quang

Thank you @MARU5137 @Greif8 for your kind comments. It was a pleasure building this engine from ZM. Much easier than the Brassin resin version and easily as detailed.

The next step is to choose the variant and the colour scheme of our model. The ‘happy winner’ is Yellow 1 flown by Lt Alfred Hammer, leader of 6./JG53 in Sicily August 1943. I was lucky to find two period colour photographs of this particular plane … ( for info only) and also a nice profile by trusted illustrator Thierry Dekker. (Illustration for info only) The plane is an Erla-manufactured Bf109 G6/R6 armed with 1x 20mm MG 151 motor cannon and 2x 20mm MG 151 in underwing pods. It has the characteristics of the earlier G-6: box-typed canopy, metal head armour, small tail and metal elevators, short tail wheel, long antenna. It also has a tropical filter added. One peculiarity is the camouflage scheme generally attributed to Erla-produced Bf109: the near-perfect round spots of the 3-colour mottling, the serrated edges of the wing camouflage bands and the black borders of the underwing Balkencreuz. (Image for info only) More on Bf109G-6 wing patterns HERE. Also of note is the spinner spiral which is more ‘elaborate’ than usual. Thus armed with what I naively consider as a strong foundation, I set up for this new adventure. Cheers, Quang

DB 605 A engine from Z-M Gustav with a few bits and bobs and my first try at a spiraled spinner. Hope you like it. Cheers, Quang

Indeed. But a photo alone has no value unless one knows when, where and under which circumstances it had been taken.

So what? You would probably find on the internet a photo of Yul Brynner WITH hair. I didn’t say that Yul NEVER had hair, just that it’s not the Yul everybody used to know.

Could be but I trust the Revell would be more modeller-friendly than the Fly. Don’t ask me how I know.

Thank you for sharing @One-Oh-Four What else do you need, folks? Looks like buckets of anticipated joy to me

Scale Model Aircraft in a bottle? I guess the wings may be an issue.

The current trend of adding ‘oil canning’ and ‘riveting’ on everything in sight is like putting wrinkles on teenagers and acne on elders. They call it ‘time reversal’ in sci-fi.

You would have known him as Amadeus Sr

OK Woody. I’m not here to argue. It’s up to you to try.

We’re happy to welcome Troy Smith of Britmodeller’s fame in our midst. @Troy Smith is known as Mr. Hurricane in person and will no doubt add his precious and much needed expertise to our discussions about the new Revell kit. Troy! Long may you stay. Cheers, Quang

Not only wooden stabs have drain holes. Drain holes were generally present on the lower part of linen-covered moving surfaces. As can be seen on ZM Gustav.

There’s no point in ‘diluting’ milliput just because it simply cannot be dissolved. For tiny joins, a small bead of Miliput can be forced down the crack by using a dedicated silicon clay shaper and smoothed up with a bit of vaseline.

There’s some truth in that

Great news in my mail box Cheers, Quang

He could have used plain water. He’d have the same effect. Cheers, Quang

I paid 105 euros for my ZM Bf 109G, roughly the same price that Kotare will ask for their Spitfire. Add to that the ZM including a superlative DB 605 engine which is a real kit on its own. Just putting things in perspective.

I concur that the armour addict is slightly ahead of the aero modeller especially with the apparent rivets. Nevertheless the mottling and the green/violet-brown combination are realistic and very pleasant to the eye. Add to that the serrated edges of the Erla camouflage,… what’s not to like? Cheers, Quang

I know Paul. Here’s my second sample. I gave my previous one to an old, now sadly departed friend. Cheers, Quang

Haha Joachim. I was sure you’d join in. This is my second 109. Previously I started on a tropical E-7 I bought from a member of this same forum . I didn’t finish it but the die was cast! My project is to do an early G-6 R6 based in Sicily, August 1943 with the Erla camouflage. I’m currently sorting out the details to backdate it. Some questions remain unanswered like what happened to the central gun cover in the cockpit if the plane didn’t have the nose cannon. Would it stay or be removed? Hopefully some 109 experten will chime in with their comments. Much excitation in perspective! Cheers, Quang

A while ago, Woodman’s book was free to download on the internet. Truly a public interest. Like Shephard Paine and a few others, Harry Woodman was an inspiration to a great many modellers. Even if you’re not a scratchbuilder, reading his book will help you build up your modelling skills and help you face (and resolve) the small problems encountered during your modelling career.

And sooo… I crossed the Rubicon and joined the fray. Come to think of it, three months ago, I knew nothing about the Bf 109 and couldn’t even spell Messerschmitt. Then came the arrival of the ZM kit in our regions and the ensuing flurry of activity in the interweb. My curiosity was piqued especially when controversy aroused about some apparent pitfalls of the kit. I knew ZM since I built their Skyraider a few years back. I knew they were serious about their products so when I read about the early critiques, I knew I had to try it out myself and make my own opinion. So during two full months, I read all I could about the subject and when finally I found the ZM kit at a discounted price , I was ready. This thread is not intended as a WIP per se since there are already several ones en cours but rather to share with you my impressions as a ‘consumer’ of plastic. Hopefully you’d find it helpful or at least entertaining. Each one of us has his own opinions about instruction sheets. As a hardened old-timer, I tend to pass on them most of the time. Except in this case… As I knew next to nothing about the 109, I forced myself to READ (really read) the 50-page instruction booklet included in the kit. What a revelation! It’s obvious that ZM put a great deal of effort in this booklet. So instructive about the subject and plenty of useful tips and pitfalls to avoid. A sample The next thing I wanted to check out is that infamous tail join which caused so much ruckus on the internet. It was indeed curious why ZM contrary to the other manufacturers (Revell, Hasegawa, …) decided to provide the horizontal stabs in one piece and the vertical tail in 2 parts. The reason is simple: the real thing was built that way: So I decided to make a dry test. The fuselage halves are taped together. Only the tail top halves and the horizontal slab halves are glued. NO cement between the horizontal slab, the lower tail and the upper tail. Dry fit indeed! The result speaks for itself. No shim and no glue. Just some extra care in cleaning the stubs when the parts are detached from the sprues. Compare with the real thing. Note the thickness of the flange. One thing to consider. Like on the real thing, the vertical tail is asymmetric. Starboard=flat. Port=curved Viewed from the rear. Note same thickness between upper and lower tail. Also perfect 0° dihedral. Again no glue. Note that RH flange is purposely larger than LH. Also peculiarities on the horizontal stab. This kit is so meticulously researched and moulded that any attempt to ‘correct’ it under some wrong assumption would only lead to tragedy. My advice: read the plan and clean the stubs. Happy modeling! Cheers, Quang

The fuel would appear as a clear/transparent tint set against the RLM 66 black-grey of the cockpit. No, I don’t think you’d see the difference.

Which cockpit? Incidentally a Bf-109G-14?