Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lritger

  • Rank
    Upper Level Dark Side Executive

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Norfolk, Virginia
  1. And with that, I think we can close the thread, LOL. :) Glad someone mentioned the lower cowling- that has bugged me since I saw the initial sprue shots. I know "Red 7" actually has an Erla lower cowling- most folks don't realize that- and even so, it doesn't have the beefy jowl look of the Eduard kit. I suspect the issue is that the kit designer must have rendered the lower cowling sides parallel, when in reality they taper outwards slightly from front to back; that would mean the forward lower cowling would need to angle inwards quickly towards the spinner, which would give the effect seen in photos. It's one of the things I'll want to check once I eventually pick one of these up. Another thing I noticed in the fuselage comparison shot with Hasegawa which was posted earlier- the Eduard fin seems to be broader in chord. Was that just my imagination? Lynn
  2. Oh, I know Jennings. Believe me, I know. But they have a habit of keeping everything in-house, as you well know... *shrug* Lynn
  3. I rarely post here but since this one sort of sits in my wheelhouse, I feel compelled to note there's something rotten in Denmark. If that pic of the Hasegawa vs Eduard wings isn't Photoshopped, there is something severely weird going on. As has been hashed out repeatedly over on HS, Eduard used a G-14 rebuilt from some wartime wreckage as their primary pattern aircraft and that led them astray in some detail areas such as the now-infamous wing root pimple and the supercharger intake base. What I'm wondering now is, are the wings that bodged up on the rebuilt aircraft? I don't think we can completely eliminate that as a source for this difference... is there anyone here on ARC that lives in Austria and might be able to get a measurement somehow on that G-14 wing? And I wouldn't trust "Stravinsky" any further than I could throw him... Mansur, on the other hand, knows his 109s backwards and forwards, and his observations are worth noting. Lynn
  4. Aw man, why another blue tail? Sure, I love the Enterprise, but why not lemon yellow, white, willow green, or red for the tail group? The Enterprise wasn't the ONLY colorful USN air group in the 1930s, ya know. Whatever the case, I'm sure it'll be drop-dead gorgeous when done... :) Lynn
  5. Save your money for the Hasegawa kit- it may have a few small issues, all kits do, but it would have to be carved from soap with a flint rock to be worse than this thing. And if you don't believe me, simply wait for a writeup from a qualified reviewer who actually does know the subject and is willing to apply a critical eye to the kit. Lynn
  6. Frank, you're killin' me over here. Actually, let me correct myself... you're finding these things before I am, and I'm very grateful for your efforts in sharing this. What's killin' me are all the little things that need to be fixed to get this thing looking right. :-/ I spent the weekend working on the engine and cowling gun platform... I got all 24 spark plugs installed and drilled out now, ripped off and rebuilt the starboard wiring loom since I did it wrong the first time, built a new hydraulic tank for the landing gear hydraulic system, and am working on the lines and linkages which come out of the firewall on the left hand side, along with the wiring bundles which are up on the cowling gun deck. When I get bored with that (which is pretty quickly), I go back to the starboard sidewall- I've got the primer pump almost finished, need to add a new lid to the flare box, and finish the stupid replacement map case. My next task is to build the two junction boxes on the starboard cockpit sidewall with the wiring, then I guess I'll build the cockpit floor and add the hydraulic lines and cylinders to the rudder pedal assembly. And THEN, I get to start on the port sidewall. Also, this isn't a full shot, but it gives you a glimpse of the torque link fitted to WNr 4101: Have a look at the top of the leg too. Do you plan to do anything about how the gear leg mounts to the airframe on the kit? Cheers, Lynn
  7. Damn, Frank... the wheels look great, but what a pain in the beau-tocks to get there. I just wanted to drop a quick note in here and tell you that you're a certifiable friggin' genius... I read how you made the cooler flap drive chain using copper wire, and decided to try that last night with some .010 lead wire. Folded a length in half, twisted it together, then flattened it using the back end of my scalpel... and hooooooly crap, it came out PERFECT. Seriously- it looks amazing, and this is a trick I will be using again and again in the future. Thanks for the idea! While I was in there, I shaved off that ridiculous map case and am scratchbuilding a new one, along with the wiring junction box and flare storage. Am I crazy, or did I once see a 1/35 flare gun in some armor kit? Keep up the fabulous work, Frank, you're doing an awesome job! Lynn
  8. Y'know, I got the Quickboost wheels as part of the review package, and I was thinking something wasn't quite right with them but couldn't put my finger on it... thanks to you, I now know exactly why they looked odd to me. I just hadn't gotten around to comparing them to photos. Guess I'm going back with my first option, an idea I cribbed from Erik Whipple... I'll cut the center hubs out of the True Details Bf 109B-E "tractor tires" and use those with the kit tires. Thanks Doug! Lynn
  9. Kuba, just to touch on the tailwheel tire... I think they may have mastered the tire from the one mounted on WNr 4101 at the Royal Air Force Museum... the photos below are pretty conclusive in this regard. The tire resembles a P-51 tailwheel tire more than a 109... tell me if you agree. It definitely does not match standard 109 tires, although it won't be too difficult to reshape... I haven't measured the diameter yet, though, so I don't know if it's too small or not. The tail wheel well looked a bit shallow to me too, but I thought it was hardly worth mentioning- it will be very easy to correct with sandpaper or a file. P-51 tailwheel tire: Bf 109 tailwheel tire, in service: Bf 109E-3 WNr 2422 tire (Swiss AF Museum): Bf 109E-1/E-3 WNr 4101 tire (Royal Air Force Museum):
  10. Fabric... of course! That makes perfect sense, and probably accounts for the "indented" look you referred to earlier. You could do that with lead foil, and it would look great... cool! :) You're absolutely right that this is head and shoulders above any other 1/32 Emil on the market, no question. And I fully admit that I'm much pickier than your average modeler when it comes to THIS particular subject- especially Emils. :) There are lots of things I like about the kit, such as: - gorgeous, delicate engraving with subtle rivets- the sort of thing other (cough *TRUMPETER* cough) manufacturers could learn from - the gear legs and doors - the photoetch pieces they supplied (BTW, I didn't get an "errata" fret in mine... wonder if they've fixed the master? We'll find out!) - the prop assembly, what a gorgeous piece of work - the canopies - the cockpit floor with the PE pieces looks great together - the overall shape looks pretty good to me- I'm not sure if the "hump" Brett refers to is really an issue, I've got some interesting period photos of that area that show it's not a straight taper - the MG 17s... good Lord, but those are sweet! So it's not a throwaway, not by any means. But yes, things like the fuel hatch are annoying, because neither I nor anyone else should HAVE to fix them, had they been done correctly in the first place. The hatch was just a straight-up bonehead error- other things, like the deep slat wells and steps in the flaps, were molding limitations (and the radiator faces might fall into that category), which I can live with and fix. It won't stop me from recommending this kit, or from building several of them, but I won't hide my disappointment that Eduard made a number of basic detail errors on the kit. But rather than just gripe about them, the article will demonstrate how to fix them as well. I don't think that's an unfair position to take. :) Cheers! Lynn
  11. There was a plug which went in that hollow recess, which sometimes stayed, and sometimes didn't... Plugged wing roots: Bf 109E-3, 2./JG 2 Bf 109E-3, WNr 1190, 4./JG 26 (yes, the exact same aircraft that currently resides at Duxford... this is a January 1940 photo) And open wing roots: Bf 109E-1, 2./JG 26 (taken 9 May 1940): Bf 109E-4, 4./JG 2: Bf 109E-4, II./JG 11: And as to the gap behind the cowling... those things got beat to he|| in service, but they were supposed to match up fairly well, as you can see in this pic: Bf 109E-4, Gruppenkommandeur in JG 53: Making the cowlings "mismatched" is certainly accurate, since cowlings would be swapped around from plane to plane and one might not fit the next very well, but leaving it "close" like the kit is not a bad thing. As to the wing roots, I'd say it's your choice, but open wing roots ARE ACCURATE. Cheers, Lynn
  12. Oh, it's not the ONLY place they missed the boat... Yes, there's more... now, I admit, I am a tough sell, since I've been studying this aircraft since I was in grade school, but some of these things are really, really basic mistakes- the sort of thing that they could have gotten right with a 5 minute Google search, or just by looking at the photos in my first book... which I know they have, because I personally gave one to Vlad at the Anaheim Nationals. Let's just say I'm not as impressed by the kit as you are, mostly because I see a lot of missed opportunities. I am glad we have it, make no mistake... and none of this stuff constitutes a "fatal flaw" which relegates the kit to the dust bin... but still, it's frustrating to see yet another manufacturer miss the boat on so many small details. More shortly... Lynn
  13. Hey Frank- Since you're devoting so much time to making this "right", you don't want to simply block off those wing roots with flat panels... The rest of your work is looking excellent so far... I'm doing a full Monty build review for the IPMS Journal, and I've got a whole list of gripes about this thing over on the IPMS boards. Like I said over on HS, your supercharger intake looks MUCH better than the kit POS, and you're right about the stick and seat... thank God I still have one of the 1/32 Cutting Edge Emil interiors and extra seats! ;) I had two, but used one in an ongoing conversion project (Matchbox kit turned into Udet's D-ISLU), so I am junking the kit's seat and O2 regulator, and using the CE units in their place. Let me know if there's other detail info you might need- between parts manuals, pilot manuals, maintenance manuals and thousands of photos, I've got more stuff on the Emil than I know what to do with, LOL! :) Keep up the good work! Lynn
  14. Ok, as an avowed Tomcat lover, I feel dirty for even thinking this, but... that is a gorgeous bird. Lovely plumage and all that. :) So how difficult was the basic kit construction itself? Did you find your patience tested by any of the build sequence? Excellent job on a beautiful aircraft. Lynn
  15. Mr. Rechliz, as I posted to you on Hyperscale, to whom did you speak about this issue when it arose, and what redress did you seek with IPMS Tidewater or the venue prior to your multi-forum posts? I have received no communications from you prior to your postings on various internet forums about this issue, and it is generally considered good form to offer the other party the opportunity for redress prior to taking your grievance public. For instance, if I had received poor service from Phantom Hobbies, I am certain you would want me to contact you first prior to airing my grievances publicly, am I correct? I eagerly await your reply. Lynn Ritger President, IPMS Tidewater Webmaster, IPMS-USA 2008 National Convention
  • Create New...