joscasle Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 These kit has great value: decals, mask, PE, and the plastic detail. Some accuracy problems that I can live with. At the end it will look like a BF-109G-6 and for sure I will be happy. So no problem at all, at least for me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ch9862 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 In stock at SB. I was able to add 190 of them to cart, so they have a few... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tbolt Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 In stock at SB. I was able to add 190 of them to cart, so they have a few... Yes only a few - Hannants have had it for a few days now, is their 5th best selling kit for the last 7 days ( only beaten by twin stick Lightning stuff) and I could put 432 in my basket! Though I'm not sure that's how many they actually have but it wouldn't let me have 433! Maybe they have a purchase limit of £12,100 ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ch9862 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Maybe they have a purchase limit of £12,100 ;)/> That's it - they know what you can afford and don't want you to get in trouble with your significant other :). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SoaringArmor Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 I wouldn't mind buying one as long as it doesn't build like their 190s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a4s4eva Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Some people are perfectly happy with less than "perfectly accurate" kits. I don't know why that has to be so hard to understand. It's very rarely I see the "proud rivet counters" acknowledge that their expectations don't unequivocally HAVE to be accepted by everyone else. They get testy when someone suggests that a kit like this one is acceptable in their eyes...there is never any leeway...it's their way or the highway. I don't understand why people just can't accept that people approach the hobby from different perspectives. Interestingly I have the opposite view. I've never seen those who like discuss accuracy (the "rivet counters" as they are derisively called ) telling people not to build a kit. In fact most say the exact opposite. It the "shut up and build it" crowd, who seem to get upset when people point out errors, or potential errors in kits IMHO the shut and build guys shouldn't even bother reading threads about kit accuracy. Clearly they aren't interested in what's being being discuss so I can never understand why they feel the need to enter the conversation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a4s4eva Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Some people are perfectly happy with less than "perfectly accurate" kits. I don't know why that has to be so hard to understand. It's very rarely I see the "proud rivet counters" acknowledge that their expectations don't unequivocally HAVE to be accepted by everyone else. They get testy when someone suggests that a kit like this one is acceptable in their eyes...there is never any leeway...it's their way or the highway. I don't understand why people just can't accept that people approach the hobby from different perspectives. Interestingly I have the opposite view. I've never seen those who like discuss accuracy (the "rivet counters" as they are derisively called ) telling people not to build a kit. In fact most say the exact opposite. It the "shut up and build it" crowd, who seem to get upset when people point out errors, or potential errors in kits IMHO the shut and build guys shouldn't even bother reading threads about kit accuracy. Clearly they aren't interested in what's being being discuss so I can never understand why they feel the need to enter the conversation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SoaringArmor Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Interestingly I have the opposite view. I've never seen those who like discuss accuracy (the "rivet counters" as they are derisively called ) telling people not to build a kit. In fact most say the exact opposite. It the "shut up and build it" crowd, who seem to get upset when people point out errors, or potential errors in kits IMHO the shut and build guys shouldn't even bother reading threads about kit accuracy. Clearly they aren't interested in what's being being discuss so I can never understand why they feel the need to enter the conversation. I've never seen posts telling someone not to build it or posts saying shut up and build it. Perhapes you could quote some for me. I've only seen posts saying "it's inaccurate so I won't buy it" and "it looks like an x to me so I'll buy it." It seems to be that the polarizing debate is between "rivet counters" and "non-rivet counters" and it happens regardless of the kit involved. Rather than posts telling someone not to build it or to shut up and build it, the posts end up being a flame war of ad hominems between the two polar opposites trying to justify their opinion with no mention of the kit in question. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Thompson Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) I'm with Jennings. That poverblown spine hump would be a bear to fix. No, you can't just sand down the spine, the cross sections in the sanded area will all need re-shaping, and new panel lines scored in. Hal A bear to fix? Sanding, reshaping, and rescribing sounds like everyday modelbuilding to me. Granted, it shouldn't be necessary, but if that's the biggect obstacle to having an accurate model, it doesn't seem like a "fatal flaw", or even close, in my book. You'd have to do some sanding and rescribing on that joint anyway, even if you weren't correcting the shape. John Edited May 10, 2014 by John Thompson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) I find this humorous. Over 20 years ago the Hasegawa kits were all things to all people. Light years ahead of every previous Bf109 kit. True, it had some problems (that really aren't visible to the naked eye), but overall it was (and is) a great family of kits. Today's Überkit is maybe a little better, but still has some basic problems. Just not the same problems as the 25 year old kit... How far have we really come? Edited May 10, 2014 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fernando Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) At least I am glad to know that all modellers around the world made Eduard sufficiently upset by providing comments, claims and facts prior its release. It is clear when they announced that had "wild" discussions or "hyperventilators" statements in many forums. At least they assumed some issues and fixed them in a timelly manner (Wing bulge over top wing wheel bay, rivets position and some minor ones). At least eduard cannot spread complaints for the "free of charge consulting", which they were not able to realize during the design. The rest.. who knows.. Only serious reviews will show now since its too late to spread claims in "hyperventilators" now. Even considrering other issues (e.g. nose shape.. its a major issue in my opinion). Other forums, even in FB, some 109 "specialists" with "blueprints" took from I do not know where this come from.... said that the nose shape is right (or accurate...whatever word you want to use). I confess that I am skeptical on use as evidences blue prints, as drawings changes everytime until final release into production are in place... this is modern aircraft manufacturing process... just imagine in WWII with bombs sorrounding the plants. But as above, now its too late. Maybe fix in next generation of 109 if they decide to spend some money to do this and if the error are significant and enough to jeopardize their sales. I suppose not since "Trumpeboss" dont give a sh...to the modellers opinions and claims (e.g. Hellcat 1/48)as they sell like soda worldwide. Same for other manufacturers. At least in this aspect, Eduard did a good job. Now I want be happy other than be right... :nanner:/>/>/> Edited May 10, 2014 by Fernando Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 My whole point is that it seems like a lot of people (and I'm not saying you specifically) put a lot of weight into accuracy simply because internet "experts" say they have too. I've seen hundreds...LITERALLY HUNDREDS of incidents on forums over the years where a builder was basically ridiculed for accepting a kits accuracy issues and building it as is. Some of these "rivet counters" have zero tact. I'm calling you out on this garbage: Link to some examples please... You claim hundreds, I wonder if you can even find one... In ten years of looking at many forums, I remember four notable put downs, three of which related to colour, not the model: -1 One involving a sort-of fictional color scheme of a Ki-44, 2-another for a heavy wash in the panel lines of a P-40, leading to a huge argumentative thread, and a third (by the same guy complaining in #1), who ridiculed the weathering on an unpainted in-factory C6N Saiun... I think the same guy was involved in all three, and not one was related to not correcting a kit's flaws... I remember a fourth one involving a Lancaster built by a French modeller on Aeroscale (Brit modellers being adamant a window should be blanked/moved), and that is the only put-down I remember seeing that involved an actual kit correction issue. Back up your prejudice, or expose it for what it is... Yes there is a far better kit out there: Combine a Zvezda with a Vector G-2 conversion set, and then borrow some cowl bumps from cheap Hasegawa, Otaki or Hobbycraft kits that pollute everyone's stash... Hal said it best about the spine, and the square lower nose is even worse... The conclusion about the Eduard Me-109G is that it is a great encouragement to buy their Spitfire Mk IX; you don't see many rivet counter complaining about those, do you? Robertson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nerdling Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Gaston the fact that you claim to be an expert on everything yet can't use the correct term for the plane in question is just laughable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dragonlance Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Gaston the fact that you claim to be an expert on everything yet can't use the correct term for the plane in question is just laughable. And your ad hominem makes you sooooo much better. Congratulations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hal Marshman Sr Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) A bear to fix? Sanding, reshaping, and rescribing sounds like everyday modelbuilding to me. Granted, it shouldn't be necessary, but if that's the biggect obstacle to having an accurate model, it doesn't seem like a "fatal flaw", or even close, in my book. You'd have to do some sanding and rescribing on that joint anyway, even if you weren't correcting the shape. John For my money, one shouldn't need to do these things This is one of the best documented planeS in history, along with Spitfires, Mustangs and Thunderbolts, so there's just plain no excuse for them not getting it right. Edited May 10, 2014 by Hal Marshman Sr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Given Eduard's making such a big noise about their exhaustive research and meticulous design on this kit, there is NO reason for them to make elementary mistakes in the dimensions and shapes of the kit. None. Zero. I don't remotely lay claim to perfection in everything I do, and it's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees on a project like this, but there are ways to avoid such basic mistakes as they've apparently made on the nose of their model. Other manufacturers do it, but Eduard doesn't. They apparently think too much of their abilities to stoop to asking for outside help. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
auhlik Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Based on the measurement of the real model here http://ipmsnymburk.com/forum/viewtema.php?ID_tema=38182&page_d=0&idp_d=0&idc_d=1&show_html= Eduard 109 seems to have wingspan 7 mm bigger than it should be in 1/48. It corresponds to about 1/46 scale.. The fuselage seems to have similar problem... S. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dragonlance Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) That would make it similar to their Emil. But IIRC Emil had the wingspan right. Edit: why do Brassin and Eduard plastic gun gondolas have different lengths? Which one is correct? Vedran Edited May 11, 2014 by dragonlance Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Mikester Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 I'm calling you out on this garbage: Link to some examples please... You claim hundreds, I wonder if you can even find one... In ten years of looking at many forums, I remember four notable put downs, three of which related to colour, not the model: -1 One involving a sort-of fictional color scheme of a Ki-44, 2-another for a heavy wash in the panel lines of a P-40, leading to a huge argumentative thread, and a third (by the same guy complaining in #1), who ridiculed the weathering on an unpainted in-factory C6N Saiun... I think the same guy was involved in all three, and not one was related to not correcting a kit's flaws... I remember a fourth one involving a Lancaster built by a French modeller on Aeroscale (Brit modellers being adamant a window should be blanked/moved), and that is the only put-down I remember seeing that involved an actual kit correction issue. Back up your prejudice, or expose it for what it is... Yes there is a far better kit out there: Combine a Zvezda with a Vector G-2 conversion set, and then borrow some cowl bumps from cheap Hasegawa, Otaki or Hobbycraft kits that pollute everyone's stash... Hal said it best about the spine, and the square lower nose is even worse... The conclusion about the Eduard Me-109G is that it is a great encouragement to buy their Spitfire Mk IX; you don't see many rivet counter complaining about those, do you? Robertson Relax, Gaston. He wasn't talking about you, nobody considers you an expert. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Mikester Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Brett Green's review from Hyperscale: 109 Review As a rule I trust Brett's reviews, he actually builds models but is conscious of accuracy as well and is usually pretty level headed. I think this kit is a definite upgrade over the older Hasegawa kit, however 1/48 is not my scale so mehhhhh.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Paolo Portuesi Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Hi, I just started building the new G6 from Eduard, taking advantadge of the Brassin cockpit, as you can see: ... and this is what I discovered checking the main parts against the Hasegawa ones: Bigger, for sure. What do you think about ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tbolt Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Hi, I just started building the new G6 from Eduard, taking advantadge of the Brassin cockpit, as you can see: ... and this is what I discovered checking the main parts against the Hasegawa ones: Bigger, for sure. What do you think about ? That's interesting. I believe the wingspan in 1/48th scale should be 206.75mm - the Hasegawa kit wingspan is 205mm, so is fractionally short, but the Eduard kit looks way too big. Does appear that it may not be 1/48th scale. Edited May 12, 2014 by Tbolt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Somebody just posted on HS that both the length and the wingspan are significantly oversize. The wingspan (according to him) is like 14 scale inches too wide (that's a lot, esp if it turns out to be true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lritger Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 The Bf109G-6 in Washington is 100% authentic, and all eduard needed to do was ask for access to it, along with the extensive curatorial files on it. But they didn't ask. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.