Correction & adaptation of kits from the 109 Gustav 1/48

[dov]

Hallo

 

I have 10 kits from the 109 Gustav.

From version 2 to 14. All sorts of kits.

The Tamiya and Zvezda G-6 and several Eduard editions.

My question is:

The Gustav was in reality criss-cross converted. GM-1, MW-50, upgrated hood, Mk-108 and so on.

The situation is, that nearly no kit represents the aircraft I want to build.

If it is so, in detail I miss hatches, or the wrong hood.

The difference with upgraded vision improved hood to the standard Erla hood is too big, to be ignored.

Especially on the aspect of aerial.

AS will be AS. No conversion intended. To much work!

On the other side, for planes of JG-300 / 301 / 302 the landing light is mostly omitted.

I intend to build the aircraft I intend, and not to stick on the decal option the kit has.

Lots of decals I have, lots of masks too.

 

1. I need to know a scribing tool to make the missing hatches in fuselage or wing by myself.
2. I need to know where to get dash boards for the improved blind flying and radio equipment for the night fighter versions.
3. I need to know aftermarket hoods for upgraded vision improved hood / not Erla.

 

If you can help me, I would be happy.

Thanks in forward.

 

Happy modelling

[FloydWerner]

Try MDC for the blind flying panel.  They have it for the Hasegawa kits but I'm sure it can be made to fit the Eduard kit with little fuss.

 

There is a scribing template (PE 48-005) from ATOL Hobby, I picked mine up off of eBay.  I think it is essential given the way Eduard broke down the chevron wing to fuselage join.

 

Not sure about anything for the upgraded hood, but you may want to check Falcon.  They did a Bf-109 special vacuform canopy sheet that has most of the variations that you could want.

Floyd

[Tbolt]

5 hours ago, dov said:

Hallo

 

I have 10 kits from the 109 Gustav.

From version 2 to 14. All sorts of kits.

The Tamiya and Zvezda G-6 and several Eduard editions.

My question is:

The Gustav was in reality criss-cross converted. GM-1, MW-50, upgrated hood, Mk-108 and so on.

The situation is, that nearly no kit represents the aircraft I want to build.

If it is so, in detail I miss hatches, or the wrong hood.

The difference with upgraded vision improved hood to the standard Erla hood is too big, to be ignored.

Especially on the aspect of aerial.

AS will be AS. No conversion intended. To much work!

On the other side, for planes of JG-300 / 301 / 302 the landing light is mostly omitted.

I intend to build the aircraft I intend, and not to stick on the decal option the kit has.

Lots of decals I have, lots of masks too.

 

1. I need to know a scribing tool to make the missing hatches in fuselage or wing by myself.
2. I need to know where to get dash boards for the improved blind flying and radio equipment for the night fighter versions.
3. I need to know aftermarket hoods for upgraded vision improved hood / not Erla.

 

If you can help me, I would be happy.

Thanks in forward.

 

Happy modelling

 

Do you want a scribing tool or a template? Eduard do some genric template sets - 

 

and Hasegawa do the Trytool sets. Eduard also do a 109G/K one though it's no longer in production - https://www.eduard.com/eduard/photo-etched-parts/photo-etched-set/aircraft/1-48/bf-109g-k-access-and-scribing-templates-1-48.html 

 

 

[Jochen Barett]

6 hours ago, dov said:

+++

I have 10 kits from the 109 Gustav.

From version 2 to 14. All sorts of kits.

+++

If you can help me, I would be happy.

Thanks in forward.

 

Happy modelling

 

If you can't be with the ones you love - love the ones you're with!

 

 

[GiampieroSilvestri]

The Erla Haube is the canopy with improved visibility compared to the normal Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6 canopy.There is no standard Erla Haube.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

Edited November 29, 2022 by GiampieroSilvestri

[dragonlanceHR]

1) MR.Paint MR.SCRIBER-NEEDLE RED

[Tomas Enerdal]

In this compilation (the link I recently received from you, many thanks!) http://www.motag.de/DokuBf-109.pdf, M. Mermet describes the three variations of what is often called the "Erla-haube" (on p.61).

I can think of two more; the bulged one found on th Bf-109K prototype, and the odd F-type with bulged side panels.

 

Which one of those do you refer to when you say upgraded vision improved hood?

 

Or are there even other types which I haven't observed? 

 

AIMS has produced a set of photo etched Hatches and latches Bf 109 F,G,K (48PE008). They are not a scribing template really, but I us it as such anyway. (Their K radio hatch is the best rendition so far IMHO)

[Tomas Enerdal]

I've only been able to find one picture of a 109 nightfighter instrument panel in my references: stated as being of a "G-6/N".

The photo can be found on p.22 in the Flugzeug Profile 5, Messerschmitt Bf-109 G/K, by Manfred Griehl. (Can still be found on amazon.com)

The panel certainly looks different from a normal G-6 instrument panel!

 

I don't know of any such aftermarket instrument panel, bu Owl has made aerials and screens for FuG 217 J for Bf-109 and Fw-190, in set OWLPE48005.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Tomas Enerdal

[dov]

Hallo

 

@GiampieroSilvestri, @Tomas Enerdal,

 

The vision improved hood has many distinctions to the Erla Haube from production line.

 

See link from Tomas: http://www.motag.de/DokuBf-109.pdf

The link gives an excellent overview!

 

On page 61, picture 62 is the vision improved hood.

 

First of all is the ejection mechanism which was taken over from the standard G-6 version.

The arresting cable from steel wire was fixed at the left lower arresting bracket at the fuselage and at Galland armored protection.

This kept the hood after opening in a 90° position.

The aerial ant antenna wiring is the next point.

The aerial mast is in the upgraded version still on the fuselage, fixed with sheet steel.

 

On page 61, picture 63 is the standard Erla-hood.

 

The production Erla hood had this arresting cable with the same function.

But the fixation of the cable was in the frame for the hood and in the middle of ejection shaft.

The aerial mast on the Erla hood is on the hood by itself, a more forward position now.

And when in open position, the aerial mast is in horizontal position.

 

The night fighter dash-board has some additional:

The main panel in the center gets six instruments instead of four.

With turning indicator and variometer.

Radio equipment for fighter track management, contact altimeter, landing light switch, magnetic compass with electric basic adjustment for the fighter tracking management.

Not all mentioned.

 

In every way, we have to add the possibilities of the engine version and upgrade.

If we have a MW-50 injection, so the battery is stored in the forward position.

This results in the rectangle bulge at the rear canopy behind the head rest.

 In this case the hatches for handling MW-50 additional fuel must be installed.

If we have GM-1 or MW-50 all wing gondola MG's weapons are omitted.

The room is for oxygen and pressured air.

And if we have a MK-108 the floor in the cockpit is always from wood!

 

And so on and on….

 

The point is:

How to define the aircraft you want to model, the origin?

The engine plate usually tells just part of the real story.

Hatches may be operative or not.

As I said, criss - cross conversion on demand and availability.

 

Happy modelling

[Jochen Barett]

Naturally the aim is to get things 100% right, but who's gonna notice?

 

8.000.000.000 humans on our planet as of November 15th 2022.

 

Build Marseille's last 109 and Hartmann's last 109 (in 1/48th).

 

How many of the 8.000.000.000 will say "Oh, it's a 109" or "Oh, a Focke Wulf 110, nice model!"?

 

Recognize Marseille's last 109 was a G2 not an F and not a Spanish built one like seen in "Der Stern von Afrika"?

Know wether that G2 had the umbrella holders? White wing tips upper and or lower surface? Type of RLM 79 used?

 

Who's gonna tell you you chose the wrong oil filler position or wrong fuel triangle on Hartmann's last 109 and who will be able to show evidence?

And will that person be able to prove RLM 81/82/84/74/02 on the upper surfaces and the variant of RLM 76 used on the lower surfaces?

 

Will that be 100 or 1000 or 10000? Will Pamela Anderson, Heidi Klum, and Michaela Schaffrath notice the difference when you show them your models?

"Oh boy! You're so cute and I would have loved to spend the night with you - BUT you got the oil filler position all wrong!"

 

Anyway, we keep trying! Let's keep an eye on the features in photographic evidence and relax a bit on typology-theories and resulting/drawn maybe true conclusions.

[dov]

@Jochen Barett, the clue is:

• Picture of origin is not there
• make your own story.
• Picture is there
• and the kit does not fit.
• Spoil the kit, no, this is why I adapt the kit. To save our planet and not buy any more kit as I realy need.

 

My way. I also want to understand the operation from maintenance point of view!

 

So, there are some good reasons.

Shallowness and easy going is not my path. If it is yours, so be lucky and enjoy it!

 

Happy modelling

 

[Jochen Barett]

Shallowness?

 

I try to advocate to keep an eye on the big picture and not to get lost in the discussion wether the tail wheel would have had a Metzeler or a Continental brand tire in that production batch and what font Conti used until May '44 in the Hannover plant opposed to the Korbach branch or to jump to conclusions by making judgements on batches (some had Fulda tires, I heard).

[dov]

Yes, the tail & wheel is an additional subject. 

Happy modelling 

[Tomas Enerdal]

Well,

The vision improved hood, with the old locking mechanism, sharp corners on the lower, rear frame, no antenna mount, etc. seems to be perfectly modelled on the Eduard clear frame U, part no.3.

This frame seems to be included in all Eduard G later version kits (MTT Regensburg, WNF/Diana, Erla)

 

One of my dearest scribing tools is an old set released by trimaster many years ago, called tritool. The three scribing templates are numbered TPU-301, 302 and 303. 303 contains a number of ovals and are just the right thing for fuel fillers!

[Phoenix44]

On 30/11/2022 at 13:53, dov said:

@Jochen Barett, the clue is:

• Picture of origin is not there
• make your own story.
• Picture is there
• and the kit does not fit.
• Spoil the kit, no, this is why I adapt the kit. To save our planet and not buy any more kit as I realy need.

 

My way. I also want to understand the operation from maintenance point of view!

 

So, there are some good reasons.

Shallowness and easy going is not my path. If it is yours, so be lucky and enjoy it!

 

Happy modelling

 

It's entirely up to you but it's not shallow and easy-going to recognise that much of what we might want to know is unknowable. A single picture is one second in the life of the aircraft - before and after, who knows? And a picture is always open to subjective interpretation no matter how good - and most are far from good, even if we have the original, high quality print. Which we generally don't. And of course many pictures are posed, mot candid, true shots anyway - for all we know they are excellent wooden mock-ups that never flew but were used for publicity shots! We can accumulate evidence to support a view but nothing more. As for the planet, the kits are made already, buying them doesn't bring them into being!

[Graham Boak]

1 hour ago, Phoenix44 said:

As for the planet, the kits are made already, buying them doesn't bring them into being!

Now that is a shallow approach.  The more of anything you (we) buy, the more that retailers will look to stock up on, and the more manufacturers will make in the future.  Hence the multiplicity of Spitfires, Mustangs, Phantoms and Bf.109s.  That really is a basic principle of modern life.  I'm as guilty as any of buying plastic kits, probably more so than most, but I can still recognise the problem.

 

As for suggesting that nations spent enormous amounts of time and effort making wooden detailed mockups just to confuse future modellers: certainly a lot of effort did go into mockups to fool the enemy, but the whole point of them was that they were simple, crude and cheap.  They only looked good at a distance.  To invent this just to reject evidence from a photo is perverse.

 

As for only being able to accumulate evidence to support a view, isn't that Karl Popper's approach to science?  You can't actually prove anything, just disprove some alternatives and answer the question better than anything else.  Seems a good philosophy to me.  Better than the one that says nothing is real outside my head.