thierry laurent Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 2 hours ago, Tony T said: So, what John is saying is that the Revell 109 canopies taper-in too much towards the top ? And by 1mm, which makes the kit unsuitable for further effort ? A bit harsh. I'm still in for the indigenous Revell Germany G-4 if they make it. Tony Very frankly this does not jump to the face. I should check with reliable scale plans to assess which kit is the most accurate regarding that aspect. I would not take for granted this is the Hasegawa one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 32 minutes ago, thierry laurent said: Very frankly this does not jump to the face. I should check with reliable scale plans to assess which kit is the most accurate regarding that aspect. I would not take for granted this is the Hasegawa one. Thanks Thierry. I was under the impression that the Revell kit designer had access to original drawings (from EADS, CASA & Messerschmitt) whereas Hasegawa did not. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 Well, if this is not the case for many planes, there are good Me 109 plans. The ones known as reasonably correct are the Tom Seay ones, the John Beaman ones and the Radu Brinzan ones based on the Arthur Bentley basic ones. These guys allocated mountains of hours to take measures and double check their work. I would not say that for the other plans... I have enough bad plans copied in one way or another from one book to another one by so-called "artists" to know we should never trust plans blindly! Typically, if someone just releases some plans, you can possibly trust him. If he releases dozens if not hundreds of plans related to fully different planes, my trust level is going dramatically low...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 Why? When someone like Charles Neely makes P-51 plans, I think he's someone who can be reasonably trusted. Same for Arthur Bentley when he made Fw190 or Me262 plans. In such cases, drawing plans is a labor of love. If you just release some dozens of plans in decades and do not hesitate to correct them multiple cases, you can produce plans with a high level of accuracy. However, passion is rarely a profitable strategy in such a dimension. So this quest for high accuracy is alas the exception rather than the rule. Nonetheless we should not consider that for that teason there is no reasonably accurate plan of anything. Alain Gadbois 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMaben Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, thierry laurent said: The ones known as reasonably correct are the Tom Seay ones, the John Beaman ones and the Radu Brinzan ones based on the Arthur Bentley basic ones. I have a G/K drawing by Seay with contributions from Beaman, Bakelman, Cummings , Lutz , Maloney and Mikesh. Problem is it's 1/25 scale. To get to 1/32 , multiply by 78.125% . Nobody I've asked about printing it does reductions in anything but whole numbers so if I multiplied it by 78% it'd be close but not accurate. It's on one laaarge sheet so I could scan it in segments and reduce it in Illustrator or the like but I haven't had any reason to. My Romanian 109 is a G-2 I built from a Revell G-4. It had the thinner wheels in acrylic so I just added a smaller tailwheel from Hasgawa's F kit which has 2. I think for a G-2 from a G-6 just leave off the bumps (cowl and wings) add some thinner wheels and a small tailwheel. Edited March 3, 2020 by MikeMaben Wackyracer and Rick Griewski 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Griewski Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Exactly Mike Thanks for the summary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheetah11 Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, MikeMaben said: I think for a G-2 from a G-6 just leave off the bumps (cowl and wings) add some thinner wheels and a small tailwheel. Mike the 7.92mm guns were staggered and had longer barrels compared to the 13mm guns. They were also closer together and did not have the ejection shutes which the Mg 131 did have. Edited March 3, 2020 by Cheetah11 Spelling MikeMaben 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor John Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 (edited) The Revell kits cockpit opening - the sill - is 1mm too narrow in 1/32 according to the factory Blueprints. This is not the case with the Hasegawa kits. Obviously this has knock on effects which do not concern me in the slightest as I like the kit very much. Why a Hasegawa windscreen can fit I have no idea - mine do not. I would not have even known this but for needing to make parts for AIMS products only to find I needed unique parts for both kits as there is so much difference one part would not fit both and so I looked into it. I am not in any way trying to slate the Revell kit, nor do I assume the Hasegawa kit is more accurate I am just stating one single fact. Thanks Edited March 3, 2020 by Pastor John MikeMaben, thierry laurent and D Bellis 3 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