Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
galfa

New Eduard 1/48 Gustav. What's the assessment ?

Recommended Posts

If I understand correctly, he's also saying the wingtip shape is correct (really?), and only the span dimension is wrong. That wing tip doesn't look right to my non-expert eyes, compared to every other pic, drawing, model, etc. I've seen. If their wing tip profile/curve is right, then every other one for the past 30 years has been wrong, and I doubt that. If all they do is fix the span, then the wing will still have a problem IMO.

BW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm not buying one, but may have a look at it if they retool some bits.

kinda gotta think of this quagmire from another direction as well. Just about every kit made has a pit fall of somekind, but often are easily fixable. The new Eduard can't be fixed with out help from above. On the otherhand the folks on HS claim Eduard will do a retool to fix the issues. Good for them, but it looks like a complete retool to me, as every part will be out of scale for the new parts. Probably looking at a $40 kit when all said and done. The Zvezda F4 around here goes for $25 to $27 in the hobby shops. I honestly expect their new kit to come in at less than $30. Now looking at the Zvezda F2 kit and then comparing to their F4, one will start to see an evolution. Same basic plastic, but parts are even better. I can only hope Zvezda keeps up their good work and maybe improve a little more here and there. We start to also see the samething with Revell's 1/32 kits as well. Their G10 is alittle better than their G6, and really the G6 wasn't half as bad as some of the shills professed. Sad thing is that the Revell kits around here can be had for the same price as the Zvezda! Leaving the Tamigawa kits rotting on the shelf. My local dealer told me yesterday afternoon he was fixing to send a bunch of Tamiya armor kits back to them as he can't sell them in the 50% mark down bin due to the crazy pricing. A lot of folks these days shop with their wallet in mind.

gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

What's wrong with the wingtips?

Cheers

Boris

There was a photo posted somewhere (sorry don't recall where) a few days ago of a Hasegawa & and Eduard built up setting next to each other. The additional wing span of the Eduard really showed up, and the wing tip looked to 'deep' from tip chord to tip & the curve didn't look right. Perhaps my old eyes were deceiving me, or it was the angle of the photo, but it just looked off to me.

BW

Edited by billw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand correctly, he's also saying the wingtip shape is correct (really?), and only the span dimension is wrong. That wing tip doesn't look right to my non-expert eyes, compared to every other pic, drawing, model, etc. I've seen. If their wing tip profile/curve is right, then every other one for the past 30 years has been wrong, and I doubt that. If all they do is fix the span, then the wing will still have a problem IMO.

BW

Eduard said they copied the wing tip by tracing the outline of the wing tip on the aircraft they used for reference. Considering the other items wrong on the restoration of the aircraft, you have to wonder if the wing tips were right.

Cheers,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eduard said they copied the wing tip by tracing the outline of the wing tip on the aircraft they used for reference. Considering the other items wrong on the restoration of the aircraft, you have to wonder if the wing tips were right.

Cheers,

Dave

Or something got changed in the process of converting their tracing to data for the CAD. I just looked again at another photo showing a top view of both the Eduard & Hasegawa wings, and really the wing tips looked closer in that one. So maybe it was just the angle of the shot in the built models that made it look off to me. The wing tip still looks a little to 'deep' to me. It's like everything on the wings got stretched out span wise.

BW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

There is nothing wrong with the Eduard wingtip,if there is then all are wrong.

Cheers

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The magazine is really cute, but it goes right back to the "if someone disagrees with me, they're wrong by definition" school of thought. As I and numerous others have said, if you don't like to read very fair, honest, and proven criticism of a kit, don't read it. Otherwise either contribute something meaningful to the discussion or leave it alone. Part of this attitude seems to me to stem from the fact that some people have a problem with the fact that there are people who know more about a lot of things than they do. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and there *are* people with extensive encyclopedic knowledge of some types of aircraft. That fact may make them a geek, but it also makes them qualified to accurately assess and offer constructive criticism of a model of that aircraft.

If whomever created that cute little magazine cover would follow his own advice and just build a model (No-Build Special!) instead of wasting time on juvenile stuff like the fake magazine, maybe he'd be happier too.

BTW, I have an Eduard 109 listed on eBay right now for a decent price if anyone wants it. I have no other use for it, since it's too large to fit accurately scaled decals to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really looking forward to this kit. Guess I'll stick to their 190s.

Aaron

Edited by jester292

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

wait for the Zvezda realese then if you are afraid of doing some gentle cutting.

Cheeers

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with the Eduard wingtip,if there is then all are wrong.

Zvezda on the left, Eduard on the right.

DSC_5562_zpsa6f88baa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really looking forward to this kit. Guess I'll stick to their 190s.

Aaron

Why not try the far better Hasegawa FW-190s? Granted, the right wingroot is an inch thinner than the left, while the right wingtip is about the same thicker, but somehow I don't think this is what discourages people...

Taking the measurement of the Me-109's wingspan without considering the dihedral would add a few inches, but nowhere near the actual 14" the Eduard kit added.

I don't think the wingtip shape is such a big problem on the Eduard kit: The rest of the wing is...:

Me109-G6-60.jpg

The editorial is not clear what they will actualy do, because the problem is so immense it is nearly unmannageable... I don't envy their position, which might be caused by CAD workers that have moved on like contractors (they might be completely separate from the actual designing team). Apparently these CAD specialists are in short supply, and always moving from place to place. Contrary to the claims of digital "flexibility", such digital 3D images are likely very hard to tamper with "from the outside" without ruining them, which has the effect of deterring serious checking once they are done... I think somebody signed off on the dimensions just like Brett Green did in his initial review...

Robertson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I noticed there are some differences in the way Eduard and Eagle Cals depict Heinrich Bartels' "Red 13" "Marga".

Eduard indicates the use of the tropical filter and has the lower cowling painted yellow. Eagle Cals depicts it without the filter and no yellow on the lower cowling.

I gather Eagle Cals have an excellent reputation, but a dust filter seems quite appropriate for Greece.

Any thoughts on this?

Cheers, Stefan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zvezda on the left, Eduard on the right.

DSC_5562_zpsa6f88baa.jpg

Interestiing...wing nav lamp is not covered by lens in zvezda...maybe becasuse of f4 only?

Edited by Fernando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense some kind of polarization. My understanding: "For us the kit matters more than the model. Are you with us or against us ?". For me a good model kit is a good kit (easy to assemble, nice and crisp detailing) and a good model (dimensional accuracy, proportions, version specific features).

Hi Laurent

It's just like a guy trying to sell you his car that he knows is a POS ,but who keeps telling you that you'll love it just because of the very nice ashtray inside !

It's just miserable.

Madcop :D/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The magazine is really cute, but it goes right back to the "if someone disagrees with me, they're wrong by definition" school of thought. As I and numerous others have said, if you don't like to read very fair, honest, and proven criticism of a kit, don't read it. Otherwise either contribute something meaningful to the discussion or leave it alone. Part of this attitude seems to me to stem from the fact that some people have a problem with the fact that there are people who know more about a lot of things than they do.

Indeed and there is probably an even larger amount of people parroting misinformation they pick up and talking out the side of their neck which is why many people have developed an aversion to many of these self-proclaimed experts. There are several people who I hold in very high esteem on the subject of 109's, others should abide by the old Mark twain quote "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and there *are* people with extensive encyclopedic knowledge of some types of aircraft. That fact may make them a geek, but it also makes them qualified to accurately assess and offer constructive criticism of a model of that aircraft.

We also have a segment of the hobby who have pretty much forsaken building models in favor of finding every possible flaw so they have an excuse not to build them. I'm concerned about accuracy, I'm also concerned about kit engineering and how to actually fix flaws on the kit. Some of these guys have no clue to go about that since they're no longer modelers or never really were to begin with.

If whomever created that cute little magazine cover would follow his own advice and just build a model (No-Build Special!) instead of wasting time on juvenile stuff like the fake magazine, maybe he'd be happier too.

Most people found it pretty humorous, myself included. If you can't laugh at yourself occasionally you're taking a hobby way too seriously. I don't have a problem with people pointing inaccuracies on a kit, it's the ridiculous commentary and hyperbole that usually accompanies it. Someone posted an exceptionally well done Eduard 109G at another site and of course one somebody had to chime in with "nice job, too bad it's not 1/48". Really? If you wonder why some people don't have a lot of tolerance for rivet counters there's your answer. The heavy-handed commentary and more than a small measure of elitism that some people possess are every bit as responsible for the arguments as those of the "just build it" crowd. It takes two to tango.

BTW, I have an Eduard 109 listed on eBay right now for a decent price if anyone wants it. I have no other use for it, since it's too large to fit accurately scaled decals to.

I'll pass. 1/48 is dead, it just doesn't know it yet! ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Laurent

It's just like a guy trying to sell you his car that he knows is a POS ,but who keeps telling you that you'll love it just because of the very nice ashtray inside !

It's just miserable.

Madcop :D/>/>/>

Yup! You nailed it dead on! I read the memo from Eduard on it, pretty much what they said!---John

Edited by john53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We also have a segment of the hobby who have pretty much forsaken building models in favor of finding every possible flaw so they have an excuse not to build them.

That is your *opinion* about other peoples' motivations and intentions, not fact. It's fine for you to feel that way, but don't assume that it's actually true, because it isn't. Everyone participates in this hobby in his own way. I know a LOT of really masterful modelers who might build one kit every ten years (or less). That has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of tea in China.

Edited by Jennings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is your *opinion* about other peoples' motivations and intentions, not fact. It's fine for you to feel that way, but don't assume that it's actually true, because it isn't. Everyone participates in this hobby in his own way. I know a LOT of really masterful modelers who might build one kit every ten years (or less). That has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of tea in China.

Why don't show us YOUR masterpiece(s) finally to remove any doubt that you can do more than just talk? No, it doesn't have to be an Eduard kit.

Mario

in NYC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I noticed there are some differences in the way Eduard and Eagle Cals depict Heinrich Bartels' "Red 13" "Marga".

Eduard indicates the use of the tropical filter and has the lower cowling painted yellow. Eagle Cals depicts it without the filter and no yellow on the lower cowling.

I gather Eagle Cals have an excellent reputation, but a dust filter seems quite appropriate for Greece.

Any thoughts on this?

Cheers, Stefan.

Bartels and his WNr.27169 were the subject of two different PK-photo sequences, the first, from October 1943 (Bundesarchiv photos Nr.526-2306-20, 21, 23, 24, 33, 34, 36 & 37) reveals 56 Abschussbalken on the white rudder, a tropical filter fitted, and yellow beneath the cowl in photo 526-2306-34. One of these shows the central cannon cover had a map taped to the top, with Bartels showing 3 Warte "where and how it's done." Bartels is wearing shorts, and his black shirt with rolled sleeves.

The second sequence (527-2338-6, 8, 13, 14, 20, 21) reveals 70 Abschussbalken on the rudder (he'd made his 70th claim on 15.Nov.). Bartels wears long trousers with tied cuffs, black shirt with rolled sleeves, and inflatable life preserver. The Erla factory's 'sawtooth' wing camouflage pattern is clearly apparent in these photos.

Hope this clarifies, GRM

edit: typo

Edited by G.R.Morrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If whomever created that cute little magazine cover would follow his own advice and just build a model (No-Build Special!) instead of wasting time on juvenile stuff like the fake magazine, maybe he'd be happier

I thought it was quite apt and amusing, much like parts of this thread have been. But then again maybe I am not taking this issue seriously enough.

Perhaps you could make some 1:45.5 scale decals just for this kit...

Darius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestiing...wing nav lamp is not covered by lens in zvezda...maybe becasuse of f4 only?

Zvezda is the early type.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...