Jump to content

Eduard 1/48 BF109-G6


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not gonna say "I told you so!"

ooops....

Vedran

Sorry, what is this in reference to? I think I'm loosing track of this thread (I hate trying to read it on my phone!). I know you said what you see in those test shot photos is what we will get, which isn't the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You get a second-rate kit with none of the big (and expensive) accuracy issues solved.

They did fix some missing lines and small bumps.

But it's detailed (don't mix detailed an accurate)and those rivets will make a nice canvas for series of modelling washes. I have no doubts it will sell well.

Vedran

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivets fixed, nose fixed, bump on wing over wheel wells fixed - wheeere is problem ? Yup, a small bump in wing root.... Crazy. Simple - crazy... I bought my three Bf 109G-6 very soon - over trees for 13 USD each....(The same price as old Hobbycraft reboxed by Academy...) Eduard's Mess is now probably best and cheapest Bf 109G-6 in market.. Yupy, yup, world is niiice ! :sunrevolves:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivets fixed, nose fixed, bump on wing over wheel wells fixed - wheeere is problem ? Yup, a small bump in wing root.... Crazy. Simple - crazy... I bought my three Bf 109G-6 very soon - over trees for 13 USD each....(The same price as old Hobbycraft reboxed by Academy...) Eduard's Mess is now probably best and cheapest Bf 109G-6 in market.. Yupy, yup, world is niiice ! :sunrevolves:/>/>

Nose fixed?

Where did you see that they fixed this horrible lower nose? (Not that this is the only thing wrong with its outlines):

_MG_0106_zpsd0ed7e2a.jpg

You get a second-rate kit with none of the big (and expensive) accuracy issues solved.

They did fix some missing lines and small bumps.

But it's detailed (don't mix detailed an accurate)and those rivets will make a nice canvas for series of modelling washes. I have no doubts it will sell well.

Vedran

Exactly what I think. This it seems is what modelling has become... I'd say if this hobby is all about painting, get an actual canvas...

Robertson

Edited by Robertson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I think. This it seems is what modelling has become... I'd say if this hobby is all about painting, get an actual canvas...

Robertson

I always thought modeling was about using your skills to make the best representation you can. Fix the issues if they're dire enough to keep you up at night?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked through the first part of this thread, and I'd like to point out that you can not take a photo with an unknown lens, and compare it to a different photo with a different lens and draw any conclusions at all about accuracy. A case in point. Here is the exact same aircraft, photographed a minute or so apart, with 2 different lenses. These are both modern lenses with not a lot of distortion, but different focal lengths, and even then, not dramatically different. Look at these two images, the differences are bigger than what many are griping about comparing a photo of a model to a vintage photo of an aircraft.

The shots are taken so that the framing is quite close to the same. Notice that each engine cowl is about the same distance from the edge of the frame. The cockpit is in about the same place in the frame. If you overlaid these two photos, you'd say that one or the other was "inaccurate". Look at the apparent difference in the front strut length, or the curvature of the nose. It's the same exact plane, same camera, same photographer, only the lens changed.

Remember too that these two lenses are actually close in focal length, made by the same company, similar distortion characteristics. It can get much worse than this.

11767720963_a9f30f9630_z.jpg;

11767613953_cdbb50f8c4_z.jpg[/url];

Here's a better comparison: The exact same photograph: one copy has the lens distortion corrected using LightRoom, one does not. Look at the differences in curvature. Look how much closer the corrected nose comes to the edge of the photo. This photo was taken with a Pentax DA21. It's considered to be a relatively low distortion lens. Much better than the typical zoom lenses on consumer grade cameras. A million times better than any lens made in the 40's.

14078480574_b44a161dc8_z.jpg

14098047953_fe72c37b55_z.jpg[/url]

Edited by kozlok
Link to post
Share on other sites

Using everyone's favorite red-line approach, we conclude that the second nose is much much too blunt. Unacceptable. Won't buy this kit. Sarcasm off.

13891528677_d2fe7e9eb0_c.jpg

Edited by kozlok
Link to post
Share on other sites

You get a second-rate kit with none of the big (and expensive) accuracy issues solved.

They did fix some missing lines and small bumps.

But it's detailed (don't mix detailed an accurate)and those rivets will make a nice canvas for series of modelling washes. I have no doubts it will sell well.

Vedran

Well then I could also say I told you so, because they did fix things after the first test shot! We've seen evidence of about five fixes and Eduard says they have done 20 or so, so what else has been fixed? (OK it still has the wing root bulges, but some people claim it should be there other says it shouldn't). All these shape issues it has is just guess work from photos, so until we get hold of the final version we don't know. I'm not saying the kit is going to be accurate or not, but I will wait and see the final product.

Edited by Tbolt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbolt,

like I wrote, they fixed the small cheap stuff.

Any new kit of a single-engined WW2 fighter (costing ca 25 €) that requires me to slap on a bunch of putty to make a new wingroot fairing (shawing the bulge is not enough, the actual fairing goes over that bulge) is IMO a second-rate kit. Yes, some restored aircraft have the bulges. None of wintage photos show them.

I will not mention all other uncorrected things - if you want to learn more(and remember that ignorance is bliss), google "Vincent Kermorgant 109G-6" for a full list of errors.

Compared to Eduard's Spitfire, this 109G-6 is two levels down.

Vedran

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbolt,

like I wrote, they fixed the small cheap stuff.

Any new kit of a single-engined WW2 fighter (costing ca 25 €) that requires me to slap on a bunch of putty to make a new wingroot fairing (shawing the bulge is not enough, the actual fairing goes over that bulge) is IMO a second-rate kit. Yes, some restored aircraft have the bulges. None of wintage photos show them.

I will not mention all other uncorrected things - if you want to learn more(and remember that ignorance is bliss), google "Vincent Kermorgant 109G-6" for a full list of errors.

Compared to Eduard's Spitfire, this 109G-6 is two levels down.

Vedran

I'm aware of the faults that people say the kit has and I like the fact that people point out errors to the manufactures or things that look like they might be errors, but I just get a bit tired of people saying it's rubbish before the finished product is in hand. Sure saying you think it might have errors is fine but saying you are not going to buy it from some early pictures because it's inaccurate just doesn't really help the product.

People in this thread with were saying that errors they could see would be in the final product, including yourself, which we now know isn't correct. Could Eduard have changed the wing root fairing to the later type? Well I'm sure they could have if they wanted to as it probably wouldn't have been much more difficult to fix than the wing (wheel) bulges, but they seem to be adamant that it's correct. In the just released May, Eduard info, Mr Sulc mentions about the fix of the rear fuselage riveting and the fact that it wasn't cheap to fix.

Once the experts have hold of it and then if they say it's inaccurate then I'm fine with that - my point was until people have the finished product to examine lets not say it like it is fact.

Edited by Tbolt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbolt,

go to Eduard webshop. Choose the G-6 kit. Go to sprue pictures. Look at the fuselage parts. Wingroots are the F-1 type, not the G-6 type. It is a G-6 kit, not F-1.

Your money, your choice.

I rest my case.

Vedran

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbolt,

go to Eduard webshop. Choose the G-6 kit. Go to sprue pictures. Look at the fuselage parts. Wingroots are the F-1 type, not the G-6 type. It is a G-6 kit, not F-1.

Your money, your choice.

I rest my case.

Vedran

I guess you can't be bothered to read what I actually wrote then.

Edited by Tbolt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody

And Eduard is going to release a " ROYAL CLASS " boxing. A "ROYAL" what ? They are just shooting in their own feet !

Corrections or no corrections , this kit has been very very badly researched.

This kit could be the countrary of all what they have been announcing.

But be sure they are going to sell tons of them. And Mr. SULC knew that whatever crap he may produce, provided it's a Bf 109 it would sell.

(Just look at the 1/72 AZ model ! )

Let's just hope that the money they will earn will serve another jewel like the Spitfire !

One thing is sure, they won't have my money this time ! They took the wrong direction , both in the kit development and communication !

Madcop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nose fixed?

Where did you see that they fixed this horrible lower nose? (Not that this is the only thing wrong with its outlines):

_MG_0106_zpsd0ed7e2a.jpg

So what is the general consensus on the lower nose? I would think there is enough info out there now to decide whether the nose is accurate or badly botched. I'm not an expert by any means but to me, it appears that Eduard got this aspect wrong and if so, it looks to be extremely difficult to correct.

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will not mention all other uncorrected things - if you want to learn more(and remember that ignorance is bliss), google "Vincent Kermorgant 109G-6" for a full list of errors.

I did but I didn't find any reference by Vincent to the Eduard kit discussed here. Do you have a link?

go to Eduard webshop. Choose the G-6 kit. Go to sprue pictures. Look at the fuselage parts. Wingroots are the F-1 type, not the G-6 type. It is a G-6 kit, not F-1.

Your money, your choice.

I rest my case.

Aarrggh! Why did I follow your advice? I now have three sets of sprue trees, three sets of PE, and six sets of Brassin wheels on their way to me!

Seriously, I can fix the wing root fairing a lot easier than the wing bulges. I have plenty of other Bf 109G kits from Hobbycraft, Hasegawa, Monogram/Revell, and Fujimi that I can use the best parts for the shark mouth schemes and build the leftovers as exported aircraft.

so now I really need that list from Vincent to know what I may want to correct.

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the general consensus on the lower nose? I would think there is enough info out there now to decide whether the nose is accurate or badly botched. I'm not an expert by any means but to me, it appears that Eduard got this aspect wrong and if so, it looks to be extremely difficult to correct.

I am personally waiting for the kit to hit the streets - I'm sure someone will post pics showing all the areas pointed out before. Czech forums are the ones to watch now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just hope that the money they will earn will serve another jewel like the Spitfire !

Madcop

Yeah a P-40F/L!

Or a yak-9 series.

Edited by Tbolt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which kits currently on the market are expected to be better than the Eduard offering? In terms of overall shape, detail, options, etc? I have some boxings of the somewhat old Hasegawa kit, as well as the Academy kit, but I confess I haven't built them yet or even looked at them much. Is there something else on the market that should be superior to the Eduard kit?

I must admit I don't mind a few small bugs (which I can work on fixing, or not, as I wish) if the overall quality is still superior to the older kits I already have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody

And Eduard is going to release a " ROYAL CLASS " boxing. A "ROYAL" what ? They are just shooting in their own feet !

Corrections or no corrections , this kit has been very very badly researched.

Madcop

So, correcting it means that they didn't research it? Isn't that kind of the definition of correcting and fixing something?

The Royal Class boxings always include more special stuff.

I guess venting and telling everyone you won't buy something can make you feel better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Sulc responded to questions about the wing/fuselage transition "bump" yesterday in one of the Czech forums. Hopefully he won't mind me posting a translation of the relevant part of his text here (hopefully the meaning won't be lost in translation...). I tend to agree with him on this. BTW, as some people here are bashing him for his sharp tongue regarding critics of the pre-production samples, I think it's worth mentioning that he THANKS for all the feedback in the editorial of the Eduard Info published yesterday.

Note: I'm not an Eduard employee, friend of any members of their management etc., I'm just a (satisfied) customer.

Translation of Mr. Sulc's post from IPMS Nymburk forums:

Gentlemen, sometimes the bulge was there, sometimes it wasn't. There is no key to tell exactly when it should be there and when it shouldn't. Unfortunately it is extremely complicated to create alternate solution to this. There are two possibilites. One is to make the part with the bulge a separate part and glue it in, which would de facto mean to make the whole wing/fuselage transition area a separate part. That would cause troubles during building as the wing/fuselage/transition group would be extremely sensitive to accuracy of part alignment and gluing. I have to point out that the wing already is the most sensitive part of the model due to the separate wing mechanisation and radiators. Second possibility is to make two fuselages and include both in the kit, however in this case we wouldn't be able to tell which version to use for most of the markings as usually this detail is not clear in the pictures or even not visible. That's why we decided to include only the version with the bulge as removing it doesn't require any special skills, just a sanding paper and about two minutes of work. One may object that this is a wrong solution because the metal plate without the bulge was actually raised over the bolt. To those I want to point out that the height difference of the raised wing surface in 1/48 scale is only few tenths of milimeter and practically indiscernible. Moreover, clearly during the time there were a number of different versions of the transition area.

By the way, we were solving the same problem in the Spitfire IX kit, where in the fuselage/wing transition area sometimes is a bump and sometimes it isn't. In this case it covers the gun camera. In the Spitfire kit we solved this by separating the part and making alternative bulge one/smooth one. Unfortunately while we were preparing markings we found out that we cannot definitely say which part of the two should be used for most of them. So the final result was just a complication for the manufacturer, the customer and the actual benefit of this solution is virtually nil and so is the response to this from customers and reviewers. It was a waste of effort. I find it to be a textbook example of purposelessness.

The question is whether to complicate kits in such way. My opinion is no. If such level of detail, or version difference (moreover unclear as there is no clear key for application) is solved by the manufacturer, it brings troubles and discomfort to both manufacturer and customer. In my opinion such thing should be solved by the modeller himself using his own resources, of course given by his knowledge and skill. Gentlemen, there used to be times when no one considered such thing to be scandalous and if he didn't like something, he improved it himself and was proud that he was able to do it and that he brought his model closer to perfection. Gentlemen and comrades, no one probably told you this for a long time, but I can't help myself not to tell you. A kit always was, is and will be a semi-product and it is only up to you how you build it, finish it and improve it to your liking. It is still true that what you don't build, you don't get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some photos from Eduard research about the bumps

http://hyperscale.com/2014/reviews/kits/eduardbf109campaign_bump.htm

btw: About the nose shape - It is amazing geniality to judge the correctness of the shape, based on one picture of sprue, made from strange angle without ANY indication of lenses and parameters. Sad is that such genius has enough presumption to blame the others.

About the Eduard research - I visit Eduard during "Novemberfest" company excursion. In design & engineering department, the main topic was "109" design story. Believe or not, they invest a lot of time and money to visit & measure several survivors across the world....not once but several times to confirm the design. Believe or not, they are not stupid and wasting money to make piece of crap. If they did it, the company would not survived. They take their job seriously, they have a vision - to be best, to be most innovative on the market. Just compare their product portfolio with the others. There is NOBODY who can do all complements to kits - PE, resin, decals. Tell me which company has so deep communication with their customers...e.g.how often Mr. Tamiya discuss with his customers? How Often Richard Alexander? What about hasegawa? Trumpeter? Kitty hawk? Who correct their molds according to customer feedback? If I remember well, it was GWH for their P-61, Mig-29 or F-15, It is Eduard for their 109E 1/32 (wrong canopy)...any others? Any similar approach from Japan? What about Revell? May be Airfix? ..or Trumpeter? Kittyhawk????

Be happy for Eduard ...believe or not, they are VERY close to modelers...on daily basis...and u can see it. It would be fair to be correct to them as well as they are correct to us. At least it means to judge their product seriously, not like the "shape of the nose" in this thread...

Edited by PetrB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Sulc responded to questions about the wing/fuselage transition "bump" yesterday in one of the Czech forums. Hopefully he won't mind me posting a translation of the relevant part of his text here (hopefully the meaning won't be lost in translation...). I tend to agree with him on this. BTW, as some people here are bashing him for his sharp tongue regarding critics of the pre-production samples, I think it's worth mentioning that he THANKS for all the feedback in the editorial of the Eduard Info published yesterday.

Note: I'm not an Eduard employee, friend of any members of their management etc., I'm just a (satisfied) customer.

Translation of Mr. Sulc's post from IPMS Nymburk forums:

Gentlemen, sometimes the bulge was there, sometimes it wasn't. There is no key to tell exactly when it should be there and when it shouldn't. Unfortunately it is extremely complicated to create alternate solution to this. There are two possibilites. One is to make the part with the bulge a separate part and glue it in, which would de facto mean to make the whole wing/fuselage transition area a separate part. That would cause troubles during building as the wing/fuselage/transition group would be extremely sensitive to accuracy of part alignment and gluing. I have to point out that the wing already is the most sensitive part of the model due to the separate wing mechanisation and radiators. Second possibility is to make two fuselages and include both in the kit, however in this case we wouldn't be able to tell which version to use for most of the markings as usually this detail is not clear in the pictures or even not visible. That's why we decided to include only the version with the bulge as removing it doesn't require any special skills, just a sanding paper and about two minutes of work. One may object that this is a wrong solution because the metal plate without the bulge was actually raised over the bolt. To those I want to point out that the height difference of the raised wing surface in 1/48 scale is only few tenths of milimeter and practically indiscernible. Moreover, clearly during the time there were a number of different versions of the transition area.

By the way, we were solving the same problem in the Spitfire IX kit, where in the fuselage/wing transition area sometimes is a bump and sometimes it isn't. In this case it covers the gun camera. In the Spitfire kit we solved this by separating the part and making alternative bulge one/smooth one. Unfortunately while we were preparing markings we found out that we cannot definitely say which part of the two should be used for most of them. So the final result was just a complication for the manufacturer, the customer and the actual benefit of this solution is virtually nil and so is the response to this from customers and reviewers. It was a waste of effort. I find it to be a textbook example of purposelessness.

The question is whether to complicate kits in such way. My opinion is no. If such level of detail, or version difference (moreover unclear as there is no clear key for application) is solved by the manufacturer, it brings troubles and discomfort to both manufacturer and customer. In my opinion such thing should be solved by the modeller himself using his own resources, of course given by his knowledge and skill. Gentlemen, there used to be times when no one considered such thing to be scandalous and if he didn't like something, he improved it himself and was proud that he was able to do it and that he brought his model closer to perfection. Gentlemen and comrades, no one probably told you this for a long time, but I can't help myself not to tell you. A kit always was, is and will be a semi-product and it is only up to you how you build it, finish it and improve it to your liking. It is still true that what you don't build, you don't get.

I really do not understand the fuss about the bump.

What is all this about? The bump covers the main bolt which fastens the wing main spar to the fuselage substructure. This part was changed during the 109 production. This is why most Gs and Ks (nearly all) did not have this bump. This is different from the F. Obviously there had been reasons to use the older bolt type on the later versions. In these (few) cases the joint fairing was literally hammered around the ( "too big" ) bolt head. There are still some museum 109s around which show this crude way of making a thing fixed.

Just a short hint for future instructions is needed : sand it away if not desired.

I fear some more headache could come up with the cross section of the area behind the spinner. But let´s wait until we have the plastic in our hands. If this potential issue really arises new fuselage parts might be necessitated........

But Vladimir, please,think about the landing gear legs...!

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...