login   |    register
Eduard [ MORE REVIEWS ] [ WEBSITE ] [ NEW STORIES ]

In-Box Review
148
Messerschmitt Bf 110G-2
  • move

by: Rowan Baylis [ MERLIN ]

Background
The Bf 110G was first proposed as early as mid 1941, when Messerschmitt suggested fitting the new DB 605 engines to the Bf 110F that was just entering service. At the time, though, the RLM was fully expecting the Me 210 to be combat-ready and decided there was no need to develop the Bf 110 further.

As time went on the Me 210 fell further and further behind schedule as serious design flaws came to light, and the RLM grew increasingly alarmed and reinstated the DB 605-powered Bf 110G in January 1942.

The Bf 110F and 'G were initially produced in parallel. The new version was similarly armed and used basically the same streamlined cowls and spinners, while the airframe and undercarriage strengthened to carry extra weight. From the 'G-2 onwards, rear defence was augmented by fitting a twin MG 81Z under a modified canopy, and forward fire-power was soon also upgraded by replacing the two underfloor 20mm MG FF cannons with a pair of MG 151s.

Early's 'Gs were still armed with a quartet of MG 17s in the nose, but the weapon was increasingly regarded as ineffective against armoured enemy aircraft, so a pair of 30mm MK 108 cannons became the norm.

As well as drop tanks and bombs, the Bf110G could carry a fearsome array of additional weapons in a series of Rüstsatz conversions, including:

Rüstsatz M1 - 2 x MG 151s in a belly pack
Rüstsatz M5 - 4 x 21cm under-wing mortars
Rüstsatz R1 - 1 x 3.7 cm BK cannon a belly pack

The Bf 110G-2 served as both a fighter-bomber and day fighter and, to begin with, performed well against USAAF raids, as its heavy armament allowed it to attack bomber formations from beyond the range of the gunners. That all changed with the appearance of long-range escort fighters and the Bf 110Gs were virtually sitting ducks, weighed down by their heavy cannons and mortar tubes.

Just as in the Battle of Britain, the Bf 110 was no match for single-engined fighters, but this was by no means the end of the type's story - the night-fighter versions remained feared adversaries until the very end. But that's a story for another day - and the next release from Eduard in their Bf 110 series...

In kit form
No matter how you look at it, Eduard's Bf 110G-2 is a very impressive kit. The solid and attractive top-opening box is stuffed with no less than 11 well presented sprues, plus etched and resin accessories. Comparing it with the 1990s vintage Revell-Monogram kit (more of which later) makes the older kit seem positively simple.

The kit comprises:

384 x pale olive styrene parts (121 not needed)
12 x clear styrene parts (3 not used)
65 x etched parts (some pre-painted)
2 x resin parts
A set of painting masks
Decals for 5 x colour schemes

The reason so many of the parts will be headed straight for the spares box is that Eduard have used some sprues from their original Bf 110 C/D/E series kits. So, the basic airframe seems unchanged, with its finely engraved panel lines and embossed rivets, but new sprues provide a reworked cockpit and canopy, a generous assortment of weaponry and, of course, the all-important new cowls and propellers.

As has been widely reported over the years, the most serious failing of the Revell-Monogram kit is its distinctly undersized nacelles and spinners. Happily, Eduard's are much truer to scale, comparing pretty well with the scale drawings I have - see the accompanying comparison photos of the Eduard (pale olive) and Revell-Monogram (grey) parts.

Eduard's earlier Bf 110s came in for a bit of stick from some quarters for their complicated interior. Be warned, the new version is no different! Depending on which armament option you choose, expect to use over 120 styrene and etched parts for the cockpit and nose guns. Of course, the reward is one of the most detailed cockpits available in a mainstream kit.

One point to watch out for is that the instructions call for RLM 02 as the cockpit colour. From reference photos, RLM 66 seems much more likely for the Bf 110G, and in fact the beautifully pre-painted etched instruments and consoles are clearly RLM 66, so I assume it must be a misprint.

A combination of old and new sprues provide a comprehensive set of exterior stores, including: bombs, drop tanks, air-to-air mortars, and both 20mm and 3.7 cm cannon packs.

The new clear parts are crystal clear and capture the shape of the canopy better in my opinion than the R-M kit, being narrower across the roof. Both the pilot's and gunner's sections can be posed open, with delicate etched handles and some interior framing to attach. The framelines are crisply defined, but the designers have missed the interior frames of the fixed centre section (these can easily be added from strips of painted decal).

Points to watch out for
Amongst all the high points, there are one or two other items that have slipped by. Once again the flaps are plain and lack a fabric effect. My references state that, from the Bf 110F onwards, larger mainwheels were fitted. Eduard have used the same wheels as in their Bf 110C/D/E kits and they are undersized (as are the R-M wheels) compared with drawings. Additionally, they seem too thin and they are treaded, whereas the photos I've found show plain tyres with a fuller cross-section. Aftermarket wheels will no doubt soon be available.

Surprisingly in such a detailed cockpit, no ammunition feeds are provided for the MG 151s. Also, while the 3.7 cm BK cannon belly pack is nicely modelled, original German drawings show a loading array in the hole in the cockpit floor normally occupied by the MG 151s. Eduard haven't included this, so you'll ideally need to fill the void with a bit of scratchbuilding if you go for that armament fit-out.

Instructions & Decals
The instructions take the form of a 16-page colour-printed A-4 booklet. Everything is clearly illustrated and the quite complicated construction is broken down into logical stages. Apart from the question of the cockpit colour noted above, a small addendum sheet is included saying to use alternative tailplane parts.

Gunze Sangyo paint matches are quoted throughout, and the instructions include a full-page stencil placement guide.

Decals are included for 5 x colour schemes:

A. 2N MN, 5./ZG 1, Wells, Austria, Winter 1943-44
B. S9 FN, 5./ZG 1, Monte Covino, Italy, Summer 1943
C. 3U EU, 10./ZG 26 (III.JG 5), Gossen, Norway, Spring 1945
D. M8 KM, 4./ZG 76, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Spring 1944
E. 8V IN, 5./NJG 200, Russia, 1943

The decals look excellent quality - thin and glossy, with minimal crystal clear carrier film, and printed in perfect register in the review sample. Swastikas are provided in two forms - split diagonally and printed in full on a section of the sheet that can be trimmed off for some markets.

Conclusion
Eduard's new Bf 110G-2 looks set to build into a beautiful model. In my view it's the best quarterscale Bf 110G to date and scores in several important areas over the old Revell-Monogram version, but it's not really suitable for beginners. With more versions of the Bf 110F and 'G planned, Eduard look set to have the market tightly sown up with the definitive quarterscale kits of this important aircraft. Highly recommended for modellers with a bit of experience.

Please remember, when contacting retailers or manufacturers, to mention that you saw their products highlighted here - on AEROSCALE.
SUMMARY
Highs: Highly detailed. Crisply moulded. Excellent etched accessories, and high quality decals.
Lows: Complex assembly in places. Mainwheels seem undersized and may be incorrect style.
Verdict: Eduard's new Bf 110G is a great kit for experienced modellers and scores on the dimensional issues that have bedevilled earlier kits of the aircraft.
Percentage Rating
90%
  Scale: 1:48
  Mfg. ID: 8205
  Suggested Retail: $59.95
  Related Link: Bf 110G-2 1/48 Profipack
  PUBLISHED: Jul 26, 2009
  NATIONALITY: Germany
NETWORK-WIDE AVERAGE RATINGS
  THIS REVIEWER: 88.07%
  MAKER/PUBLISHER: 88.44%

Our Thanks to Eduard!
This item was provided by them for the purpose of having it reviewed on this KitMaker Network site. If you would like your kit, book, or product reviewed, please contact us.

View Vendor Homepage  |  More Reviews  

About Rowan Baylis (Merlin)
FROM: NO REGIONAL SELECTED, UNITED KINGDOM

I've been modelling for about 40 years, on and off. While I'm happy to build anything, my interests lie primarily in 1/48 scale aircraft. I mostly concentrate on WW2 subjects, although I'm also interested in WW1, Golden Age aviation and the early Jet Age - and have even been known to build the occas...

Copyright ©2019 text by Rowan Baylis [ MERLIN ]. Images also by copyright holder unless otherwise noted. Opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AeroScale. All rights reserved.



Comments

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?
JUL 27, 2009 - 10:11 AM
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
JUL 27, 2009 - 10:29 AM
Hi Rowan enjoy your vacation! cheers Steffen
JUL 27, 2009 - 10:38 AM
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.
JUL 28, 2009 - 04:00 AM
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
JUL 28, 2009 - 04:41 AM
Ouch, Steffen! Just trying to be helpful.
JUL 28, 2009 - 01:02 PM
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
JUL 28, 2009 - 07:24 PM
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.
JUL 29, 2009 - 04:34 AM
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
JUL 29, 2009 - 05:06 AM
   

What's Your Opinion?


Photos
Click image to enlarge
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move
  • move