mattlow

Martin Yep, aware of the ERLA peculiarities..Interesting thing to note about the bulge on AS and D engined machines is that its 'highest' point isn't over the compressor section (i.e. under the intake) but in front of that. This is due to there being a riser taking the lower engine bearer arm up and over the edge of the larger compressor. Makes the bulge even bigger and accounts for the kink in the port wing root on non-ERLA aircraft (square panel on ERLA overcame this). I wish someone would 3D scan a G-10 so we could actually have a really accurate rendition... That'd also apply to the AS machines and the K... Even the ERLA cowl fits over the same internals, so we'd have a good idea of the maximum width of the cowl and the degree of asymmetry. maybe someday. Matt

Four sets, details with/without floats = 2. Each set differentiated for Mk I and Mk II = 4sets. Matt

Martin Not wanting to be a contrarian, but having just had a look at a Hasegawa 109K-4, the cowl has quite marked asymmetry. So, while it may be a bit short, I feel the kit does represent the beefed up port side quite convincingly... Matt

Any links? I can't find anything... Thanks Matt

Thanks for posting that link up... I may dig the EE part out of the stash as it looks better than i recalled it... Matt

A fantastic resource...Haldimann's devotion is to be applauded...

Yep, I've got one in my stash. I believe it was mastered by Steve Gallacci (apols if I've spelt that wrong Steve). I forgot that Cutting Edge did one, haven't seen it, so can't comment on it. As Thierry has already stated above..

I think the AIMS set just corrects the distance between the upper cowl gun troughs... AMUR Reaver set considerably bulks up the nose, especially on the port side around the supercharger intake. It 'looks' better than the OOB Revell nose in my opinion. I don't think though 'running a ruler over it' would help as no-one has run a ruler over the ERLA nose (there isn't one*), all we can do is look at photos and try to recreate what we see. I think it looks better than the Eagle Editions ERLA nose. I'm having another go (failed miserably some time ago - it must be on this site somewhere) at modding the Revell nose. This time mainly by manipulating the kit plastic (bending and wedging). I may post something if it proves successful. At the end of the day though it's about achieving a 'look' rather than total accuracy. *There is an ERLA lower nose cowl/radiator used on the Messerschmitt Foundation's Bf109G-4. But nothing, AFAIK, not even factory drawings that show the main cowl's dimensions. Matt

That build made it look like it went together very well... Matt

I can't recall for sure, but didn't a lot of Airfix's quality and quality control issues manifest themselves when they outsourced to India? Obvs not damning a whole nation's IM expertise from one company's experience, but China seems to be a front runner both in terms of the molding and QC... A winning combo when teamed up with world class research and CAD - as we've seen with Wingnuts and Kotare... Matt

As you've got the Revell kit in pieces now, couldn't you graft the relevant thinner parts on here...? Might be an option. Matt

Interesting, I was sure the V-18 had the bulges... But the images I've just googled don't appear to show them. I suppose I may have seen an image with them in place, but it's a removable panel and could be easily replaced with a non-bulged item. Might be worth trying a Revell 2015 F-8. I also suspect the value and rarity of the Hasegawa A-5 and A-8 will change when ZM get around to doing them.. So it may be worth waiting... Matt

The Planet conversion asks for the Hasegawa 190A-5 wings if I recall correctly. That's because the A-5 had the inserts for outer wing MGFF bulges (which the V18 had). The various A-8 kits don't have those (did Planet maybe include a copy of the bulged insert to allow the A-8 kit to be used - can't recall?) 2015 Revell kit is a F-8 and will have same issue with outer underwing bulge. Tricky! Matt

It's a good book. A bit behind the times in terms of some of the terminology.. I think it was ground breaking in its attempt at systematically identifying the 109G subtypes and setting out the differences. Set the foundations for much subsequent work. Main thing I think is his identification of the Bf109G-10 AS, which didn't officially exist (though some builds may have technically fitted that designation). What he saw as that version is what we now know is the Bf109G-10 ERLA. At least that's how I recall things.. But that book has great nostalgic memories for me, like you I could never get hold of it.. it was a sort of holy grail publication. I think it is generally surpassed by Mermet's work on the 109 and his naming conventions for cowl, tails, rudder etc types seems pretty universally used now.

Interesting thread. Is it possible that this part was left off later in the war (not systematically, but in some manufacturer's batches)? It doesn't look like it offers a great deal of benefit (unless I'm missing something?)... Fits the bill for items to get rid of to reduce resource use, build time and weight..? Does it 'do' anything really? Matt