Jump to content

Zoukei Mura - Old Man Blog No.115


Jan_G
 Share

Recommended Posts

John, the swastika isn’t obscured on Thierry Dekker’s original profile. It must have been obscured by someone else, probably to conform to local posting/publishing rules. I’ve seen a quite different interpretation of that aircraft’s scheme but IMHO Dekker’s looks closer to the posted photo.

 

Here’s the other take, artist unknown (to me).

 

Messerschmitt-Bf-109G14AS-Erla-16.JG53-B

 

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adameliclem said:

John, the swastika isn’t obscured on Thierry Dekker’s original profile. It must have been obscured by someone else, probably to conform to local posting/publishing rules. I’ve seen a quite different interpretation of that aircraft’s scheme but IMHO Dekker’s looks closer to the posted photo.

 

Here’s the other take, artist unknown (to me).

 

Messerschmitt-Bf-109G14AS-Erla-16.JG53-B

 

Adam

 

Interesting... it appears that Thierry Dekker is also a believer in the use of RLM 70 Schwartzgruen as a camouflage colour on late-war aircraft. I do too! :)

Radu 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Radub said:

 

Interesting... it appears that Thierry Dekker is also a believer in the use of RLM 70 Schwartzgruen as a camouflage colour on late-war aircraft. I do too! :)

Radu 

Yeah, because if it is/was a dark green, then it MUST be 70. Yeah, ok... :rolleyes:

 

The reality is that only the guy that opened the can of paint knows for sure, and he probably didn't care enough to actually read the label.

 

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vincent said:

Let's not talk about Luftwaffe late colors. It will only end badly with plywood fragments presented as evidence :lol:

But...but.... I've got a scan of a 40-year-old black and white picture of a 60-year-old plywood fragment that conclusively shows that RLM81 was actually nothing more than a field mix of RLM70 and 71. 

 

I demand that you accept my evidence as fact. 

Edited by John1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Radub said:

Top-notch arguments about colour here, folks! :D

Radu 

And yet, they have nearly the same chance of actually being true as do the commonly accepted theories on late-war colors.   One can stare at 60-year-old black and white pictures till your eyes bleed and at the end of the day, can you really tell if that dark color on a section of the fuselage is RLM 81, RLM 71, RLM 70, a mix of all those paints or just some dark-ish house paint that Fliegerpainter Otto Klutzenburg found in a barn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vincent said:

Let's not talk about Luftwaffe late colors. It will only end badly with plywood fragments presented as evidence :lol:

 

3 hours ago, Vincent said:

And I have the testimony of a former RLM female typist who told me that the dark color was RLM85 but the office was bombed while she was using the loo and she never got to send her letter to the paint manufacturers. I refute your theory !

Exactly!  :D

 

Yet some folks insist on having to apply numbers to late Luftwaffe paints, and act like they're making some grand new discovery. :rofl:

 

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2022 at 4:56 PM, Vincent said:

Question for Radu :

 

What was the rationnal for not providing the piping going from the left side of the oil breather to the pipe running over the left engine bearer (E21) ? If it was a molding limitation, perhaps providing the part as a glued addon to part E21 ?

 

Also, I noticed that you replicated Hasegawa's mistake to provide the wing tips without their sealing strips. Also curious to why ? Felt that the uninformed modellers would give you flak if these were not provided as panel lines ? You did represent almost correctly the rudder and slats mounting bolts patched over however (I say almost because they look like small circular flush hatches when they should be like a slightly raised disk)

 

Believe it or not, THAT is the direct result of tooling limitations. :D On the real thing, the cowl is made of thin metal sheet and it fits very snugly close to engine and that pipe in that spot. In the kit, due to the "tooling limitations", the cowl had to be made of material with a thickness of 0.7 mm, which is the thinnest that can be tooled safely (a.k.a. "tooling limitation" ;)) Putting that short little pipe there, 5 mm in length and 0.7 mm in thickness, would have caused fit problems. So, a decision was made to leave that 5 x 0.7 mm piece of pipe out and anyone who wants to add it can do it by themselves. Very few people will even know i is missing, of those who know it is missing few will care and those who care can add it easily. Maybe it was not the best decision, it was bound to annoy someone, but it is not the end of the world. 

 

The seal over the joint between the wing tip and the wing may possibly be best represented as a piece of decal, considering the the wing tip and the wing are two separate parts. Making the wing tip and wing as separate parts was not my decision, but it is a decision that I embrace because it makes it possible to add the wing tip to the "skeleton wing" in the case when a modeller chooses to build the model without "skins". 

 

By the way, in their 1/48 and 1/72 Bf 109 G-6 kits Tamiya did not include that tape over the joint and represented the holes on the slats as deep gouges. Tamiya also did not include any of the pipework on their engine. I have no problem with the Tamiya Bf 109 G-6 kit, I like it and I understand the limitations that led them to do theirs the way they did, but if the very few and close-to-insignificant omissions in the ZM kit get you so exercised, the Tamiya kit must be driving you insane with rage! ;) Out of curiosity, did you give Tamiya the same kind of treatment on forums? 

 

This is a model. Expecting it to be an exact repica of the real thing that only needs a pipette of fuel and a crank to fly is unrealistic. There are compromises, simplifications and omissions in many places. 

 

Radu 

 

 

Edited by Radub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry Radu, it looks like an outstanding model!

And thanks Vincent to push the limits, this is a great service to anyone as Radu said, wants to hyper detail his model.

By the way just come to order mine from Domino model in Belgium right now (announced for September) but I want to reserve a (my) place in the container :rofl:

Many thanks guy's for all your knowledge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Radub said:

 

Believe it or not, THAT is the direct result of tooling limitations. :D On the real thing, the cowl is made of thin metal sheet and it fits very snugly close to engine and that pipe in that spot. In the kit, due to the "tooling limitations", the cowl had to be made of material with a thickness of 0.7 mm, which is the thinnest that can be tooled safely (a.k.a. "tooling limitation" ;)) Putting that short little pipe there, 5 mm in length and 0.7 mm in thickness, would have caused fit problems. So, a decision was made to leave that 5 x 0.7 mm piece of pipe out and anyone who wants to add it can do it by themselves. Very few people will even know i is missing, of those who know it is missing few will care and those who care can add it easily. Maybe it was not the best decision, it was bound to annoy someone, but it is not the end of the world. 

 

The seal over the joint between the wing tip and the wing may possibly be best represented as a piece of decal, considering the the wing tip and the wing are two separate parts. Making the wing tip and wing as separate parts was not my decision, but it is a decision that I embrace because it makes it possible to add the wing tip to the "skeleton wing" in the case when a modeller chooses to build the model without "skins". 

 

By the way, in their 1/48 and 1/72 Bf 109 G-6 kits Tamiya did not include that tape over the joint and represented the holes on the slats as deep gouges. Tamiya also did not include any of the pipework on their engine. I have no problem with the Tamiya Bf 109 G-6 kit, I like it and I understand the limitations that led them to do theirs the way they did, but if the very few and close-to-insignificant omissions in the ZM kit get you so exercised, the Tamiya kit must be driving you insane with rage! ;) Out of curiosity, did you give Tamiya the same kind of treatment on forums? 

 

This is a model. Expecting it to be an exact repica of the real thing that only needs a pipette of fuel and a crank to fly is unrealistic. There are compromises, simplifications and omissions in many places. 

 

Radu 

 

 

Great points Radu.  I am really looking forward to what is likely to be the best 109G ever made.  As for some, gilding the lily isn't far enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, esarmstrong said:

As for some, gilding the lily isn't far enough.

And to me, that's nothing but a good thing.   I'm fascinated by minutia like this, appreciate all the contributors to this thread taking the time to do such a deep dive into this subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Vincent said:

 

I had another channel to give feedback to Tamiya. They also represented the rear MK108 hatch hatch for no reason and oriented wrong on top of that.

 

Also when that kit came out models were the least of my preoccupations. Real life had way more pressing issues (and Tamiya made no claims about "best" or "most accurate" or anything...)

 


Will it be Perfect?? … No - there is no such thing in modelling - and any claims to the contrary by anyone are pure fantasy … for any subject of any type, in any scale.

 

However … I like to think along the lines of “best scale accuracy” … and this is inherently, a very subjective measure … 

 

While Zoukei-Mura’s SWS kits don’t profess to be perfect in any measure … they present a higher level of attention to accuracy and detail than most mainstream manufacturers are prepared to conjure … I’d suggest that in 1/32, ZM WILL be the most accurate and detailed version of this 109 kitted. 
 

Rog :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...