Hasegawa 1/32 109G-6y

Frank,

I've never built a 109 and am not an expert on them but I do have one question about the finish and another thing to point out.

1. Are the wheel wells supposed to be a satin finish like that?
2. There looks to be the slightest hint of a seam at the forward part of the wing root in the first picture. It could just be the picture or my eyes.

Overall, nice job and great pics.

WOW


What awesome pics! I thought the first pic was that of a real one for a minute!


I'd just have to second Bryans opinions here, the wing root does show a bit of a seam here, but otherwise, great model!

Man I wish I could take pictures like that!

Frank-

First off, I want to say that your 109 looks great! Well built, painted, and photographed... I like the sequence of pictures you have displayed. Very enjoyable viewing!

My question, if I may? What modifications did you do to this kit? I take it that it is not an out of the box model :-) I have been looking at getting the Hasegawa 109G myself, and was wondering what aftermarket products you may have used on yours, and if there are any that you would NOT recommend?

Thanks-
Jeff

PS - Super job on the kit.... It looks really good!

Hi FrankC, welcome to Armorama,
Awsome first post and an awsome 109 model. If this wasn't a critics corner I would have nothing more to add, but as you have provided such close up and clear pics I must say there are just a couple of things that stand out.
1. The rear, fixed part of the canopy, is a little ill fitting with glue showing. The front part looks like part of the aircraft.
2. The groundwork is very well done, but the base is to small. I realise it's only for display purposes, but, to me anyway, it looks as if your excellant model is clinging on for dear life.
The camo is very well done and I like the oil stains from the front of the engine. Thanks for sharing.
Mal

Very nice 109.. I have to agree with Holdfast on some of the pointers .. And wasn't the gunpod supposed to be removable so there would be a seam there??? The oil stains are a nice touch that you don't see very often.... Overall, I'd say you did a great job..

The paint job is simply excellent, but in agreement with the others its a shame that the hard-work has been 'spoilt' if I might be so bold, for a few fairly easily fixed seams.

Fretting the basics might not be top of everyones list but given the obvious talent expended on the finish its just a bit of a shame. I like the oil-staining under the engine, you don't see that done very much, very effective.

It does show how helpful a good digital camera can be in critiquing your own work, all those little bits we think we've dealt with get thrown into sharp relief in such sharp, clear images.

Toodle-oo

The model is terrific and so is the photography.

The weathering looks great and does not appear overdone.

My only comment is the size of the photos. My screen is set for 1024x768 and I have to move the scroll bar a good bit to see the entire photos. Maybe limiting the size of the photos to about 700 - 750 pixels wide would make them easier to see.

JPEG Wizard by Pegasus, is available on the web and is a great program for resizing photos without losing any resolution.

Hey Guys thanks for the replies.

Just a few points I would like to address

1. The rear canopy wasn't firmly attached to the fusealge - in the event of emergency, a jettison lever was pulled that merely releated two catched causing the middle and rear canopy to separate from the plane. To blend the rear canopy into the airframe would look incorrect. But the real plane had a shim that ran down farther than the panel line - I didn't feel like making that - it's good enough as far as I am concerned. As to the glue comments -well the magnification makes things visible that simply aren't visible otherwise.

2. Seams - I couldn't find em - apparently you are seeing something I am not. Perhaps the subtle chipping ?

3. The starboard wing does infact have a subtle flatness to the edge. OOPS -well something to look out for next time ea? I am glad this was pointed out - I didn't even notice it.

4. Size of photos - For the most part I am going to be using 1024 for my photo closeups (not always mind you). I sized them to be fairly small for uploading, while mazimizing them for screen resolution. I realize this might not work for some - but many people now have monitors that can easily accomidate this. STM - your monitor likely can be set to a higher resolution (perhaps you weren't aware of that) Shoot me an email if you want me to explain how that works - otherwise a large monitor isn't really that expensive, and might be a worthwhile investment if you are going to mediate this group for a long time - It's very likely others will be doing this.


Otherwise I found the comments to be very helpful

thanks for taking your valuable time to check it out.

Regards,

--Frank

Jeff,
This model is mostly OOB. The only Aftermarket detail that I added was the Eduard 1/32 scale belts (which I highly recommend). I also used the magnificent Eagle Cal decals.

I added a seat backing (which I scratchbuilt) , I detailed the landing gear, gear bays, and droptank with simple bits of wire and foil. I hollowed out the exhaust stacks using my dremel and added the grab handles on the front canopy., and added the complete rivet detail.

As to aftermarket - there is so much out there I don't know what to say. I am trying to focus on the finish as a detail - even with the OOB pit it looks fine. In retrospect I wish I had added some wires and detail to the pit to make it look less OOB - but when I first glued it together I had intened to built it quickly as an OOB model.. But I don't think you need to spend much money on AM for this kit - my recommendation is built it a few times and see what you want to add.

thanks for the note
Regards,
--Frank

i have to admit that your job is very fine . clean build, nice painting and weathering and of course decaling . The oil staind and scratches add reality look and this lil seam is less than visible, but you do very nice closeups thats why we see it !!!!

And a lil further more. I bet youre an aircraft guy so i wanted to ask your experience with Hasegawa 1/32 kits like this one. Are these all on the same quality standards, i plan to build (s19} Spitfire MK VI and the {s11} Zero A6M .

Are these good models, with no problems and happy builds? that;s what i am asking , cause i wanna get them and build them for a change from all the armor staff i am doing. I like these two planes in shape and also have played some role in thw war so i thought it was nice to making them but only if they re problem free. Thanks in advance
Many years ago i remember Hasegawa was a master comany on planes but now ?

Costas





if a lil i hope i am excused ..

No I don't think so, at both forward wingroot joins I can see the remains of the join seams and there also looks to be a small gap at the back of the port cannon breech blister.

They are probably far more obvious in these lovely big images than they are on the model itself.

Toodle-oo

Costas,

The Spitfire Mk VI and the A6M are old kits, and won't fit or look as nice as this one I built. This Me-109 was released a couple of years ago - the kits you are looking at were released back in the 1970s..

They aren't "bad" kits but to make them very detailed will take some work as they are not problem free, but aren't terrible either. If all you are looking for is a super kit OOB that you can paint I HIGHLY recommend you consider the Tamiya 1/32 Zero. Now that model is SUPER nice, and is well worth the $100 price tag.

Regards,

--Frank

Hi Frank, I think Scott is right about image size. It's not really a monitor size issue, I think it's an image size issue. I have a 21" monitor and your images are 'off the edge'. I resized this one by 50% to illustrate that your wing root lines are not seams that need to be filled, they were panel lines on the real a/c (clever design by Mr. Hasegawa!!).

There are other accuracy issues with the kit but that's for another time.
Mike
a
b
e
n
...however those bumps on the wing tops were pressed and should be blended with the wing surface.

Just a tip from a fellow Moderator here...

When you want to display your images, feel free to use a "width tag" on them. You can shoot them however wide you usually do, but your Forum Moderator or you yourself can set the image width for display here on Site. I recommend 500. The command looks like this:

[start arrow tag]src img="http://www.site.com/image.jpg" width="500"[close arrow tag]

This is difficult to spell out here without the software actually trying to insert an image...

Hope this helps.

Gunnie

P.S. I don't think the "wing root" seam you illustrated is the seam that everyone is talking about - check the leading edge of the wing/fuselage joint.

Gunnie,
Yes and I had to disable the old CODE effect that allowed you to place html in a post directly. There was a security risk with it.

But I think I cleaned up your post above so that someone can get the drift.

Also this issue made me rethink one aspect of the topic display, so now when a user does put in a really wide photo, the replies on subsequent posts do not stretch across the entire screen. As that was one of the really bad side-effects from this I am not as concerned about the oversized photos. But it is nice to be able to see the whole photo without scrolling.

Cheers,
Jim

Thanks Jim!

Gunnie

Thanks for the tip Gunnie.
As to the wing root seam I think I see where the problem lies. This time it is Mr. Hasegawas's fault not Frank's. If the seam is the one indicated in this pic, that too is a line that is supposed to be there. You can see what is supposed to represent a strip of riveted metal at the wing root that runs along the underside of the wing, around the leading edge and ends at the first root fairing panel line on the topside. Well for some odd reason, that strip is not continued on the top of the wing. So that line should be there, but it needs to continue around the LE to the topside.


Mike
a
b
e
n
...HTH

First of all, welcome to the site Mike Maben.

I like Mike's idea of reposting the pic with the area circled so I've done the same since I started this whole seam mess. The left side of the pic has what I thought was a seam when I posted. The right side is something that I think somebody else pointed out.

Frank, this is an excellent model and even better photography. If I'm out to lunch on the seam and am seeing things then rgr that. Keep up the good work and I look forward to your next subject.

Hey Tin_Can,
well now I feel better! The seam you are seeing isn't there. Because if you follow the kit panel seam it curves up evenly along the fuselage - in the picture it sort of goes exactly straight.

So if that is what you are talking about the horizontal seam I honestly can't see it on the model. And apparenlty a team of IPMS judges couldn't either as the model did VERY well in the contest. If you are talking about the vertical seam - that's actually a panel line (as Mike Maben was saying) and should be there - but it should wrap all the way around and go up about 1/2" over the top of the wing. It is connected, but the contrast isnt' great and it's almost invisible. As mike said - this is a mistake on Hasegawas part - the builder has to scribe that line in there. As to the Horizontal it does seem to have some bits of the seam in there but I don't see a "seam" myself. Realize this image is very heavily magnified.


The second seam you circled is likewise not a seam. If you look at the cowling of a 109F/109G4 you will see that there are no bumps. Starting with the G-5 series they installed larger machine guns in the cowling (went from Mg-17s to the 15mm guns (crap forgot the exact nomenclature of the weapon ). This new gun required some re-engineering of the spent shell casing chute. To accomidate this modification a bulge was put on the front cowling, and a matching section was riveted to the rear panel that covers the guns.

That thing you have circled is the quick release fastener for the gun cover - if anything it should be abit further back - but not much, but that isn't a seam.

But Mike did noitice that the leading edges of the wings were too flat on the starboard side - I didn't notice that at all until he mentioned it over on the old hotwash board. That is something I will have to keep track of next time.

Mike you're wrong!! The wing bulges were pressed, but were placed in cutouts in the wing skin and the lip was riveted to the bottom of the top skin. So if anything you could have a line there ;-) But I see what you mean - the beans could loose that edge they have and be better looking.

As to the image size - well you might have a 21" monitor but you're using it with a fatter resolution than I do. If you set your resolution higher the images fit fine - I use 128 x 924

I usually build one model every six months so I don't think I am going to be flooding you or anything ;-).

Again thanks for taking the time to throughly check it out.

Regards,
--Frank


[quote]First of all, welcome to the site Mike Maben.

I like Mike's idea of reposting the pic with the area circled so I've done the same since I started this whole seam mess. The left side of the pic has what I thought was a seam when I posted. The right side is something that I think somebody else pointed out.

Frank, this is an excellent model and even better photography. If I'm out to lunch on the seam and am seeing things then rgr that. Keep up the good work and I look forward to your next subject.

Frank, glad to know I was just seeing things because your finished product is great. Congrats on doing good in the contest.

Well Thanks for the welcome General Can :-)
Hi Frank, I know the wheel bulges were inserted but it appears from some pretty close up photos, they were sealed with something and blended pretty well before painting. I can't see any traces of rivets around the bulge.
Mike
a
b
e
n
...just clarifying my position, cheers to a fine one 'o nine

Frank, could you post what camera you are using and what lighting set-up, really great photos

Thanks
Jim Barr

Hi Jim,
thanks for the compliment. I am using a Nikkon 995 coolpix camera. My setup is pretty much just three 100 watt bulbs (incandesent) that sit over the model (one near the back, one near the left front and one near the right front). Additionally I have a fourth light that I keep behind the camera.

I just have the camera adjust to a white piece of paper (calibrate the color balance), then manually set the fstop as high as it will go, and go from there.


I finally am figuring out how to use this thing to good effect.

Regards,

--Frank

:-) Well done in doing so well in the contest, but I'm not surprised
Mal