I had this question in an earlier post which included some photos of assorted finished kits so it ended up getting lost and never was replied to. My question is in regard to upper and lower fuselage seams on a 109, did they have them. Found a written source which said they do, but have not seen even one photo of the spine or belly to verify that. Anyone know definitely on this? Thanks, John.
I found this pic of a Bf-109 form an airshow, and if you look close, there does appear to be a seam:
Yes, on top, from canopy to the tail, and bottom, from about the mid-point of the wings back to just in front of the tail wheel.
Good question, and if I may expand. So what does one do to hi-lite these seams? Do you leave them as part of the rough fuselage bonding process and not sand out the seams?
I bought a scribing tool, it looks like a twist drill but uses different pointed metal parts for scribing lines of different sizes. I intend on finishing it off as if there was no seam then scribe new ones.
Agreed, the drawings I have see of 109’s all show distinct seams on both top an bottom. What I have done is make sure I have a good tight fit, then sparingly cement with a cement seam leaning toward the bottom of the seam rather than the top. This allows the seam to stay ‘open’ a bit as a normal scribed line would look.
There is a seam in those places because the 109 was built in two halves like a model. That way it was easier to install internal equipment.
I went back through some of my modeling cd’s and found one from Master Class Model Building by Floyd Werner. He builds a Hasegawa 1/32 Bf-109G-6 from start to finish. He demonstrates the scribing of the top and bottom seam.
Jim
I had the good fortune to visit the Deutsches Museum in Munich in May of this year. Here’s a couple of photos that might help you determine how prominent the seam is:
It looks as if you can see the seam, but the question is, how prominent would it be in scale? And, of course this is a restored aircraft, so one in service would probably look a lot different. Either way, I set it up so you can download the full resolution photos - that might show the detail better.
In any case, it’s up to you to decide how your model should look.
Happy modeling!
Mike
Wow, based on this I need to get rid of the upper seam, just is not prominent enough in a photo that shows a fuselage that is larger than the kit. I was only able to make the lower one out. These photo’s were great, thanks.
That’s a good idea if you’re building a model of a restored, static '109…
I’d check for the seam on operational, war-time birds first though…
I suppose it’s the same as “weighted” tires - you can have the over exaggerated version, or the real version. Or gun barrels with huge soot marks over the wings - not that you’d see those in any wartime photos either. Is it the way you think it should look, or the way it really looked?
The reality is, it’s up to the modeler - no one else’s opinion matters. Not even people who have 5 million or more comments…who apparently know everything. I don’t know anything, but I do have references.
Well, if we play this all the way out, then we should never build a model with hilighted seams of any sort. Personally, I’ve never seen any aircraft whether operational or not, modern or warbird with prominent panel lines. The pictures above illustrate my point. I’ve got just about every one of osprey’s bf109 aces series and none of these pictures show prominent panel lines at all. Maybe a hint of detail here and there, but overall very subdued. Point being, is the 109 DOES have a top and bottom seam, how one chooses to highlight it is up to the “artistic license” of the builder. If we are counting rivets, most engraved panel lines on our tiny little 48 scale birds would be up to a quarter of an inch wide full scale, not even close to realistic…
Regarding gun staining:
Doogs, I wasn’t saying lines weren’t seen just not highly pronounced. The aircraft you show up top is one I’ve never seen. I wil admit those are probably the most pronounced I’ve ever seen on a real aircraft. The lines overall on the following pics are visible but not overly so (a few on the 109 are the exception) My only point was the seam of rivets is visible on the 109 so IMO it is up to the modeler how they want to represent them. Those that suggest the seam line is not visible are incorrect.
Hi guys. If I can add my opinion to this interesting topic.
On the full size stuff I work on, you have to look at the pannel to see that even on something slow like a T-6 or most Cessna tipes with overlap joints ,the skinns are usually a max thickness of 35thou or less. In 1/72 scale this would be almost zero!
On faster planes they usually had flush joints with flush head rivets to resduce drag. As I understand the Germans even filled these flush lines with some sort of filler that was overpainted.This would lead to almost no visable line even at close range (just like the meseum pix)
I looked at the F35(?) and the promenent lines I recon is a sealent that is aplied over the joint lines to make it weather tight .Please correct me if I am wrong.
But there would have defenately been a joint on the top and bottom of the 109 (and the F4f, F6f) as the construction tecnique would require the side pannels to be joined there over a stringer with a flush or overlap joint. As for the visability of it, that is up to the modler.
Theuns
I think the thing to bear in mind is how clean a aircraft is?
On clean aircraft you can generally only see the joints between hatches and control surfaces, however on a dirty aircraft, all of those panel edges act as traps for dirt.
Two great examples are late war Luftwaffe aircraft, which if they survived long enough ended up looking pretty mucky which highlighted the panel lines, and US Navy aircraft in low viz schemes which just seem to attract dirt around seams & panels.
The key thing is it’s your model, and I’m sure if your look hard enough, you can find references to support some really mucky looking finishes.
Karl
The principle I try to use is what Shap Paine said in his book. I can’t remember the phrase word for word, but it was along the lines of “creating the illusion of reality” rather than actual reality. I didn’t mean to sound like a river counter, or try to push my opinion on anyone - sorry if it seemed that way.
I do stand corrected on gun soot over the wings - in at least that one photograph. I’ve got a lot of books on Luftwaffe aircraft and for the life of me, I can’t find any photos with soot over the the wings. If someone actually has a photo of a German aircraft with soot from the guns, I’d love to see it. My current project is a 190 D-9.
In any case, Happy New Year to y’all!
Mike
With weigted tires, I think most of the AM Resin ones are rather exagerated with the huge bulges that make them look like racing slicks, but at the same time, it depends on the “weight” of the aircraft being modeled, and also if the tires are high or low-pressure tires… The skinny, high-pressure tires of the early Bf109s vs the fatter, low-pressure tires on Bf109F-Ks for instance… The high-pressure tires will show less bulging, because they’re high-pressure…
On the other hand, a fueled and bombed-up B-17 is going to have a more pronounced “bulge” than it would an empty one, with no crew aboard (that’s 2000 lbs right there, or the weight of one GP Demolition bomb…) . Also, oleo struts need to be compressed, and the scissors, too… But that’s all rivet-counting, in my book… However you slice it though, the tires would be flat on the bottom… Just go look at the ones on your car…
On this Warbird B-17G, one can see the flattened area easily, and the bulge is a little harder, but there… The aircraft is not loaded with bombs or crew, and the fuel load can only be guessed at, so for the sake of arguement, let’s say the mains are half-full…
!(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/HansvonHammer/Aircraft Profiles/B-17/B-17tire-Copy.jpg)
Opinions DO matter, especially when a member asks for them in a post… I ask for opinions, comments, and suggestions all the time… Some are good ones, some aren’t… But the idea is to give out information that’s usable and accurate, or at least as accurate as one can be, using references AND (too often discounted) personal experienceswith the subject matter, be it a model OR the prototype…
Not braggin’, but I’ve got a large collection of references for a lot of things, aircraft, armor, and uniforms mostly… I spend a LOT of personal time looking up stuff folks that ask questions, too… And many times, the answers are quite readily available, if one would just use “Google Image”… I certainly am not one that claims to “know everythng”, but I will say, justifiably, that I do know a lot… [;)]
However, I digress…
You’re looking for “Creative Gizmology”, I think… Shep went for “Suggestion” over “Duplication” in his diorama work, which is exactly what I do as well… Creating the illusion of things just “looking busy”, rather than nut-for-nut, bolt-for-bolt replication, using “Imagneering” for design, and “Gizmology” for the construction…
In his “Black Widow Engine-Change” diorama, for instance, he scratch-built the entire aft section of the P & W R-2800, since it would be hanging completely out in the open…
!(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/HansvonHammer/P-61/P-61 Diorama/P61-4_jpg-Copy.jpg)
Now he didn’t do it nut-for-nut, it was basically a box that got encrusted with greeblies from model railroad brake parts and the like… But it looks pretty close to a real one, and that’s the effect he was after… It also worked well for the interior of the cannon-bay too…
!(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/HansvonHammer/P-61/P-61 Diorama/P61-4_jpg.jpg)
!(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/HansvonHammer/P-61/P-61 Diorama/p61enginemounts.jpg)
Same with the rings on the boom, where there should two rows of holes for the fasteners, there’s only one…
!(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/HansvonHammer/P-61/P-61 Diorama/P61-3_jpg-Copy2.jpg)
However, it looks great the way it is…
And that’s what Gizmology is about… Now, Shep also calls out that Creative Gixmology is not a liense to “conjur-up” things from thin air and glue 'em on… But it allows for building a really good sub-assembly and effect without the work, time, and expense it would take to duplicate a particular item or area…
The Spirfire photo shows to great effect what the soot question is about… Note the stains from the guns that have the muzzles right at the wing’s leading edge, vs the 20mm cannon… Gun-muzzles that stick out more than a couple inches won’t stain the wings… Keep in mind that eventually, the soot gets wiped off (Hence the term for ground crews, AKA “Wing-wipers”)… But any aircraft that has just returned from a mission and fired it’s guns during it would show that staining… So it’s up to the modeler as to its having soot-stains or not…
Just for future reference, Google Image aircraft photos of F4Fs, F4Us, Early Spits and Hurris, anything with guns installed deep in the wings with muzzles that don’t stick out… While I spent the better part of an hour looking over pictures of German fighters looking for soot, I didn’t find any… However, all the pictures were of either Fws that hadn’t been flown yet that day, had just taken off and was enroute, or had been captured… I found none that I’d say were taken upon the return of the fighter to base…
Does that mean that no soot was ever found on German fighters? Nope… Just means that I couldn’t find any evidence… But there’s plenty of it with other aircraft whose gun-muzzles fit the parameters, so it’s not ruled out…
That’s where “Artistic License” comes into play![;)]
Nice post, Hans.