Bf 110G-2 canopy mask question

[Spitfires Forever]

Hello all,

I recently purchased the Pro Modeler 1/48 Bf 110G night fighter kit. I don't really fancy trying to tape off all that framework but cannot find the proper canopy masks for the Monogram kit. I hear the mould was originally a DML/Dragon production but not sure. Would the Eduard kit or P-Mask version of the masks work on this kit's canopy? Was there that much difference in the canopies of the C thru D models? Any advice would be helpful. At least I found the masks for my Ju 88A-4 but would love to avoid masking off that Bf 110 canopy if I can.

Cheers

Spitffire Addict

[Seawinder]

Pretty sure the Pro Modeler 110 G-4 was an original Monogram/PM mold. Scalemates has it as a new tool (1994) with no mention of DML. The G-2 boxing came out under the Revell label in 1999, but it undoubtedly has the same canopy as the original G-4.

 

Scalemates also lists Eduard Express Masks EX051 among the related items for the PM kit. A quick Google search yielded at least one retail outlet with the product in stock:

https://www.super-hobby.com/products/Bf-110G-1-48-REVELL-MONOGRAM.html

 

There are probably others. Maybe you can try the search for yourself.

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Seawinder

[KITCAT]

Was it flown by Rudolph Hesse?

[fishplanebeer]

Given that Rudolf Hess ' arrived' early in proceedings in May 1941 the version of Bf110 extant at the time would have been considerably earlier, namely Messerschmitt Bf 110D "VJ+OQ", Werk Nr 3869. Some remains are held by the IWM.

 

Regards

Colin.

[dov]

My proposal:

http://www.montex-mask.com/en/szukaj.php?maska=&skala=&numer_kat=&nazwa=Bf+110&producent=&numer_modelu=&searchAdvTrigger=true&x=14&y=19

Next:

Please consider that the intewrior framing shown as model is not accurate!

It is a strong simplification. Interior framing is shown as exterior framing.

Happy modelling

[Lawzer]

Eduard EX051.

[Seawinder]

16 hours ago, Lawzer said:

Eduard EX051.

Yes, I suggested that in post #2.

[Lawzer]

6 hours ago, Seawinder said:

Yes, I suggested that in post #2.

ooops......😁

[Seawinder]

8 hours ago, Lawzer said:

ooops......😁

No problem. I probably should have held my tongue. Sorry to be petty.

[Lawzer]

1 hour ago, Seawinder said:

No problem. I probably should have held my tongue. Sorry to be petty.

Not a problem. 👍

[Spitfires Forever]

Thank you gentlemen. I am aware of the "warts" on this kit but after many years of modelling I have come to the conclusion that modelling for fun and not the approval of others makes it more fulfilling. It is great that if I have questions regarding an aircraft or kit that my fellow modellers are there to help. Much appreciated

Cheers

Spitfire Addict

[Seawinder]

4 hours ago, Spitfires Forever said:

Thank you gentlemen. I am aware of the "warts" on this kit but after many years of modelling I have come to the conclusion that modelling for fun and not the approval of others makes it more fulfilling. It is great that if I have questions regarding an aircraft or kit that my fellow modellers are there to help. Much appreciated

Cheers

Spitfire Addict

IMHO there's no reason you have to justify your building that kit. (BTW, is it the G-4 night fighter or the G-2 day fighter you're doing?) Okay, the engine cowlings and spinners are a bit off, but it's a much more trouble-free build than the Eduard kit, especially when it comes to the radar installations.