Airfix Bf109 E4 1:72
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Coming along rather nicely - in my opinion.
Funilly enough, this month's Airfix magazine has a 1/72 109E build, neither of which are the Airfix one. They are looking at the Tamiya and the ICM versions.
Yeah I'm really pleased with the outcome so far - all things considered Funilly enough, this month's Airfix magazine has a 1/72 109E build, neither of which are the Airfix one. They are looking at the Tamiya and the ICM versions.
I might pick up the magazine then - is it the one with the silver Spitfire on the front?
72twink said:
Some profiles even have red as the spinner segments - which even in the B&W images would be much lighter. Interesting that between the two images the rudder has been kicked to port, the elevators reversed and the slats popped back in.
The issue you want is the one with an A4 and SHar on the cover.
The spinner is definitely black and white - it's in the crash report. Looks nice in red though...The issue you want is the one with an A4 and SHar on the cover.
Eric Mc said:
dr_gn said:
Yeah I'm really pleased with the outcome so far - all things considered
I might pick up the magazine then - is it the one with the silver Spitfire on the front?
No, that was last month's. The latest has an image of a Sea Harrier and a Skyhawk - I might pick up the magazine then - is it the one with the silver Spitfire on the front?
So into the final stages. Klear coat on, plus I corrected a minor issue with the fuselage mottling (the demarcation line on the port side wasn't exactly parallel with the adjacent ones. Now ready for decals - my favourite part.
The decal sheet is comprehensive, and would put many 1:48 kits to shame (instrument panel aside). I printed off the stencil location plan from the Airfix website, and it is very good. This kit is clearly not aimed exclusively at "8 year olds", since even as an experienced modeller, I think I might have difficulty applying all these tiny markings. The starter version of this kit only has the main insignia, so I think my comparison with the more expensive Tamiya kit is valid in terms of who it's aimed at.
One thing to note is that despite being ridiculed for lamenting the absence of the raised wing root stiffener on one side of the fuselage, it is in fact a demarcation line for painting / masking. It was far easier to mask to the raised line on the port side than guess the position on the starboard side. Maybe the people who dismissed this error as trivial would have had a different opinion if they'd actually troubled themselves with building the kit before commenting?
Eric Mc said:
The age ranges printed on kit boxes should always be taken with a large grain of salt.
Nothing wrong with rating it at "8+" the builder doesn't have to include all parts and all decals after all. I do think that the average 8 year old, or novice modeller would genuinely struggle to complete this kit to plan though. AFAIK the starter version of this kit is identical in terms of parts, but has a lesser decal sheet.
Eric Mc said:
As ever though, Airfix are not the only culprits of this type of inappropriate age rating.
My main beef is the inclusion of inappropriate kits in "Starter Packs". I always think that it is the starter packs that draw the eye of people who may be buying a kit for younger children - because they include paint, glue and often a paintbrush too. Airfix and Revell both sell many kits in this format and both companies include kits that are less than ideal for this purpose.
I think it is very flawed marketing.
There was a guy on Britmodeller - an excellent modeller - who built an Airfix starter kit Spitfire using just the materials provided.My main beef is the inclusion of inappropriate kits in "Starter Packs". I always think that it is the starter packs that draw the eye of people who may be buying a kit for younger children - because they include paint, glue and often a paintbrush too. Airfix and Revell both sell many kits in this format and both companies include kits that are less than ideal for this purpose.
I think it is very flawed marketing.
Even with serious skills, it didn't look great TBH.
Eric Mc said:
Wait until you see my P-40
I was thinking about what you said about removing all surface detail. Personally I don't think it will look right irrespective of opinions on what would actually be visible at 72nd scale. If I think back to the best models I've ever seen, all of them had surface detail. How about giving it a flat coat and drawing on the panel lines with a 0.25 propelling pencil? I've got a set of Hasegawa French curve type things made out of thin steel which are great for this kind of thing.
Eric Mc said:
dr_gn said:
Yeah I'm really pleased with the outcome so far - all things considered
I might pick up the magazine then - is it the one with the silver Spitfire on the front?
No, that was last month's. The latest has an image of a Sea Harrier and a Skyhawk - I might pick up the magazine then - is it the one with the silver Spitfire on the front?
Decalling is complete now. Managed to get them all on.
I assume that the u/c leg spigots were formed such that in theory they gave the correct compound angle stance so distinctive of the '109. Unfortunately mine were a loose fit in the locating holes, so I made a simple jig out of card/balsa strip to hold them in position while the glue set.
Another light coat of Klear tonight hopefully, then tomorrow some very light weathering and final assembly.
I assume that the u/c leg spigots were formed such that in theory they gave the correct compound angle stance so distinctive of the '109. Unfortunately mine were a loose fit in the locating holes, so I made a simple jig out of card/balsa strip to hold them in position while the glue set.
Another light coat of Klear tonight hopefully, then tomorrow some very light weathering and final assembly.
So it's finished. Totally OOB with the exception of drilling out the gun barrels and adding sprue aerial and canopy lanyard. There is one huge facepalm error I've made, lets see if anyone spots it!
Stands comparison with the 1:72 Academy Tempest V which had a stack of aftermarket details thrown at it. Panel lins are noticably finer on the Tempest, even with a dak wash. The '109 had no wash applied:
Good points:
Cheap.
Good cockpit detail for the scale.
Excellent decal sheet.
Options to droop flaps, open canopy and tweak rudder.
Builds in to a delicate, good looking model.
Bad points.
Poorly fitting wing halves (other modellers have noted this too).
No dihedral (ditto).
Instrument panel decal is massively too big (ditto).
Fuselage side detail asymmetric (ditto).
Windscreen moulding fractionally too narrow (ditto).
Tilplane strut holes are asymmetric (possibly corrected, but I have seen other sprues that were the same as mine).
Large sprue gates make removing small components without damage difficult.
None of the above are major issues for an experienced modeller, which, judging by the extensive decal set this kit is aimed at. It does beg the question why such a modeller wouldn't just spend a few pounds more and get the pretty much perfect Tamiya version and be done with it.
To sum up, if you want to support a British company, buy this kit, but make sure you write to Airfix with any issues you find (as I will be doing). Hopefully they will take notice and future releases might be as good or better than certain Japanese kits, but at a fraction of the price. If or when this happens, Airfix will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Stands comparison with the 1:72 Academy Tempest V which had a stack of aftermarket details thrown at it. Panel lins are noticably finer on the Tempest, even with a dak wash. The '109 had no wash applied:
Good points:
Cheap.
Good cockpit detail for the scale.
Excellent decal sheet.
Options to droop flaps, open canopy and tweak rudder.
Builds in to a delicate, good looking model.
Bad points.
Poorly fitting wing halves (other modellers have noted this too).
No dihedral (ditto).
Instrument panel decal is massively too big (ditto).
Fuselage side detail asymmetric (ditto).
Windscreen moulding fractionally too narrow (ditto).
Tilplane strut holes are asymmetric (possibly corrected, but I have seen other sprues that were the same as mine).
Large sprue gates make removing small components without damage difficult.
None of the above are major issues for an experienced modeller, which, judging by the extensive decal set this kit is aimed at. It does beg the question why such a modeller wouldn't just spend a few pounds more and get the pretty much perfect Tamiya version and be done with it.
To sum up, if you want to support a British company, buy this kit, but make sure you write to Airfix with any issues you find (as I will be doing). Hopefully they will take notice and future releases might be as good or better than certain Japanese kits, but at a fraction of the price. If or when this happens, Airfix will be laughing all the way to the bank.
perdu said:
I'm decidedly NOT looking for errors
Looks blooming good to me
After seeing this from the start I'm glad you have finished it so nicely, considering the points you made about it
BM is a strange place and I'm not entirely comfortable with it
They "ask" for criticism but never give any
They always say "wow, great model amazing work" etc but many of the models that get that treatment are pants
If people dont like my models I want them to bloody well say so, sycophancy doesn't help me improve
There was a bf109 the other week that had no trimming or tidying around the under-nose area, joint lines were open behind the spinner and the rectangular slot was a long hexagon instead
No bugger 'cept me mentioned anything and even now I'm expecting to see the WIP reappear with the same faults
What paints were you using? When I "used to make" Luftwaffe models with Humbrol Authentics the Dunkelgrun (HG2) always looked very close to RAF Dark Green but with a slightly bluer tinge. Your Dunkelgrun comes over lighter on my screen
Blimmin' nice (not in a Britmuddler way) work
Shame Airfix still have their fixation with Swastikas though
Thanks Perdu, Looks blooming good to me
After seeing this from the start I'm glad you have finished it so nicely, considering the points you made about it
BM is a strange place and I'm not entirely comfortable with it
They "ask" for criticism but never give any
They always say "wow, great model amazing work" etc but many of the models that get that treatment are pants
If people dont like my models I want them to bloody well say so, sycophancy doesn't help me improve
There was a bf109 the other week that had no trimming or tidying around the under-nose area, joint lines were open behind the spinner and the rectangular slot was a long hexagon instead
No bugger 'cept me mentioned anything and even now I'm expecting to see the WIP reappear with the same faults
What paints were you using? When I "used to make" Luftwaffe models with Humbrol Authentics the Dunkelgrun (HG2) always looked very close to RAF Dark Green but with a slightly bluer tinge. Your Dunkelgrun comes over lighter on my screen
Blimmin' nice (not in a Britmuddler way) work
Shame Airfix still have their fixation with Swastikas though
Yeah, BM are sometimes strange wrt criticism, or the almost total lck of it even when you've specifically asked for it!
Airfix can't include the hakencreuz if they want to retain their German market, so it's not really their fault.
I was using Vallejo Air paints...and I can see you're skirting around coming out with what you think the huge error was
Thanks guys - yes it's a good model, fair play to Airfix.
Perdu - I used Black Green on the upper surfaces rather than Dark Green. I have no idea why, since I got the bottles out on the bench ready. As you say it's too contrasty. I only noticed when it was side-by-side with my 1:32 version.
The new engine cover paint, I just followed Airfix's instructions and mixed 50/50 white and blue. There was quite a contrast on the real thing:
ETA maybe you're right since the contrast is enhanced becasue of the localised exhaust staining...
The mottling is not shown on the Airfix plan (shown solid), but it's pretty clear that was how it looked (maybe a bit less well defined, but there you go).
Perdu - I used Black Green on the upper surfaces rather than Dark Green. I have no idea why, since I got the bottles out on the bench ready. As you say it's too contrasty. I only noticed when it was side-by-side with my 1:32 version.
The new engine cover paint, I just followed Airfix's instructions and mixed 50/50 white and blue. There was quite a contrast on the real thing:
ETA maybe you're right since the contrast is enhanced becasue of the localised exhaust staining...
The mottling is not shown on the Airfix plan (shown solid), but it's pretty clear that was how it looked (maybe a bit less well defined, but there you go).
911newbie said:
dr_gn said:
So it's finished. Totally OOB with the exception of drilling out the gun barrels and adding sprue aerial and canopy lanyard. There is one huge facepalm error I've made, lets see if anyone spots it!
The props look like they're turning anti-clockwise - is this the face paml error ?The main error was the top camo colour as noted a couple of posts ago.
Cheers.
Marshdweller said:
A few things to say:
I skimmed through AMW yesterday, and I would say your model is superior to either of the 109s they built for the magazine. Whoever builds for AMW seems to have a weathering technique which I think makes the model look like it was painted with a dirty brush rather than painted and then weathered (but hey, what do I know?!)
I'm sure you would agree that Airfix are moving in the right direction. Though this model clearly has its faults, it is much better than the older kits, some of which don't even go together properly.
I think the comparison with the Tamiya 1/72 109 is a little bit of an odd one as Tamiya's pricing for 1/72 kits seems a little strange to me - I don't understand why a 1/48 Tamiya kit is often only a couple of pounds more than a 1/72 kit. Mind you, Airfix are to the other extreme, with the 1/72 kits about £5-7 and the 1/48 kits £16-20. Comparing the two kits in terms of price seems a bit wrong as to me the Airfix ones are slightly underpriced and the Tamiya ones overpriced.
Fair comments. I'm glad you like my version of the kit. Yes, Airfix do appear to be moving in the right direction - too slowly for my liking, but there you go.I skimmed through AMW yesterday, and I would say your model is superior to either of the 109s they built for the magazine. Whoever builds for AMW seems to have a weathering technique which I think makes the model look like it was painted with a dirty brush rather than painted and then weathered (but hey, what do I know?!)
I'm sure you would agree that Airfix are moving in the right direction. Though this model clearly has its faults, it is much better than the older kits, some of which don't even go together properly.
I think the comparison with the Tamiya 1/72 109 is a little bit of an odd one as Tamiya's pricing for 1/72 kits seems a little strange to me - I don't understand why a 1/48 Tamiya kit is often only a couple of pounds more than a 1/72 kit. Mind you, Airfix are to the other extreme, with the 1/72 kits about £5-7 and the 1/48 kits £16-20. Comparing the two kits in terms of price seems a bit wrong as to me the Airfix ones are slightly underpriced and the Tamiya ones overpriced.
The '109 models in AMW do seem a bit cack-handed. The guy goes into some detail about dimensional inaccuracies (to the extent he suggested cross kitting both versions to get an 'accurate' one), then screws up the builds themselves to the extent that IMHO dimensional accuracy of the kits becomes irrelevant. It's a very common phenomenon (if that's possible!) on forums and model magazines I find.
My technique for weathering (pre-shade, washes) is to apply it, then remove it as completely as possible - some will always remain and you notice it almost subliminally.
Too kind! I don't think I'm a 'master'...take a look at some other builds on BM or SP&R. I'm happy with where I am, but that last 10% to what I would consider the best you can get is probably out of reach for me now.
Re. weathering, it's turned out quite well - I'm not that skilled at it, so tend to err on the 'less is more' side of things, and it usually works out OK.
I can copy and paste the SE5a WIP here, it only takes a minute. Only a couple of people seem to build (or finish!) models here on PH so I assumed just finished pics would be enough.
Re. weathering, it's turned out quite well - I'm not that skilled at it, so tend to err on the 'less is more' side of things, and it usually works out OK.
I can copy and paste the SE5a WIP here, it only takes a minute. Only a couple of people seem to build (or finish!) models here on PH so I assumed just finished pics would be enough.
perdu said:
dr_gn said:
Too kind! I don't think I'm a 'master'...take a look at some other builds on BM or SP&R. I'm happy with where I am, but that last 10% to what I would consider the best you can get is probably out of reach for me now.
Re. weathering, it's turned out quite well - I'm not that skilled at it, so tend to err on the 'less is more' side of things, and it usually works out OK.
I can copy and paste the SE5a WIP here, it only takes a minute. Only a couple of people seem to build (or finish!) models here on PH so I assumed just finished pics would be enough.
That will be about five* of us, huh? Re. weathering, it's turned out quite well - I'm not that skilled at it, so tend to err on the 'less is more' side of things, and it usually works out OK.
I can copy and paste the SE5a WIP here, it only takes a minute. Only a couple of people seem to build (or finish!) models here on PH so I assumed just finished pics would be enough.
I was disappointed that the racing car WIP faded but I'd still play again if one gets off the ground
The SE5A build will be very welcome, glad you're posting it here too
*alternative places are available for tongues, cheeks are safer...
Someone mentioned "master" earlier - check this guy's work out, I think it's the best model aircraft I've ever seen:
http://sparforums.com/ipb/index.php?/topic/737-ply...
I have to keep remining myself it's plastic, not wood and metal...
http://sparforums.com/ipb/index.php?/topic/737-ply...
I have to keep remining myself it's plastic, not wood and metal...
Mark. said:
dr_gn said:
Strange how so many people seem to start - or at least want to start - a model, and ask advice, but then they disappear never to be seen again. Same old questions about materials and techniques, but still the same 'old' people posting completed models.
Point taken 
I think I started my Cutty Sark about 3 years ago and was asking advice here. Just don't seem to find the time currently - got as far as needing to put masts on!I do enjoy the build threads though.
Gassing Station | Scale Models | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff