Wumm

K-4 radio hatch is definitely not parallel along the horizontal axis', however I do not believe it is due to the internal stringers. The top edge seems horizontal, however the bottom is the one that narrows as it goes further towards the rear... As this edge is close to the centreline of the fuselage, it cannot be due to the internals which would run perpendicular to the vertical seams at this point. It almost appears as if the bottom edge becomes horizontal when the aircraft is sitting on all 3 wheels, the tailwheel extended as it was for the K-4. This may be a factor, in that a mechanic working inside the fuselage would have a flat surface to lean over. Now that the sprue shots have been posted, I'm even more puzzled by the positioning of the top cowling insert. The construction may have been simplified with the addition of one-piece fuselage parts, but filling that top cowl seam so close to the actual seam engraved into the plastic is going to give many modellers fits I have no doubt. http://hyperscale.com/2014/reviews/kits/p7hg_img_12/fullsize/BTK_3836_fs.jpg Not to mention, they re-tooled the entire fuselage... But repeated the port side cockpit vent position error! S

This is the radio access hatch on the port fuselage, not the luggage hatch behind the pilot's head Matt?

Lots of nice large scale stuff there... And to such a high standard too. But Yo, whassup with that King Tiger? Word to ya Mutter. S

Matt, The K-4 standardised the larger 115 litre MW50 tank into the rear fuselage, larger than the original 80 litre GM-1/MW50 tank first introduced with the earlier G-series aircraft. With the K-4, much of the internal apparatus within the fuselage was also re-organised, and the fuel and MW-50 fill points were moved to the fuselage station immediately above the MW-50 tank. I believe the extra clearance required by these fill points meant that the width of station #2 needed to be increased towards the top to accommodate them. As the G-10 was meant to bring G-series airframes to K-4 standard, it seems logical to suggest that these airframes were also made wider at the same station as this was now the mandated pattern, even though re-manufactured G-series fuselages would already have their fuel filler points in-situ. Note the WNF G-10 airfame W.Nr.611943 in this photo; and the clear difference between the top of the seam immediately behind the cockpit, and the shape of all other seams along the rear fuselage... http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/611943/611943_5.jpg Although Hasegawa perhaps exaggerated the square shape on their 1/32nd scale G-10 and K-4 kits, it certainly was a different shape to the standard G-series aircraft. However, much like the myth about the Hasegawa kits being 2mm short in the nose, it's often repeated by those who haven't bothered to look for themselves. And yes... If the Revell Erla kit only includes the larger over-wing bulges, then it seems as if the internal wheel well details will reflect that larger bulge, and will therefore be incorrect for the vast majority of actual Erla airframes. S

Yes Nick, Erla G-10's almost exclusively exhibit what is generally known as the "Type 110" cowl. This number was part of a system devised by Jean-Claude Mermet some years ago, whereby he attributed numbers consisting of multiples of ten to the various different types of cowlings found throughout the range of Messerschmitt Bf109G and K airframes (10, 20, and so on...). This was a general guide only, with the usual anomalies that the Luftwaffe occasionally throws up, but the thrust of the research was that the particular sub-variant and manufacturer of any given airframe could be identified by the variations in the cowling and forward fuselage area, if the particular Werk Nummer was unknown. The Erla factory went their own way with their interpretation of the DB605D-powered Bf109. Erla G-10's were in service before the K-4 variant, whereas MTT and WNF G-10's came after, and were more closely based on the K-4. The Erla variants featured the rectangular panel on the port side under the windscreen, where other G-10's featured the familiar scallop of varying shape, depending on the manufacturer. The starboard side featured a scallop in this position, which was more shallow than other types and also not as far protruding from the cockpit side wall. The actual engine cowling sat higher than on other types, eliminating the need for the small bulges needed to clear the MG131's. The sides were more streamlined, the gun troughs were deeper and began further forward than on other G-10's. The panel lines on these cowls were also different, starting at the height of the gun platform, and tapering with a scallop to end in front of the line of sight the MG's where they met the front oil cover cowl. The bottom cowling was fatter and more square in shape than on other G-10's, and tapered less toward the spinner as this cowl needed to cover the forward oil lines of the DB605D engine - This area on other G-10's and K-4's was covered by the characteristic bulges usually seen here. As the Erla bottom cowl sat lower in this area, the lower front cowl featured a subtle concave shape as it made the transition from bottom cowl to spinner. Therefore, almost every panel forward of the firewall, as well as the two on either side forward of the cockpit, were completely different than on any other G-10 variant. There are other distinguishing features as well, if the cowling is obscured in photos. Erla G-10's for the most part retained the pilot's oxygen supply fill point in the usual G-series position, rather than in the underwing fill point introduced on the G-14 in July 1944. There is usually an extra small hatch seen on the starboard fuselage on station 3, for access to the MW50 tank within. Also regarding the this tank, Erla G-10's feature the standard fuselage shape at the top rear of the canopy as seen on the G-6 variant, and not the wider and more square shape of the K-4 and the other manufacturer's G-10 versions that were based on this wider pattern. HTH... Steve.

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

Thanks Paul, Mike... For your consideration. S

Question... Just figures pertaining to Armour and associated subjects, or Aircraft as well? 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