detail_bf109g10.htm I'd like to know more on this, I've not seen this mentioned before, ok, there're a couple or so things I've not seen mentioned before but this tickled my curiosity. How did they handle retraction, were the wheel wells further out or did they have legs that shortened upon retraction? A heap of googling produced nothing concrete to confirm this but a thread on LSP appeared to contradict this, @radub on that thread is Radu Brinzan, proprieter of Radubstore.com, author & innovator & producer of cool modelling stuff, hopefully he might chip in on this. Miguel, if you wish, I'll start a new thread on this rather than clutter your thread up. Steve. Edited February 13, 2019 by stevehnz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalkeEins Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 ..wider track on the G-10 ? Like Steve I can't immediately recall having read that anywhere before. I wonder how this would have been feasible, given that the undercarriage legs on the 109 were fitted to the fuselage and not the wings. And if it applied to the G-10, the same must have been the case for the K-4, the G-10 being intended to supplement the K-4 production being technically as similar as possible to the K-series. Still never say never - must do some digging.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 I was thinking more or less the same thing as you two, as that was one of the big issues on the Revell G-10 kit, according to some reviews I had read, I guess I can look at my Fine Molds G-10 kit and my references to see if there's anything definite I can find. I recall we had a lot of discussion on this topic a while back. (Mike/Julien- maybe we should move this to a new topic, Bf-109G-10 undercart track questions? I was also wondering, as you pointed out, that it would seem if the struts were moved outboard, how this would affect the location/shape of the wells for the wheels, especially considering the larger wheels that were fitted to the G-10's. I was thinking perhaps the strut arm attachment to the fuselage was extended outboard; another possibility might be that the struts themselves were canted outboard at a greater angle to give a wider track, leaving the original strut mounting location unaltered? If so, that difference in angle might account for the need for new upper wing bulged fairings, sort of like what was done to Spitfires when the track was altered postwar? Didn't mean to take us off-task. Mike (Messerschmitt Moron!) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 Thanks Mike @72modeler for moving this, a good idea, lets keep this thread for enjoying Miguel's lovely Revell G-10s. The new thread is here. Steve. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mig88 Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 Thanks Steve @stevehnz and Mike @72modeler I'm sorry I haven't said anything. I saw the beginning of this development just before I left for work yesterday and couldn't reply then. I'll give my thoughts in the new topic then... Miguel 1 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