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 Messerschmitt Bf 110G-2
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,297 posts
Armorama: 902 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 04:37 AM UTC


Here's a look at the first of Eduard's "late-version" Bf 110 series - the 'G2 day-fighter and ground attack variant.

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,375 posts
Armorama: 7,967 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 07:27 AM UTC
Good review, and it's about time there was a kit that didn't need $100 worth of AM stuff to make it decent.
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,297 posts
Armorama: 902 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 11:38 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Good review, and it's about time there was a kit that didn't need $100 worth of AM stuff to make it decent.



Hi Bill

Well, I'm sure the aftermarket companies will still find ways to try to entice us to splash out on extra goodies (and, as I say, I do think replacement mainwheels are needed), but it's a great kit in my opinion. I'll take it with me when I go on holiday to do a little prep work on if it pours with rain.

All the best

Rowan
alpha_tango
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: September 07, 2005
KitMaker: 5,609 posts
Armorama: 264 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 11:56 PM UTC
Re Wheels

I am not sure about this: was there another change after the D/E ? The E have larger wheels than the Cs (see e.g. Vasco for measures) (BTW the D just had a larger tail wheel)

IMO Marek of AeroCast got the measures pretty good in 48 scale and on his sets he mentions that these are useable through to the G series (does not need to be true though)

cheers

Steffen
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,297 posts
Armorama: 902 posts
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009 - 09:59 AM UTC
Hi Steffen

I've gone by the Kagero books that state that the Bf 110F introduced larger mainwheels - 935 x 345 mm, as against 875x 320mm for the 'C, 'D and 'E. Eduard's match the plans for the smaller size. The tyres certainly seem more bulbous in photos and, so far, all the ones I've found seem to show smooth tyres.

All the best

Rowan
alpha_tango
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: September 07, 2005
KitMaker: 5,609 posts
Armorama: 264 posts
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009 - 10:11 AM UTC
Hi Rowan

Well, the Kageros are nice, but I would rather trust John Vasco [Messerschmitt Bf110 C,D and E; An Illustrated Study]:

B to C: main wheels: 815x290mm to 875x320mm (pg.71)

C to D. tail wheel: 350x135 to 465x165 (pg.105)

D to E: main wheels 875x320 to 935x345 (new larger hub; pg. 126)

As I already wrote you, I like the review and this is not criticizing it!

cheers

Steffen
P.S: did you do the math and check the data against the drawings?
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,297 posts
Armorama: 902 posts
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009 - 10:29 AM UTC
Hi Steffen

I'd always trust John's work over Kagero , but I'm also going by my old Mk.1 eyeballs - the 'Gs mainwheels do look different in all the photos I've found so far.

I've got to go now - there's plenty of packing still to do so I can head off in the morning.

All the best

Rowan
alpha_tango
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: September 07, 2005
KitMaker: 5,609 posts
Armorama: 264 posts
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009 - 10:38 AM UTC
Hi Rowan

enjoy your vacation!

cheers

Steffen
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,375 posts
Armorama: 7,967 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 04:00 AM UTC
The G had several obvious physical changes over earlier variants, especially Dragon's C-7 which I'm building in 1/32nd scale, including:

1.) larger "balloon" wheels (mostly smooth or with minor seams);

2.) larger rear vertical control surfaces (to improve on the 110s poor maneuverability);

3.) a slight increase in length (the markings for the fuselage segments on the G go up to 19, while stopping at 18 on the C) which I believe started with the D;

4.) a "hump" in the engine nacelles;

5.), and most noticable of all - larger prop blades and spinners (similar to the 109 G).

There are some minor differences, such as a wing tip-mounted pitot tube (not sure when the underwing version was abandoned), moving the directional radio beacon from the belly to the canopy top, etc.

There are also numerous changes to handle its new role as a night fighter, including the famous exhaust covers that look more like organ pipes and which give the G-4 its distinctive look.

The armament changed, too, with cannons replacing MGs in the nose, but it's hard to generalize, since the Luftwaffe experimented with a variety of AA solutions, including wing-mounted rockets. Most of that went away once the Allied bombers began getting escorts, as the underwing-mounted rockets and cannon nacelles slowed down the already cumbersome 110s even more.
alpha_tango
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: September 07, 2005
KitMaker: 5,609 posts
Armorama: 264 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 04:41 AM UTC
Hi Bill

I am not sure, but maybe you are missing the point in the small discusion between Rowan and me. He made a lot of comments in his review and most are o.k. to me (He is on vacation, so he cannot comment on this, but he surely will answer later.) We only have a small problem: the wheels.

Rowan wrote that the wheels are correct for a C/D (ref. Kagero) but too small for later ones. He also puts the size increase starting with the F series. So we would need new AM wheels to build the G-2?!

In my opinion: Eduard got the wheels wrong. Too large for a C/D and too small for E onwards (based on Vasco see above). So in my opinion you will need AM wheels in any case, but you can used those for the E on your G model. (e.g. from Aerocast aka Hangar48).

Everything else (not mentioned in the review) is up to further investigation

all the best

Steffen

bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,375 posts
Armorama: 7,967 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 01:02 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I am not sure, but maybe you are missing the point in the small discusion between Rowan and me.


Ouch, Steffen!

Just trying to be helpful.
alpha_tango
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: September 07, 2005
KitMaker: 5,609 posts
Armorama: 264 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 07:24 PM UTC
Hi Bill

Well, I did/do not want to be disrespectful! Most of the stuff you mentioned was already discussed in the review, thus I just wanted to make at least my point clearer.

all the best

Steffen
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,375 posts
Armorama: 7,967 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 04:34 AM UTC
No disrespect, Steffen, but we'll agree to disagree on that. The review is very thorough, but my point was to distill down to an essence the differences between the early 110 and the G variants. If that is not useful to you or any other reader, I would suggest just ignoring it. The G night fighter is my focus in airplanes right now, so I'm a bit obsessive about it.
alpha_tango
Visit this Community
Germany
Joined: September 07, 2005
KitMaker: 5,609 posts
Armorama: 264 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 05:06 AM UTC
Hello Bill

Well this is a thread that advertizes the Bf 110 G-2 review of the Eduard kit. I got once severly burned because i dared to broaden the focus .. no need to excavate this. You are in the Staff so you surely are free to do whatever suits you.

In my opinion all the differences between the Bf110 versions are not necessarily to be included in the thread and one or another of your list might be open to discussion (e.g. rudder size). If you think Rowan missed something in his review: point it out! .. or maybe write an own review of the kit, if you totally disagree.

As for your list and you taking my comment as offense against you: I am not very keen to go through all my refs to comment on it. I just felt that I should point out, that the review is very good in my opinion and that the only small nitpick was what I posted above. That's all.

We are very OT at the moment. If you feel to discuss this further, we should use PM or email. My address is in my profile.

all the best

Steffen