Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sign in to follow this  
Mig88

Me Bf 109G-10 x2 - 1:72 Revell

Recommended Posts

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.

TnfFoAdCetHgH9hkXrtMMwJ2qSGflHhYAedvnZZ9

 

j2JMnluGXxI6ESSO0cHP-yVn0OOMSGB9gky5WzUB

 

qzNZWjQSIkiaCOqJcC8rfurgAxtm7BVqiFDBFrFB

 

ZnmQ528TRPeE5XRetdg7sZGE5SawPT3j2byVwCf1

 

BAeOyvsnwUwKrX7y7c8OQzaCAidTrFrWFBz014dt

 

2G7dpVEO8q71RcC5sDwym7gFQdmkOwinIA0RvVZp

 

E3Dg3DLPS6mmJDJLA8rMkXZtlI3YRFqPfg5saBAI

 

JltUz7n3IACXTh3bx6JGOY3_qiIs5CuPgB03TrVg


 

2MszgaRJ0jh4POQZnVRXsrHbhlR35qNd84q0tIOy

The cockpit parts before assembly.

 

Yxz7fpEAcaz5qdEkEMkoPGhj-h_eiAB46K6ZCubp

The wheel wells. The top is the unmodified kit part and below my correction.

 

j0u3_0wE9_DLagcT5u4BjRHJyN2kAyWe2Gmk6WK2

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.

fh0ugH1akE-O4uJG3xSN_pQtjFm-jnvhO4616XQq

 

4Np7VNjgFZ8M3AHXBqsbZXKX1YdF6u-vZqLs2PKf

 

wqetsa8pcCedodMZQXkkY7U5mIULXuB_qm236a8w

 

g3zObmwZLf8HbpYAKZ_i6eQAWktfZ26C-00hTyvA

 

SXWr1-j9jWbiK2UlH0jbgVySmPAMnCmPxofGUTcZ


Thanks for looking and, as always, all comments are welcome
Miguel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice job on both of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work correcting the Revell kit and amazing finish, especially considering it's brushed!

 

Kind regards,

 

Joachim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what you've done with these, for all your hassles they look great. Thanks too for the good info about them. 

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:goodjob:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by stevehnz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..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..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×