Gazzas Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 Hi everyone, With HLJ having a sale, the big scale Hasegawa 109's are calling me. Seems I've been bitten by the large scale bug while my 1/48 get less interesting. I've built their smaller scale versions without being disappointed. I've read reviews online, but they're not picture heavy and don't say anything negative. How do you guys that have built em feel? Thanks for your thoughts! Gaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade rowlands Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 Well I'm no expert. I've only built the F-4 version so far and found it an enjoyable build. No tail insert, thats a plus. theres some filling to do on the cowl and and sides, just some panel lines that shouldn't be there and its called out in the instructions. Some ejection pin marks in the radiator flaps need eradication but thats not a major job. I'm not sure if the spinner is correct where the G was off. I have a couple of G-6's in the stash with lots of add ons, new spinners and whatnot. I dont think the F version needs anything per say but im an addict to theres stuff ready to throw in the kit boxes when the kit's arrive (ordered 2 F-4 versions last week). I am tempted to get the Buchon conversion for one of the G-6's and see if Pastor John is still going ahead with his G-5 bits and use the other G-6 for that. We shall see. Gazzas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_K2 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 I reviewed the G-6 (here), and while perhaps not as photo heavy as some reviews might be, certainly seems to cover the majority of the bases, I think. MikeC, Rick Griewski and Gazzas 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 Not super detailed ... but accurate enough in outline and restrained external detail. There's enough there for the average modeller ... ... Plenty of AM going around to fill in any extra detail if you would like to go further. As long as it's NOT the Bf.109E kit of nightmares you should be good to go. Rog nmayhew, MikeC and Gazzas 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted June 11, 2019 Author Share Posted June 11, 2019 1 hour ago, LSP_K2 said: I reviewed the G-6 (here), and while perhaps not as photo heavy as some reviews might be, certainly seems to cover the majority of the bases, I think. That's a very helpful in-box review! Thanks! LSP_K2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted June 11, 2019 Author Share Posted June 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Jennings Heilig said: They're not perfect, but they're very nice models, easy to build, and look nice once you're done. My biggest problem with them is the lack of wheel well accurate detail. Why kit manufacturers seem incapable of replicating the correct canvas liners, bulges, stiffeners, etc, is beyond me. Eduard nailed them in 1/48. I understand how you feel. But It's rarely an area I worry about because nobody, including me will ever look there once it's built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted June 11, 2019 Author Share Posted June 11, 2019 41 minutes ago, Artful69 said: Not super detailed ... but accurate enough in outline and restrained external detail. There's enough there for the average modeller ... ... Plenty of AM going around to fill in any extra detail if you would like to go further. As long as it's NOT the Bf.109E kit of nightmares you should be good to go. Rog At a show once I saw a model of an E that had a really disturbing looking area right in front of the rudder... the horizontal stab?... is it the Hase E? Artful69 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted June 11, 2019 Author Share Posted June 11, 2019 1 hour ago, ade rowlands said: Well I'm no expert. I've only built the F-4 version so far and found it an enjoyable build. No tail insert, thats a plus. theres some filling to do on the cowl and and sides, just some panel lines that shouldn't be there and its called out in the instructions. Some ejection pin marks in the radiator flaps need eradication but thats not a major job. I'm not sure if the spinner is correct where the G was off. I have a couple of G-6's in the stash with lots of add ons, new spinners and whatnot. I dont think the F version needs anything per say but im an addict to theres stuff ready to throw in the kit boxes when the kit's arrive (ordered 2 F-4 versions last week). I am tempted to get the Buchon conversion for one of the G-6's and see if Pastor John is still going ahead with his G-5 bits and use the other G-6 for that. We shall see. It's amazing how man spinner variations there are in all kinds of kits. Even WNW's Albatros is cursed with it. I'm not above backfilling and then sanding. I wish I had a lathe I could stick it in then spin off the shape difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Ron Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 I've built the same kit K2 reviewed and really enjoyed it. Gazzas and LSP_K2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tucohoward Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 Hi Gaz, being a 109 guy I have built all of them and for the F/G/K models I much prefer Hasegawa. Probably more AM available for this kit than any other ever made. Still looks like a 109 without any of it though. Very simple build.. Jay LSP_K2, MikeC, Gazzas and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Howie Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 Easy to build, some great aftermarket generally pretty accurate with niggles only serious 109 guys will notice. Nice kit even 16 or 17 years after release just dont expect a hyper detailed beast. Gazzas and MikeC 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tucohoward Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 Almost forgot about accuracy. It’s not too bad. Per Lynn Ritter the only accurate 109 in 1/32 is the Dragon E-4. Jay Gazzas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted June 12, 2019 Author Share Posted June 12, 2019 Well... Let's not fight about terminology. No kit is perfectly accurate. I've just heard about kits where the gun troughs are too close together... too far apart... nose is too pointy... spinner is way off... Prop blades too thin... stuff like that. Some little things are easily fixed, and those I don't mind. But big things where it looks like your 109 is digesting a water buffalo and you have to rework the entire area between the cockpit and empennage... those are deal killers. Rick Griewski 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wegener Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 There is a useful tweaks list here on LSP which Thierry wrote. That might give you a decent starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 I've done the G-10, thoroughly enjoyed it. I had a little trouble with the wings-to-fuselage joint, but that may well have been my ham-fistedness rather than any fault of the kit. Looking forward to doing the G-6 in my stash. 5 hours ago, Jennings Heilig said: What does "accurate" even mean? The "only" "accurate" 109 is the Dragon E-4? By what standard? Are the stitches in the rudder rib tapes precisely the same scale size as the original 1/1 scale ones? If not, then it's not "accurate". Is the radio compartment hatch 0.0000002 mm too wide? If so, then it's not "accurate". Perhaps you could say that subjectively speaking, the Dragon E-4 is the best *looking* 109, but you can't say it's the most "accurate" without a whole lot more information. We toss "accurate" around a lot (I do as well), but it's inaccurate to use that term when we're talking about artistic sculptures of airplanes here. And that's what we're talking about. These are not miniature aircraft. They are sculptures. They are art. Art is not perfect (save for some works by Mozart and Beethoven). An interesting take on it, and one I'm inclined to agree with. Definitely agree 110% with your last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now