John1 Posted September 27, 2022 Share Posted September 27, 2022 Nice fix there. As others have stated, very disappointing that this issue made it into production. At least there appears to be a way to address it. I'll be saving that post for future reference. Gazzas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutik Posted September 27, 2022 Share Posted September 27, 2022 Hey, maybe this kit is just a promotion for Border models 109? You know, this one... - dutik Martinnfb and Gazzas 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunnus Posted September 27, 2022 Share Posted September 27, 2022 That looks great, Gaz! Your fix improves the situation very nicely. But I agree with the others that this issue shouldn't have made it production. Sepp, CShanne and Gazzas 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted September 28, 2022 Author Share Posted September 28, 2022 Welcome back guys... ... I present you with another mojo-sapping irritant. Yes, widening the vertical fin also makes the fit of the rudder balance wrong. So, I added a shim after sawing through the long-since-dried glue joint. This took care of the port side shelf... mostly. But now I have some weird geometry happening. Most of us know that one side of the rudder should be mostly flat. with the port side having an arc to make up for the torque caused by the rotation of the engine and propeller. So... If I had my druthers... and another un-touched rudder to assemble... instead of inserting two rounded, and tapered bits of sprue. I would have made a single, wider piece that was flat on one side in hopes of keeping the starboard side of the vertical fin flat. The thought of tearing the vertical fin in half fills me with dread. So, I'm just going to live with it. But anyway... you are forewarned. ...and another fly in the ointment... All of the external surfaces have a fine texture. I mention this because I am going to used HGW rivets. I haven't used HGW transfers in quite a while (2-4 years). But I do remember that they only want to stick to a very smooth (faultless) surface. Are they any different, now? Good luck, fellow G-14 builders.... Fanes, Antonio Argudo, Sasha As and 10 others 12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CShanne Posted September 28, 2022 Share Posted September 28, 2022 Yours is looking great so far, but this seems like a poor kit for my first ZM kit….so, it is likely I cursed us all. I guess note to self, next time wait until others have purchased unless it is Tamiya or Hasegawa, maybe a short list of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted September 29, 2022 Author Share Posted September 29, 2022 3 hours ago, CShanne said: Yours is looking great so far, but this seems like a poor kit for my first ZM kit….so, it is likely I cursed us all. I guess note to self, next time wait until others have purchased unless it is Tamiya or Hasegawa, maybe a short list of others. This is my first ZM kit. In my enthusiasm to build it, I get to find it's faults first, I guess. I wish Tamiya would get back into the 1/32 game. Hasegawa ain't bad... but they aren't exactly pumping them out, either. CShanne and Sepp 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMaben Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 Your extra elbow grease is paying off nicely Gary Gazzas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastterry Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 Hey Gaz, thanks for saving me a heap of AUD. I have 5 built 109G's of various sorts and 3 Hasegawas still to build and I was wondering if I needed the ZM G and your build convinces me that the answer is no. I only have one Zoukei Mura kit (the Ta152) in the stash and I think it's going to stay that way. Stiff upper lip for the rest of the build. TRF Gazzas and Daywalker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaninaustria Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 She’s coming along nicely and everything looks to be accurate as can be! The “sit” of the vertical hinged rudder looks correct in your above photo bro - when compared to the real aircraft. ZM got this kit correct! Cheers Alan Mekon, CShanne, daHeld and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrotten Highlander Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 I find this all very iinteresting, Thank you @Gazzasfor being the 'tester' of this kit. based on the information provided by Radu in this post I am now playing with the idea of a different soluton to this problem. Need to complete some projects before I can start on the Bf109, but will discuss my ideas in good time - unless someone else has the same brilliant plan (mwuhahaha) and posts it before I do CShanne, Sepp, nmayhew and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted September 29, 2022 Author Share Posted September 29, 2022 Welcome back, friends. More fun and more... other stuff. Because the original kit is a G6, you have to swap to the N sprue to get the correct panel for the FuG 18 antenna mount. Note the clear part. I painted the backside of the clear part RLM 02. I will have to mask the other side, later. Unlike the first wing, I ended up needing a shim and had a small gap. I will fill the small gap, later. I don't know if the shim would have been required with the original G6 panel. Notice the two positions of the leading-edge slats. They are meant to be assembled so they can be positioned open or closed. But if you position them closed, some sanding will be required as the slat doesn't exactly match the profile of the wing. The upper side of the wings look serviceable. The position of the LG legs is non-negotiable. They almost lock into place, becoming wobbly if not correctly placed. I used BMF on the oleos. Added the engine. Just like the lg struts... fitment is non-negotiable. Ventral view. Next come two center-line belly panels. Fitting them left a question as to whether one might be too far forward or too far back... I really don't like ambiguity. Then the wings. Here is where it started to go belly up... I snapped the next two pictures before I knew I was in trouble. Everything looks alright. But I will end up ripping the wings off to push them in a little further after removing internal parts. This is the first kit I have ever built with separate wing root stubs. There are two sets for the front, and a single set for the dorsal. For the life of me, I could see no difference in the optional parts. When I added the forward wing root stubs, I could see that both wings were approximately 1/2 mm too far out. So, off came the wings... and it wasn't pretty as the glue had completely set. So... After letting the new wing arrangement set overnight, I added the dorsal wing root and a couple of shims... Trimming them down should be fun. Notice how prominent the forward fairings are at the wing leading edge. I don't think I can leave them like that. And finally, here is a view of the bottom. The small gaps I will fill with PPP. The larger gap, I will fill with black CA. I'll use PPP on the front gap, and then 60% of it should be covered by the ETC rack. Thanks for looking. Thoughts and comments appreciated. Fanes, themongoose, LSP_Matt and 9 others 11 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutik Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 The curse of multipiece affairs. The more pieces the more potential gaps and alignment problems... You'll work it out Regards - dutik Martinnfb, Gazzas and RBrown 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted September 30, 2022 Author Share Posted September 30, 2022 (edited) So... tucking in again... I added MG 131's. I will later have to clip the breech ends to fit the rear cowl blisters. Oil cooler... not really sure if I needed it... joined the two rear-half blister pieces and cursed again having to fix that seam that has angered me on every 109 kit. Edited September 30, 2022 by Gazzas daHeld, Pastor John, Uncarina and 6 others 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted September 30, 2022 Author Share Posted September 30, 2022 After a bit of thought, I am prepared accept that perhaps there may have been a place where I lengthened the cockpit section somehow. But I cannot imagine where it may have happened. Operator error, so to speak. I have two options. I can either lengthen the cowls... it will be messy and time consuming. or... I can shorten the engine mounts. This will weaken the structure... but perhaps with some backing, I can make it strong enough to survive. LSP_Matt and Pastor John 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazzas Posted September 30, 2022 Author Share Posted September 30, 2022 A friend at another forum showed me that his cowl fit OK. So, I must have messed it up somewhere. Current progress. Seam work and sink marks next before I add any more parts. The panels are doing all of the work here. I used a big blob of blutack to hold the motor in-situ while I glued the engine where I want it. The blutack is now a permanent part of the model. So... I guess we can consider this a what-to-do-if-you-screw-it-up post. LSP_Matt, MikeMaben, RBrown and 10 others 11 1 1 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