Jump to content

Eduard 1/48 BF109-G6


Recommended Posts

That's what the problem is, they've got the rear fuselage upside down ;)/>/>

Yes, but still keeping the tail's end close to the correct height somehow... If you look at the canopy's forward depth below the top ouline of the nose, you'll see the kit's front canopy is really much more deeply seated into the nose than on the real aircraft: This is where the canopy's extra height comes from at the rear, which allows that deep spine curve, and yet keeps the tail's extremity at a plausible height (though it could still be too low)... This does imply that the nose is too deep at the windshield level, which it certainly appears to be (hard to say with the gondolas)...

MosonG-62_zpsa2656f30.jpg

Me109-G2-112af+s.jpg

R.

Edited by Robertson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The kit photos do look a bit strange, maybe lens distortion plays a role here like Gabor said. Also landing gear seems to be installed at a wrong angle. I guess we'll see soon enough :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The kit photos do look a bit strange, maybe lens distortion plays a role here like Gabor said. Also landing gear seems to be installed at a wrong angle. I guess we'll see soon enough :)/>/>.

I'm sure it does, but there could also be some distortion in the period photo as well.

It all comes down to looking at the kit yourself and deciding if you can live with the rear fuselage (if indeed there is anything wrong with it), personally it probably won't bother me.

It does look like who ever has assembled it has got the gear legs at the wrong angle causing it to sit a little too high.

Edited by Tbolt
Link to post
Share on other sites

The kit photos do look a bit strange, maybe lens distortion plays a role here like Gabor said. Also landing gear seems to be installed at a wrong angle. I guess we'll see soon enough :)/>.

As said before this is just a test "airframe". When you have the first sprues from the injection moulding machine apart from inspection for any mistakes, innacuracies due to the moulding machine. Adjustments have to be made to the muolding machine but some also to the press forms. Not only the sprues are inspected but of course the different parts are fitted to each other to see if it works, after all this is the first time you have the kit parts in your hand. The question is here not of exact adjustment, alighment, historic correctnes but of parts fit. This is not a model built to Master standard! It is just a trial of the first sprues!

It is good to see that Eduard has shown this "raw version" of the kit to us even if it is not representative of the kit that would be!

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

How come you all harp all over this kit, which isn't released yet! Yet I see no one harping over the other new kits being presented (I.e., Do-17 from ICM, a few postings down).

Because right now I can buy several pretty good 1/48 109G-6's and of course there will be the excellent Zvezda 109G-6 in a year or two (and in my country it will sell for 17USD).

HC Do-17 is an ancient banana shaped empty kit, CA is rarely available terrible(and terribly) overpriced kit which is barely a cut above the HC kit, and if ICM just upscales their 1/72 effort it will be more accurate, cheaper and, compared to the Bf 109G, the only available 1/48 kit of the type.

Without all the aggresive marketing and hype.

So it gets some slack.

As usual, only IMO. Your mileage may vary.

Vedran

Edited by dragonlance
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because right now I can buy several pretty good 1/48 109G-6's and of course there will be the excellent Zvezda 109G-6 in a year or two (and in my country it will sell for 17USD).

HC Do-17 is an ancient banana shaped empty kit, CA is rarely available terrible(and terribly) overpriced kit which is barely a cut above the HC kit, and if ICM just upscales their 1/72 effort it will be more accurate, cheaper and, compared to the Bf 109G, the only available 1/48 kit of the type.

Without all the aggresive marketing and hype.

So it gets some slack.

As usual, only IMO. Your mileage may vary.

Vedran

All very true, but I'm sure the ICM and Airfix Do17's will be carefully compared when they are both available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Brettas take a look at the previus picture, doesn't look as bad as on the picture you are referring to,

Cheers

Boris

Boris, this image can be distorted, but the other images of 3D model are like that too. I like to buy the new G-6, but with this and other problems I'll be waiting for Zvezda.

1392651641_DSC_0286_zpsd84cc457.jpg

1392651635_DSC_0284_zpsa25f6fdb.jpg

Edited by Brettas
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Brettas ,

Yes that's true, and it's very hard to tell from those angles but if you look at Robertsons comparison it sure looks ok to me, but I can be wrong.

So I can tell you for sure when I get mine .

Cheers

Boris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Brettas ,

Yes that's true, and it's very hard to tell from those angles but if you look at Robertsons comparison it sure looks ok to me, but I can be wrong.

So I can tell you for sure when I get mine .

Cheers

Boris

Looks like the same error as on Hasegawa's 1/32 Bf-109G serie. Nose too angular. They corrected this and other mishaps on their Bf 109F-4.

Just my 2 cents.

Madcop :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Brettas ,

Yes that's true, and it's very hard to tell from those angles but if you look at Robertsons comparison it sure looks ok to me, but I can be wrong.

So I can tell you for sure when I get mine .

Cheers

Boris

Yeah Boris, the profile of the model looks good to me too, but seen from another angle appears this "belly". The best would be to have the model at hand, but this only in May.

Um abraço.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Boris, the profile of the model looks good to me too, but seen from another angle appears this "belly". The best would be to have the model at hand, but this only in May.

Um abraço.

Well "looking good." is all relative I suppose...

This is a quick list, with a few items added by others in other sites:

MosonG-62_zpsb12b13ec.jpg

ww2history-kyostikarhila-mt201_zpsa01bae21.jpg

-Angle of the leading edge of the fin way too sloped.

-Tailplane leading edge root too far back from fin leading edge. (Really obvious, yet I missed it until someone pointed it out)

-Tailplanes look a bit low (unclear because of the inaccuracies of the fin leading edge).

-Hopelessly flat rear belly.

-No "step" behind engine openable cowl: Universal to all kits. Not a big deal, but obvious: It was a big rubber seal trapped between the fuselage and the engine panel, all around the rear of the nose.

-Exhausts a little tall-looking: Not too bad, but reminds one of the Kit Who Shall Not Be Named (Starting with "H")...

-Canopy too tall, but mostly by "biting" too deeply into the nose (compare the vertical depth of windshield's seating area, which used to be glazed in the F): This allows for the too deep curve at the spine, yet causing no excessive "windshield step" at the front, because said canopy is more deeply "buried" into the nose. This should mean the nose is too deep at the windshield area, and indeed, what do you know, it looks like it is (despite the obstruction of the gondolas)...

Now all that is left to do is argue the photos are all wrong and don't match in viewing angle, and you can ignore all this.

Or you can get the less expensive Zvezda kit, which also ignores all these errors... A hard, nail-biting choice.

Robertson

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you can make a G-2 using Vector conversion.

That is still not a G-6 and an expensive alternate which would need further modification to get the version I am interested in (for a Finnish shark mouth).

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robertson,

Really until the landing gear has a different inclination.

The fuel tank appears to be wrong as well.

The landing gear angle just seems to be the quick-build nature of it.

The viewing angle doesn't match between the built model and the picture, but I will agree that the elevators seem a bit too far from the leading edge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well "looking good." is all relative I suppose...

This is a quick list, with a few items added by others in other sites:

MosonG-62_zpsb12b13ec.jpg

ww2history-kyostikarhila-mt201_zpsa01bae21.jpg

-Angle of the leading edge of the fin way too sloped.

-Tailplane leading edge root too far back from fin leading edge. (Really obvious, yet I missed it until someone pointed it out)

-Tailplanes look a bit low (unclear because of the inaccuracies of the fin leading edge).

-Hopelessly flat rear belly.

-No "step" behind engine openable cowl: Universal to all kits. Not a big deal, but obvious: It was a big rubber seal trapped between the fuselage and the engine panel, all around the rear of the nose.

-Exhausts a little tall-looking: Not too bad, but reminds one of the Kit Who Shall Not Be Named (Starting with "H")...

-Canopy too tall, but mostly by "biting" too deeply into the nose (compare the vertical depth of windshield's seating area, which used to be glazed in the F): This allows for the too deep curve at the spine, yet causing no excessive "windshield step" at the front, because said canopy is more deeply "buried" into the nose. This should mean the nose is too deep at the windshield area, and indeed, what do you know, it looks like it is (despite the obstruction of the gondolas)...

Now all that is left to do is argue the photos are all wrong and don't match in viewing angle, and you can ignore all this.

Or you can get the less expensive Zvezda kit, which also ignores all these errors... A hard, nail-biting choice.

Robertson

I think we need to wait and see the actual plastic for most of these points. You do realise that if you examine 99% of the kits out there they have just as many inaccuracies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi guys, I watch your discussion about new Eduard Bf 109G and I think that what I see here is a bit insane. You are comparing war time photos, with photos of pre production model, both taken from different angles, from different distances etc. This comparison is not worth a penny. Lets wait until we have the model physically, then we can start to critise. I will be surprised if half of what you claim is wrong will be confirmed...

Link to post
Share on other sites

really doubt that they will have enough time to fix and release next month....will wait the market reaction to see If I would buy a new one...Error in "paralax" effect exists, but for me there are evident issues. If a pay a "ferrari" price, I want a "ferrari" car, ie, I dont want to waste time in fixing issues that will require more money, time and your "balls" patience :bandhead2: . If its similar to Fw190 building and fits (I built a Fw190D9...and never more... :deadhorse1: ), certainly I would not buy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

really doubt that they will have enough time to fix and release next month....will wait the market reaction to see If I would buy a new one...Error in "paralax" effect exists, but for me there are evident issues. If a pay a "ferrari" price, I want a "ferrari" car, ie, I dont want to waste time in fixing issues that will require more money, time and your "balls" patience :bandhead2:/> . If its similar to Fw190 building and fits (I built a Fw190D9...and never more... :deadhorse1:/> ), certainly I would not buy it.

Except that the kit will not be "ferrari" priced, more like "Ford" pricing - look at the Weekend boxings, cheaper than the Airfix kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that the kit will not be "ferrari" priced, more like "Ford" pricing - look at the Weekend boxings, cheaper than the Airfix kit.

Agree. But some issues can be fixed easily without need afftermarket correction set... Example.: the "wart" in the wing root, just saw off. The "nice to have" sets i certainly would buy it...but to fix bizarre issues its is really fustrating and requires more money, eg. Wheels bulge over top wings misalignment and "chin" after spinner. If i want a toy, id buy a diecast. I dont care how many rivets there are...but really cares on high visible issues reported in this and other forums.

Edited by Fernando
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi guys, I watch your discussion about new Eduard Bf 109G and I think that what I see here is a bit insane. You are comparing war time photos, with photos of pre production model, both taken from different angles, from different distances etc. This comparison is not worth a penny. Lets wait until we have the model physically, then we can start to critise. I will be surprised if half of what you claim is wrong will be confirmed...

Hah. Sadly, what you see in the photos in this thread is what you get.

I don't doubt that that this kit will sell. But as it is, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Vedran

Edited by dragonlance
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...