Radub

The ZM Hs 129 is far from a “poor seller”. The first run of the kit sold out and is relatively hard to find. The delay in issuing other versions was due to the multiple production and distribution issues caused by COVID. Radu

Yeah, it is just a curved channel with a rectangular cross-section. Here is a bit from the drawing by Arthur Bentley showing the gun viewed from the front. HTH Radu

Here is a photo that was posted in a few places on the internet, including on this forum in this thread: This is the underside of a FW 190 F-8 that has a wing designed to carry the MK 108 cannon. The spent ammunition chute is usually on the inboard side of the access panel that the wing racks are mounted on, in line with the undercarriage leg. However, as you can see, this chute is covered with a plate in this photo as it was not needed, but that shows you the general location and shape. The Hasegawa kit has this panel in place, you just need to cut it open. The chute inside the wing is a curved channel that brings the spent ammunition and links from the cannon, rectangular in shape, nothing special. By the way, on aircraft armed with MG FF or MG 151 cannons in the wings, the spent ammunition was kept inside a wing compartment (on the MG 151 the links were ejected outside) that could be accessed and emptied through an oblong (racetrack?) shaped access panel that was in the same location where the chute was placed on wings armed with MK 108 as described above. HTH Radu

It is hard not to “get you wrong”. You know… for someone who, allegedly, “loves the Bf 109’, you show very little “love” for a model that was intended to be as accurate as possible. The things that are right with this model outnumber thousandfold all the bad things you concentrated on. Does this model have “issues”? It is extremely possible. No model is perfect, no manufacturer ever managed that. So far, the “issues” you found are very small-to-unnoticeable and easily fixed. Why don’t you spend as much time listing all the good things that this model got right? No one will think of you as a less of an “expert” if you also said nice things. Radu

In as far as I know the first model to include a stand was the Horten 229. Radu

You can move the bottles under the tank, if it is so important to you, it will take absolutely no extra time to do, no modification to any part needed. If you choose to close the fuselage, this will not be visible. Radu

On the G-14 the compressed air bottles for the MK 108 were relocated to the left wing in the space previously occupied by the ammunition for the MG 151. The access hatch for the MG 151 ammunition was used to refill the bottles. There is original Messerschmitt information, which was also published in other books, that supports this. If you think that the U4 compressed air bottles should be elsewhere on the G-14, then you can easily relocated these bottles in that location, no major issue. Radu

There is an engine stand included in the kit. BTW, every ZM kit includes an engine stand, they always include one as part of the "runner" (sprue) for the engine. Radu

The compressed air bottles for charging the MK 108 cannon are included in the kit. Radu

The D-runner contains the parts for a Bf 109 G armed with MG 17 guns. HTH Radu

No, that will be a different kit to be issued later. Radu

The only thing that stands in the way is the lack of time. Radu

There is a lot to unpack here, so please bear with me. Not everything in the above statement is correct. The F-18 and the Me 262 models have nothing in common. Different designers, different research team, different tool shop. Putting the two together is misleading. The only connection is the label on the box. Secondly, no change was made to the tooling between the two-seater and the single-seater. The mold uses inserts to change the fuselage in the cockpit area, but everything else is identical. The reason why no one is complaining about any "fit issues" with the bulkhead on the single-seater is because there may actually not be any "fit issues" as such. The bulkhead is the same between the two kits, the fuselage is the same in that area between the two kits. Let us address the issue of the "ill-fitting" bulkhead. This was first mentioned on this forum by a member who put all the cockpit parts together with masking tape, tried to fit it all together, it did not fit and concluded that the bulkhead was the problem. This caught like wild fire and was used as the battle cry by those who insisted hat this model is worse than the Trumpeter model. It is still mentioned as an issue. I remember having a conversation a few years ago with the editor of a model magazine who said that he would never build the Revell two-seater Me 262 kit because of the "bulkhead issue". I asked him if he tried building it and he said that he did not even get the kit because he read the "tales of horror" on the internet. The thing is that if one was to assemble the model following the instructions (not just slap it together), the bulkhead fits fine. Evidence of that is that the "bulkhead issue" magically disappeared when people built the single-seater Me 262 (which, as explained, is identical in that area). The fit of the bulkhead into the groove on the inside of the fuselage may be a bit tight and my advice was to "chamfer" or "bevel" a bit the edges of the bulkheads (that is the extent of the "trim" needed) and things should work fine. Dry-fit and adjust if needed, just like any other model. Now, the cowls over the cannon bay is an issue that I agree is problematic, but it can be fixed with a little bit of careful fitting. There were some problems with the tooling of the part with the cannon ports. However, I am surprised that no aftermarket manufacturer ever thought about making a replacement resin part for the top part of the nose, or even a whole cannon bay section for that matter. As for what to choose between the Revell and Trumpeter kit, just get the one you want. Either will build in to a good looking model. Either has some issues. Either requires some work, neither is a shake-and-bake model. However, the Trumpeter two-seater has some severe accuracy issues with the cockpit and canopy. The canopy is too tall and the cockpit lacks the very noticeable canopy jettison system, affecting the model irrespective of whether it is displayed with the canopy open or closed - these issues were discussed before. HTH Radu

All of those handles are too fine to represent properly in injected plastic due to tooling limitations. It is very likely they will be done in photo-etch by the “usual suspects”. Radu

Thank you, Vincent, I won a bet! First of all, the radio switches are not mounted on the "floor", but, surely, as someone who knows the Bf 109 so well, you know that already. In fact, the radio controls are mounted on a raised plate that covers the elevator control rod. If anyone cares, the radio switches can be separated from the plate and placed at an angle, it is a five-minute job. There is no MW 50 pressure gauge in the kit. Aftermarket guys will surely oblige. Radu