Tamiya Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6 Inaccuracies

[loquiera]

I've been assembling model kits for a while now and  I am starting to get comfortable and experienced enough to start modifying some of my models for better historical accuracy. My next build will be the Tamiya Bf 109 G-6, I've already planned to remove the umbrella holders only used on the trop versions (which I will not be recreating). Any other flaws/mistakes in the kit which you have noticed would be appreciated.

Edited April 8, 2021 by loquiera
spelling mistake

[Bozothenutter]

You might want to follow this guy....

Google translate is atrocious, but he does good work!

[loquiera]

link?

[Bozothenutter]

Lol....apologies....

 

[Vlad]

There is one small mistake I noticed, they have not placed the engine exhaust stacks at the correct angle. On the kit they are paralell to the aircraft datum line, but in reality the thrust line is slightly angled up at the front, and the engine and exhausts with it. I would count it as a minor error with a disproportionate effort to fix.

[MarkoZG]

I would be very careful about Mr.Tenma's plans. Although they look elaborate, not each of them is quite correct. For making them, he uses photos of real planes as a basis, with approximations for compensating lense distortions and angle of objective. He puts a lot of effort in his works, nevertheless, but some of the claims put there are simply incorrect or to say contradictory.

One example is his build of Ventura's Spitfire. At the very beginning he notices the perfect shapes of this kit (which I totally agree with), yet till the end of the article his Ventura Spitfire gets butchered and extensively modified in all axis. 

Regarding Tamiya's Gustav, it has some shape errors which have been better described elsewhere (either here or on Czech forum, I don't recall it anymore) and it also just doesn't look good assembled.

You will still benefit from Tamiya's great fit, simplicity of build and sharp details, but if you want historically accurate shapes then look for Fine Molds kit.

 

[Seawinder]

2 hours ago, MarkoZG said:

I would be very careful about Mr.Tenma's plans. Although they look elaborate, not each of them is quite correct. For making them, he uses photos of real planes as a basis, with approximations for compensating lense distortions and angle of objective. He puts a lot of effort in his works, nevertheless, but some of the claims put there are simply incorrect or to say contradictory.

One example is his build of Ventura's Spitfire. At the very beginning he notices the perfect shapes of this kit (which I totally agree with), yet till the end of the article his Ventura Spitfire gets butchered and extensively modified in all axis. 

Regarding Tamiya's Gustav, it has some shape errors which have been better described elsewhere (either here or on Czech forum, I don't recall it anymore) and it also just doesn't look good assembled.

You will still benefit from Tamiya's great fit, simplicity of build and sharp details, but if you want historically accurate shapes then look for Fine Molds kit.

 

Are you possibly talking apples and oranges? The OP doesn't specify whether the Tamiya Gustav in question is 1/48 or 1/72, while the Fine Molds kit is 1/72 AFAIK.

[Vlad]

9 hours ago, MarkoZG said:

but if you want historically accurate shapes then look for Fine Molds kit.

 

Which is proven to be too short in the engine bay and 1.5mm too short overall, an error Tamiya does not share. I don't really see the mystque surrounding the FM kits. I am curious to know what shape errors you consider the Tamiya has that the FM does not.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Vlad

[MarkoZG]

10 hours ago, Seawinder said:

Are you possibly talking apples and oranges? The OP doesn't specify whether the Tamiya Gustav in question is 1/48 or 1/72, while the Fine Molds kit is 1/72 AFAIK.

You are quite right, I am sorry, somehow I assumed it was about 1/72nd scale.

[MarkoZG]

4 hours ago, Vlad said:

 

Which is proven to be too short in the engine bay and 1.5mm too short overall, an error Tamiya does not share. I don't really see the mystque surrounding the FM kits. I am curious to know what shape errors you consider the Tamiya has that the FM does not.

Proven you said, this is something AZ thought and made their Fritzes and Gustavs longer then needed. When they realized the mistake, they corrected newer kits to correct length.

As for issues of Tamiya kit in 1/72nd scale, when you have seen hundreds and hundreds of photos of real plane, then you can already notice shape errors just by looking at the assembled kit. Even though you are not able to tell what is wrong without deeper examination, something just doesn't feel right. But as I said, this is not only my conclusion, so if you browse the internet, I am sure you will find more than one review which addresses the issues.

[Vlad]

14 minutes ago, MarkoZG said:

Proven you said, this is something AZ thought and made their Fritzes and Gustavs longer then needed. When they realized the mistake, they corrected newer kits to correct length.

As for issues of Tamiya kit in 1/72nd scale, when you have seen hundreds and hundreds of photos of real plane, then you can already notice shape errors just by looking at the assembled kit. Even though you are not able to tell what is wrong without deeper examination, something just doesn't feel right. But as I said, this is not only my conclusion, so if you browse the internet, I am sure you will find more than one review which addresses the issues.

 

The AZ model kit is too long and has other shape issues, I am not debating that. But the FM is too short. This is not by comparison with another kit, this is by measurement and comparison with factory dimensions.

 

 

 

You can see them FM length for rudder post to spinner back is 107.6mm when it should be 109mm.

 

I too have seen a lot of pictures of the real thing, and pictures of built up FM kits look right. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact their dimension is wrong. I have built the Tamiya 109G-6 in both 1/48 and 1/72 and that also looks right to me, aside from the exhaust issue I have already mentioned. I have no stake, I am happy to pick on shape issues in the Tamiya kit also but subjective opinion is not what these things should be based on.

 

If the Tamiya kit does not look right to you, then I would be happy to hear your opinions. Why keep saying you see issues but not say what they are?

Edited April 9, 2021 by Vlad

[loquiera]

The model I am building is 1/48 scale

[MDriskill]

18 hours ago, MarkoZG said:

I would be very careful about Mr.Tenma's plans. Although they look elaborate, not each of them is quite correct. For making them, he uses photos of real planes as a basis, with approximations for compensating lense distortions and angle of objective. He puts a lot of effort in his works, nevertheless, but some of the claims put there are simply incorrect or to say contradictory.

One example is his build of Ventura's Spitfire. At the very beginning he notices the perfect shapes of this kit (which I totally agree with), yet till the end of the article his Ventura Spitfire gets butchered and extensively modified in all axis. 

 

I do not mean to argue, and assume Mr. Temma is as imperfect as the rest of us humans! But I would note that he typically starts by researching as much original-source documentation as possible, and includes this bibliography with his posts. My impression is he uses pictures - carefully corrected for perspective as you note - more to confirm details, or fill gaps in information, than as a primary resource.

 

The body of drawings he is building up on his site is IMHO a remarkable resource, which often correct long-standing errors repeated by other sources. He also frequently updates drawings to add or correct details when needed.

 

http://soyuyo.main.jp/index.html

 

I especially admire his looking at all 3 dimensions when analyzing form too, going beyond 2-dimensional outlines to examine cross-section shapes. This may be the reason for the Spitfire mods that you mention (which article I confess I have not studied).

Edited April 9, 2021 by MDriskill

[MarkoZG]

50 minutes ago, Vlad said:

 

The AZ model kit is too long and has other shape issues, I am not debating that. But the FM is too short. This is not by comparison with another kit, this is by measurement and comparison with factory dimensions.

 

 

 

 

I too have seen a lot of pictures of the real thing, and pictures of built up FM kits look right. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact their dimension is wrong. I have built the Tamiya 109G-6 in both 1/48 and 1/72 and that also looks right to me, aside from the exhaust issue I have already mentioned. I have no stake, I am happy to pick on shape issues in the Tamiya kit also but subjective opinion is not what these things should be based on.

 

If the Tamiya kit does not look right to you, then I would be happy to hear your opinions. Why keep saying you see issues but not say what they are?

OK, what left me with bad impression from the beginning is the nose which looks as if was squeezed from the sides resulting in flattened sides (and wrong cross section hence) while being overinflated in profile view at the same time. Also the angle of landing gear legs doesn't look right. These are the main things that look wrong to me, but as I said before, you can look for more elaborated analysis written by other people on the net. 

Regarding the length of FM kit, I will not discuss it further as I remember seeing to many allegedly factory based measurements which contradicted each other and without knowing the exact source and its reliability, this is all I can say.

[Vlad]

1 hour ago, MarkoZG said:

OK, what left me with bad impression from the beginning is the nose which looks as if was squeezed from the sides resulting in flattened sides (and wrong cross section hence) while being overinflated in profile view at the same time. Also the angle of landing gear legs doesn't look right. These are the main things that look wrong to me, but as I said before, you can look for more elaborated analysis written by other people on the net. 

Regarding the length of FM kit, I will not discuss it further as I remember seeing to many allegedly factory based measurements which contradicted each other and without knowing the exact source and its reliability, this is all I can say.

 

Yes, good point the undercarriage angle is suspicious, but I don't have drawings to compare this. Since it's clear now we are talking about the 1/48 kit, the comparison would be Eduard. That also has suspicious undercarriage in the opposite direction, making the plane look like it's standing too tall.

 

For the shape of the nose, it is very subjective and hard to tell from pictures that can be taken from all sorts of different angles and distances, not the same as pictures of models. I would suggest that what you see as the profile being "overinflated" is actually an illusion caused by the incorrect position of the exhaust stacks. It makes the lower cowling look a bit too deep at the wing root. I know there can be a big debate about sources of drawings, but at least on this forum there is consensus I have seen from past threads. Real photos cannot show a perfect profile, due to angles, paralax and shadows the perception of the profile is distorted. The 109 is quite cigar shaped in pure profile and I am satisfied Tamiya captures this correctly.

[MDriskill]

I do not claim to be a 109 expert, but for what it's worth I've compared several makes of 1/72 kits with a carefully scaled copy of the length diagram above. To my eye:

 

The Zvezda F and Tamiya G-6 are VERY close, within tenths of a millimeter at all points.

 

The Fine Molds kits are slightly short, the error seemingly concentrated in the bay between the windscreen and firewall.

 

All the AZ kits are slightly long, with the error, interestingly, in the same bay. The early AZ moldings (G-2 through G-6, G-14) had an additional issue with the fuselage being too shallow at the firewall, throwing both the nose shape and wing incidence off. Their later moldings greatly improve this area at least (F, re-tooled G-14, G-6AS, G-14AS, K, Diana/WNF G-10, Erla G-10).

 

Back to the original question: I agree with Fridrih below. I guess no kit will ever be utterly perfect, but the Tamiya G-6 is pretty darn close to it. I'd just build it and enjoy.

 

Edited April 12, 2021 by MDriskill

[Fridrih]

On 4/8/2021 at 6:39 PM, loquiera said:

I've been assembling model kits for a while now and  I am starting to get comfortable and experienced enough to start modifying some of my models for better historical accuracy. My next build will be the Tamiya Bf 109 G-6, I've already planned to remove the umbrella holders only used on the trop versions (which I will not be recreating). Any other flaws/mistakes in the kit which you have noticed would be appreciated.

Tamiya it has no significant shortcomings, which is in 72, which is in 48

72 - just a reduced 48 in everything but partitioning

 

comparison in two parts

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/12042-obzor-1-48-Bf109G-6---TAMIYA-protiv-zvezda---chast-1.html

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/12043-obzor-1-48-Bf109G-6---TAMIYA-protiv-zvezda---chast-2.html