Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
galfa

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In stock at SB. I was able to add 190 of them to cart, so they have a few...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by John Thompson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Jennings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Fernando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Hal Marshman Sr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :rofl:

Vedran

Edited by dragonlance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I just started building the new G6 from Eduard, taking advantadge of the Brassin cockpit, as you can see:

10343919_308366985984786_18611144_o_zps42915012.jpg

... and this is what I discovered checking the main parts against the Hasegawa ones:

10327951_308644155957069_1915394225_o_zps218eb845.jpg

10342374_308643322623819_1184163454_o_zps9598d8f8.jpg

Bigger, for sure. What do you think about ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I just started building the new G6 from Eduard, taking advantadge of the Brassin cockpit, as you can see:

10343919_308366985984786_18611144_o_zps42915012.jpg

... and this is what I discovered checking the main parts against the Hasegawa ones:

10327951_308644155957069_1915394225_o_zps218eb845.jpg

10342374_308643322623819_1184163454_o_zps9598d8f8.jpg

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 by Tbolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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...