Messerschmitt Bf 109 G6 - Dimensions (length & wing span)?

[Johnson]

3 hours ago, Ray_W said:

Yes we should not steal your thread. 

 

No problem Ray, I think the size of the Bf109G has had a good airing.

[michael_hase]

Gentlemen,

 

the "correct length" has been a topic here in Germany ever since I can think about "Messerschmitts" and - believe me - this goes some time back....  There are also slight differences due to the different types of tailfins/rudders attached to the G-6 and subsequent sub-types, e.g. G-14, G-10 etc. 9020mm incl. rudder is common sense nowadays concerning this type.

 

A couple of years ago we at "Modellboard" here in Germany have done some 1/72nd-comparisons on the then available 109 F and G-Types based on measurements taken at Tikkakoski and Cosford which I hade taken before. To avoid the rudder discussion we have only taken the fuselage and subdivided it into the four parts without rudder.

 

Please have a look at the whole thread - it almost is self-explanatory.

 

https://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=61607.msg949739#msg949739

 

However we haven´t taken Tamyia´s new G-6 into this survey as it hasn´t been on the market then. 

 

Quite honest, all of the older 109 G-6/F-subtypes have their "+" and "-" mostly with regard to the diameter and the width of the fuselage. Most of them simply are too narrow and with some of them the proportions are somewhat "incorrect".  The old Aitfix G-6 and the Heller ones are the least "correct" followed by the too tny Hasegawas and their Eastern-European derivatives. But still, they look like Bf 109 G - thus zthey are Bf 109 G.

 

AZ´s G-6  - as excellent as the kit technically is - has the front part in our opinion out of the centre which gives the impression that this part is too small and "out of the middle". FM -is two mm too short. I have extended the fuselage. Buit this is something only for the rivet-counter. Still it looks like a Bf 109 G. 

 

Tamyia´s 109 G-6 in 1/72 seems to be the best game in town today.

 

Happy Christmas and happy modelling!

 

Yours

 

Michael

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

The success of generations of caricaturists show that something can be immensely distorted and still "looks like".  At least to the passing glance.

[dov]

I agree Graham Boak. After decades of modelling I want a real thing. On the other side, I personaly what is wrong on almost all warbird kits. Nevertheless, I am happy about every new model I fidnish.

The lineup and comparison of the 109 variants from michael_hase  are the first comparisons that are actually clearly unambiguous.

Happy modelling

[Troy Smith]

11 hours ago, michael_hase said:

 

AZ´s G-6  - as excellent as the kit technically is - has the front part in our opinion out of the centre which gives the impression that this part is too small and "out of the middle".

Sorry, I'm not quite following this,  perhaps this is a literal translation from German,  from this image

 

I presume the AZ is the top, and you mean the fuselage is not deep enough? 

thanks

T

[michael_hase]

Dear Troy, dear fellow-modellers,

 

correct, Honestly, I wanted to be polite as I know Petr Muzikant well and had some discussions on his G-6.

 

The upper fuselage half in the picture  is the AZ with the "issues" we discovered, the one below is the extended FM-fuselage.

 

However I assume that nobody except a 109-buff really sees the difference, As in many cases with our hobby it dpends on how deep you dig or want to dig. I want to have an almost correct model and therefore I cope with th ese things. For me 2,0 mm in 1/72 are a " difference". But I do not critiizise anyone simply doing his or her models without taking care of these details.

 

I wish you all a peaceful and pleasasnt Christmas week-end this year and "happy modelling"

 

Yours Michael 

[Johnson]

Most useful posts @michael_hase, thank you.

 

I and many other modellers are quite happy to accept these 'differences' as part of the hobby, sometimes a bit of correction is called for and will enhance the final result. And there is also a fascination to examine the kit and know just how much it varies from the real thing. When I started this thread, which I think has been most useful, it wasn't because I wanted to change the 1/72 Heller Bf 109 G 2/5/6 I'm making, I was just intrigued as to far it actually differed from the real thing.

 

12 minutes ago, michael_hase said:

I wish you all a peaceful and pleasasnt Christmas week-end this year and "happy modelling"

 

And the same for you and all my fellow modellers out there!

 

Best wishes

[michael_hase]

My favourite in the older days was the Heller Bf 109 F a wonderful kit and nobody cared about the dimensions etc.

 

I had the Beaman booklet myself but unfortunately sold it.In many ways outdated (Bf 109 G-10 A and B but still something for the history.

 

M,

[MDriskill]

For what it's worth, this photo shows a first-series AZ Bf 109G fuselage half on top, taped to their Bf 109F fuselage below. The tops of them are aligned precisely, so you can see the amount of adjustment made to the underside contours on their more recently-issued 109 kit versions. To my eye, this makes a significant improvement to what is already a very nice set of molds.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by MDriskill

[michael_hase]

Exactly! I will check this one as well. Did you have a look at the position of the exhaust stubs

 

Best wishes for 2021

 

Michael

[Vlad]

I'll throw my had in the ring here as well. AZ 109F over Zvezda. You can see through the Exhaust stub opening that the Zvezda sit at the (I believe correct) slope, while the AZ are a little too high especially near the wing root.