login   |    register
World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
NEWS
1:48 Me 410 Test-Shot Photos
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,457 posts
AeroScale: 12,704 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 - 10:30 PM UTC
Meng have released built-up photos of their superb-looking new quaterscale Messerschmitt Me 410B-2/U4.

Link to Item



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
Littorio
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: September 15, 2004
KitMaker: 4,716 posts
AeroScale: 1,341 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 04:29 AM UTC
Never been a fan of the 410 but looking at this it's growing on me.
Thanks Rowan
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,457 posts
AeroScale: 12,704 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 10:45 AM UTC
Hi Luciano

I must admit I questioned the need for a new '410 (the classic Revell/Monogram kit is pretty damned good!...) until I saw these shots. True, I'll reduce the rib-tapes effect on the control surfaces a lot, but what stuns me is that this is Meng's debut 1:48 kit! I can't wait to see what they have next in line!

All the best

Rowan
chukw1
_VISITCOMMUNITY
California, United States
Joined: November 28, 2007
KitMaker: 810 posts
AeroScale: 723 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 11:59 AM UTC
There's nothing that a little sanding won't due to tame those rib tapes and patches. The big problem is that exterior canopy frames should be structured like this:



Maybe an aftermarket fix will finally arise!
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,457 posts
AeroScale: 12,704 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 08:28 PM UTC
Hi Chuck

Yes, the classic "inside-out" problem that afflicts a good many kit canopies. I expect most modellers will be happy to overlook it but, as you say, maybe an aftermarket upgrade will come out. If not, it'll be down to working the kind of magic you performed on the Revell/Monogram kit to get it really correct.

All the best

Rowan
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 - 08:44 AM UTC

It looks great, and there are several observations to make compared to the Monogram kit.

On the Meng kit, questions remain about the prop/spinner shapes: Not a big deal: Spinners can be borrowed/copied from an Eduard Me-110G, and props borrowed from the Monogram kit, assuming they are better.

The Meng nacelle oil coolers seemed small and narrow on the sprues, but it remains to be seen if they are actually badly off.

The Meng's profile radius of the nose's tip seems a bit sharp. The damaged real aircraft below does not allow to confirm this...

The Meng kit is obviously vastly superior to the Monogram kit in every other respect: Compare the depth of the fuselage below the cockpit to the top of the wing, the Monogram kit being shallow there, and missing the "Hampden-suitcase"-like look that the Meng accurately captures, its fuselage looking far taller above the wing.





Note, on the last picture above, how the Monogram windshield is way too short or broad, and the entire nose slope seems too steep. The Meng has thick frames but is far superior in these respects.

Also the spinner diameter seems corrected on the Meng kit, a major issue of the Monogram kit...

This is a huge advance in accuracy over the Monogram kit, and the minor issues are likely easily dealt with. The roll-over frame is not a big issue for me with the canopy closed, but the thick frames could be sanded smooth and masked thinner...

Gaston
SunburntPenguin
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Joined: March 15, 2011
KitMaker: 121 posts
AeroScale: 112 posts
Posted: Friday, January 04, 2013 - 11:23 PM UTC
No nitpicking from me, it looks like a great kit.

Gaston why get all bothered about the props and spinners? They look perfectly fine for my money and certainly don't lead to mistaking the kit for anything but an Me410?
Mcleod
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Alberta, Canada
Joined: April 07, 2010
KitMaker: 1,028 posts
AeroScale: 939 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 05, 2013 - 03:24 AM UTC
For myself, this looks like it will be a wonderful kit. It appears to be a solid working platform for the scratch building rivit counters, or a wonderfully modern OOB project for the average joe.

I've never heard of Meng, but, now would like to know what other great kit offerings they'll have up their sleeve!
chukw1
_VISITCOMMUNITY
California, United States
Joined: November 28, 2007
KitMaker: 810 posts
AeroScale: 723 posts
Posted: Monday, January 07, 2013 - 03:58 AM UTC
I agree with Gaston- the shapes are better. The man has a good eye!

Now that I think of it, it wouldn't be too hard at all to sand off the incorrect framing and polish the canopy again. Strips of colored decal could easily replicate the inner framework- much more easily than the hoops I jumped through with my build.
matrixone
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Oregon, United States
Joined: February 07, 2004
KitMaker: 869 posts
AeroScale: 862 posts
Posted: Monday, January 07, 2013 - 07:12 AM UTC
In the photograph Gaston provided it shows a Me 210 and NOT a 410, maybe its not fair to bash the shape of the old Monogram Me 410 kit when you compare it to a photograph of a Me 210 which was a different airplane.

I can't see the W.Nr. of the aircraft in the photograph but the sweptback leading edge of the wings confirms its a Me 210. How can anybody judge the accuracy of a new kit when you compare it to photographs of a different subtype?


Matrixone
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,457 posts
AeroScale: 12,704 posts
Posted: Monday, January 07, 2013 - 09:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Now that I think of it, it wouldn't be too hard at all to sand off the incorrect framing and polish the canopy again. Strips of colored decal could easily replicate the inner framework- much more easily than the hoops I jumped through with my build.



Hi Chuck

Yeah - but, in truth, it's a fudge - and not really a substitute for doing it properly the way you did. If you've got the talent (and I simply couldn't solder up a roll-cage the way you did!) - use it!

All the best

Rowan
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Monday, January 07, 2013 - 09:27 PM UTC

Quoted Text

In the photograph Gaston provided it shows a Me 210 and NOT a 410, maybe its not fair to bash the shape of the old Monogram Me 410 kit when you compare it to a photograph of a Me 210 which was a different airplane.

I can't see the W.Nr. of the aircraft in the photograph but the sweptback leading edge of the wings confirms its a Me 210. How can anybody judge the accuracy of a new kit when you compare it to photographs of a different subtype?


Matrixone



I did not know it was a Me-210, nor did I know about the wing leading edge sweep for that matter(!), but fortunately none of the areas I discussed were any different on the 410, so it makes no differences to the observations.

Thanks to confirming the lack of major changes in the canopy/nose, I was able to find yet more pictures of the 210 at a better-matching angle to Meng's built-up 410, and this confirms my initial impression that the underside of the Meng nose's tip lacks a bit of radius at the bottom, and thus the nose extremity is too pointed as a result: This is pronounced visually, but should be minor to fix modelling-wise. If worst comes to worst, one could graft the Monogram nose tip! (With the Monogram's seemingly better prop blades, this is exactly why I love to see redundancies in kit releases!)




Gaston
ROBY69
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Italy
Joined: January 08, 2013
KitMaker: 3 posts
AeroScale: 3 posts
Posted: Monday, January 07, 2013 - 09:44 PM UTC
I have checked the fuselage lenght with WWP publications scale drawing...and it was too long of 6-7 mm....

The monogram kit is more compliant to the same drawing.
If you want I can post images of the kits fuselages superimposed to the drawing.

GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 - 01:48 PM UTC

Please do so: Side shots of the Meng kit fuselage would be very useful. As would comparative side shots of the Monogram kit fuselage as well...

Too bad on the real aircraft the engines perpetually hide the nose, and they would do the same on a non-cutaway drawing as well...

This is the thing that makes the model hard to judge: But please do show us what is going on kit vs kit or vs accepted drawings...

Gaston
ROBY69
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Italy
Joined: January 08, 2013
KitMaker: 3 posts
AeroScale: 3 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - 01:50 AM UTC
Here are the images...

...the nose coincides perfectly with the drawing, the WWP drawing is for me corrct (cross control of total lenght and max height taken from an original Messerschmitt scheme published on the Classic-Midland volume Me410 Hornet).

Te meng


The Revell/Monogram


I think that also the rudder could have some shape problem...
matrixone
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Oregon, United States
Joined: February 07, 2004
KitMaker: 869 posts
AeroScale: 862 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - 07:03 AM UTC
After seeing the above evidence I think I will stick to the old Monogram Me 410...the Meng kit looks like its a nice kit but not nice enough to replace the Monogram kits in my stash.


Matrixone
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,457 posts
AeroScale: 12,704 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - 10:36 AM UTC
Hi all

This could be a case in point of the perils of relying on scale drawings.

The fuselage on the WWP 1:48 plans measures at 243mm - which scales up to 11.664m full-size. Trouble is - the text in the same book quotes the fuselage length as 12.48m (also 12.56)...

And, just to add an extra bit of spice to the mix, even the most cursory check through other sources is pulling up lengths of 12.4m, 12.47m, and 12.48m...

So, before we all get ready to trash the new kit, what length is the Meng fuselage, and do we have a definitive length for the real thing?

All the best

Rowan
ROBY69
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Italy
Joined: January 08, 2013
KitMaker: 3 posts
AeroScale: 3 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - 08:57 PM UTC
No one wants to afford to trash the new kit.

I only bothered to check the overall size of the kit MENG referring to the drawings in my possession.
To check the WWP drawings I used an original design Messerschmitt published on page 150 of the book Classic-Midland "Me410 Hornet".

This drawing shows the general dimensions of the aircraft and in particular: total length of 12560 mm (from spinners to tail end), total height 5207 mm and wingspan of 16358 mm.

These dimensions reduced in 1/48 scale coincide perfectly with the design WWP.

In conclusion, I have carefully checking the genral dimension of the WWP drawing referring to an official drawing of the airplane manufacturer.



This does not mean that the Meng kit is the state of 'art and that I certainly have not found a drawings that showed the fuselage lenght only!!


Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,457 posts
AeroScale: 12,704 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - 09:17 PM UTC
Hi Roberto

Sorry - I fear I must have mis-read one of the refs I checked (too) quickly at the end of a long day at Oxfam! I could have sworn it said fuselage length - but of course, in the cold clear light of the following day that all-important word has disappeared...

All the best

Rowan
GastonMarty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Quebec, Canada
Joined: April 19, 2008
KitMaker: 595 posts
AeroScale: 507 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2013 - 05:12 AM UTC

The Monogram kit's tail looks too short, a problem nobody even knew about before Meng came up with their kit... I had no clue...

This does not exclude the Meng kit being slightly too long (which I think is likely), but its tail does look more slender and a bit more like the real thing's photo, while the smaller uncovered drawing (which I assume is identical to the bigger reference drawing) looks wrong in the tail section, although by how much remains to be seen.





The following is by no means definitive, but just a rough indication of scale proportionality measured from the above photos: I took the longuest easily definable elements (canopy length and canopy distance to fin), to minimize measurement errors, and compared them in ratios: Remember that if the online reproduction of the photo is distorted, this does not change the ratios.

The completed Monogram kit photo: 42.5 mm/53.5 mm: Canopy/tail ratio: 1.25

Monogram fuselage half photo: 58 mm/72.5 mm: Canopy tail ratio: 1.25

Actual aircraft photo: 49 mm/66 mm: Canopy/tail ratio: 1.34

I would add 1 mm to the tail (67 mm) to account for the lens position's perspective effect: The canopy/tail Ratio would then be 1.36...

Meng kit fuselage half photo: 54.5 mm/76.5 mm: Canopy/tail ratio: 1.40

So it would appear, assuming the canopies are equal and correct, that the Monogram's tail is proportionately too short, while the Meng's tail is proportionately too long.

However, 1.40 is much closer to 1.34 or 1.36 than Monogram at 1.25.

This is just to give a rough idea. If confirmed, it is worthy of noting that it is easier to shorten a kit than to lenghten it...

Another thing to note is that a kit is always a far more serious investment than a drawing, and the usual assumption that a drawing carries more authority (especially factory GA drawings) is almost always a wrong assumption: I have hardly ever seen drawings that were correct in general outlines, and far more kits that were excellent...

Since, in the peculiar case of the Me-410, we don't even know what the actual fuselage length is, without those pesky engines in the way, it hard to tell what is wrong with the drawings, but they certainly don't look right in the tail.

While the Meng kit appears to have minor problems (notably the extremity of its nose), it still looks by far like the better kit of the two.

Gaston

Grenadier37
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Texas, United States
Joined: June 02, 2008
KitMaker: 232 posts
AeroScale: 155 posts
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2013 - 10:41 AM UTC
Not this old crap again!

Buy it or don't. It's a plastic REPRESENTATION of a real thing. If you want the real thing go dig one up, literally. These discussions are pointless and meaningless. You accuracy freaks are killing my hobby (and my buzz).

Shut up and build.
MAXwell57
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United States
Joined: February 11, 2013
KitMaker: 1 posts
AeroScale: 1 posts
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2013 - 11:16 AM UTC
I am in the process of building a series of parts to build the SINGLE SEAT field conversion Me-410 "Gelb sieben," or for you non-Krauts, "Yellow Seven," detailed on page 124 of Peter Petrick & Werner Stocker's book Me210/Me410 Hornisse HORNET. I have only the Pro Modeler version so far, I'm hoping the Meng price goes lower on eBay before I buy one. I am currently trying to find out if a fuel tank or GM1 replaced the bordfunker, radio operator/rear gunner.
Does anyone out there know where I can find a Squadron canopy for the 1:48 Me-410? I am using the ProModeler canopy and I am not happy with it javascript:PasteSmiley('|:(') (and going by the photos of the Meng I don't know that it would be much better) but I am making due so far.
Will anyone be interested in parts when I'm finished?
MAXwell57