Z-M Bf109G-14 “Old Man Blog”

[Kagemusha]

35 minutes ago, Andreas Beck said:

I think different styles of taiplanes/rudders and canopies were designed. But will there be options in the first boxing? 

Regards

Andreas Beck

 

I hope so, though no doubt the runners will be available.

[John Stambaugh]

On 1/10/2022 at 11:24 AM, D.B. Andrus said:

 

+1

My interest is purely WW2 aircraft but the F-86 and Mig 15 would quite possibly get me off the reservation .

[John Stambaugh]

On 1/10/2022 at 11:30 AM, thierry laurent said:

I believe we are missing the point if we think the demand is driving the offer. This was the case decades ago but now the effect is double-sided for many products. Otherwise, how could we explain the success of kits of planes that 'do not sell' such as WnW ones? I'm sure that if someone would release Cold War topics with a similar quality control and marketing strategy, they would sell. I have zero doubt about that. It is a fact most existing Cold War large scale kits are so-so: rather expensive, questionable accuracy, weird choices of schemes, challenging assembly, blunt instructions, uninspiring box cover, lack of good marketing, etc. To me, the main reason they were purchased was mainly a lack of competition. 

Good points.

[John Stambaugh]

14 hours ago, Radub said:

 

Trust me, the spinner is fine! It is based on measurements of the real thing and the existing factory drawings. A lot of attention was given to it. I will ignore the chin scoop comment, because your emoji makes me guess you are joking. Let us not start another twelve pages of crazy about it. Just wait until you see it for real. 

Radu 

Come on now. The last off point rant only went to 11 pages. Don't exaggerate. 

[Wurgermeister64]

My favorites as one may have guessed from my user name, are WWII Luftwaffe and Panzerwaffe. The Germans had the technology (Me 262), some wicked airframe designs (Me 109 G, FW 190 D, Ta 152) and the camouflage schemes were second to none. I am a modeler, pure and simple. I don't adhere to politics and ideologies and they certainly don't dictate my modeling choices.

[LSP_Ray]

I have to agree with Jennings. The last decent 109 dogfighter was the F. With the G and later they threw heavier and heavier weapons, mainly to attack bombers.

[Radub]

I am not entirely sure that the F was the "pinacle" of the Bf 109 development. People who believe that "the F was the best" usually claim that after the F the G was festooned with all kinds of bulges and bumps as well as heavier weapons, which made it more sluggish and thus not as good as the F. Well... if we are going to use only the criterion of "clean airframe and low weight", then the peak was actually reached by the Bf 109 G-2, which was for all intents and purposes identical to the F but it had the more powerful DB 605 engine. If the F was that good, it would have stayed in service longer, but it actually saw a relatively brief period of use.

Things are not as clear-cut as that. I think that the G-6 was the best airframe overall with the best mix of horsepower and firepower, was appreciated by many pilots and for that reason it saw the longest use as a type. The G-10 and the K-4 were even more powerful and more streamlined, so they continued to make formidable foes. 

What made the Bf 109 one of the most successful aircraft of all times is its reliable simplicity. I had the opportunity to design models of many types and as such I had the chance to get really close to a lot of aircraft of many tipes and of many nations in museums or airfields. The last time I was in Cosford for a "photo shoot" in November 2019 (just before Covid), I photograhed, measured, opened all panels and sat in both the FW 190 and the Bf 109 (they were side by side in the museum) and they were as diferent as chalk and cheese. One thing that is immediately striking about the Bf 109 is how simple it is. Simplicity means easier and cheaper construction. It is also very versatile in the sense that it was made of standardised parts. The fuselage did not really change shape throughout the lifetime of airframe and on that fuselage it was possible to graft different engines, different wings, different tails, different undercarriages, different canopies, all of which were easily interchangeable between types. It was also reliable, could be repaired easily and when it could not be repaired it was cheap to replace. That was why it was in use from the very first day of WW2 (and even before, in the Spanish Civil War) until the end of WW2 (and after) despite many attempts to find a suitable replacement. This reliability, low cost and ease of service is what keeps good workhorses in service for a long time, such as the AK 47, the Soyuz rocket or the F-16. 

Radu 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Radub

[Wurgermeister64]

Radu, You are very eloquent in support of my argument that the Me 109 G series was near the apex of Messerschmitt's design spectrum. Yes, it was not the ultimate dogfighter-I never claimed that...but it was a design that more than held its own throughout its production run...exceeding its E, F and K counterparts by weight of sheer numbers. By that logic, it was a superlative design.

[Radub]

The G stayed the longest in service because it was reliable and got results. Many people get distracted by numbers for speed, weight, etc, because that is what computer games use as signifiers for the varous aircraft included in the game packages. Plane "X" has more "lethality points", "speed", "strength" than plane "Y" therefore it must be "better." Such comparisons even use coloured bars side by side so that you can see that one aicraft has a longer coloured bar than the other (longer is better, right? ), then numbers are added and the resulting figure is what is used as a measurement. It was computer games that concluded the Bf 109 F was the best, but that is a faulty yardstick. That kind of "game stats" mentality taints many conversations about aircraft on many forums. There are tons of examples of weapons that, on paper, have better "numbers" than their counterparts, but failed spectacularly in the field. 

Here is an example of my own. I had a very fancy Sony Experia mobile phone with impressive megapixel numbers, impressive processor, impressive memory, lots of numbers and acronyms to describe the fanciness of the screen, and a large price in euros to match. It had one slight flaw: it had to be charged every day. I was in Japan and I used this phone to travel from one point to another. I used the phone for the underground train schedule, the digital train ticket was on the phone and I used the maps app to get me from where I was to the train station. One day, while I was heading back to my hotel in Shinjuku from a trip to the Tamiya shop in Yokohama, the battery simply drained in late -afternoon. My fancy "digital assistant" was just a brick and no use to get me back to my hotel. I went analog, I got a taxi to the nearest train station and I bought a new ticket. When I returned back home I promptly changed my fancy phone for a much cheaper Nokia phone (170 euro!) with less impressive numbers to describe its awesomeness but with a battery that lasts three days of moderate-to-heavy use. Three years later I am still using this phone. I was oging to tell you the story of the camera I use the most these days, but I think I tried your patience enough. Where am I going with this? Fancy numbers and fancy do-dahs mean nothing if they fail when you need them the most. The Bf 109 G was not the best because it had better "speed" or "punch" or "weight" numbers, it was the best because it did what it was expected to do more reliably. 

Radu 

Edited January 14, 2022 by Radub

[jeroen_R90S]

Fortunately not all games are like that, but I see your point, there is more to a good and usable machine rather than just the raw specs. 

I used to fly a lot of IL-2 Sturmovik 'Forgotten Battles' and when flying for the Axis side I always tried to hang on first to the E-4/E-7 (for it's cannons) and then the G-2 for as long as the game would let me (I used to play single player) Hence I usually did not play for Germany itself. I can also remember avoiding most forum threads on the subjects of relative performance and damage models though, they usually ended in an IBTL-fest

Other guys had other preferences and avoided the E-4 and E-7 as modeled in that game like the plague.

 

Happy for the 109 fans there's an accurate kit coming out,  though I'm not enough of a 109 fan to get one. To each their own, fortunately!

 

Jeroen

[LSP_Mike]

Good points Radu. Another measuring stick would be how many Aces chose to fly particular models, and how effective they were.

I really like this 109 kit, and look forward to getting one.

[thierry laurent]

So do I. It is about time we get a good second gen 109.

[Kagemusha]

It's now available to pre-order...

[LSP_Mike]

Where good sir?

[cbk57]

The Germans were a bit like a good College team taking on Alabama.  If everything went perfectly they could have won, they came out with a lot of enthusiasm in the first quarter and had the lead but lost the game 45 to 10.  The 109 was a symptom of that, good plane but not enough.  Above all not enough Germans for the tactical considerations of the 1940s and the Technology that was realistically available.  Everyone says the Germans could have done this or that, or if they had this weapon or that one.  But the allies could have come up with answers to everything the Germans could come up with too.