ICM 2023 NEW MISTEL 1 1/48 scale - how to build it part 1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2024
- To support the channel please visit:
/ ordinary_bloke
buymeacoffee.com/ordinarybloke
Ko-fi.com/garysstuff
Gary's Stuff merchandise: rdbl.co/3mUZowo
My Amazon Storefront: amzn.to/3AK9wQu
Airfix online store: prf.hn/l/KjapeGn
Humbrol online store: prf.hn/l/oVZqRL2
Models for Heroes: www.modelsforheroes.org.uk/do...
Today I'm building the brand new Mistel 1 flying bomb in 1/48 scale from ICM - starting here with the Bf-109F control aircraft.
00:00 Introduction
02:15 Cockpit
05:13 Engine
17:07 Fuselage
17:39 Wings
24:34 Tail
24:53 Canopy
26:53 Undercarriage
27:58 Propeller
28:26 Conclusions
Music from Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
uppbeat.io/t/sky-toes/all-in - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
Hello mister gary!nice job done.thank you for sharing. With sticky greetings Christian
wow love the backdrop i was there the other day
Looking up ICM I see they started production of kits in 1994 but their first releases may have been re-boxes rather than their own tooling. 2007 may be one of their early own tooled kits. As said by others that BF109 looks to be a handful to make. I suspect that the engine didn't fit as it is a scaled 1/35 engine but the internal space inside the cowling will be smaller because the scale thickness of the fuselage and cowling parts make the cowling walls about 2 inches thick. Kit manufacturers need to do a lot of work to make sure these kits go together and still look scale
Great video as always gary. I may even dust off my mistel that has been in the stash for 20years! I know you put out a huge amount of content for us but I do miss your history of the subject videos. Can’t have it all I guess! Thanks for sharing so many interesting kits and tips. Paul
Perfect 👍
The instrument panel looks superb! I thought the instruments were a decal until you said it was all painted Gary! Awesome job :)
The lack of locating pins and marks where drill holes should go is a pain in the proverbial.
Witt the gaffes in the instructions I feel an errata sheet coming on.
Hi Gary, nice build.
A number of observations if I may. As a matter of interest, which doesn't affect the build, the DB engine was direct (ie in cylinder injection) so no carburetteur. Also the super charger had a fluid drive and was not a turbo (except in some experimemts that did not see production).
I agree with you that if you're going to have the cowlings closed then there is no point in fitting the engine, but it might be a good idea to poke the gun barrels (or a representation) through from the inside before closing up. The engine could be used in a separate display. In my distant memory I believe there is a DB at Wroughton as well as a DB610 (which is a double DB605 as used in the He177) though I might be missremembering where I saw them. For anyone really interested in WW2 aero engines I can recommend "The Secret Horsepower Race" by Callum Douglas. It is excellent.
On general build, where you have no register pins such as the fuselage halves, then you could make your own registers by adding a number of blocks to the inside of one half (they'll be out of sight after all like the missing frames and stringers so no harm) which could be made from plasticard or even bits of sprue. Then alignment on join up is more reliable.
Your bit on the leading edge slats is interesting, I hadn;t seen them sticking out on ground photos but it makes semse. I have read that the radiator flaps hung down when parked though I haven't noticed it on Mistel pictures.
On all the Mistel pictures I have seen with either the ME109 or the FW190, the landing gear is retracted.
It would be interesting to know what sort of crane they used to get the fighter up there and what sort of post release guidance they might have used, perhaps radio like in the fritz bombs.
As a final aside I seem to remember Alan W Hall doing a 1/72 Mistel build from the Ju88 and Me109G in Airfix mag in the 1960s.
The photos I've seen of the Mistel on the ground have both retracted and lowered gear - viz: www.luftwaffephotos.com/lmistel1.htm
I would guess that they have the gear down while assembling the two parts, then maybe take the fighter gear up to lower drag for take-off. Might be part of the assembly protocol.
Fascinating detail about the engines, for which many thanks. Always keen to learn more!
I wonder if they had some sort of gantry a bit like the one NASA had for the Space Shuttle carrier? I will try to find out more because it's a fascinating subject!
@@garys_stuff I went and looked for photos and you are quite right, both up and down. I agree its probably down for loading. I wonder if they need hydraulic power to raise it and they have to run the engine for that.
One of the pictures I saw showed ME109 with radiator flaps down and leading edge slats in. So much variability.
Re cranes, my oyher half about a fortnight ago found pictures of a special crane for lifting the turret off the King Tiger for maintenance. The thorough "master race" certainly didn't think their maintenance out at the design stage.
Lovely Pt 1, Gary! Looking forward to the next part and the reveal. You did a smashing job on the Bf 109’s paint scheme ❤
Useful build video with useful tips for this kit. Saw the 109 on my shelf and thought that is going to be some size. Do like ICM kits and I think they are reasonable value.
Yeah, Mistel kit from ICM is not an Inspiration Box but The Box Of Punishment for sure :)
Or Pandoras Box if you like :)
But it looks cool at the end, and the Ju-88 is a much better proposition.
@@garys_stuff Do you have some dirty sins to be punished with ICMs Bf. 109, Gary? :)
Just joking. Yes, ICMs Ju-88 is the best on the market. Wish they continue it with Ju-88R, S/T, G, Ju-188 and Ju-388.
@@gadeeshi no mate, I've just been given them (one as a stand-alone, one in a kit with a Hs.126) so I'm making them in different colours. The Ju-88 is indeed a lovely thing to build, the main undercarriage is one of the best I've seen and the engine comes out really well. Let's hope they do more with the basic moulds!!!
Nice build thanks Lee
Hey Gary - great video and what a very interesting subject matter - i wonder what other manufacturers do this, as you ask ICM are tricky, cheers Liam
In 1/48 then you'd be looking for Revell or Dragon (basically the same kit) that has a FW.190 on top of a Ju-88. More choice in 1/72 and plenty of conversion kits too. Check them out on Scalemates.
@@garys_stuff cheers Gary for getting back to me
It is great that a manufacturer provides all those details for the engine, but then asks you to hide thier light under a bushel. I'd leave off the engine on this example, and buy another ICM Bf109 and make a maintenance diorama with the engine from the Mistel kit partially stripped and hanging off an engine crane. Same if you didn't use the main wheels - just leave them laying off the the side as spares.
You've gotta hand it to ICM! Becoming my go-to manufacturer for interesting stuff.
There range meetings must be fun, "hey, why don't we make a...". But then with something as 'simple' as the Ju-88 they have gone all out to find the oddities like the Mistel and the paravane.
the BF109 looks small for 1:48.
A large Bi plane in effect how did the 109 control the junkers was there a connection that broke away on release,you said I had the patience of a saint ,I think you do too mate
All the best
Mark 😊😊
I need to do some reading about these beasts - there must be some electrical connection perhaps to the gear actuators and the throttles as a minimum, I would have thought the flying surfaces too. But yes, they'd have to disconnect on release....
@@garys_stuffcheers Gary interesting subject mate
Hi Gary playing catch up with your videos, l thought your instrument panel looked very good the engine looked very detailed l am sure there are guys watching who are very good at engines unlike me who is not 😩but would be a pity to make one then never see it anyway looking forward to the next part, did you use the new airbrush for the camouflage 👍
Yes I did use the new airbrush for the camouflage - it holds no fear for me now!!!
That seems as though it was hard work, there seemed to be quite a bit of filler needed in the cowling area.
It looks good once it's all painted up, but I think there are better versions of the bf109 around these days which would be easier to build.
Looking forward to see how the next part of the kit goes together.
I will be making Bf-109s from other manufacturers to compare. Watch this space!
This certainly appears to be an overly fussy kit. As someone has already remarked, there are far better Bf 109 doner kits out there. If one's heart is really set on having a Mistel in the collection, I'd opt for Hasegawa's trusty old Bf 109 F2/4. There are plenty still available and I'd try and get my hands on a Dragon Ju88. That kit does have some fit issues but nothing that can't be resolved with care.
You appear to have used G wings. If this is for an F variant, this is incorrect. The F wing had round cut outs (like a Spitfire) for the wheel well openings, whilst the G had angled openings for the I tended wheel covers that never materialised until the K variant.
That stub/peg that supports the engine is the breech for the 20mm cannon.
Looking forward to see how you tackle the Junkers.
I just build what's in the box mate! Interesting to know the differences as Bf-109s are a bit of a mystery to me. The other two ICM Bf-109F kits I have both have the rounded wheel wells.
Yes, I know that, Gary. I can see my comment contradicts what you were trying to achieve. Sorry, I was just expressing a general view.
Yes, the Bf-109 is a reference nightmare. The were so many combinations between the later variants. From the G-6 on, for example, two main styles of canopy could be fitted, the tail fin could be fitted to the airframe with a wooden type. There were long and short tail wheel struts and there were different style gun troughs, depending on which subcontractor produced them, in the nose. If ever there was a type where, 'check your references' had pertinence, this aircraft was top candidate. Phew!🤨
Not at all Mark - I'm keen to learn because I know relatively little about the Bf-109! I'm reasonably up with Spitfire marks, but the 109 is a mystery to me with its many variants. You kind of think "why were they still using them in 1944/5" without realising the development between the E and the K, for example, was probably as huge a leap as between a Spitfire I and XIV. I recall Jeffrey Quill saying that the Seafire FR.47 at max take-off was the same as a Mk.I Spitfire with 32 passengers!