new Eduard "1/48" Bf 109G warning

[nicholas mayhew]

try here http://www.eduard.com/blog/

or, a bit retrospective, here http://www.eduard.com/blog/interview/bf-109g-6-interview-with-lead-designer-stanislav-archman/

But I looked there and couldn't find any reference to the size issues, only about bumps at the wing / fuselage join (which although small, Eduard did get wrong, despite much protestation to the contrary).

Going back to the post from Thepureness - did you ever get a response from Eduard?

I do not build 1/48 anymore, but it is interesting that none of the big reviewers picked this up ie actually measured what they were reviewing

For those happy to build it then fair enough - to each his own; but I do feel sorry for someone buying it who actually believed all the 'most accurate 109 ever' bs who is then told by someone at a show / club etc that he has basically been conned

Edited May 26, 2014 by nicholas mayhew

[Ed Russell]

How do you fix a kit that's simply too big? If someone has a way I'm all ears. The wings are over a scale foot too wide for starters..

Put it in with the Incredible Shrinking Man?

[Giorgio N]

Can we dial it back a bit please? Leave the modelling epithets out of it... we don't want to have to separate folks, but we will if it becomes necessary. How about talking about fixes instead, rather than blinking and asking why a company, which is comprised of fallible human beings can make a mistake? People will doubtless be buying the kit despite, or in ignorance of any errors, and I'm sure they especially would much prefer to hear how to make their recent purchase more accurate.

Sorry, but I still can't understand the whole "everybody can make mistakes" thing... Every company can make mistakes, but whenever a company makes a mistake usually this affects the company. The company for which I work is made of fallible human beings like me and if we deliver to the customer something that is not what they requested because of my mistakes, the company will simply not be paid. If my business manager tells them something along the lines of "come on, we're all human, everybody can make mistakes..." he'll likely be kicked out of the customer's office in no time and the customer will never use our services again. Then I'll have to explain the shareholders why I made mistakes that resulted in loss of revenues.

My point here and in my previous post is that Eduard is a commercial company that had promised something to their potential customer and they failed to deliver this something. At this point it's only fair that potential customers can comment on this failure and decide not to buy their product. Some will and some will not depending on their views of the relative merits of this product (that while not being accurate will sure still satisfy others thanks to ease of construction, details or whatever). In any case, Eduard has developed this kit to sell numbers and make money and have decided to tell modellers that one of the reasons to buy this kit would have been the unsurpassed accuracy. A feature that is not there.

Nothing against Eduard, who have shown in the past that they can do very good and extremely accurate products. Simply, I will not buy this kit because it fails to give something I expected. At the same time I will happily buy other products from the same company because they give me what I expect.

If I decide to give Eduard or any other company my money it's because the're giving me something I like in return, not because they're nice people. The continuous excusing or downplaying these mistakes on the other hand is passing around the message that we should buy a new product anyway regardless of its pros and cons

Ok, enough with the rant... now to the positive: my proposal on how to correct the kit and make it more accurate is very simple: buy something else ! The next time sure Eduard will look into the reasons for what happened here and will work to bring to their customers a kit without these issues, something that they have shown before that they can do very well (Spitfire, Fw.190 and others)

[Mottlemaster]

How do you fix a kit that's simply too big? If someone has a way I'm all ears. The wings are over a scale foot too wide for starters..

Wasn't there a craze a few years ago on shrinking crisp packets etc by placing them in a microwave oven . I think you could get them down to the size of a stamp. Maybe this would work .

[Duncan B]

Well said Giorgio N. I couldn't agree more.

People make mistakes, Companies make profit or loss.

Duncan B

[Mark]

First of all forgive me for not reading every post in all the Bf109G threads that have been written and therefore I might be repeating something someone has already said.

This thread has touched a few nerves and I have been so intrigued as to the unbuildable nature of this kit that I bought one.

My first impressions were the same as when I opened the Spitfire Mk.IX kit by Eduard. Wow!! This is a beautifully produced kit and is of a subject that, whilst I am not an expert on, I do appreciate the full size aircraft and the development history of the Bf109 series.

It seems that Lynn Ritger is the 'Go-To' man in all cases regarding Messerschmitts so I opened the Datafile book on the late series Bf109 and compared the parts to the plans at the back.

Now this is where I really want to swear, but Mike won't let us anymore.

The wingspan is 2mm long at the tips. Yes folks the TIPS!! All the rest of the wing detail is spot on and I am absolutely certain that the majority of those bothered enough by the extra 2mm own a razor saw.

The fuselage is slightly long forward of the cockpit. If you line the rudder post up against the plan then it seems to be perfect all the way to the front of the windscreen then seems to get stretched a little. But not that much that the casual observer will notice a damn thing and if it bothers the modeller that much, then see above.

I'm actually quite pee'd off at the rudeness shown by some to others. If this were a pub a few here might be actually throwing punches by now!

It is ONLY a friggin' model...!!!

How do you fix a kit that's simply too big?

[jenko]

I'm actually quite pee'd off at the rudeness shown by some to others. If this were a pub a few here might be actually throwing punches by now!

It is ONLY a friggin' model...!!!

Truer words could not be writen.

Edited May 26, 2014 by jenko

[Tiger331]

For my money, it seems the biggest problem here is that Eduard over promised and under delivered. If the information quoted in earlier posts is correct, it is not just an over scale issue, but possibly incorrect dimensions over different segments of the fuselage and wings. (Or was this a problem with the plane they used as reference?)

But in over 40 years in this hobby, I dont recall ever seeing so much hype around the release of a kit. There have been multiple teasers, leaks and features extolling how good this kit was going to be on at least one forum.

Unfortunately, it seems it has not met the expectation created.

Perhaps, if they had not created so much publicity, and made such extravagant claims, and created so much excited expectation around such a popular subject, this model would have been better received?

Maybe a lesson for manufacturers here.

PR

Totally Agree

One should compare this marketing with that done by Airfix for the 1:48 scale Gloster Javelin which is, arguably, the best kit that the British company has ever produced. I appreciate that the Javelin does not have the universal appeal that yet another ME Bf-109 kit would have (no matter how many have gone before it) but given their experience with both the MiG 21 and now the ME Bf-109, should Eduard now review their approach to major kit releases.

Personally, I don't know what all the fuss is about and Tom Cleaver's assessment above makes eminent sense to me. If we listened to all the 'armchair experts' out there and were unable to think for ourselves and make objective assessments on the relative merits of a kit, I should think we would be lucky to find maybe a dozen to 20 kits that were accurate and 'buildable'.

[Tiger331]

Tom Cleaver has sent me the following, with carte-blanche to cut and paste:-

Make of it what you will.

Edgar

P.S. He's followed it up with this:-

Alleluia !. AT LAST !!….Someone has got all of this into perspective. THANK YOU…Tom Cleaver !.

[tempestfan]

It seems that Lynn Ritger is the 'Go-To' man in all cases regarding Messerschmitts so I opened the Datafile book on the late series Bf109 and compared the parts to the plans at the back.

The wingspan is 2mm long at the tips. Yes folks the TIPS!! All the rest of the wing detail is spot on and I am absolutely certain that the majority of those bothered enough by the extra 2mm own a razor saw.

...

I'm actually quite pee'd off at the rudeness shown by some to others. If this were a pub a few here might be actually throwing punches by now!

Your approach assumes the drawings are correct in the first place. Reading some of Mr Rittgers posts elsewhere, I read him that he doesn't hold the drawings in very high regard - what that may or may not mean regarding the kit's accuracy or otherwise I don't know. The fact is that checking kits against drawings is dangerous - there are a lot out there that look beautiful and have appeared in well-respected publications but have serious ("fatal") errors (and yes, I have done quite a bit of checking of drawings against photos and could back up my claim if necessary). Some reviews say "looks good against drawings" or even "well respected drawings" but do not tell which they are. Many people won't care anyway, but it would be nice if the reference is stated in such cases. Probably it's wiser for any reviewer not to check against drawings at all and to state this, as he may be in for instant stoning if he dares to pick a set whose accuracy is proven or disputed.

My impression is that the mood would be much more relaxed if people didn't perceive a somewhat arrogant attitude by Eduard. Anyone who has his mouth wide open for an extended period and fails to live up to his claims must expect a whipping, even if the model as a kit is absolutely perfect.

[Tiger331]

First of all forgive me for not reading every post in all the Bf109G threads that have been written and therefore I might be repeating something someone has already said.

This thread has touched a few nerves and I have been so intrigued as to the unbuildable nature of this kit that I bought one.

My first impressions were the same as when I opened the Spitfire Mk.IX kit by Eduard. Wow!! This is a beautifully produced kit and is of a subject that, whilst I am not an expert on, I do appreciate the full size aircraft and the development history of the Bf109 series.

It seems that Lynn Ritger is the 'Go-To' man in all cases regarding Messerschmitts so I opened the Datafile book on the late series Bf109 and compared the parts to the plans at the back.

Now this is where I really want to swear, but Mike won't let us anymore.

The wingspan is 2mm long at the tips. Yes folks the TIPS!! All the rest of the wing detail is spot on and I am absolutely certain that the majority of those bothered enough by the extra 2mm own a razor saw.

The fuselage is slightly long forward of the cockpit. If you line the rudder post up against the plan then it seems to be perfect all the way to the front of the windscreen then seems to get stretched a little. But not that much that the casual observer will notice a damn thing and if it bothers the modeller that much, then see above.

I'm actually quite pee'd off at the rudeness shown by some to others. If this were a pub a few here might be actually throwing punches by now!

It is ONLY a friggin' model...!!!

Thanks Mark !…….Seems like the voices of reason are finally getting their say on this…...

I have always found it interesting that the most vociferous and vitriolic largely emanate from those nations that have largely given up on the production of new, quality, 1:48 scale aircraft kits

[stringbag]

I find it amusing that the so called "experts" are basing their criticism of this kit to a large extent on published drawings. A practice that has been dismissed on other occasions as being a hit and miss method due to several factors such as plan accuracy and printing distortion.

Eduard have however measured an actual airframe and produced a kit based on this data.

I know which method I would trust based on 40 years experience sat at a drawing board.

[gingerbob]

Time for another Drambuie!

In what scale, from what manufacturer? Do we really NEED a new kit of the Drambuie?

People will doubtless be buying the kit despite, or in ignorance of any errors, and I'm sure they especially would much prefer to hear how to make their recent purchase more accurate.

Don't be so sure- some of the most emotional responses come from people who claim that they don't care about 'accuracy'.

It seems that Lynn Ritger is the 'Go-To' man in all cases regarding Messerschmitts so I opened the Datafile book on the late series Bf109 and compared the parts to the plans at the back.

Lynn had nought to do with the drawings, and did not "approve" them. I've got nothing against comparing a kit to drawings, but when I spot a discrepancy between the two the first question I ask is, "Why?" followed immediately by "So which one, if either, is more correct?" Then follows the hard part, trying to find out! A somewhat independent question is, "OK, now that I know, what, if anything, am I going to do about it?"

And this just in: "Eduard have however measured an actual airframe and produced a kit based on this data. I know which method I would trust based on 40 years experience sat at a drawing board."

They measured a museum display, and how much do we know about the accuracy of IT? Sorry, but you can't take any one "answer" at face value, you have to see if it agrees with the rest of the picture. That's assuming, of course, that you do actually care about accuracy- if not, then problem solved!

bob

p.s. I never refer to myself as an 'expert', I do CARE about accuracy, but I also have some ability to say, "Ah well, that's the best I can do, or at least that's as far as I'm willing to pursue this, so 'good enough'!"

Edited May 26, 2014 by gingerbob

[Parabat]

I find it amusing that the so called "experts" are basing their criticism of this kit to a large extent on published drawings. A practice that has been dismissed on other occasions as being a hit and miss method due to several factors such as plan accuracy and printing distortion.

Eduard have however measured an actual airframe and produced a kit based on this data.

I know which method I would trust based on 40 years experience sat at a drawing board.

Eduard did measure a real life aircraft, but it's a 'composite' G-6, as has been discussed elsewhere. This has resulted most noticeably in the wing root fairing 'bulge' which does not exist on any 100% G-6. Many, if not most, comparisons to wingspan, fuselage length etc. have been made referring to actual physical measurements, not only to plans. It has been ascertained that Eduard did not measure a 100% G-6, hence the resulting inaccuracies. Yes, some of the early 'reveals' on their blog were commented on and some issues resolved, so good for them for listening to feedback. However, when a company shouts from the rooftops - any company - that they are producing the Alpha and Omega product, they need to deliver at least a 99% solution. Eduard did this with the Spitfire, but have unfortunately fallen WELL short with this.

I do find it amusing, if somewhat annoying, that so many people adopt an apologist attitude, and are prepared to think that there are simple 'fixes', when some other companies would get tarred and feathered! Clearly Eduard have a good reputation, but come on...

[gingerbob]

I think there's less company bias than some people perceive, when it comes to wailing, rending of garments, and gnashing of teeth. Messed up kits get criticized, people who want to be happy (in spite of the facts) fight back, and round and round it goes. I do think that people expect finger-trouble from Trumpeter, and don't from Eduard, whether that's deserved or not. In the latter case, they have certainly had their share of "issues".

bob

[stringbag]

Eduard did measure a real life aircraft, but it's a 'composite' G-6, as has been discussed elsewhere. This has resulted most noticeably in the wing root fairing 'bulge' which does not exist on any 100% G-6. Many, if not most, comparisons to wingspan, fuselage length etc. have been made referring to actual physical measurements, not only to plans. It has been ascertained that Eduard did not measure a 100% G-6, hence the resulting inaccuracies. Yes, some of the early 'reveals' on their blog were commented on and some issues resolved, so good for them for listening to feedback. However, when a company shouts from the rooftops - any company - that they are producing the Alpha and Omega product, they need to deliver at least a 99% solution. Eduard did this with the Spitfire, but have unfortunately fallen WELL short with this.

I do find it amusing, if somewhat annoying, that so many people adopt an apologist attitude, and are prepared to think that there are simple 'fixes', when some other companies would get tarred and feathered! Clearly Eduard have a good reputation, but come on...

As all main components would have been constructed in a jig, then surely these components would be the same size in terms of principal dimensions and datum points. ie wing pick up points.

It stands to reason therefore that the wings for instance, although intended for a particular fuselage on the production line will fit a different airframe without affecting the overall dimensions of the finished aircraft to any significant degree.

I own a couple of full size sailplanes which are currently under long term restoration and in both cases, a main-plane has been sourced from a different aircraft to replace one of the originals.

In both cases, the odd wing fits the original fuselage perfectly and does not change the overall dimension or proportion in any way. Both airframes are coincidentally of German origin.

With that in mind, unless there has been major modification to any of the composite parts then the overall should be identical to a completely original airframe.Certainly close enough for me anyway, especially as minute errors that may be perceived at the surveying or measuring phase will be reduced when scaled down to 1/48th scale.

I and not making excuses in any way for companies producing inaccurate kits, but I feel that there are far more important issues, certainly in my life, that are more deserving of my limited time here on this planet.

Other opinions will differ I'm sure.

Chris.

[Shar2]

So, let me get this straight. From what I gather from this thread is that

You can't trust drawings

You can't trust blueprints

and apparently you can't trust the measurements of the real aircraft.

So, what is an individual or company able to take as the definitive shape and size of an aircraft?

[Max Headroom]

So, what is an individual or company able to take as the definitive shape and size of an aircraft?

There are always the plans from 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers'!

Ttevor

[Shar2]

But, on what are they based. Actual measurements, GA drawings?

[MikeR]

There are always the plans from 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers'!

Ttevor

Which volume? I think I've got the second one lying about somewhere....

On the main topic, if I remember correctly, wasn't their 1/48 Bf 109E model wrong as well? If that's the case, then I'm not in the least surprised they didn't get the 109G correct.

Maybe Eduard should go back to basics - WW1 kits.

Mike.

[Parabat]

I think it's the following;

1. The aircraft used for the model isn't/wasn't a 'real' G-6.

2. Having used a 'real' aircraft, it would still seem to be too long in wingspan and oddly dimensioned elsewhere.

3. There isn't just one easily fixable problem with this kit, but several easy and a few harder ones if you want to try and rectify it.

4. Plans can't be trusted.

5. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and measured a real G-6, of which there are a few around the world.

6. Measure twice, cut once! (Especially if you are announcing the most accurate model of the Farley Fruitbat!)

I am far from being the most concerned with ultimate accuracy - heck, I like the HB F-14, the Italeri C-47 etc. The only reason I got involved in this thread is because where usually a kit gets put in the stocks and stoned, people are simply glossing over this one and saying it isn't that bad, after Eduard laid claim to the most accurate kit in 1/48 of the G-6.

Anyway, I've said my piece.

Happy modelling!

[Arachnid]

" something that they have shown before that they can do very well (Spitfire, Fw.190 and others)"

"

I thought there was a problem with the 190 as well ?

Edited May 26, 2014 by hawker

[Troy Smith]

So, let me get this straight. From what I gather from this thread is that

You can't trust drawings

You can't trust blueprints

and apparently you can't trust the measurements of the real aircraft.

So, what is an individual or company able to take as the definitive shape and size of an aircraft?

No, you can trust the numbers on the blueprints.

The drawings show where the numbers link together, but are not the crucial part of the data.

This is what the actual planes were built from,

the blueprint data was used by Mansur Mustafin to provide the information for the Zvezda Bf109F, which is rated as being the best shaped Bf109 in 1/48th.

As Eduard work with Zvezda, reboxing their La-5, you have thought they might have looked at the 'best so far'

EDIT - Blueprints, posted by Mansur

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1399981827/109G-6+and+accuracy-

there are more blueprints posted, look at the link

but for example, note it's the numbers that are important, and all the data is there.

as has been mentioned, as the kit is a oversize, it will not sit well with other kits, due to this

from http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1400370807/Adding+fuel+to+the+fire%2C+perhaps-+An+interesting+fuselage+photo+comparison

Volumetric (cubic) difference is 6.5% bigger, whilst surface area difference (square) is 4.3% and linear is 2.1% bigger. So dimensional (linear) is the least significant factor, but the bulk or volumetric difference will at 6.5% be fairly noticeable side by side.

It is the volumetric or cubic factor that is always the most significant when mixing scales.

Which as Jennings has mentioned, will affect decals.

this is what the Hasegawa fuselage will sit inside the Eduard one!

I think Trevor was making a joke about 'Aircraft of the fighting powers' as the drawings are famed for being wrong, but they were done at the time[during, just after the war]

The subject of drawings has come up before, and really depends on the pedigree of the drawings/draughtsman. Some are noted for accuracy, for example A.L.Bentley, some are not, R.Caruana is an example.

John Adams of Aeroclub has talked about ways of measuring aircraft to make accurate drawings.

The answer I would like is quite how Eduard got to cutting metal without realising the problem. A lot of the complaints are that this is a retrograde step, the of boo-boo that Italeri make.

For the 'Shut up and build it, it looks like a 109' chorus,

OK, here you go, it looks like a 109

from http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1263964544/Starfix

Certainly looks more like a 109 than a Spitfire.

from http://modelingmadness.com/review/axis/luft/fordhams109.htm

cheers

T

[Max Headroom]

Sorry if the 'joke' went woosh folks! Although in some of the later volumes the plans 'look' ok don't trust any of them.

Ever.

Trevor

[Jbbusybee]

So, let me get this straight. From what I gather from this thread is that

You can't trust drawings

You can't trust blueprints

and apparently you can't trust the measurements of the real aircraft.

So, what is an individual or company able to take as the definitive shape and size of an aircraft?

The internet of course, it's infallible,