Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About StefanGebhardt

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

350 profile views
  1. I think he is aware of it :-) John's 1/32 Zoukei-Mura Ta152H-0 White 7
  2. The need for such extensive cleanup really raises the question what was ZM thinking when they creating the kit. I understand that adding internals make things more complicated but you wouldn’t expect that a the model is so hard to but together... in addition I can’t recall many reviews pointing out these issues or is my memory playing me tricks?
  3. Your input is invaluable for these builds and highly appreciated. Thank you Sir! I assume that the market for the MDC parts was too small....
  4. Here is a second photo with a slightly better resolution showing Hartmann leaving the cockpit. It’s not exactly the same photo but it shows (in my opinion) that the visible parts beside the white are actually the Werks-Camouflage of the plane rather than something painted on top of it - there seems to be different colors visible.
  5. Another interesting is the position of the black tulip, the way the heart underneath the cockpit and the double chevron appear on the photos. All three items seems to be applied AFTER the machine was machine was painted white. My assumption in based on the observation That there seems to be no overpainting spots visible. But this is just my opinion and I could be easily wrong. Still really neat painted tulip, heart and chevrons. Probably helped to be one of the highest scoring pilots left...
  6. I was always wondering if the camouflage 'stripes' were on top of the white paint or actually left out when painting it and should show the underneath color of the factory camouflage... Comments, suggestions?
  7. I updated the post and included all relevant pages.
  8. I am really looking forward to the final result of your work. Great progress so far! Still I thought it is worth to point out that there is, when it comes to the base camouflage of the D-13, a second opinion deviating from Jerry's work. Obviously I am talking about JaPo's analyse published in Volume 2 of Focke Wulf Fw 190D camouflage and markings. Thanks for publishing the instructions for the Eagle Cals (correct me if I am wrong) here, I haven't seen them before. The main difference between Jerry on one side and JaPo on the other is that JaPo starts with a typical camouflaged Dora (two color
  9. So far I can only find a statement but no proof in form of a picture. That's the reason why I am not fully convinced. It's not my goal to proof you wrong, just wane make sure we got all infos presented. I am happy to discuss this topic in a separate thread. Always good to learn something new every day.
  10. The info is moving us forward BUT I need to challenge you in this case. The first take-offs of a K-4 took place as early as August 11, 1944 (Werksnummer 330103). Other pre-production K-4's at this stage still had engine-mounted MG 152/20 installed (Werksnummer 330112). The first assignment of K-4's took place in as early as of mid-October 1944. All these info were extracted from JaPo's Messerschmitt Bf109 K page 78. Why am I stating this info? The answer is simple and straight forward. A K4 parts manual dated July 1944 does not necessary show the parts used for production starting
  11. There is one specific part to the ejector port for the 30mm shells I don’t understand, especially with the fact in mind that the previous G-models kept the 20mm shells inside. The designer tried to improve the aerodynamic of the plane to improve the max speed and this was most noticeable around the engine/gun area. They pretty much used Erla’s design for the G-10 for the K-4. With all these streamlining in mind I can’t imagine why they would add a ‘hole’ in the bottom of the plane for the 30mm shells. The ejector port for the 13mm are already quite large and we are talking now about a shell mo
  12. This can't be the only option! Please check the following previously posted photo again and let me know your thoughts. I need to apologise. I found a second picture in the book identifying the machine as a Bf 109 G-10/U4 White 24. This will rule out the photo-evidence for the left side (from the pilots point of view perspective) ejector port for the MK 108. I will update my previous posts accordingly.
  13. Correct me if I am wrong but the suggested positioning is based on the drawings showing the internals but not this specific detail, right? Don‘t get me wrong. I don’t want offend you and your research etc. With this in mind, do you have or do you know any pictures showing the ejector port in the suggested position? What is your opinion on the pic I posted showing the ejector port on the left side of the fuselage from the pilots perspective? Keep the good work going! Stefan
  14. Hi Vincent, Thanks for the quick feedback already BUT I need to challenge you to provide some more details to convince me. As far as I know there are no surviving K-4's out there and the Allies didn't do any evaluation of this specific version because it wasn't 'special' compared to previous models. First and most importantly can you specify the definition of left when it comes to point of view? Do you mean on the left side looking from the propeller backwards (as shown in the part just used as an example to show the modification you made) or do you mean left from the p
  15. I am following this built closely and I am amazed by the input and help across the board. I am not an expert for the K-4 version but I do have quite a number of books from JaPo covering the subject. One item which puzzles me is the positioning of the ejector port for the MK 108 gun. According to the K-4 Tweak List V1.0 it is missing and it needs to be added to the right side. Here is the quote covering this topic, the relevant part is highlighted: I assume that the described change is based on the description on this side: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/k4bellyvk_1.ht
  • Create New...