login   |    register
World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
REVIEW
1:48 Finnish Bf 109G-6
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,297 posts
Armorama: 902 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 08:34 AM UTC


Matthew Quiroz (Red 4) looks at UM's quarterscale Gustav in Finnish service.

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
Removed by original poster on 06/16/09 - 21:15:57 (GMT).
Emeritus
Visit this Community
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
Armorama: 808 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 10:17 AM UTC
Nice review.

Although I don't have all the references I'd like at hand, I can still answer to some of the questions raised in the text based on what I do have.

You mentioned there are markings for the bombs in the kit, I presume there is a similar (or the same) decal sheet also having stencils, as on the earlier German boxing of the kit? I'm under the impression that the planes in Finnish service rather quickly received Finnish language stenciling, so one might want to check their references.

I wonder why there is only decal options mentioned in the instructions, as the decal sheet also includes markings for MT-437. The lynx's head and yellow number nine should go the tail, like this. (< that's my somewhat recently finished 1:72 kit of the same particular aircraft)
Continuing with the decals, the national markings look fine, but should have the backgrounds painted with the so called "DN color" (~RLM 65) by the timeframe given in the instructions. (the order for the dimming was given January 1944)

I'm not sure whether there was a distinct "early" or "late" type of the G6, but yes, some of the later production aircraft received the wooden, taller wooden tail & rudder (the same as later 109 variants, like G10 and K4), hence their inclusion in the kit.
The painting and marking guide has the planes' tail configuration correct, so choose your parts according to that. Also, choose your canopy following the markings guide. (note that MT-451 shows the correct canopy in the sideview drawings, the Erla type)
The wing cannon pods were originally fitted to MT-451, as correctly shown in the markings guide. (The pods were removed from many planes during the war to increase maneuverability. IIRC, they were removed from MT-451 too at some in the summer of 1944)

Every G6 came with the 300 litre fuel tank mounts, but they were usually removed from aircraft not doing missions requiring longer flying times (like night fighting for example).
Some Finnish G6s were also fitted with the bomb racks, but unfortunately I don't have references about them at the moment.

I hope this helps.




Edit: let's try again, my whole post didn't show for some reason.
Yes, it worked now.
Red4
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: April 01, 2002
KitMaker: 4,285 posts
Armorama: 1,867 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 11:53 AM UTC
Eetu, perhaps this one should have gone to you. Thanks for the assist on the tail info. I went thru my meager references, but couldn't glean that much info on the tail hence my disclaimer. The kit looks like it will build into a nice model provided all that engine detail fits etc. Hopefully I can find out first hand here shortly. My "Honey Do" list is getting shorter as the days go by. Thanks again for your input. "Q"
CMOT70
Visit this Community
Victoria, Australia
Joined: August 23, 2007
KitMaker: 629 posts
Armorama: 26 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 03:18 PM UTC
Thanks for the review, i've seen these around and wondered what they're like- wasn't sure if they were some ancient re-box of another product or something totally new. And they are priced quite well...and the only real competion in the scale is still the Hasegawa kit and the old Revell/Monogram .

My first thought on the seperate wing tips was maybe it's a half hearted attempt at allowing for earlier versions (with square wing tips added). But of course it can't be...they had totally different flaps as well, so the lower wing could not be used just by adding square tips! So it does seem totally pointless.

If i saw these sprues without seeing the box first, i'd say i was looking at a Roden kit...

Andrew
LongKnife
Visit this Community
Jönköping, Sweden
Joined: April 25, 2006
KitMaker: 831 posts
Armorama: 41 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 06:42 PM UTC
This one seems like a nice alternative to expensive aftemarket parts if you want to build a 109 showing the engine. I'll snatch one as soon as I can.

One possible reason for molding the wingtips separately might be tool size. I'm not too familiar with UM, but I get the feeling they've been concentrating on 1:72 before. What's better if you want to go to 1:48 than a 109?

Tony
SGTJKJ
#041
Visit this Community
Kobenhavn, Denmark
Joined: July 20, 2006
KitMaker: 9,731 posts
Armorama: 4,576 posts
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009 - 12:53 AM UTC
Interesting review. UM has released quite a lot of these Bf 109 versions. I am considering to acquire one of these to see for myself. I have a couple of extra cockpits, so it should not be a problem. The engine and weapons lay our is a plus.
Emeritus
Visit this Community
Uusimaa, Finland
Joined: March 30, 2004
KitMaker: 2,845 posts
Armorama: 808 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:49 AM UTC
Hi again!

Sorry for posting this so late, but I didn't remember I had this in my bookmarks: Details and peculiarities of FAF Messerschmitt Bf-109 G-6s. Should prove useful for people building FAF G-6s.
(Re)Found that on Backwoods landing strip while looking for some references.