Jump to content

Hasegawa 1:32 Me109F-2


Iain

Recommended Posts

We'll see just how brave when she's finished I guess!

 

Filler is just Revell Plasto - quite like it for small fills - does shrink a little so I leave for a few days, but sands nicely...

 

Iain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to jump in on this panel line thing, rightly or wrongly, and give my 2% worth. This is not the first time panel lines on F-2's have been brought up. In the earlier thread I stated that I found it incredulous the upper wing panel was a single panel. I still do. And, I don't care what the photographic evidence shows.

 

For a manufacturer to contract and use a die stamp, or multiple die stamps, the size to produce an entire upper wing panel does not make any sense to me. It is an overly expensive waste. The cost to make a block of steel equipment that large to press a piece of sheet metal that size would be astronomical, and ineffecient. The effecient way would be to produce smaller panels using smaller and more mobile equipment then assemble the parts. Which is what all previous and subsequent wings look like. So go figure why they would change for the F-2 then go back.

 

I don't have specs on sheet metal size of the Reich, so I don't really know! but, for a manufacturer to make a sheet roll to match the widest aspect of a wing or a sheet the width and length of the wing so it can then be cut and pressed is a waste of material. There would be too much scrap from a single wing panel in spite of recycling and reuse for other items. It would be less expensive and wasteful for a fabricator (Messerschmitt, et. al.) to purchase many smaller sheets or narrower rolls from which to work. In addition, it would be less expensive and wasteful for a manufacturer of sheet metal to make many smaller sheets or narrow rolls. There is more use for the size.

 

Once that is done, to then expect labor to align and mount a panel that size to a skeletal frame in a production run? I don't see it. I see too many alignment variables within the construction of the frame. I see too many variables in trying to match up the wing from root to tip. The tolerances would have to be machined for it to work. It would be easier and more efficient for labor to align and mount smaller panels. It would be easier and faster to trim to fit smaller panels to variables of the frame.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. But from a manufacturing and fabrication standpoint, it doesn't make sense to me that the F-2 had single panel upper wings.

 

Sincerely,

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got vociferous. I apologize.

 

Sincerely,

Mark

 

Nothing to apologize for Mark, I think your post was very well thought out and useful. I too am not fully convinced about the lack of panel lines on the outer wings :)

 

Cheers,

 

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to jump in on this panel line thing, rightly or wrongly, and give my 2% worth. This is not the first time panel lines on F-2's have been brought up. In the earlier thread I stated that I found it incredulous the upper wing panel was a single panel. I still do. And, I don't care what the photographic evidence shows.

 

 

Hiya Mark - I'm inclined to strongly agree with your thoughts - and this is why I left those lines in situ during the build. However, when the subject reared it's head the other night over on BM I scuttled off to have a look at photos and found one where the fuselage panels are clear - yet the inner of the disputed wing panel joint lines isn't.

 

My hypothesis - and I may be barking up the wrong tree here - is that they puttied the upper wing panel joints in the factory on early 'F's with the aim of a small gain in aircraft performance but that this was found to be negligible/waste of effort and, therefore stopped on later airframes?

 

It might be too late but after removing the mask on your putty when its still fresh you take Nail polish remover and some qtips you can rub the putty down without sanding

 

With hindsight I think I probably should have used Milliput and faired in with a wet finger! Useful tip re. nail polish remover - not tried that! :)

 

Are those roosters the kit decals Iain?

 

Yup - and I may be trying to source some more at this rate! ;)

 

All markings are straight kit apart from upper-wing crosses (I broke one of the kit ones)...

 

Kit decals are excellent.

 

I got vociferous. I apologize.

 

Sincerely,

Mark

 

No Mark - your post was excellent - good thoughts and well thought through IMHO. Better than some of the somewhat binary 'that's wrong/right/impossible' type postings I've seen on 109 build threads! I'm coming to the conclusion that building a 109 on a public forum can be one of the most stressful modelling experiences possible! ;)

 

Nothing to apologize for Mark, I think your post was very well thought out and useful. I too am not fully convinced about the lack of panel lines on the outer wings :)

 

Cheers,

 

Doug

 

Indeedy Doug!

 

Have fun all - I'll let you know what damage the sanding causes - wish me luck!

 

Iain

Edited by 32SIG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hypothesis - and I may be barking up the wrong tree here - is that they puttied the upper wing panel joints in the factory on early 'F's with the aim of a small gain in aircraft performance but that this was found to be negligible/waste of effort and, therefore stopped on later airframes?

 

FWIW, I think this is an eminently plausible and sensible notion, and was my first reaction to Mark's post too.

 

Kev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug - that's a *very* kind offer as the roosters are the one thing I'm worried about preserving as I refine the surface.

 

Have carefully scraped back the worst side with a curved scalpel blade under my magnifier (stressful!) with no damage so far - and I have one thin layer of varnish + the decal varnish layer to sand through before the design gets damaged.

 

We'll see!

 

Hopefully you won't get that call - but If you do I'd happily pay postage and send over a swopsee of some sort!

 

Iain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...