Eduard Spitfire asembly issues

[Graham Boak]

It looks to me as though Eduard have spent a lot of effort producing much more detail than ever will be seen once the canopy is on, and that can only add to the cost of the kit.  It really is rather discouraging: I'd sooner be able to buy a model of a properly shaped aircraft, with the provision of miniscule internal minutia left to the aftermarket.   I thought that was what I'd be getting by limiting myself to the Weekend rather than the all-singing and dancing options, but apparently not.

 

Which makes me either an ungrateful whinger or a rare voice of sanity - take your pick!

[Seahawk]

Oh, you're one of those old-fashioned modellers who actually builds the things, are you?  I thought the whole point of buying them was to pore over the box contents and pontificate endlessly over their accuracy or otherwise.  In which case I am the very model of a modern plastic modeller. 

[John Thompson]

46 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

It looks to me as though Eduard have spent a lot of effort producing much more detail than ever will be seen once the canopy is on, and that can only add to the cost of the kit.  It really is rather discouraging: I'd sooner be able to buy a model of a properly shaped aircraft, with the provision of miniscule internal minutia left to the aftermarket. 

 

I agree completely. Eduard seem to have overdone it, just to prove that they can. Add my name to the list of the never-satisfied who make the kit manufacturers feel damned if they do, damned if they don't (assuming the kit manufacturers take any notice at all). A gutted version with minimal cockpit detail at a reduced price would certainly sell to me - I've got lots of Spitfire Mk IX kits, but no Eduard ones, and no serious intention of buying one.

 

Eduard seem also to have no reservations about releasing aftermarket resin and "Brassin" upgrades for their own kit - the kit itself could have been simplified, and the super-detailed cockpit released separately.

 

John

Edited March 9, 2017 by John Thompson

[PhantomBigStu]

Worry thread title to see after placing and order for a couple of them......Like Gwarts method, thats how I build spitfire kits now (works perfectly on the airfix mk1) , so hopefully will be all good.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Some more ponderings....

 

In answer to some of the comments in the last 3 posts. Eduard produce a Brassin Cockpit for their Spitfire kits, I'm not sure it needs it as far as the average modeller is concerned as the detail in the plastic parts, combined with the etch (well behaved etch I might add) instrument panel and seatbelts is more than good enough to display it with an open canopy, let alone a closed one. The seat is the worst offender and really could be done better as a single piece. It's much easier doing what Gwart did in his post, the cockpit doesn't fit together too badly then but the seat is really fiddly regardless of what you do.

 

I've built plenty of Airfix Mk I/II kits from the tooling done about 6 or 7 years ago and I quite like that kit, the panel lines could be a bit finer but other than that, for me it has a good balance of detail and buildabillity. The cockpit in that is both detailed and easy to assemble and I've no issues with the interior parts in said kit. Now that actually made me wonder, would the Airfix seat fit the Eduard kit? I have some 3D Kits Spitfire Mk I/II detailing sets lying around so spare seats could be easily used from the kits. I'm thinking, if the canopy is modelled closed, it could be hard to tell how accurate the seat is. It's annoying as the kit looks great and I bet it would make the best Spitfire in 1/72 by miles once is beaten into submission!

 

What I would ask of all folks who bought the first Profipack boxing around the time of it's initial release, is to check to see if you have an issue with the slot on the starboard fuselage being moulded solid and if you do, please report it to Eduard via there helpdesk on their website. If a few people do it, then they might realise their was an issue. I've reported it on mine but because I found this issue whilst building the model, they are asking me to provide pics.

 

thanks

Mike

[Gwart]

It's a great kit and it does build fast (lots of stuff left on the sprues regardless of mark built , so don't be daunted by the parts count).Just lots of care when assembling the crunch areas.For me these were the nose (6 pieces!) and the lower  rear of the wing at the aft and above the gullwing.

Just some careful spots of revell glue and then finishing off with Tamiya green cap (applied from the inside where possible).

 

The parts i don't like are the seat and the access door or the kit  would get a perfect 10 from me.

 

Shane.

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Gwart

[Seahawk]

35 minutes ago, John Thompson said:

Eduard seem also to have no reservations about releasing aftermarket resin and "Brassin" upgrades for their own kit - the kit itself could have been simplified, and the super-detailed cockpit released separately.

 

To pick up on a topic elsewhere on the forum, this seems intended to cater for cash-rich modellers whose first reaction to any kit is "What aftermarket is there for it?", regardless of whether it materially enhances the model.  Still, it's their money and the policy must pay for Eduard.

[fewr9fkr9595]

@Mikemx 

 

would you like me to assemble a stock plastic eduard seat and then cast several in resin for you? If you plan on building alot of them in the future? 

 

Tony

[Beard]

Some-one, like me, who has a load of overtrees awaiting building probably shouldn't read this thread.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

15 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

 

To pick up on a topic elsewhere on the forum, this seems intended to cater for cash-rich modellers whose first reaction to any kit is "What aftermarket is there for it?", regardless of whether it materially enhances the model.  Still, it's their money and the policy must pay for Eduard.

 

I have no issue with that, as you can buy or not buy what you want to go with the kits.

 

6 minutes ago, Tony Oliver said:

@Mikemx 

 

would you like me to assemble a stock plastic eduard seat and then cast several in resin for you? If you plan on building alot of them in the future? 

 

Tony

 

I might just take you up on that, I'll have a crack at another seat first, this time gluing first and painting second! That's very generous of you!

 

thanks

Mike

[Cookenbacher]

I think the seat will be much easier for you on the second try Mike. I had trouble with the seat too, and ended up having to pry it apart - so I got my second try on my first kit! It went together much better the next time. Overall, I really enjoyed the build and am looking forward to the [number redacted] left in the stash.

 

I'll be sure to check the fuselage on my first Profi-pack boxing to see if there's trouble, and let you know. I think Eduard can make up for all of this by making you the main overtrees distributor for the UK. 

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

32 minutes ago, Cookenbacher said:

I think the seat will be much easier for you on the second try Mike. I had trouble with the seat too, and ended up having to pry it apart - so I got my second try on my first kit! It went together much better the next time. Overall, I really enjoyed the build and am looking forward to the [number redacted] left in the stash.

 

I'll be sure to check the fuselage on my first Profi-pack boxing to see if there's trouble, and let you know. I think Eduard can make up for all of this by making you the main overtrees distributor for the UK. 

 

I'd like to stock the overtrees but I think they'll want to keep that to themselves. I'd be awesome to be a distributor of Eduard kits and bits but I think we'd need something a bit bigger than my folk's garage!

 

I'm sure the next build will be easier, now I know the potential problems. This thread started as a little rant as after building Eduard's excellent 1/72 Hellcats and Fw190 kits, without any major issues, I expected the same of this kit but it's turned into a bit of a horror. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who's had a few issues, as it's therefore not just me cocking it up but there are areas that need careful attention or a slightly different than usual approach to get them to fit properly. Hopefully, this will also help other modellers making the same kit, to know the solutions to some niggles of the kit, as once you get round them, it's easily the best late Merlin Spitfire kit out there.

 

I've sent a couple of pics of the tail, to Eduard, showing the left side with the open slot (in which the tail wing fits perfectly!) an the right side with the slot moulded solid (even modifying the tail wing hasn't worked). Again I plea to those who have this issue also, to report it to Eduard, so they know it is an issue with an early batch of kits.    

 

thanks

Mike

[malpaso]

1 hour ago, Beard said:

Some-one, like me, who has a load of overtrees awaiting building probably shouldn't read this thread.

Feel free to send them along the South Downs to Hampshire - sure I could do something after I've done the five with etch I've already got!

Cheers

Will 

Edited March 9, 2017 by malpaso
Spelling

[Greenshirt]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

It looks to me as though Eduard have spent a lot of effort producing much more detail than ever will be seen once the canopy is on, and that can only add to the cost of the kit.  It really is rather discouraging: I'd sooner be able to buy a model of a properly shaped aircraft, with the provision of miniscule internal minutia left to the aftermarket.   I thought that was what I'd be getting by limiting myself to the Weekend rather than the all-singing and dancing options, but apparently not.

 

Which makes me either an ungrateful whinger or a rare voice of sanity - take your pick!

 

2 hours ago, John Thompson said:

 

I agree completely. Eduard seem to have overdone it, just to prove that they can. Add my name to the list of the never-satisfied who make the kit manufacturers feel damned if they do, damned if they don't (assuming the kit manufacturers take any notice at all). A gutted version with minimal cockpit detail at a reduced price would certainly sell to me - I've got lots of Spitfire Mk IX kits, but no Eduard ones, and no serious intention of buying one.

 

Eduard seem also to have no reservations about releasing aftermarket resin and "Brassin" upgrades for their own kit - the kit itself could have been simplified, and the super-detailed cockpit released separately.

 

John

 

My first one completed is the Profipack with all the goodies. Lots of extra work, and yes, it does look smashing but you need the magnifiers to truly appreciate it. Now that it's on the shelf, that'll be rare. 

 

My second is the VIII overtree, so no goodies and while building much faster the detail that is visible is about the same. 

 

So my feelings are in agreement that Eduard overdid it with their 1/72 Spitfires. They're nice looking, and I like them, but the profipacks are not worth the cost. 

[tank152]

On 08/03/2017 at 20:40, colin said:

What the poly cement in a tube, who's still using that and with small parts I would think it would be impossible to get a nice clean join

Seen it all now, ridiculing someone for what type of glue they use, most helpful, not.

Half the battle I find is holding small stuff firmly enough whilst trying to fix it together. My approach nowadays, especially when building up small parts of p/e is to get some double sided tape place it on my cutting matt and place said parts on that. Can't see no reason for it not to work on 1/72 cockpit parts.

[colin]

29 minutes ago, tank152 said:

Seen it all now, ridiculing someone for what type of glue they use, most helpful, not.

Half the battle I find is holding small stuff firmly enough whilst trying to fix it together. My approach nowadays, especially when building up small parts of p/e is to get some double sided tape place it on my cutting matt and place said parts on that. Can't see no reason for it not to work on 1/72 cockpit parts.

Was it a ridicule ? I ask a simple question but if that's how you see it so be it, would have thought liquid cement would have been easier to use as someone else advised also 

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

For the record, I use Revell Contacta, which is in a little plastic bottle with a small metal tube (as some may already know) and the glue had dried in the metal tube, which is why I was trying the superglue. I dislike tube glue and the traditional liquid poly.

 

thanks

Mike

[snowen250]

Really interesting that some find the Spitfire IX hard to build. I am a below average modeller I would say, but have built 3 now without any issues at all. I do however build the cockpit then paint it, other way round I feel may be asking for trouble. Generally the fit of my kits has been superb! The Fw190A8 however I find fights me all the way, especially the flipping undercarriage!

 

So all I can surmise Mike is that you have a bad one maybe? The XVI dual combo for me went together like a dream.

 

I use humbrol liquid poly just to add my hat into that fight too

[PhantomBigStu]

Good stuff that contacta, I find a paper clip a useful tool for de gunning the pipe 

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

Ironically, I had no major bother with the Fw190A-5 or A-8. Some of parts fit was a little tight in places but a quick sanding helped that.

 

thanks

Mike

[bootneck]

6 minutes ago, Mikemx said:

For the record, I use Revell Contacta, which is in a little plastic bottle with a small metal tube

Hi Mike,

I use Revell Contacta for virtually 90% of the time, with the remainder being Tamiya Extra Thin liquid; which I only use for additional sealing of the joint.   The contacta tube does dry up, especially after being left overnight even with the cap on.  I find it easy to get the glue flowing again by scraping something metal, blade/file etc., along the tube and this clears any leaked film outside the tube; plus dislodges any blockages inside.

 

HTH

 

Mike

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I have some brass rod lying around to unclog the contacta, I was just being lazy by using the superglue....

 

thanks

Mike

[Graham Boak]

I have a short length of household multi-strand wire - one of the strands goes into the tube and clears blockages in my Contacta.  The main problem I have is the tube coming out of the plastic - perhaps a drop of superglue will fix that.  For major joins I prefer Humbrol poly applied with its own brush.  A smaller brush would do for smaller pieces, but I tend to put a drop of Contacta onto the working surface (scrap cardboard at the side) and pick that up, perhaps with a cocktail stick.  I'm sure there are as many different preferences as there are modellers, but no, I don't use tube cement any more, and haven't for many years.

[malpaso]

I assembled my Eduard Mk.XVI so far with some ancient Humbrol Liquid Poly.  Worked marvellously, I'd forgotten how good it was as I've been using contacta for the last few years.  I bought a new bottle of liquid poly (as I had mislaid my historic ones) but so far the child-proof lid has defeated me, and unusually my children too.

 

The contacta works fine too, just annoying when the tube blocks  or pulls off with the lid.  I use a piece of 5A fuse wire to clear the tube or occasionally set fire to it.  Also it's definitely thicker than liquid poly, unless that's a result of the fiery unblocking method!

 

Obviously I don't use liquid poly for the PE, just Poundland ten tubes for a, yes you guessed it.  It's just as good as branded stuff at 1/30 the price.  The main advantage is that you don't feel as bad chucking 3/4 of a tube that's dried up, which happens just as frequently with the expensive stuff!

Cheers

Will

[fewr9fkr9595]

I have a pet dinosaur that unblocks all my dried up glue nozzles with his massive paw. He squashes them clean on the word of command 'Sanitize!' Then I tickle under his chin and give him a spare fore arm to nibble on as a reward. 

 

Just my 2 pence 👍🏿