Fernando Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Zvezda is the early type. thank you! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 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 Or you could mind your own business and get on with life. I don't measure my worth by your standards in anything, especially my hobby. Grow up a little. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darius at home Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Grow up a little. After you. Darius Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 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 is no misinformation. At best there is exaggeration. But you just demonstrated you don't know the difference, so why be concerned with it? Robertson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alex Vourvachis Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 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. Hi Stefan, a dust filter in Greece isn't so appropriate, so IMHO don't use it. We have a lot of plantation here, and no deserts at all. ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Hi Stefan, a dust filter in Greece isn't so appropriate, so IMHO don't use it. We have a lot of plantation here, and no deserts at all. ;)/> I think many -109's that were assigned to the Mediterranean theater had this fitted, regardless of what specific country they ended up in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sakai Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 There is no misinformation. At best there is exaggeration. But you just demonstrated you don't know the difference, so why be concerned with it? Robertson Let me think Gaston... It just happened to be you, Gaston Marty (aka Robertson), spreading "information" about Nakajima-built Zero fuselage being different length than Mitsubishi-built one all over the internet using bogus sources and conclusions ultimately proven wrong, right? Or is this an "exaggeration? There must have been a good reason they banned you from britmodeller.com. I hope you do something really stupid here that they'll ban you too. Had you at least built something/anything! Not a chance. Mario in NYC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sakai Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Or you could mind your own business and get on with life. I don't measure my worth by your standards in anything, especially my hobby. Grow up a little. I don't see you in the position to tell me what to say/mind or not. I can open my mouth here as much as you can, big difference being I rarely do so but you do it all the time, and all over the internet, thinking you know better than anybody else. Especially when it comes to Eduard. No matter what they (Eduard) do or don't they represent progress, you unfortunately represent country which is no longer able to produce anything for this hobby. Mario in NYC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dehowie Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I roll my eyes at some well all if those saying the kit is ok. This is not a curve or perception issue which Trumpeter frequently make. This is a clearly visible error when sat next to a relatively accurate kit. Curves are notoriously difficult to get right in CAD as witnessed by Wingnut Wings and there Fokker D7 production problems. Getting a fundamental dimension wrong by so far that it is clearly visible to the point you could not have them on the same shelf raises some big questions. But as for "this kit is great the rivet counters are wrong" well yes it looks brilliant but its basically dimensionally wrong to the point it doesnt look like its subject. This is not a rivet issue by far i just wish it was. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Let me think Gaston... It just happened to be you, Gaston Marty (aka Robertson), spreading "information" about Nakajima-built Zero fuselage being different length than Mitsubishi-built one all over the internet using bogus sources and conclusions ultimately proven wrong, right? Or is this an "exaggeration? There must have been a good reason they banned you from britmodeller.com. I hope you do something really stupid here that they'll ban you too. Had you at least built something/anything! Not a chance. Mario in NYC The theory was wrong, but it is an exaggeration to say that the observation was entirely wrong: The 2008 Tamiya kit's tail is about three inches too long (in 1/32 as well): 140" to 137" actual canopy to rudder hinge... I did say you couldn't tell the difference, but thanks for providing an example. R. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Anyone seen Tamiya's new cement? Vince Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ch9862 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Why don't show us YOUR masterpiece(s) [...] It just happened to be you [...] How do your posts contribute to this topic? I'd suggest you take issues you have with other people off board - unless you want to warn about dishonest traders/sellers, etc. Have a good one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hal Marshman Sr Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 what ch9862 said, +1 Hal Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Anyone seen Tamiya's new cement? Used to ensure that screws in RC stuff don't come loose. Not used in scale modelling. Edited June 12, 2014 by Laurent Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tbolt Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Used to ensure that screws in RC stuff don't come loose. Not used in scale modelling. I think you missed the point, he's referring the fact that this thread is getting the the point that it should be locked. Edited June 12, 2014 by Tbolt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I think you missed the point, he's referring the fact that this thread is getting the the point that it should be locked. Yes I understood right before you edited your message. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Opening line from the new Eduard newsletter.... "June has come and gone with a sustained debate over the perceived anomalies of our Gustav." Mr. Sulc can't seem to bring himself to actually come out and say in so many words that his kit is wrong, plain and simple. The anomalies in your kit, Mr. Sulc, are not "perceived". They are 100%, measurably real. Edited July 3, 2014 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jester292 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) It's my opinion that he's referring to the difference of some modelers seeing the kit as flawed and others who will overlook it. Aaron Edited July 3, 2014 by jester292 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jester292 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I believe he apologized in the May or June newsletter for the mistake. That would imply he understands it's a fault. And he also admitted Eduard made the mistake. Aaron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) The July Eduard INFO Editorial is an "interesting" read. An indirect parallel is made between the MiG-15 corrected sprue exchange system and the Me-109 G6 kit problems. From this it can be anticipated that not much will happen. The writer is complaining that there were just few request for the new frames, so basically in the end there was no point in doing it at all. The differences between the old and the new, corrected MiG-15 sprues were never explained apart from the “dimples” on the frame. If people don’t know why they need to change the frames why would they take the time and pay for the post??? The system of exchange is also interesting, you get a “special coupon” for the frames you send in. Why not simply send a new set of sprues in exchange for the old ones and get it over with? I have some 4 or 5 overtrees boxes of the MiG-15 but with this system I rather let them root on the shelf. There is no point with all the hassle doing it this way. Is this kind of exchange system is what is waiting for all the Me-109G6 kit owners too??? Best regards Gabor Edited July 3, 2014 by ya-gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 It's certainly an 'interesting' read, as Gabor stated. I am a fan of Eduard - back in the day, they were making WWI kits long before it was fashionable - but the overwhelming impression I got from the Editorial is that they have no intention of correcting the errors in the kit (presumably too expensive), they're going to ignore the problem and keep pumping out different boxings because, hey, most people don't care about the scale issue and in a year or so no-one will care, right? I'd rather he'd followed up on last month's Editorial, where he admitted there were errors, and said that it wasn't going to be economically viable to make the changes. Vince Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) It's my opinion that he's referring to the difference of some modelers seeing the kit as flawed and others who will overlook it. Aaron To me "perceived anomalies" comes across that he is suggesting there may not be errors w/ the kit. Why not just state: "June has come and gone with a sustained debate over the errors of our Gustav." This seems like PR spin to me. Edited July 3, 2014 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Throughout reading the editorial a word was constantly poping up in my mind; doublespeak. I can't be the only one, but that editorial was full of doublespeak. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 The differences between the old and the new, corrected MiG-15 sprues were never explained apart from the “dimples” on the frame. If people don’t know why they need to change the frames why would they take the time and pay for the post??? My understanding is, it was a fit issue. At least on my copies (which don't have the dimples, IIRC, yet they were bought after the apparently extremely limited batch of 'incorrect' first kits went out, so... ???), there's about a 1/2 - 1mm overlap between the tabs on the wings and the slot on the fuselage. Really not a big deal to remedy though, and it seems amazing that they'd fix *that*, yet leave the grossly inaccurate -109 wings. That being said, the editorial? That's entirely strategic. The news cycle has moved on. Now they're trying to shift the tone of the story from: yes, it's about 1/2" too wide; to: people can honestly disagree whether those horrendous nitpickers who are ruining the hobby *may* have a point or whether they are, as usual, just blowing things completely out of proportion and trying to ruin your hobby (but both sides are equally valid and we certainly wouldn't want to take sides). They're walking back their admission of guilt, trying to re-frame it as a minor fault, one where they'll probably be proven correct in the end and even if they're not, it's such a tiny little problem, nobody's going to care. Now please, buy lots of Royal boxings and overtrees and forget this all happened in the first place. My guess? They'll probably drag their feet as long as possible, hope that sales meet their expectations and if they do, ignore the grossly over-span wing and keep cranking them out. If sales tank, they'll be forced to bite the bullet, make some sort of fix, then proudly proclaim how they are the greatest and always have the modeller's interests at heart (even though the fact that they're knowingly pushing the Royal kits and various overtrees are in direct contradiction to this...) Also, I find it particularly interesting to note, in order to support their new position that "the experts are wrong and we're right", they mentioned their (faulty?) measurement of the length threw up a different number than is usually quoted. BUT THEY DID NOT PUBLISH THEIR MEASUREMENTS FOR THE WINGSPAN. The only reason you wouldn't do that is if it shows that there really is a problem. The reason you wouldn't post the numbers for the wingspan is that the reader can compare that to the kit parts and say, 'wow, I'm not going to buy a kit after all!' Finally, on the subject of the wings... I've seen it mentioned that you can just lop off a portion of the outer wings to improve the look and get a more reasonable span. That's really not as simple as some people might suggest, though. The wings are triangular in outline; if you cut a section out of them, they don't fit back together cleanly - you'd have to chop and stretch the wingtips as well. Not the most difficult of tasks, sure, but it's *not* a simple, one-step fix. 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.