Bf 109G-2/Trop ***FINISHED***

[PeterB]

As my builds in 2 other GB are in the painting stage I thought I might as well make a start with this.

I doubt any of the 109 kits I intend to build are anywhere near 100% accurate, particularly the Italeri ones by all accounts, and this one is no exception. To start with the canopy, both open and closed options are provided but the G-2 had an armoured plate behind the pilot's head and that is missing, whilst the radio mast is moulded as part of the canopy and is rather short. Hobbyboss also want you to fit the D/F loop behind it but I doubt that is right according to the pics I have seen.

Moving on to the undercarriage, like the G-12 the G-2 initially had a retractable tailwheel but later it was fixed. However it was also bigger as were the main wheels, and that in turn required bulges on top of the wings, which are missing from the kit. HB do provide 3 types of main wheel and 2 types of tailwheel besides the one moulded on the fuslelage, presumably for other versions of the 109G they make, as they also include "bulges" to go over the breeches of the larger MG131 carried by the G-6 and later models. According to one of my books the G-2/Trop was a late version with the fixed tail wheel and larger wheels/bulges, but HB have modelled this as an early version but with a fixed tailwheel so that leaves me with two options - fit the larger main and tailwheels and then try and fabricate bulges, or leave it as an early version and make a well for the tailwheel! They also intend you to build it as a "cannonboat" with the R6 option of a pair of MG151/20 cannon under the wings, which is certainly correct for some G-2/Trop. Failing that it means filling in the mounting slots under the wings.

 

I will have to have a think about this - may end up as a normal early G-2 in another theatre!

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited June 3, 2021 by PeterB

[vppelt68]

Hi Pete.

The G-2 had the smaller main wheels with spoked wheels. The tail wheel was retractable. I believe /trops were built along the whole stretch of G-2 production, as an extension to F-4/trops.

Since the production of G-3/4 began, there was no need nor reason to continue producing unbulged replacement wings, as the same wings should fit anything from a G-1 to later G-6 and -8 types.

The HB fuselage is solid piece, isn't it? I think you could just carve the side profile of the tail wheel well and then paint the surface black. Also, you trim the height of the tall, bootless tail wheel and use it.

The head armour should be easy to cut from a flat piece of plastic and for the antenna you sure have some pieces in your spares?

 

Option B, pm me your address and I'll mail you the tailwheel, head armour and antenna 🙂

 

V-P

 

 

 

 

[PeterB]

Thanks V-P,

 

I think I can manage. Digging around in my references I found that as you said all versions of the G-2 could be /trops so I have cut off the tail wheel, drilled and pinned it so it can go back later, and scooped out a well. The kit comes with 2 markings options - 

According to the Osprey "Aircraft of the Aces" book on 109's in the med, the one on the left is in fact a G-4/Trop in the markings of Hauptman Gunther Rodel, Gruppenkommodore of II/JG27 as in Sicily in April 1943 - The G-4 had the same modifications as the late production G-2 but a different radio and the tailwheel well was faired in. The decs lack the Arms of the City of Berlin which should be on the nose.

 

However, they say that the one on the right is an early G-2/Trop with retractable tailwheel and there is a bit of a story to it. It was intended to be the mount of Lt Wilhelm Crinius who had scored 100 victories in Russia, together with 14 in the med, and carries those victory markings plus his Knight's Cross and Oak Leaves on the rudder. He was temporarily posted to the Gruppe Stab of I/JG 53 Pik As but was due to return to 3 Staffel so this machine, Werk- Nr 10 804 was painted up as yellow 13 ready for his use. However he never arrived, having been shot down and captured on January 13th 1943 The markings were unchanged but the plane was then flown by Leutnant Gerhard Opel of 2/JG 53 in Tunisia - it may not have used the tropical filter as they were not needed once the Afrika Korps retreated from the desert. This is machine I will be building, and it seems that it probably was a "Kanonenboote". Pics of a restored G-2 suggest the cockpit was still RLM02 - I expected RLM66 - any suggestions before I start?

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited June 3, 2021 by PeterB

[vppelt68]

RLM 66 is quite a safe bet for all Gustav cockpits.

[Johnson]

The G-2 I’m building will have a RLM66 cockpit, this is based on photos of the restoration but Russ Snadden who led the project was a stickler for getting original details right.

[Marklo]

With all things 109 particularly the G series all sorts of combinations of configurations are possible the which is why there were three separate attempts to standardise namely the G10, G14 and the K series. 
 

The only way to be sure your build is 100% accurate is to have reference photos of the specific machine your building or alternatively just relax and enjoy the build, the vast majority of observers ( possibly even experts) won’t know the df loop is in the wrong place or the guns should be mg FF s or the tyres have the wrong tread  

Edited June 4, 2021 by Marklo

[Graham Boak]

Try two attempts.  the G-10/G-14 appeared at the same time, the G-10s being with the big supercharger and the G-14 with the original supercharger but methanol injection.  The K was an attempt to standardise assuming that enough large-supercharger engines would be available for all production.  However, MG FFs were history long before then. anyway.

[Marklo]

15 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

G-10/G-14 appeared at the same time,

I thought the G10 was to be the standard with the Erla hood, tall tail and the DB605D but owing to short supply of the DB605D the G14 spec was put into manufacturing using the DB605A; entering service before the G10 although some were produced as G14AS models with DB605Ds which are all but identical to G10s. The K series was an attempt like the panzer E series classifications to regularise/ standardise all models. (Afaik)  The primary  differences being the location of the radio access panel, the addition of small landing gear doors, which were almost always removed or not fitted and relocation of the df loop and radio antennae.

 

All very confusing  ; the Messerschmitt book I’m currently reading says you need to be able to read the log book of a late model airframe  to actually see what the factory called it.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Marklo

[Graham Boak]

I'd say that the G-14 was not so much put into production as the G-6 continued but with (or without) MW and relabelled.  I believe that there are some other subtle differences - I have seen reference to a G-14 wing as distinct from a K wing.    The G-14 wasn't in itself a separate stage of standardisation.  I don't think that there was a belief that the G-10 would ever be the only production standard - which was the case with the K.

 

Strictly speaking, a DB605AS isn't the same thing as a DB605D.  The big supercharger (off the DB603) is common, and by far the most important feature, but they do have different cowlings: because of different pipe routing (IIRC).

[Marklo]

10 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Strictly speaking, a DB605AS isn't the same thing as a DB605D.

I know, I reread my resources after your post and just came away even more confused. 
 

I’d also agree that from a configuration point of view a G14 can be indistinguishable from a G6. 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Marklo

[Col.]

"Easy assembly" it may be but the "authentic kit" part of that statement seems less than accurate  

Regardless of that I'm sure you'll create a good model from it whichever way you chose to go Pete  

[PeterB]

1 hour ago, Col. said:

"Easy assembly" it may be but the "authentic kit" part of that statement seems less than accurate  

 

Hi Col,

 

Oddly enough I just made a fairly similar comment on my HB P-39 build in the Under a Tenner GB. They did make some silly mistakes in their earlier kits - not sure about the more recent ones.

 

Pete

[modelling minion]

49 minutes ago, PeterB said:

They did make some silly mistakes in their earlier kits - not sure about the more recent ones.

 

Don't worry Pete, they continued the trend.

 

Nice choice of scheme mate, should look great.

[PeterB]

Just realised I forgot to post a pic of the early stage construction. Not missed much as being a Hobby Boss kit it just involved gluing the bottom including wings to the top part of the fuselage, followed by the horizontal tail, a couple of intakes and the mounting for the drop tank.

Painted in RLM 78/79 as per the box instructions. Bit of tidying up needed then the RLM80 mottle to go on. I went for the optional non filtered intake they provide in the box.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Looking at my various sources it would seem that when the Luftwaffe started adding RLM80 disruptive paint over the RLM79 Sandgelb there were two distinct approaches. Some units seem to have very carefully applied quite large hard edged patches, whilst others just seem to have slapped it on with a mop or something similar, and I have gone for the latter approach in this build. Now I have to admit that in spite of trying numerous times in the last 60+ years, I am not that good at mottling. I have had some success with an airbrush on large scale models but with my shaky hands these days, I find a combination of stippling and the dry brush technique more practical on 1/72 kits. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It is easier on the late war grey camo as I can blend it in with a thin wash. Anyway, this is where I am at the moment.

The patches on the rear are reflections! I think that is going to have to do as I don't want to spend a lot of time and effort on this particular kit - for some reason it does not "fire me up" if you know what I mean - maybe it is just too easy a build and my "modelling mojo" has not got out of first gear. I expect some of my later builds will be more frustrating challenging. Anyway, I will get the undercarriage etc on and them start with the decs.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[Col.]

Sorry to hear you're not enjoying this one so much Pete but it's still coming on well

[PeterB]

Hi Col,

 

Probably a bit of "Modelling fatigue" as I am doing too many builds as ever. There is not much wrong with the kit, I just don't find it very interesting. Some of the others will no doubt be more annoying - reviews suggest the Italeri ones are not very accurate, but I will perhaps be able to mask the problems with the paintwork as I might try something a little different - a "Grunhertz" one in Russia in green and brown for example, and a late G or K in RLM81/2/3/4 sort of colours - yes I know 84 probably did not exist, at least officially, but it should get a bit of a debate going as I am sure the usual suspects will have their say!

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Nearly there! I added a swastika from my decal stock as I could not be bothered assembling the jig-saw one provided and I might add a few stencils as well. Bit of touching up to do as ever but it is just about done.

The markings on the rudder are nothing like the real thing! You might just be able to see the head armour I added and I might replace the rather short radio mast - some Bf109G had ones like in the kit but I believe this particular plane had a longer one.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Touching up done, radio mast changed and prop on.

Just need a quick spray of varnish and it will be finished.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Sprayed and in the gallery.

I suppose it does not look too bad though I have no idea how accurate it actually is! At least it is perhaps a little better with my modifications.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[Johnson]

12 minutes ago, PeterB said:

I suppose it does not look too bad though I have no idea how accurate it actually is!

 

Well, it looks pretty good to me Pete, and better for the longer mast, that's the sort of thing that is noticeable.

 

I noticed your comment about Flickr 'Due to limits on free Flickr some pictures have been removed...'. After reading some useful tips here on BM about 'hotlinking' I've started using Microsoft One Drive. It's a wee bit technical but easy after you've done a few. For the resolution of pics that we post it is almost limitless, or should see me out as my old man used to say.

 

Cheers

[PeterB]

Hi Charlie

 

I have one drive but my only attempt to use it to send somebody some pics failed miserably. I suppose I could have another look at it.

 

Pete

[Col.]

This one has turned out looking fine after all Pete