1/72 me 109e

[TANK63]

I would like to build some 109e versions. 
my question is which is the best kit to purchase as quite a few manufacturers produce this variant.

[Troy Smith]

55 minutes ago, TANK63 said:

my question is which is the best kit

The questions is how you define  'best'  

accuracy, ease of assembly,  and costs are factors worth considering,  and do you want to use kit decals or as you say, 'some'  then you maybe are getting some AM decals?

 

This  time of year Aldi and Lidl have been knocking out Airfix starter kits for £5, I think Lidl had the 109 this year, and that's a decent kit OOB, reasonable detail, accurate,  fits together well with care, so if you can some of those that's a reasonable compromise overall.

 

I think the other contender for general accuracy is the ICM kit, which is based on a Tamiya kit which is a bit short, though IIRC the ICM kit corrects this.

 

Others will know more, 72nd is not my main area of interest,  but I did get some 109's when my local Aldi forgot about them in the warehouse and they ended up on the shelves after Christmas, at £4, I knew one of the managers and asked her if they were going to get reduced down further,  she went off to chekc, and they then ended up being £3.50 each....  

I have one I was intending to do as a captured one,  but got frustrated at trying to brush acrylic yellow on the underside,  but up till then it had gone together well, and the cockpit when painted carefully looked good.

HTH

 

 

[Procopius]

The ICM kit is the most accurate, but not the most fun to assemble. It is, however, eerily compatible with the Tamiya 109E; I built one using parts from both kits last year. The Airfix kit is also quite good, especially for the price; it's easier to build than the ICM, and if you're the sort of pervert who likes to build things with the flaps down, you'll find that particular deviancy catered to. If it really bothers you, though, be aware that the Airfix kit clear parts have a bit of canopy framing bisecting the hood, as would be seen on a 109G (fig.1), but the 109E-4 canopy had no framing there, just a piece of glass that slid back (fig.2). The framing can easily be left unpainted and it should look fine, though.

 

Fig.1 

 

Fig.2

 

[TANK63]

Thanks for the advice guys

[JackG]

For the Airfix boxing, you may have to purchase some aftermarket swastikas for the tail - at least mine did not have them on the decal sheet.

The only other note with regards to accuracy are some panel lines on the underside of the wing:

 

 

The details circled in red should not be panel lines, but just a row of rivets.  There were also trim tabs missing.

 

 

regards,

Jack

[Wm Blecky]

3 hours ago, Procopius said:

The ICM kit is the most accurate, but not the most fun to assemble. It is, however, eerily compatible with the Tamiya 109E; I built one using parts from both kits last year.

 

 

I have read that ICM just extended the fuselage which is not the 100% correct way to fix the length issue.  Apparently it should be lengthened at several points on the rear portion.  That being said, before ICM came along, I did the same thing they did with several of my Tamiya kits, so go figure...  LOL

 

One thing I will say about the ICM kits, is even though they are pretty much, for all intensive purposes a copy of the Tamiya kit (save for the fuselage), they do not go together anywhere near as well as the Tamiya kit.  In particular, I found the prop assembly a nuisance when trying to fit it into the front of the fuselage.

 

Speaking of Airfix 109Es, I seem to recall comparing fuselage lengths with the Tamiya kit and they were the same.  The most notable difference was the position of the cockpit as it varied slightly between the 2 kits.

[Procopius]

3 minutes ago, Wm Blecky said:

Speaking of Airfix 109Es, I seem to recall comparing fuselage lengths with the Tamiya kit and they were the same.  The most notable difference was the position of the cockpit as it varied slightly between the 2 kits.

As it happens, I built an ICM and Airfix 109E side-by-side back in 2015, and compared the fuselages. They were almost identical.

 

 

 

 

[Wm Blecky]

3 hours ago, Procopius said:

As it happens, I built an ICM and Airfix 109E side-by-side back in 2015, and compared the fuselages. They were almost identical.

 

 

 

 

Oh yes, they are "almost identical" other than the ICM fuselage is longer as I previously said.  The Airfix fuselage is the same length as the Tamiya fuselage.  The reality is that the amount that the fuselage is "short" is not a heck of a lot and after having modified a few of my Tamiya 109Es, I do not think I would bother doing it again on a future build.  Hopefully if Eduard reignites their "1/72 Revolution" we will see them offer their 109E kit in 1/72.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Wm Blecky
typo

[FatFlyHalf]

Simple choice in my book, based on availability, accuracy, ease of build, level of detail. and price.

The Airfix BF109E is my first choice.

It makes up into a very reasonable representation without too much effort and goes together well.

After that the ICM kit.  this has the advantage of also being available with the E3 type canopy.

Aftermarket decals are legion, so you'll be able to build a variety of these two variants with wildly different camo schemes.

Both can be even more detailed by the avid modeller.

At least they keep me busy!

 

 

[Adam Poultney]

The airfix kit suffers from poor molding 

5 hours ago, Procopius said:

As it happens, I built an ICM and Airfix 109E side-by-side back in 2015, and compared the fuselages. They were almost identical.

 

 

 

 

Got a link to the full build?

[Seahawk]

1 hour ago, Adam Poultney said:

The airfix kit suffers from poor molding 

Bit of a blanket statement: please expand.  I've got two at the painting stage and don't recall any moulding problems, certainly nothing that I would damn the kit for, especially at the £4.99 I saw ii in Lidl for yesterday.  Unless you mean the general softness of detail on most Airfix kits compared to competitors moulded in harder plastic?

[Adam Poultney]

20 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

Bit of a blanket statement: please expand.  I've got two at the painting stage and don't recall any moulding problems, certainly nothing that I would damn the kit for, especially at the £4.99 I saw ii in Lidl for yesterday.  Unless you mean the general softness of detail on most Airfix kits compared to competitors moulded in harder plastic?

I have three. Two have been badly molded. One needed a number of replacement parts as they were completely missing and the next one has a bad canopy and a lot of flash. I'm just going to deal with the canopy on the second one.

Third one looks ok

[MDriskill]

In my opinion, the advantages of the Tamiya kit out-weigh its one oft-discussed fault. It’s beautifully engineered, crisply molded, has lots of detail, builds easily, and fully looks the part when finished.

 

I claim no serious 109 expertise, but have read that the overall length of Tamiya’s fuselage is actually correct; the  flaw is not that the rear fuselage is too short per se, but that the cockpit is slightly too far aft. So you could argue that the “fix” in the ICM kit really isn’t! 😀

 

My least favorite Airfix detail is the toothpick-narrow propeller blades, a toy-like touch on what is basically a good kit.

Edited December 12, 2019 by MDriskill

[Seahawk]

1 hour ago, MDriskill said:

My least favorite Airfix detail is the toothpick-narrow propeller blades, a toy-like touch on what is basically a good kit.

Now that is a very fair point, and common to a lot of the Hornby era kits around that time (Spitfire I, P-40B): Airfix Weedy Prop Syndrome, caused (I suspect) by not realising that drawings rarely illustrate the developed (ie full) profile of the blade because the blade is at 45 deg or so to the drawing view.

 

Mind you, the Hasegawa Spitfire IX has the same problem: compare the quartet of wispy palm fronds they supply with the much meatier prop provided by Eduard - or Heller.

[Procopius]

4 hours ago, Wm Blecky said:

Oh yes, they are "almost identical" other than the ICM fuselage is longer as I previously said.  The Airfix fuselage is the same length as the Tamiya fuselage.  

I rarely argue with such things, but I strongly believe this to be a misapprehension and would need to see all three fuselages measured by some accurate method before I was prepared to accept your contention.

 

3 hours ago, Adam Poultney said:

 

Got a link to the full build?

I do, but at the time I used Facebook to host the images, so they're no longer visible in the build:  

 

[JackG]

7 hours ago, Wm Blecky said:

 Hopefully if Eduard reignites their "1/72 Revolution" we will see them offer their 109E kit in 1/72.

Don't know what Eduard has planned  in the smaller scale, but if they copy their 1/48 offering - wasn't there something wrong with their Emil fuselage?

 

-------------------------------------

 

The molding on my Airfix 109 did have detail missing on the  starboard side wing root.  

 

The fuselage panel lines also tended to trail off into nothingness - but that is an easy fix.

 

The IP decal was also too large for the plastic kit part:

 

 

regards,

Jack

[Graham Boak]

Can I suggest that those gentlemen modellers with examples (one or more) of these three Emils place a ruler (it doesn't have to be a precise tool for this) and measure a common dimension on all three fuselages - I suggest from the rudder post to the nose as this is likely to be readily measured on all three kits (I don't have any of them to compare myself, and doubt whether measurements from the old Airfix and Academy Emils would be at all relevant).  With these published. we can then clarify one point under discussion, whether the Airfix kit is much the same length as the Tamiya.

 

It should then be possible to add the dimensions of the rudder and the spinner, which I assume will be much the same on all three, and differences being negligible compared to distances in the fuselage length.  This can then be multiplied by 72 to see which matches the published dimensions of the full-size Emil, and hence clarify a second point, which of the kits are under or over size.

 

We can then proceed to the third point, which is the position of the cockpit.  Assuming published plans of the Emil are not identical in this region.  Those with quality kits of other versions of the Bf.109 (for example an FM Gustav) can now compare the position of the cockpit with the rear fuselage length to determine where any error lies.  The rear fuselage being the same on all these 109s.

 

Apologies for being long-winded and "teaching grandmother to suck eggs", but a more succinct posting fell foul of the sensitivities of a moderator.  In summary therefore:

Get ruler

Get reference

Measure kits

Compare and contrast

Tell us about it.

 

 

[Wm Blecky]

16 hours ago, Procopius said:

I rarely argue with such things, but I strongly believe this to be a misapprehension and would need to see all three fuselages measured by some accurate method before I was prepared to accept your contention.

Well, go out and pick up one of each, see for yourself.  I honestly do not care whether you believe my "contention" or not.  Fact is, I have each and I have compared each side by side so I KNOW what I am talking about.  By the same token, you are entitled to follow your own contentions... right or wrong though they may be.

 

[MDriskill]

Regarding the missing starboard wing root detail, I believe Airfix corrected that in later releases of the kit. Hats off to them for that at least.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by MDriskill

[Procopius]

7 hours ago, Wm Blecky said:

Well, go out and pick up one of each, see for yourself.  

I did. That's why I disagree.

[Kushan_Farsight]

Starfix do a Me-109 in 1/72.

Do not ever touch it. even with a long stick. 

[Wulfman]

All things considered, the Tamiya will be the most enjoyable build, if it’s slightly out of wack who cares?

 

Wulfman

[Graham Boak]

Thereby speaks someone who doesn't care( which is fair enough) but hasn't been long on this forum.  Otherwise it would be clear that there are quite a lot of people, on this forum and elsewhere, who do indeed care that a model accurately represents the original it is intended to represent.  Who would care enough to avoid a beautifully fitting kit in favour of an accurate one that might require a few more minutes work.  Or, indeed, look for some way of taking this superbly fitting kit and re-shaping it to something better.

 

Fit is over-rated:  two pieces of plasticard will fit together beautifully end-to-end, but the result is hardly the be-all and end-all of modelling.

[Wulfman]

I was alluding to my own lack of skill and patience, I am very aware that many modellers enjoy searching 

for perfection and making the appropriate changes. However the person making the request merely wants

to know the best kit available. I was aware that I would be stirring the pot a little, but it is just a hobby, 

no one is going too crash and burn if the kit is not 100% accurate.

 

Wulfman

 

 

 

[Johnson]

I have the Airfix Bf109E-4 (kit A01008) in my stash and will happily measure bits of it if it.

 

I notice that the Airfix starter (kit A55106) is the a Bf109E-3. Is this the same moulding? Apart from the obvious differences, I know very little about 109s - sorry!

 

I also have a very old 1992 Hasegawa Bf109E4/7 (kit 51309)  lurking somewhere in my stash (OMS - old modellers syndrome - I know I have that kit somewhere). Anyway, does anyone have an opinion on the old Hasegawa kit? Not worth making considering the newer kits?