Zoukei Mura - Old Man Blog No.115

[Radub]

The bombs will not be included in the Hartmann kit. The "tall tail is included on the runner with the G-14 parts. It will be possible to make a G-14 with the "tall tail" from what it is in the box. 

Radu 

[Kongo]

I think the angle from the windscreen to the "bulge" is too big ?

 

https://www.zoukeimura.co.jp/sentiment/oyajiblog_120.html

[Rick Griewski]

Hmmm… I think I will build my kit grey and without the skin just like the ZM display.  So much amazing detail. Do others do this?  Maybe just do the interior colors.  The Hartman schemes do not so much for me anyway. We shall see. 

[Radub]

The model was designed in such a way that you can build one half of the model “fully-skinned” and one half as a “skeleton”.

Radu

[Rick R.]

I am looking forward to the ZM 109's.

I especially like the "late" model versions. Maybe we will see a state of the art G-10 and  K model in the near future.

I must admit I was disappointed that a FW-190D-9 not included in the ZM  FW-190 line up. The Hasegawa kit getting a little old and a state-of-the-art replacement would be welcomed. 

 

[adameliclem]

2 hours ago, Rick R. said:

I am looking forward to the ZM 109's.

I especially like the "late" model versions. Maybe we will see a state of the art G-10 and  K model in the near future.

I must admit I was disappointed that a FW-190D-9 not included in the ZM  FW-190 line up. The Hasegawa kit getting a little old and a state-of-the-art replacement would be welcomed. 

 

If I recall correctly, ZM mentioned that Dora models could happen, but that was a long time ago, back when they first announced their Fw-190 project. 
 

Cheers,

Adam

[MikeMaben]

Just now, Magneto said:

         I think the top one is a DB600?  - not trying to be a smartas but I think that was for the earlier 109 C & D?

 

Nope, they had Jumo 210s.  There were a couple of 109 prototypes that had Db600s.

Here's a 6 view of the Jumo 210.

[VintageEagle]

The latest Old Man blog mentions which versions  will follow after the first release. Unfortunately no DB 605AS or D versions: 

 

‘‘G-2’’ ‘‘G-4’’ ‘‘G-6 Early Type’’ ‘‘G-6 Late Type’’ ‘‘G-14’’ and ‘‘G-6/U4’’ 

[esarmstrong]

3 hours ago, VintageEagle said:

The latest Old Man blog mentions which versions  will follow after the first release. Unfortunately no DB 605AS or D versions: 

 

‘‘G-2’’ ‘‘G-4’’ ‘‘G-6 Early Type’’ ‘‘G-6 Late Type’’ ‘‘G-14’’ and ‘‘G-6/U4’’ 

Perhaps the successful run of these will cause late model G's and K's to be produced in the future.

[thierry laurent]

Not releasing the AS planes would be plain stupid as they are the only late 109 never released in large scale (the Hasegawa ones being actually G10 marks)!

[MikeMaben]

10 hours ago, Magneto said:

I know about the Jumbos - but my interests don’t go back before the Emils.  
 

The point I was trying to make is that you mistakenly presented a DB 600 and labelled it a DB 601.  

 

Also you rejected my hypothesis (that’s all it was) on the one hand then state:

 

‘There were a couple of 109 prototypes that had Db600s’

 

Also you state ‘a couple’ used the DB 600.  I would ask from whence do you get that exact number but as I said the whole point of my comment was just to say politely that you were mistaken so we don’t need to ‘mission creep’ ‘switch fire’ or side step to other subjects to hide anything! 
 

It’s all good fun!  The quest for knowledge continues! Avanti! Adelante and Vorwärts!

 

 

 There were no Daimler Benz engines in production 109s until the E series.

Db600s were in 109 prototypes V10 thru V14   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_600

We were both wrong , the first pic I posted is a Db601a , the last pic I posted (second post) is a Db600)

We agree on your last sentence.

 

 

[rafju]

Dear All,

 

 Here in France, we have the chance to be in touch with Jean-Claude Mermet, who is wellknown from a long time for his knowledge about the 109,  and author of many detailed books, publications, articles, etc...

 

With the following link, you can find at a (french, sorry) forum where he is given his technical opinion about the ZM model to be release. and argue with illustrated original documentation.

 

Jean-Claude Mermet = "Jicehem"

(591) 1/32 infos sur futur 109 G-14 Zoukei Mura (forumactif.com)

 

Hope this is of a great interest for you all.

Rgds

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by rafju

[pvanroy]

38 minutes ago, Vincent said:

Now, someone is going to ask : why were the MK108 bottles in the wing ammo tray on the K4 and not under the MW50 tank as in the U4.

 

I think the answer is the same to the other question: why was the MK108 housing in the cockpit not the same on the U4 and the K4 ?

 

They were designed by different people who obviously did not bother to talk to each other. The U4 was a WNF creation and only manufactured by WNF while the K4 was a MTT creation. WNF could have, in theory, passed all the drawings to MTT but for some reason it did not happen (or MTT did not bother to use them). So the MK108 setup in the K4 was designed from scratch. This is why for ex the spent cases are ejected out on the K4 but not on the U4

 

There's another possibility : the RLM paid the research work at billed value so doing redesign was in fact financially profitable

 

I don't quite agree with this. First, you're incorrect to state that the K-4 was a Mtt creation, and that design teams at Mtt and WNF did not talk to each other. In fact, WNF was responsible for the development of the new K-series, the redesign being led by Ludwig Bölkow, who at the time was head of the design office in Wiener Neustadt (having come from the design office at Mtt Augsburg). The production office at Mtt Regensburg and ten engineers were subordinated to Bölkow for the task. WNF converted a G airframe into a K prototype late in 1943, and likely built at least one K-2 airframe in 1944 (possibly W.Nr. 600 056). So, while in the end the K-4 was only produced by Mtt Regensburg and Erla Leipzig (limited number of K-4/R6), the primary design of the K-series was done by WNF. So, your explanation for the differences between the G-/U4 and the K-series associated with the MK 108 cannot be down to a lack of communication between Mtt and WNF.

 

Rather, I think there are genuine practical considerations at play. Placing the bottles in the unused ammo tray for the MG 151 brings them even closer to the CoG, and makes them also more easily accessible than when placed under the MW 50 tank. I suspect the reason that this was not done earlier on the G-/U4 may simply be because it would have required too much redesign and/or retooling to relocate the pneumatic lines on an aircraft type that was already in production. It shouldn't be forgotten that, while externally very similar to late AS and D-engined G-series aircraft, the K-series was in fact a major redesign, partially intended to rationalize and simplify production.

[pvanroy]

46 minutes ago, Vincent said:

 

I'd really be happy to hear your theory on why the same people designed the same part twice but with differences all over the part. It's been puzzling me ever since I realized that the U4 and the K4 ammo tray/housing are not the same.

 

I would have understood if they incrementally improved the part on the K4 but that's not the case

 

That’s a very good question, and I certainly do not claim to have the answer. However, the MK 108 had a tendency to break its belts, so maybe the redesign of the ammo can was undertaken with the intention to lower stresses on the belt? Or maybe it was just an attempt to somehow simplify construction?

 

Incidentally, you can ask the same question about the rudder pedal linkage in the cockpit: why was this redesigned in the K with respect to the G-/U4?

 

Regardless of the reasons, it’s a fact that the K-series was designed by WNF, just like the G-/U4 had been previously. Hence, any MK 108-related changes in the K must have had a valid technical reason, as WNF was responsible for both the design of the G-/U4 and the K.

 

In addition, the head of the design office at WNF responsible for the design of the K (Ludwig Bölkow) came from the design office at Augsburg, and had the production office and ten engineers from Regensburg assigned to assist him. So, there was clear coordination between WNF and Mtt during the development of the K.

[pvanroy]

2 hours ago, Vincent said:

 

?

 

They have the same component numbers on the spare part catalog and look the same on the pictures.

 

They are also listed as the same assembly for both versions here : http://arsenal45-shop.de/product_info.php?info=p389_----rudder-control-unit---messerschmitt-bf109-g10-u4--k4----.html

 

This is a bit of a conundrum. The same part numbers obviously implies that they are the same part. Comparing the K-4 linkages to those of the G-10/U4, they indeed appear identical.

 

However, comparing these to earlier G-/U4 linkages, those to me seem to be different. In this respect, it is important to note that Arsenal 45 explicitly lists the linkages as applicable to the G-10/U4 and K-4 – also implying the earlier G-6/U4 and G-14/U4 were different. Vogt (2012, p. 152 and p. 293-294) further explicitly states that the rudder linkages of the K-4 were different from those of the G-/U4, and were redesigned to save raw materials in their production (K-4 linkages were mainly constructed from sheet steel). Finally, discussing his work on the design of the K-4, Bölkow also mentions that the rudder linkages were entirely redesigned (in Schmoll 2017, p. 172).

 

So, it seems to me that the rudder linkages of the G-6/U4 and G-14/U4 were different from those of the K-4. The reason for the redesign apparently was materials savings. Since production of the G-10/U4 at WNF ran in parallel to K-4 production at Mtt Regensburg and Erla, it seems reasonable that the G-10/U4 would have standardized on the same linkages as the K-4. I’m not at all claiming that this is definitely what happened, but it seems a plausible explanation.

 

References:

Schmoll, P. 2017. Me 109. Produktion und Einsatz. Regenstauf, MZ-Buchverlag. 311 pp.

Vogt, H.H. 2012. Messerschmitt Bf 109 – Einsatzmaschinen – Das Nachschlagwerk. Zweibrücken, VDM Heinz Nickel. 384 pp.