as the usual i started with the cockpit, for a change i got the photo etched levers to actually stay glued in place. the foot pedals did fall off though and i lost one and the other broke in half but you can’t see them anyway when complete so i am not that concerned.
I then decided to skip ahead and build up the engine. i assembled the engine and then painted it instead of pre painting before assembling, i still need to add the exhaust. i had thought there was an option to leave some engine panels off to show the engine but the directions do not show any option for this. i suppose when building up the cowl i can see if i can leave one panel off. my original plan was to do a maintenance dio with mechanics working on the engine and one technician on the wing servicing the cannon. with that in mind i plan to leave the left cannon wing bay open and close the right. I’ve read closing the wing canon bay doors on this kit is tricky to get right, i will see. i have not decided if i will display the cowl gun cover opened or closed yet.
Question for the experts on german RLM paints. the directions color callout was for gunze aqueous H 70 RLM 02 which is what i used but it seems light to me compared to tamiya’s RLM 02. was there a late war version of RLM 02 like there was for RLM 76? I am not sure which shade of 02 is right.
That’s all for now more updates to follow.
Joe
Tamiya RLM 02? you thinking of Tamiya RLM grey XF-22? if so it looks close enough to me I am no pro. I am going with the Mr. Color RLM 02 #60 grey lacquer paint. maybe consider Mission Models MMP-056 grau RLM 02? if you prefer a less toxic product.
yes the xf 22 in comparison to the H70 which is i believe the acrylic version of the mr color # 60. i like the shade of the xf 22 better but i want to be accurate and was wondering if the xf 22 was tamiya’s version of a late war 02 or did they just get it wrong.
ME109 at a museum in Austria supposedly RLM02? I prefer references from museums, they typically do intense research. That being said who really knows for sure? how faded is this particular fighter? My father was in the USAAF WW2 so I take a great interest in war birds.
not sure what version this is, from a museum in Wiener Neustadt Austria. Very interesting, I do not know everything about 109s but I sure like to learn
you can’t always go by restored aircraft in museums. a lot of the times they get it wrong. granted it is difficult to find documentation on not only the paint but also equipment but also some institutions just don’t bother doing the required research.
Joe
The bulge on the cowling, split between the fuselage and the engine cover, identified it as a G; I guessed it was a G6 and went to look up museum websites for the city to confirm it.
I have to say this is one of the worst kits i have built in a while.
look at this wing root gap, this is to date the worst gap i have ever had to deal with. i am surprised with eduard, i guess they did not bother with quality control with this kit.
as you can see since last update i glued the wings on. i also got the engine installed and test fit the cowl and gun cover. i forgot to take pictures so i will get them posted next update. subpar fit to say the least. the gun mounts are too high and will not let the cover fit properly. i had to gut away the offending plastic in order to get the cover to fit in place. i guess i will not be able to have both options of an open and closed cover.
Joe
Hi Joe… Just offering my 2cents… did you check the dihedral of the wings? It’s the first thing I look at when there’s a wing root gap and I find pulling the outer edges of the wings up and pushing the fuselage down, often closes up all but the most stubborn of wing root gaps…
yes i did. the dihedral didn’t look bad. i am looking at the mounting points of the landing gear too and i can see that i am going to have issues on that left side too. if you compare the gaps on both wing roots you can see that left wing has a huge gap at the trailing edge compared to the leading edge almost like the top wing is on crooked but the rest of the wing lines up with the bottom. the right wing is the same but not as bad. i think it is just poor engineering on eduard’s part. theyknow this, probably why they made a whole new tool of the 190. now they need to do the same for their 109 E.
Joe
At least Eduard learnt from their mistakes then… There’s quite a few model companies that would not even entertain the idea of rectifying their errors…