Jump to content
The Great LSM Twins Group Build ends July 3, 2024 ×

New built-up test shots of Revell Erla G-10


Mikester

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Steve

 

Obviously we'll have to wait and see (not that long either), but I'm not sure it's going to compete with Steve Gallacci's nose he did for Eagle Editions (of which I have a couple). But then it isn't probably meant to...  I don't know the subtleties of the Erla nose that well... I have a decent drawing that Steve made available some years ago... I'll be very interested to hear your views when we have sprue shots...

 

The scoops look like they may be a factory re-tool...? and my understanding was that the gun spacing wasn't going to be corrected - but Revell may have had a change of heart. Wheel bumps are a pain. As you say, the Erla machines generally had the G-6 type kidney shaped bumps.. So.. maybe we'll have to cross kit wings to do one of the rare G-6/14s with large wing bumps...

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas on LSP says the new fuselage is 'solid' moulding - i.e. not with the side panels that caused some hassle.....

 

That does  mean the cowl should be more accurate than if it just had new side panels and gun deck.... let's see...

 

It's a bit of a disappointment that the large wing bulges are wrong shape at rear.... they apparently terminate in a full semi circular shape when it should in fact be more 'blunt' - if that makes sense...

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding VERY stupid, this new kit - is it the so-called '110 cowling'?

 

For those not familiar, here is a paragraph from a Scott van Aitken build and, whilst I am sure any inaccuracies can be pointed out, hopefully it at least clarifies what I am on about!

 

"The G-10 did have two different types of cowlings. The real way to tell the difference between the two is to look at the left side of the fuselage just under the windscreen. The most common type had a fairing that curved on the underside. This is the 'type 100' cowling. If you have built the Revell 1/48 Bf-109G-10, or the new Hasegawa 1/32 Bf-109G-10, then you've built one with the type 100 cowling. The other, which is what is on this conversion, is 'taller' and flat. It does not have a curve and extends the full height of the fuselage. These 'type' numbers were not used by the factory but are a concoction of Jean-Claude Mermet, who did the ground breaking research on this several years back."

 

Answers on a postcard please (as they used to say a LONG time ago!)

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

 

You say:

 

"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."

 

Are you saying that the fuselage spine changed shape behind the canopy on the K-4 and 'non-Erla' G-10 aircraft? I'm not saying I don't believe this, but I've never heard anyone else say so... in fact this is surely the 'error' that is cited on the Hasegawa K-4 and G-10. What do you base this notional 'wider pattern' spine on? It'd be great if this is the case, as it'd mean no correcting all those Hasegawa G-10 and K-4 kits I have... :).  I've just looked at some photos of G-10 and K-4 forward spines and they do look wider and the fill points look to be on a closer to horizontal surface than with the G-6 which is closer to vertical. I'm amazed I've been so blind and casually accepted people saying the Hasegawa depiction is wrong, because it looks like it's correct.

 

Why did the spine shape change..? Seems like a strange decision to make that late in the day? Bigger MW50 tank... same tank mounted higher in fuselage...? I'm intrigued....

 

Back to the wing bumps, I also suspect that the way Revell will have done them will look wrong - i.e. theye will show through the wheel bay as the large elongated inner surface of the bump. One the actual aircraft, the bump was only a fairing and cover a hole in the original wing's upper skin to allow the wheel to project through it. Here's a photo of a G-10 wheel bay to illustrate:

 

12162334766_ba4ef8a7c5_o.jpg
 
So what you are seeing is the 'kidney' shaped cut out in the wing's upper skin, and through the resulting hole you can see the inside of the large wing bulge. With Hasegawa's depiction (ie add on bulge) you can replicate this nicely.... I'm concerned that Revell will have a view straight up into the fairing's full extent. So we'd have to put a sheet of plastic in, with the cutout, to replicate the missing wing skin - hope that makes sense.

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

 

Well, a hearty thank you for pointing that out - and an important lesson in looking and actually seeing .. :).

 

In that vein, despite being told that the repositioned access hatch on the K-4 is square (after being depicted otherwise in earlier drawings), I still think it looks like it reduces in height front to rear, not by a lot but by some. I wondered why this would be and came up with the thought that the stringers aren't parallel, so to fit a new hatch without re-engineering the stringers, it'd have to narrow slightly.

 

Any thoughts on that...?

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of interest, what markings are (already) out there for this variant?

 

There is the old Cutting Edge set 32060 with the nice chequers which may or may not still be available...

 

Also, any books that focus on the Erla G-10? Did Japo do anything for instance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Out of interest, what markings are (already) out there for this variant?

 

There is the old Cutting Edge set 32060 with the nice chequers which may or may not still be available...

 

Also, any books that focus on the Erla G-10? Did Japo do anything for instance?

 

There's a couple of Cutting Edge sheets that feature Erla G-10's and the Skydecals sheet for Italian 109's has at least one.  BarracudaCals and EagleCals have both announced some new sheets to support this kit as well.  I'm wondering if they knew this kit only comes with the large style wing bulges though.

 

http://www.hyperscale.com/2013/reviews/decals/barracudacalsbc32144previewbg_1.htm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, sorry.

 

The radio access is what my question relates to.

 

I've seen that the K-4 appears to have a different shaped luggage hatch as well.. squarer, isn't it?

 

Matt

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

 

I just took delivery of mine and as you say I cannot understand what Revell were thinking with the seams around the nose! As you've pointed out, the parts are separated very close to the panel line (why not do it actually ON the panel line?). In addition the seam goes right through the correctly higher CWSD opening and then to the rear of the part you showed there are small parts of the panel below again. The whole upper part could have been created to run along panels and need no/very little work. As it is, they've almost chosen the worst possible path for the seam... madness!

 

Can't give too much away (got a review to do) but there are some nice touches again, including the way they've treated the internal view of the large wheel fairings. As we feared, no smaller kidney shaped wing parts included...

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh, do tell!

 

Can't give too much away (got a review to do)...

I think Nick may have let the cat out of the bag elsewhere... Another group review perhaps? I would have liked to get in on the ground floor of that one, as I'm still not sure I'm at the point where I want to part with my own cash for one just yet.

 

Are you in need of some intel, or do you have it in hand?

 

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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