Jump to content

Eduard 1/48 BF109-G6


Recommended Posts

I am sure that the Eduard designers got the info from somewhere having had the chance to look at the real 109's in several museums.

Eduard seems to shy away from consulting external sources - not much we can do about it, I think.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Then we will know if Gabor was lied to by Eduard, or if many here have to amend their ways since (could it be a first?) a product was corrected AFTER showing CADs and a test shot but BEFORE being released for sale.
I believe the answer is in the post above. A bit more trust should be around. Every one makes mistakes but some do correct them.

Yes, the answer is indeed above and I am elated you weren't lied to.

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eduard seems to shy away from consulting external sources - not much we can do about it, I think.

Hi ch9862,

I have to disagree with you, and the proof of this is exactly in this kit. They did listen to outside sources and made alteration to the already produced press forms. Have a look at the other end of the pallet where Kitty Hawk could not care less about all the tons of mistakes on the MiG-25 kit they produced, show on test shots and pointed out to them in detail through different channels! Which is better???

A parallel example: I know Eduard did not make the correct nose section for their MiG-21bis fighter as documented to them almost a year in advance to the release and still in design stage. You could say they did not listen but this is only one side of the story which did get a lot of attention, in the background at least they did make many other corrections which I have pointed out to them and added new parts to the bis specific sprue and also made an almost perfect Brassin R-25 engine exhaust. So if not all the “outside” info was used by them at least many were utilized!!! I would say this is good news and a positive approach from a model maker company. Now the only thing they have to do is to avoid glitches in future releases like here on the 109.

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they serious? You have to install the exhaust stacks before final assembly!?!?! I thought for just a minute this was 2014.

That's a pretty bone-headed move Eduard!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven´t seen the appropriate later landing gear legs yet and not the early Erla canopy.

Will these bits come ?

Later landing gear legs? How so?

Do you really think you won't see every variant of the G and K (at a minimum) from Eduard?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they serious? You have to install the exhaust stacks before final assembly!?!?! I thought for just a minute this was 2014.

That's a pretty bone-headed move Eduard!

That happens in a lot of kits? Since there's no engine to serve as a mounting point, it's the smart way to do things. All you have to do is mask them, or paint them after the camo goes on. Simple solutions

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attaching them from the outside would have been just as easy, and no masking. Bone headed move.

Not really. Attaching them from the inside means that you get a nice sharp, thin edge at the exhaust cut-out that you wouldn't get otherwise. Not a bone-headed move just because you don't like it. Molding the exhausts in place would be bone-headed. All making them look good requires is a bit of masking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attaching them from the outside would have been just as easy, and no masking. Bone headed move.

Just hold off gluing on the chin radiator til after you paint then fish the exhaust stacks up through the hole for said radiator. easy peasy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Later landing gear legs? How so?

Do you really think you won't see every variant of the G and K (at a minimum) from Eduard?

The parts we know from promotion pictures are the legs of the F , G-2/4 and a tiny handful of very early G-6s. Compare with photos!

The framing of the first Erla canopies had a sharp edged framing corner in the rear lower corner, later it was a rounded one due to absorb tensions in the plexi glas.. The first version was used in the field conversions of G-5/6 planes, sometimes also seen on later variants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Attaching them from the inside means that you get a nice sharp, thin edge at the exhaust cut-out that you wouldn't get otherwise. Not a bone-headed move just because you don't like it. Molding the exhausts in place would be bone-headed. All making them look good requires is a bit of masking.

Not really, you could get the same thin edged exhaust cutout with the exhaust mounting from the outside and for those that want to do that it's probably easy enough to trim the exhaust base plate and add some plasticard inside to mount it on, but I would guess the reason Eduard have done it this way is to get it looking like it's attached to an engine inside the cowl, like they did with the Spitfire, so I like the way they have done it.

What looks more tricky is if you are doing an aircraft with the exhaust shround, it appears to be molded with the exhaust rather than a seperate part, now that's going to make accurate painting interesting.

-14A_12.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with you, and the proof of this is exactly in this kit.

Gabor,

I meant asking for input before molds are made, not correcting them later. Zvezda picked very capable brains, and their 109s are really nice. Eduard went on a museum crawl by themselves and designed the kit based on what they saw. It's great that they are now adding every last panel and rivet line, but I'd rather they consulted someone knowledgeable earlier on, and got the shape and version details right.

We'll see what will the final product look like.

My 2 cents

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabor,

I meant asking for input before molds are made, not correcting them later. Zvezda picked very capable brains, and their 109s are really nice. Eduard went on a museum crawl by themselves and designed the kit based on what they saw. It's great that they are now adding every last panel and rivet line, but I'd rather they consulted someone knowledgeable earlier on, and got the shape and version details right.

We'll see what will the final product look like.

My 2 cents

Yee, lets hope it is nice and in the end even I could be tempted to get one of the 109's after all we had (and license produced) them here in Hungary. I know it will be a break from all the MiG-21's (all the noses :D ), F-117's, the MiG-25's, the SR-71's and the GWH MiG-29 production line that I have on the table . . . But if the 109 kit is good then it could be one of the next, hope the effort of comments here and on other forums has produced in the end a nice kit.

As to going out to museums to see, measure, photo, feel (very important) the real aircraft, the real aircraft is the best source of info I think when making a new kit!!! Going out to museums is something unimaginable to some producers and they rather do kits from the top of their head. :bandhead2: If I had the choice I would prefer the first option!!

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

That happens in a lot of kits? Since there's no engine to serve as a mounting point, it's the smart way to do things. All you have to do is mask them, or paint them after the camo goes on. Simple solutions

Revell opted to do the same. Only difference is their stacks are much cruder than Eduards (solid, no weld bead). I'm not sure I like Eduards decision to have the exhaust shroud molded on.

BTW, was this exhaust shroud a standard fitting on all G-6's?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having or not having an engine has zero to do with it. They could very easily have molded a recess into which the exhausts would sit. It would take me about 3 minutes to draw it up for them. If I were to buy one of the kits, I'd hack off the flange above and below the exhausts, put a piece of sheet stock behind the opening, and do exactly that. I just don't see why such an Überkit as this has such silly design features.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having or not having an engine has zero to do with it. They could very easily have molded a recess into which the exhausts would sit. It would take me about 3 minutes to draw it up for them. If I were to buy one of the kits, I'd hack off the flange above and below the exhausts, put a piece of sheet stock behind the opening, and do exactly that. I just don't see why such an Überkit as this has such silly design features.

This is not an Überkit! Just seem a cared, well-researched and thought kit. Like the Spit mk IX, if you throw all the following Brassin sets, then you will have an Überkit

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK now the instructions are available it looks like exhaust shroud is done in PE, so I guess the plastic version molded with the exhausts is really for the Weekend version, though they do have a question mark next to the exhaust to either use part 12 or 172 so I guess they are pointing out the option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think that small bump would be an unmanagable task for a modeller to get rid of it!????? To correct the bump on the wings would have been a far bigger problem! But it is corrected as far as I can see.

One should remember that there is no 100% kit and of course you will always have people who simply dont like, no matter what you produce in a kit! :bandhead2:/>

Best regards

Gabor

You know how the MiG-21bis nose is - dimensionally - only slightly different than the MF, and yet those minute dimensions translate into a noticeable difference?

Yeah... same deal here. The bump doesn't need to be removed. The entire wingroot fairing needs to be raised up above the bump. It seems they used an inaccurately restored museum aircraft and failed cross reference the details with any period research. So... they're right, everyone else is wrong, as always.

And Vladimir Sulc is trolling and insulting his customers... as always. :rolleyes::angry::bandhead2:

You can expect a problem reading these wild discussions about faults of the kit on the internet discussion forums, but don ?t worry, the relevant problems are already fixed. We changed the back fuselage riveting, the wing bulges, all together we did some 20 small or bigger changes on the kit during the finishing stage of the development process. However, we can ?t fix everything what is commented, many of these faults are actually no faults, but just subjective point of vision and to let us lead by the Hyperventilators could bring us soon to total collapse. So or so, I suppose this one will be best done Bf 109G-6 forever, and simply a bestseller like all the kits before.

(what's particularly infuriating is that he boasts about painstakingly correcting all the faults pointed out in on-line discussions in one breath, and then craps all over people - customers - who dare to point out faults while discussing the kit on-line. 'This is the best Bf109G-6 that will EVER be done, because of the feedback we received, and f-you for daring to give us feedback.')

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how the MiG-21bis nose is - dimensionally - only slightly different than the MF, and yet those minute dimensions translate into a noticeable difference?

Yeah... same deal here. The bump doesn't need to be removed. The entire wingroot fairing needs to be raised up above the bump. It seems they used an inaccurately restored museum aircraft and failed cross reference the details with any period research. So... they're right, everyone else is wrong, as always.

And Vladimir Sulc is trolling and insulting his customers... as always. :rolleyes:/> :angry:/> :bandhead2:/>

(what's particularly infuriating is that he boasts about painstakingly correcting all the faults pointed out in on-line discussions in one breath, and then craps all over people - customers - who dare to point out faults while discussing the kit on-line. 'This is the best Bf109G-6 that will EVER be done, because of the feedback we received, and f-you for daring to give us feedback.')

Yeah I've been following the chat on HS, it does seem strange that Eduard have made a better product using people's feedback, then say that people being picky about accuracy could be the death of the company!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to going out to museums to see, measure, photo, feel (very important) the real aircraft, the real aircraft is the best source of info I think when making a new kit!!!

Maybe yes, maybe no - I don't want to argue this point. However - if you are going to look at a museum piece, you need to know which parts are not original (or missing, etc.) and what they should look like. I think it wouldn't kill Eduard to ask - I'm sure many people would volunteer their time and knowledge. Doesn't seem to be the way Eduard operates.

My yet another cent.

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...