Bf 109 G series - what's the final consensus?

[DrDave]

Engine shut though.....!

[DrDave]

Actually, has anyone ever used Ventura decals? I don't think I've ever seen a build with them on. Any collective experience?

[LSP_Kevin]

Actually, has anyone ever used Ventura decals? I don't think I've ever seen a build with them on. Any collective experience?

 

I've used a couple of older sets on 1/48 kits, but nothing that was released this century. They were beautifully printed, very thick and a little resistant to conforming. They applied well with no sign of wanting to break up, and lacked that annoying tendency some decals have to wanting to 'grab' on the model immediately. What they're like these days though, I have no idea.

 

Kev

[Mikester]

Matt summed it up pretty well.  For my part I don't want to give the impression that the Revell kit is a dog, because it's not.  It's definitely got a different personality though.  Maybe it's a matter of the expectations that come along with a new kit.  I think as more people build them they'll be some tricks revealed that make the kit easier to build as well.  Based on the price you really can't go wrong so I'd recommend picking one up and see what you think.

[Artful69]

I believe we should be loading up Part 3 sometime very soon. I can say...for me personally...I started out probably one of the more enthusiastic about the Revell kit, but ended up rather "meh" on it.

 

I put a big premium on passion and believe that comes through in kits in the form of their engineering. You can tell a kit that is lovingly, obsessively crafted (I'd throw Wingut and Tamiya kits into this group, HK's B-25 and a few others) versus those where the design ethos was clearly "screw it, just get it out the door".

 

My biggest problem with the Revell is that the engineering is just not well thought-out. The cockpit sill and needless two-part upper wings and ridiculous gear struts and whatnot have been talked about to death. But on whole, they create headaches for the modeler that could have easily been avoided.

 

The Hasegawa, but contrast, feels like a bare minimum effort. It's a simple build, but it's SO devoid of flourish that it feels rather lifeless. There's not a single moment with that kit where I've ever thought "oh, that's clever". It's hard for me to quantify, but I haven't found it a very fun build. Easy, yes. Straightforward, yes. But rather dry. It's the modeling equivalent of whole wheat toast with not butter.

 

The thing I like - conceptually - about the Trumpeter is that just looking at the sprues it's clear they've made some different engineering choices. The cowl is telling...instead of the "top cap" that has to be fitted, and the seam that has to be eliminated, Trumpy uses actual panel breaks. The wings go together logically, you don't have to box out the gear wells, and so on. Again...it's all stupid minor stuff, but to me that's the kind of stuff I really appreciate when tackling a kit. Of course, no way to know how it shakes out until I get around to building one...

 

I really have to agree with this point ... when I open a box - any box - and rifle through the parts, I get a 'feel' for how 'involved' the designer/manufacturer was with a kit ... In each case, I think you've hit the nail on the head!! ...

 

From my perspective:

 

It seems to me, that in some ways, Revell has tried to copy Trumpeter with their engineering 'volume-in-box' ... but it's gone sideways! ... Hasegawa kits, while mostly accurate, feel kind of uninvolved (and I'm not referring to sanding, putty and/or cleanup!). Trumpeter seems very 'enthusiastic' - the bright new star ... but closed off to feedback/suggestion that could make their kits Awesome! (capital 'A' intended) ...

 

As I write this - I have opened the boxes and spread the parts of all three kits on top of the kitchen table ATM ... The thing for me about the Trumpeter is that, from the box, to the decals, instructions, painting guide and even the way that the parts are laid out - You can see the passion and enthusiasm that has gone into this kit ... It stands out against the others THAT much!! ... And I can't help but feel when looking at my recent Tamiya and ZM acquisitions that these Japanese companies garnered more that just a little inspiration for design,layout and presentation from their Chinese competition.

 

A bad comparrision? ... I dunno ... the look of the Hasegawa kit feels 'old' when I look at it (yet it is, of course, a 'new tool') - but everything from box art to colourless instructions screams 'bland' to me ... The Revell feels sort of halfway - like they were unsure about exactly how far to go while making their 'price beater' ... while it looks like Trumpeter said "We're doing the hamburger with the LOT ... and we're going to flaunt it ... and we're going to retail it cheap!" - they have honestly tried to go with the "wow!" factor. Looking at both ZM and Tamiya kits - they've done this in their own way - yet with typical Japanese attention to accuracy in the details - just differently ... you really don't have to wonder (much) what sort of Bf109G either of these two would produce!!

 

You can tell Dragons designers were passionate about their armour. Their Pz.IV.D got smashed by the critics (even though their kit was goreously detailed and engineered) - The re-engineered re-tooled Pz.IV.E more than made up for it, with next to nothing but praise from reviewers ... and if Trumpeter followed this line with their subsequent releases, we would be seeing a much more consistant and steady progression in the quality of their output instead of the "up-and-down" releases we get from them - one kit great, the next one mediocre. The Bf109 rudder is a typical case in point ... after the huge mention of this in reviews for the first Bf109E releases they could have re-engineered this part (even on it's own sprue!) and popped it in with the next release (as well as sold it AM to those with the pre-existing kit)

 

When I open a Tamiya or ZM (next to my 109's) ... the overall impression is "wow!" ... just "wow" ... and it's a similar feeling when initially looking at the Trumpeter 109 ... it's only when you really start looking at sprues individually and instructions - accuracy and detail etc - that the Japanese blow them away. Such a shame too!

 

All three kits are good ... yet flawed in my opinion ... each in different ways to the others ... the thing is:

 

With Hasegawa, it's a subtle feeling ... almost like "oh, really? Well I guess we'll have to fix it" because you weren't hit with shock and awe to begin with. They're a stable, known quantity.

With Revell, it's because they're much more fresh ... and arriving with Tamiya, ZM and other "newer generation" kits out in the market place ... they've had the time to see what others have missed and yet still missed stuff of their own ... you almost get the "same old Revell" feeling (which is puzzling after the Ju-88 and He.111 releases).

With Trumpeter the feeling is amplified frustration ... knowing that they could do so much better (you almost want to cheer "Come on!!"), but for some reason (inexplicably) they don't!

 

Rog

[SinuheH]

Thanks for the input - my own experience with Trumpeter (or Hobby Boss) has been such a mixed bag, that I tend to steer clear of them.... the minefield of kit disasters is juts too big to find the gems.

 

I may be the odd one out, but after building 3 Tamiya Ãœberkits, I actually enjoy the rather bland Hasegawa approach........

[SinuheH]

I've given in. I've got my Hasegawa and Trumpeter 109G6s out and I'm going to build both, with some AM in similar Ventura Finnish schemes, then we can have a look see what all the fuss is about and how they look in the end?

Look forward to seeing those Finnish birds - they really had some unique schemes - just found this one on HS

 

 

[Artful69]

Thanks for the input - my own experience with Trumpeter (or Hobby Boss) has been such a mixed bag, that I tend to steer clear of them.... the minefield of kit disasters is juts too big to find the gems.

 

I may be the odd one out, but after building 3 Tamiya Ãœberkits, I actually enjoy the rather bland Hasegawa approach........

 

The key to avoiding the minefields of any manufacturer ... is to wait until the kit has been out for a while and a few reviews are done - then you can either buy or avoid with a fair degree of knowing what you're getting yourself into, before you do!

 

lol ... I don't, by any means, think that Hasegawas offerings are bland!! (I have quite a few - and I like them!!) ... Rather - when you are gazing at them "in box", with other kits in front of you, they "feel" bland in comparision.

 

Have fun!

Rog

[Darren Howie]

Some good posts there Matt and Rog.

Still cant help feeling the 109 was an opportunity lost for Revell to put a stamp that they where a serious player like Tamiya and ZM.

Nice kit with the discussed issues but boy it could have been incredible with just a little more thought.

Hope the K has better decision making..10 bucks extra per kit and good bulges with better engineering would of sold many many more kits.

Cutting corners has a price and in this case its cost them..

Still it will sell in the EU and USA and Revell will pat themselves on the back no doubt not knowing how many sales they missed out on.

The 6-8 i woukd of bought is a start and thats just the G-6.

Then sales will drop off after people get sick of building a kit loaded with seams and joins and Hasegawa will keep on selling.

Big mistakes Revell..

[DrDave]

Unfortunately MDC ran out of the chequered racer decals. Q fancied 2 of those

[Artful69]

I've given in. I've got my Hasegawa and Trumpeter 109G6s out and I'm going to build both, with some AM in similar Ventura Finnish schemes, then we can have a look see what all the fuss is about and how they look in the end?

 

I'm doing the same ... + one Revell ... with some minimal AM or adjustment - ie: honing out the cowl gun valleys on the Trumpeter + rudder fix, Resin correction set for Revell, cockpit for Hasegawa etc.

 

What I'm trying to decide atm is whether to go with a "primer gray" finish on the lot ... or pick a "favourite scheme" and do them all out in that for comparision.

 

Good experiment, I think! ... My theory is that I think I'll end up with 3 looking almost exactly the same and costing just as much to do so (each) in kit cost + AM + Time/Effort. I'm tired of everyone s**t-bagging one or two of these kits all the time ... I'll keep records of the spend/time factor

 

Rog

[BGB]

When will you start the adventure?

Boris

[Artful69]

When will you start the adventure?

Boris

 

Well ... I'm just closing out "Birthday Splurge Pt.3" on kit acquisition for the stash ... and only just starting to look at AM purchases now.

 

I was going to build an Eduard Bf109E-1 first ... but I might hold off for a while untill I have these done ... a kind of "fun" build away from the projects for a while.

 

The first thing to do is have an extensive look through our LSP build logs for each kit and see what AM was used in them ... then decide what AM I think I'll get by with as a minimum for each ... and set up kind of like a build diary (in place of my whiteboard) a speadsheet for noting bits added and costs. Decide which way to go paint and marking wise.

 

Probably Start early November ... Finish in about March-ish?

 

(I work full time)

 

Rog

Edited October 12, 2013 by Artful69

[BGB]

Aha!

 I was thinkin that you would do a OOB build and compare them.

sorry for my bad spelling i am from Sweden

Boris

[Artful69]

Aha!

 I was thinkin that you would do a OOB build and compare them.

sorry for my bad spelling i am from Sweden

Boris

 

lol that's ok

 

no ... not quite OOB ... but spending as little money and time as I have to on each to bring them up to a reasonable standard.

 

Rog