Wumm

A completely new forward fuselage makes sense, as all of the panels from the firewall forward are different to any other Bf109 variant. What doesn't make any sense, is carrying over the cockpit fresh air vent position error that we know Revell knew about. This means that we're probably going to have this error carry over through the life of the moulds. However this should simplify assembly... provided the panel lines won't need re-scribing (as the test build seems to show). The missing small wing bulges... is a glaring omission. The shape of the rear of the large bulges bothers me less than the fact that Revell didn't even bother to look closely at the available photographs of the Hartmann machine or put those already available parts into the kit. Much of that lovely underside detail in the wheel bay will be wrong for the majority of Erla G-10's. One of the perceived advantages of the Revell G-6 kit over the Hasegawa offering, was that modellers were given a choice of canopies so that more variety was available and a second kit didn't have to be purchased... Revell are now doing what Hasegawa was criticised for. Still wanting to look more closely at the cowl shape, gun troughs and the panel lines. Sprue shots of this kit seem not to exist anywhere. There is a question about the positioning of the CWSD hatch on the starboard side cowling as well. There has been talk elsewhere about the canopy locking bar at the rear of the canopy, this part seems correct, the attachment with the side vents was specific to pressurised G-5 examples, and whereas it may have been used as a replacement canopy on some subsequent airframes it was not typically seen on Erla G-10's. But as stated before, all this stuff won't bother most people. It looks good enough and the price point is an advantage in most markets. Just not mine unfortunately... S

Well, now that the kit's out and now available (on Ebay.de at least...) We find that Revell feature the Hartmann Erla G-10 in their markings options and as the publicity build-up for this kit, and now it comes out that the small wing kidney bulges that photos clearly show are on the Hartmann machine are not included amongst the parts count of the kit. This despite these sprues being already available from the G-6 kit. It's going to be interesting to see the final parts layout. S

Lovely weathering David, I look forward to seeing her in the flesh @ QMHE later in the year. Steve.

A lovely treatment Ralph, as per usual! Steve.

Well Nick, When a consultant directly involved in the project, later writes a "How to build" book on the specific kit, and recommends that those buying the kit should source parts from a rival manufacturer to fix the errors in the kit, it's an indictment on the quality of the research and the priorities of the manufacturer. Here's hoping the Spitfire fans get a better deal from Revell. S

Yes, it does look good... Sprue shots would have been a lot better to see, rather than Dieter's built version. It's a little hard to see the true position of the upper cowl demarcation line, which seems to be a tad low on the port side and doesn't follow the correct curve towards the front. This line has been re-scribed above the compressor intake, and also at the front where it meets the upper oil tank cowl - without sprue shots it's impossible to tell whether this is done to cover detail errors, or from imprecise build fundamentals. Also unknown is whether the hollowed-out cowl scoops and gun trough width error have been modified by the builder. Wing upper bulges are not representative for the majority of Erla G-10's, so two sets of bulges and wing inserts will be required to be in the kit. Other small detail errors from the base G-6 kit also appear to have been carried over. However, for the majority of Modellers this will look enough like an Erla G-10 to not cause any major concerns. Looking forward to seeing some sprue shots to get a better view of the details. Steve.

Erm... Because there's no equivalent new-tool version from a rival manufacturer from which to source parts to fix the errors caused by cost cutting and lousy research! Ooh... too soon? S

To Brad and Ian. (BradG and IMatt) Well, Brad it's actually tomorrow for you by now, but hope at least a little of yesterday was spent perched in front of the English shemozzle. Cheers Fellas, Steve.

That's some nice P/E there Rick... A very different alternative to a resin replacement cockpit. And yes, not a Schwarm, the 4 aircraft tactic pioneered by Werner Mölders... But a Kette (which is also the german word for chain.) As in, 3 aircraft linked in formation, a tactic which goes back to the Great War. S

Well Joe, Many of us, from time to time, feel like we have sausage fingers... At least you have a genuine reason! I'm in much the same boat as you, coming off a major health scare over the last 18 months. A new year means a new start, and life is mostly to be lived between the peaks and the troughs. So get building Buddy! Steve.

Thanks Rick, But $65 shipping to Australia is a bit steep. Hopefully it's a better deal in other parts of the world. S

Hmmm... BMW stickers, on the 'Benz powered Bf109. What else would you expect from the people who destroyed the Mazda Furai? Pfft... Amateurs!

Put me down for... Do217N Fw189 He115 Hs129 Me410 I know that two of these have been kitted in limited resin recently, but I'm not meant to actually touch the stuff. Also would be very interested in more "build-friendly" versions of the Macchi 200/202/205 series which would share many common sprues between these variants, should that be a consideration. S

George, I don't think the Revell kit is being unfairly maligned on this or any other site. I see more of the Revell kits being built here than the others. The Revell kit has errors for sure, but does other things better than the 1/32nd scale G-6's from the other two manufacturers. Are we now only allowed to point out the good things, and not the bad? Aren't we allowed to make our own choices, for our own particular circumstances? Would they be people involved in the 1/32nd scale Revell Bf109G-6 project Mike? Putting down Trumpeter's offerings, while defending the Revell kit for the same failings? I particularly like the part where Lynn says... "It does not cost any more to do something RIGHT than it does to do it WRONG." http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1349894239/Actually%2C+I+fully+agree+with+you. Prophetic words indeed! Not probably, actually. Just look at the angle of the thrust line for starters. I could go on, but it might offend people's sensibilities... S

I don't think so Erik... http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=39126#entry379133 Steve.

La version Française de 2004, mon ami!

Yeah, But it's pretty close to the Montex illustration. With those specific markings and the yellow spinner tip, there had to be a photo about somewhere. Frank (Daywalker) ended up painting his G-6 three times... It's all the rage now apparently! S

And, here we go... Credited to Lorant and Goyat, used without permission for the purposes of limited research. S

Beautiful work Frank, After three great finishes, you got there in the end, and the results are spectacular. Steve.

Good Morning Ralph, You've been busy! Lovely fine airbrush work all around and, as always, sound build fundamentals. http://www.flickr.com/photos/28092068@N03/7864051584/in/set-72157631642098014/ Let me know if the link doesn't work, and I'll try and take a grab of it from Marc's site. Cheers, Steve.

There is always another option George... Don't buy it. After all, as part of the 5%, they don't care what I think. The easiest thing in the world to do, is nothing. I have over a dozen Hasegawa 109G kits in the stash, why would I spend $50 plus Au per Revell kit to replace what I already have in my possesion, that will still need extra work to get them to the standard I enjoy? Where's the incentive? S

Hi Rog, "Yellow 13" appears to be Bf109G-2/R1 of Wilhelm Crinius, 3./JG53, Tunisia January 1943. W.Nr.10804. http://www.modelforum.cz/download/file.php?id=590436 http://www.modelforum.cz/download/file.php?id=590435 "Black <" is the G-4/Trop of Heinz Edgar Berres, I./JG77, Tunisia January 1943. http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109G/JG77-Berres/pages/Bf-109G2Trop-Stab-I.JG77-%28+-Heinz-Edgar-Berres-Tunisia-1942.html "Black <-+-" is unknown to me, but may be this one: http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/display.php?lang=de&auth=e&name=version_display&fotonummer=2628 There are lots of other aftermarket options for markings as well. This variant also flown by Bär. Graf, Grislawski, Rall, Hartmann, Ehrler, Müller etc. Steve.

Interesting... If Revell aren't worried about what the 5% think, at least BG is! Which is probably a truer indication of the state of play. And rightly so. I actually thought of emailing Revell as soon as the news came out about the Erla G-10. I figured it might be better to give them some pointers, rather than complain about it afterwards. However I see that they've repeated the gun width errors of the G-6, the gun trough openings are too far back, and the upper panel break appears wrong too... just on the one cowl piece shown. More worrying is the fact that Andreas says it won't be fixed, so there seems little point now. I wonder whether the Spitfire Boffins will be treated better? S

I can't imagine what this might have to do with the subject of this thread... Is it some kind of medical apparatus you might use in your particular line of work? Or perhaps something you come across in another hobby you might have? S

I understand your point of view George... But I don't share your opinion. This thread is about attitude. Whether or not we should be humbled by the fact that as serious modellers, we are only a small cog in the wheel of overall sales of model kits. However, I believe that it's the manufacturers who also need the reality check. For instance... I have two Revell 1/32nd scale JU-88 kits. One was bought online from a UK site, and the other was sourced locally at a Hobby store here in Brisbane, Australia. As I was not asked anything about my modelling habits or even my plans for these kits when I bought them, I fail to see how Revell could possibly know whether I frequent certain Modelling websites, am a member of the LEMB for instance, or how much if any aftermarket I had bought for these kits or modifications I had in mind for them. And if they're not asking about my modelling habits or preferences, I find it very hard to believe they're asking the majority of their end customers, and I therefore dispute the accuracy of this magical 5% number. Which leads my to belief that it's a question of attitude. Not mine, but Revell's. They're the one's trying to make a living from the hobby, not I. And as I stated earlier, I am less worried about the inaccuracies of a particular kit, than the attitude of the manufacturer towards a segment of their market that represents repeat sales. At the other end of this equation is Zoukei Mura. Their proprieter exhibits passion for the hobby. Their research team visits the actual aircraft to, for the most part, get the details right. And even though the cost of their kits are significant, I don't mind paying it because of the attention to detail built into the product. Compare that to Revell's last effort: First we were getting an engine included, then that fell by the wayside. Then they visited an airframe, only it was the Speyer G-4 with the narrow MG17 gun troughs and no cockpit vent, and they guessed the position of the vent, gun troughs, the beulen and other aspects of the airframe. Then they assembled a team of 6 knowledgable individuals to help with the research, and ignored a significant amount of that information and expertise for the sake of cost cutting. Well, some things are more important than the bottom line. I would rather save for 6 months for a single Zoukei Mura kit, than buy a single Revell product for a sixth the price; because one manufacturer wants my business, and the other thinks I don't matter. Can you guess which is which? Steve.