Revell, Hasegawa and Trumpeter Me109G6s

[Radub]

I see that my work is being put into question. Please let me start by saying that I am not forcing anyone to follow my drawings. You trust them? Fine! You do not trust them? Fine! I certainly did my best to create the best drawings I could.

 

Here is how my drawings of the Bf 109 were made. First, Arthur Bentley created a set of CAD drawings that were 100% his own and not based on any existing published drawings by anyone else. Arthur supplied me with these CAD drawings as well as original factory blueprints, with dimensions and measurements, which he used to create his CAD drawings. I also have a large number of manuals and parts lists. I have thousands of photos and a great number of books. Based on these, I created my own drawings that were published in Brett Green's book. My drawings are not based on any existing/published drawings by anyone else except for the CAD outlines created by Arthur or the factory blueprints. I never measured a museum/restored plane for these drawings, so please spare me the "poor restoration" argument. I started working on these drawings as part of a couple of larger projects. The drawings I made so far cover the entire range of Bf 109 G, but in Brett's book I only published the G-6 drawings. My plan is to create drawings of the entire range of Bf 109 - this will take a while...

 

Those of you who dismiss my drawings off-hand... Do you have my drawings? Have you seen them? Can you please point the errors?

 

Radu

[thierry laurent]

Ok,

 

I'll do my best to end this no way end discussion.

 

With regard to plan errors, the reasons may be multiple. In some cases, you find oddities in era plans or blueprints. They may be misunderstood and this may easily lead to human error. Add to this the different published data, the difficulty to measure a full scale plane, the errors on restored airframes (such as the too blunt spinner), etc. and this is not surprising! Finally, creating a model is just a business project with limited resources. Model companies are doing their best with the means and time they have. Sometimes, this is not sufficient! We don't always have a CEO willing to invest an excessive number of hours in research as Mr Tamiya for the A6M5!

 

I don't know any "nearly perfect" set of 109 plans. As I previously wrote, I trust Bentley as he's really paranoid with regard to plans. This does not mean he's perfect. He's not as in the past, he already corrected details in some of his plans. However, regarding general dimensions, it is probable nobody else dedicated so much time to do this job. Moreover, I got the confirmation his plans are also coherent with blueprints. The plans in the ADI book are based on them.

 

Dimensions of the gun breech panel differ in different sets of scale plans (refer to my tweak list for the books). I checked it. A savvy person not willing to intervene here sent me wartime blueprint data. They revealed that this damned panel is 467mm long. So this means 14.6mm. That is exactly the dimension of the Revell kit. The Hasegawa is 13,7mm. So for me this ends this debate. I agree that I overestimated the difference! However, in spite the error is smaller than initially measured it is still there. Is it a problem? In practice, this is not noticeable except on the G5/6/14 whereas finding a way to improve Beule positioning is necessary. The data coming from the drawings also show a similar discrepancy in the vertical axis! However, I don't even want to add it to the list or discuss it as this is not noticeable to the eye. To see it clearly yourself, you'd have to saw both kit cross-sections and compare. I will not do it! This simply means that even for the most absolute nit-picker, kit-bashing both kits would make no sense!

 

I think I clearly wrote that the airframe dimensions of the Revell kit were spot-on but that there were obvious errors for the add-on parts or details (refer to my prior posts and the Revell kit tweak list). I think it is always easier to replace a rudder or a spinner rather than adding length to a fuselage component. Add to this the price element and options in the boxes I also mentioned more than once and, for me, if I had not a dozen of Hasegawa kits in my closet, I'd rather buy Revell boxes! But it is probably a matter of taste.

 

Thierry

[KOTR]

Being a trained industrial mechanic, I remember the following statement by one of my teachers:

 

'Any drawing without complete dimensions and labelling is useless'

 

 

Not to dismiss anyones efforts, but if you want accurate drawings, you are not done with lenght/span/height, some sectional drawings, hatch and panel detail...

Edited October 7, 2013 by KOTR

[Radub]

'Any drawing without complete dimensions and labelling is useless'

 

I could not agree more. But what we call "drawings", including mine, are mere "illustrations" for modellers. No factory ever used such drawings to build real-life aircraft. The Messerschmitt blueprints that I have are just a fuzz of numbers and lines. There are tens of thousands of such drawings for each plane.

So, yes, you are right, these are not "factory-grade" technical drawings, but then again, we are not factories, we are mere modellers.

Radu

[BGB]

Hello,

I want to know a little more about the offset scoopes, was that right for the Me109's built by Erla?

Boris

[MikeMaben]

I'd like to clarify my earlier post by saying I was not criticizing any drawing

in particular, just questioning why drawings done in that past were somehow

wrong, even when done by knowledgeable people with the same reference

material (like the actual aircraft), while newer drawings have somehow

'fixed' the problems with the old drawings. I think when someone pronounces

one drawing wrong and another right, they should explain what the differences

are. It's not a big deal to me, as said above, nobody's gonna eyeball a .060"

difference.

[Darren Howie]

Agree with the above.  Which is why in many cases (the 109 in particular) I think we (the big "we") get WAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too wrapped up in minutiae.  As someone else pointed out, the nose of the Hasegawa G appears to be about 2mm shorter than the Revell nose.  No human being on earth is going to be able to tell the difference in a model sitting on a table.  No one.

 

I couldn't agree more.

Which ever of the Revell or Hasegawa kits you build both will end up looking very very close to a 109.

If you throw in the Trumpeter kit we have three very good 109's to pick from based on where you live one will be a good buy and build.

On measuring rather than drawins is there a source for fuselage measurements somewhere.

I have wing diagrams but none describing the measurements by panel etc and have never seen any.

Rather than measuring the gun panels etc off some drawings how about we check them against a real 109..

[Darren Howie]

Hey Rog

How dd you manage to get a Revell kit shipped from the US to Aus for 4.79?????

The cheapest postage i can find is around $10 out of the UK which would be wrong as a standard kit from the UK at its cheapest by air is about 18. Out of the states its anywhere from 20-42 dollars..

In short the cheapest way I can get a Revell kit here is 42US and id imagine the shipping quote is wrong or its surface post as royal mail s not cheap.

From the US the cheapest is 53US.

On the other hand im in Toyko every second week and can get Hasegawa kits for 2800-3200Â¥..32-36$..

[Mikester]

Agree with the above.  Which is why in many cases (the 109 in particular) I think we (the big "we") get WAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too wrapped up in minutiae.  As someone else pointed out, the nose of the Hasegawa G appears to be about 2mm shorter than the Revell nose.  No human being on earth is going to be able to tell the difference in a model sitting on a table.  No one.  

 

Absolutely, I just completed the Revell G-6,although I like it and will probably build more down the road I prefer Hasegawa just because it's an easier build.  The nose and cross section errors are beyond my 49 year old eyes ability to spot.

 

Of course Gaston Marty has now weighed in at ARC and proclaimed the Revell kit better by a "planetary margin" even though he's barely (most likely never) looked at it so I may have to burn all my Hasegawa kits as a sacrifice to the Gods of Plastic.

[Daywalker]

Of course Gaston Marty has now weighed in at ARC and proclaimed the Revell kit better by a "planetary margin" even though he's barely (most likely never) looked at it so I may have to burn all my Hasegawa kits as a sacrifice to the Gods of Plastic.

 

[Artful69]

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)

 

A fraction off topic - but not much ... I was talking to Bob at MDC the other day about kit differences and the discussions (sometimes rather heated!) that go on ...

He alluded to a jet liner (forgive me as I cannot remember exactly which one it was ... but it might have been a 747??) that, depending on when, where and how the kite was put together - could be up to 3ft difference in length!! ... someone mentioned somewhere that a few Bf 109 parts were "hand tooled" once (on the forum but again it escapes me where!) ...

 

My Father, being an ex-engineer at BAC and EE (long before I was born!) used to always be discussing things like tolerances ... the "allowable" difference in construction, before re-design was required. I'm sure that, with the "German" methods of production being what they were - there was plenty of last minute style adaptions being made to aircraft in order to make them servicable. 

 

Betcha there were more than one or two REAL Bf109 cowlings that were different too!

 

anyhoo ... just a thought!

 

Rog

[Martinnfb]

[Artful69]

Hey Rog

How dd you manage to get a Revell kit shipped from the US to Aus for 4.79?????

The cheapest postage i can find is around $10 out of the UK which would be wrong as a standard kit from the UK at its cheapest by air is about 18. Out of the states its anywhere from 20-42 dollars..

In short the cheapest way I can get a Revell kit here is 42US and id imagine the shipping quote is wrong or its surface post as royal mail s not cheap.

From the US the cheapest is 53US.

On the other hand im in Toyko every second week and can get Hasegawa kits for 2800-3200Â¥..32-36$..

 

Ahhh grasshopper ... shall I teach you my Kung-Fu? ... it is very powerful!! ...

It's called "Coin-Do" ... the martial art of Finance/Economics!!!

 

Seriously bro ... you should have "quoted" me or something, otherwise I might have missed this post altogether!!

Oh well ... fortunately I stopped by to see whether anyone had spotted that the dihedral on the Hasegawa Bf109 tailplane was off by 0.001deg ...

OOPS! Lookout!!!!

 

Ok ... it works like this:

 

1/ Go to your online XYZ retailer in the USA

2/ Order a 1/32 Tamiya Zero (doesn't really matter which one as size and weight of box are the same!) and a 1/32 ZM Shinden ... and proceed to cart

3/ Nearly die of heart failure while looking at the postage charge ...

4/ As a 'test' ... add a 1/32 ZM he.219 Uhu to the pile (I mean "what-the-hey, if you B*****ds are gonna fry me lets go the whole hog!")... and see what the postage charge is THEN ...

5/ Surprise (pleasant) and realisation set in that a 'Retail Finance Law' (similar to 'Economies Of Scale') is in operation ... in that ... 'the more goods you are buying - the less postage cost per item'.

 

So a couple of (LARGE) orders later ... I slipped in the old G-6 (that sounds almost 'Gangsta' doesn't it?) ... and Bob's your uncle (or some other close relative ... or he could be!!?) ... incremental postage of $4.79 USD ... The first one came from UK 17.24 GBP + 6.84 GBP postage ($43.69 AUD at the time) ... ahhh, every new learning experience teaches, trains and perfects the art, Grasshopper!!

 

Rog

Edited October 8, 2013 by Artful69

[Artful69]

 

lol my china! ... There is no spoon!!

[Artful69]

Due to a post I've read in Thierry's "Revell 190G-6 tweek list" I am wondering if - when I do build the side-by-side 'almost OOB' builds of the 3 ...

 

Should I stick with just plain plastic (or a monotone undercoat style) ... or should I still go with the full 'same cammo/marking options' ???

 

Rog