Revell, Hasegawa and Trumpeter Me109G6s

[Darren Howie]

Looking at the drawings in Lynn's book the Gphasegawa cowl etc measure out very well.

The error mostly seems to lie in the panel forward of the cowl to the spinner.

The distances from bulges to front canopy and ecerything else comes up well maybe no more than 0.5mm out tops.

That from panel is in the order of 1.3-1.5 mm short.

Again it depends as always on the drawings in his book i will try some others tomorrow but even looking at my 109G pics it does apoear narrow.

Easy o fix in some respects if its confined to one panel to.

Be interesting to hear others thoughts and Thierry maybe a comarison of the fuselages side by side looking at that front oanel may be goid if you have time.

Cheers

[thierry laurent]

Hi,

 

There may be a misunderstanding about the use of the "nose" term. To clarify the picture when I wrote "nose", I did not limit the term to the cowling! For me the nose area starts in front of the windshield.

 

1. Moving the latch will not solve the issue of the gun panel! Hasegawa correctly put it right in the middle of the panel length. The position is correct as all pictures will confirm it. You wrote that at least the Hasegawa Beule look accurate. I fully agree with this statement. We are also agreeing on the fact that the nose section from the cowling rear end to the spinner is OK. As the beule cannot be correctly positioned, the conclusion with regard to the main location of the problem is logical. So, the Beule positioning reveals a dimensional problem on the Hasegawa kit: clue 1.

 

2. The difference in length of the Revell and Hasegawa fuselages is nearly equivalent to the difference in length of the two gun breech panels (albeit, as I wrote previously, a portion of millimeter that is also located behind the wing chord rear edge). All other dimensions are nearly identical on the two kits: the nose section behind the propeller base plate, the cowling parts, the cockpit hole and the position of all frames from 2 to the rudder! And if you add the Hasegawa Beule on the Revell gun breech panel, you see that magically the Beule look correctly located: clue 2.

 

3. The Revell kit without the spinner is longer than the Hasegawa Gustav and a little bit more than the Friedrich. So, if the Hasegawa Gustav had a correct length, I'd be curious to know why Hasegawa decided to fully re-engineer the Friedrich fuselage? The only logical conclusion is the acknowledgement that the previous kit was too short. It is indeed possible that the Revell kit is a little bit too long. However, I cannot confirm or deny it. As I wrote, I trusted the sources used to make the Revell CAD drawings but this is just MY standpoint. However, even if this is indeed the case, this does not explain why Hasegawa changed the fuselage length of the latter kit. I'd consider this as a sufficient additional proof: clue 3.

 

To my eyes, I think this is sufficient to be reasonably convinced.

 

Last, I did not base my personal scoring of the kits on this single "length" aspect, please re-read my posts. I also took into consideration many other dimensions. Moreover, the length of the different tweak lists I made will prove easily that none of the 109 released up to now will give an accurate replica OOTB. A thorough examination of the Trumpy kit revealed problems I did not see immediately (the gun throughs and wing fairing shape). Based on that, I'd finally put the two Asian kits at the same level.

 

Thierry

[Darren Howie]

Thierry i think you misunderstand..the Hasegawa kit does have a problem im trying to find exactly where..can you measure the difference in the front panels ie the one from the forward edge of the cowl panel which opens to reveal the engine and the forward end of the fuselage piece.

I measured windscreen to 1 center panel gun bulge, 2 forward cowl edge(opening panel not front fuselage) and the Hasegawa kit measured well with Lynn Ritgers plans.

The Hasgawa kit though is short from the panel line the marks the cowl panel to the forward fuselage panel ie the oil filler panel being almost 1.5mm short.

Ie from the fuselage front end to the start of the first vertical panel line which is the front of the opening cowl panel.

If you compare those two panels on Revell and Hasegawa you will i think find where most of Hasegawas error lies.

Adding a 1.5 mm card spacer and rescribing the oil filler caps would fix most if not all of the error in the nose on the Hasegawa kit fixing that issue quite easily for those not wanting to go the Revell road.

Again this is drawing dependent but Lynn helped Revell i believe so imaging his drawings wont be to terrible.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Darren Howie

[Night Hog]

I got my prices from Sprue Bros retail quoted amount only to level the playing field. Apples to apples y'know.

[Darren Howie]

Well when you incorporate shipping its not so level.

With an international playing field prices vary massively so assumptions that because its cheap at Sprue doesnt mean its cheap at 1999 or HLJ.

Likewise Trumpeter kits are very cheap using the same logic.

You can buy on the street in Hong Kong for 25/35% less than the LM prices and im assured cheaper still over the border.

The US has awesome prices on Revell and Monogram you should be happy with them but it doesnt mean everyone does.

118 for a B-52 pls X-15..for example..

[thierry laurent]

Thierry i think you misunderstand..the Hasegawa kit does have a problem im trying to find exactly where..can you measure the difference in the front panels ie the one from the forward edge of the cowl panel which opens to reveal the engine and the forward end of the fuselage piece.

I measured windscreen to 1 center panel gun bulge, 2 forward cowl edge(opening panel not front fuselage) and the Hasegawa kit measured well with Lynn Ritgers plans.

The Hasgawa kit though is short from the panel line the marks the cowl panel to the forward fuselage panel ie the oil filler panel being almost 1.5mm short.

Ie from the fuselage front end to the start of the first vertical panel line which is the front of the opening cowl panel.

If you compare those two panels on Revell and Hasegawa you will i think find where most of Hasegawas error lies.

Adding a 1.5 mm card spacer and rescribing the oil filler caps would fix most if not all of the error in the nose on the Hasegawa kit fixing that issue quite easily for those not wanting to go the Revell road.

Again this is drawing dependent but Lynn helped Revell i believe so imaging his drawings wont be to terrible.

 

Thanks Darren,

 

I understood you but in fact I was not replying to you but to Wumm's post!

 

I'll have to re-check very closely at home but as I wrote in the prior post the nose panel covering the oil tank has similar dimensions on the Revell and Hasegawa kits whereas the Trumpeter kit has a longer nose tank panel.

 

I shall also compare the plans in Lynn Ritger book with Radu's ones which were based on Arthur Bentley's ones used by Revell. This shall hopefully give you a final reply with regard to this aspect. Keep in mind that Lynn was not the man who made the plans in his books! I'm sure the guy who made them did the best possible job but drawing plans is a risky business and they are are often misleading. I do not trust many people with regard to such sources...! Arthur Bentley is a noticeable exception as this guy is somewhat paranoid with regard to plan accuracy! As far as I know, he did only dimensional plans for the 109, not detailed ones as he made for the 190s. This probably explains why the dimensions of the Revell kit are correct whereas some details are not!

 

To clarify the process I used: I did not use plans to compare the kits. I'll do it with Radu's plans based on Bentley's ones. I based the comparison on the Revell kit for which the original CAD plans had been created by Bentley.

 

HTH

 

Thierry

[scvrobeson]

So much controversy.

 

 

Leads to the obvious question though, if someone wanted to build ONE G-6 OOB, which is the best option right now? Not which one is good but needs aftermarket corrections, just which one is best for an OOB build of a G-6?  It's an iconic plane, so want one in the collection.

 

 

Wumm, were you involved in the Hasegawa kit production? Just wondering if that is a part of your vehemence to defend it.  Would be cool if you were actively involved in the kit's design.

 

 

 

Matt 

[Martinnfb]

.... there is no definitive answer Matt. Hasegawa and  Revell have  they pros and cones and in both cases you need to apply some mods. Having said that , They are quite nice out of the box as well , it all depends on how far you want to go with your obsession. At the moment I am mating Hasegawa with the Revell kit, with no use of aftermarket parts. The result should be available in the ready for inspection section at the end of the year.

[Martinnfb]

Did you guys noticed that , up to this point of new revell's release, there was almost not a single  word spoken about  Hasegawa's shorty look? or did I miss some hidden tweak  list

Cheers

M.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Martinnfb

[scvrobeson]

.... there is no definitive answer Matt. Hasegawa and  Revell have  they pros and cones and in both cases you need to apply some mods. Having said that , They are quite nice out of the box as well , it all depends on how far you want to go with your obsession. At the moment I am mating Hasegawa with the Revell kit, with no use of aftermarket parts. The result should be available in the ready for inspection section at the end of the year.

 

Thanks Martin. I respect your Luftwaffe builds a lot, and I figured someone would have some kind of answer. Guess it will come down to the price argument, which pushes the Revell kit ahead for me, since it's about half of the normal price of the Hasegawa kit.

 

 

 

matt 

[Artful69]

... I am a fan of the kits and am just trying to establish a little balance to the equation. And at that same time challenge some misconceptions that others put out there ....

 

... The Hasegawa kit has errors. The Revell kit also has errors ...

 

... Which kit you choose will depend on your personal preference of these details, and price considerations wherever you can pick one up. But for me on an OOB build, the Beulen issue is the clincher. Revell's justification seems to be that doing it properly would have cost more. That's fine if you're paying $30US or £20, but in my neck of the woods it's going to be $50Au or more, only to probably do what most seem to be doing, and putting Hasegawa Beulen on the Revell kit ...

 

Steve ...

 

Interesting points raised by both you and Thierry ... everyone has their own perceptions - some based on their own theories, some based on those of others!

 

Very nicely put summary ... and personal preference is based on personal assessment and circumstances ...

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have both the Revell and Hasegawa kits and more of each plus a Trumpeter kit is on the way.

 

The second Revell - is currently on the way from the USA in amongst another order of some ZM kits etc - the cost was $24.49 USD and postage was an additional $4.79 ... which works out to about $33 AUD ... mind you - if I had of bought it on it's own, the postal cost would have probably been blown out substantially!!

 

The Hasegawa kits come via a Japanese contact at a average of about $46.00 USD per kit ... with an average postage per kit of $12.00 USD ... which works out to about $65.00 AUD

 

The Trumpeter kit comes via Melbourne at $45.91 + $8.65 (postage) AUD $54.56

 

Ok ... so ... with no regard to panels and the like ... my experiment will be to buy "additional/correctional AM" to roughly bring them all up to the same standard ... I know the Hasegawa will need a dose of AM cockpit ... and the Revell will need a dose of that new AM correction set (which includes beulen) recently released ... and the Trumpeter is currently up for the Rudder/Elevator + control surfaces set ... all the rest will be dissected upon inspection ...

 

I will spread sheet my findings and report back with my "Joe average modeler's" findings

 

Rog

[imatt88]

Has anyone ever taken the best of the three (or four) kits and built a really accurate 109? 

 

THATS a build I would love to see!

 

Cheers,   Ian

[Guest Nigelr32]

I would like to see an independent review of the Alley-cat parts. At £15 they seem a real bargain!!

[MikeMaben]

To clarify the process I used: I did not use plans to compare the kits. I'll do it with Radu's plans based on Bentley's ones. I based the comparison on the Revell kit for which the original CAD plans had been created by Bentley.

Thierry

 

Most arguments regarding 'kit accuracy' revolve around drawings. There are restored

109s that exist today but many manufacturers prefer to use pre-existing drawings that

they, for whatever reason, trust. We've had real 109s, 'newly discovered' factory drawings

and numerous commercially available drawings for decades, yet there are still disagreements

about what is right and what is wrong on any given kit (so far).

I have an old drawing by Beaman,Bakelman, Cummings, Lutz, Maloney, Mikesh and Seay

that surely must have used actual 109s and factory drawings when it was originally produced

yet today it seems to have been relegated to the past as somehow 'wrong'.

I wonder why there hasn't been a comparison/review of the various 'drawings' being used

to establish a 'good' kit from a 'bad' kit, or simply, what was wrong with the previous 109

state of the art drawing ? Why are the 'new' Bentley drawings better ?

I also wonder if there will ever be 'the' definitive 109 (E,F,G,K) drawing because

until there is, these discussions will be never ending (not that there's anything wrong with that)

[Darren Howie]

Thanks for the response Wumm interesting stuff.

To me the way marketing is done through websites these days is to discredit an old kit as the new kit "must" be better.

So along comes Revell's super kit which is reviewed and found to be better in every area in many cases by the same people who for years where huge fans of the Hasegawa kit.

Whether its the "keeping up with the Jones's" menntality or not im not sure.

Wumm do you have a book which has the lengths etc you quote love to grab it as a reference for my own benefit.

Its funny how these things start ie the Hasegawa nose thing etc based off either heresay or innacurate plans etc then in a few months its "fact".

Cheers