Simon Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 So do the aftermarket decal boys come out with overscale decal sheets for this one? Put 1/48 scale ones on it, and everyone will surely notice...? Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Personally, the best part of this phenomenal Eduard-shoots-itsef-in-the-foot-affair is the invention of the new 109 variant: Bf 109G-XL. What's next? 109K-XL? F-XL? Well, I'd be happy to see an F-16XL in 1/48- I like that way better than the run of the mill F-16s! bob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Kelley Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Stravinski- if you are indeed Gaston, please, please, please post some of your pics with all the red lines on them. I think they are cool. 😎 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Kelley Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 btw- I am sure their are plenty of resin aftermarket makers who think all their Christmases have come true and are all feverishly making corrected wings and fuselage sets as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalkeEins Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 disappointing ..but not over whelmingly so - after all it can't be any worse than Trumpeter's 32nd Emil - and that builds into a lovely model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 So what are still the best Freidrick and Gustavs then? Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) Tom Cleaver has sent me the following, with carte-blanche to cut and paste:- I have the new Eduard 109G. I have compared the fuselage and wing and tail with a Hasegawa 109G. There are very interesting measurements. 1. Measured from the rear, the rear fuselages from the rudder hinge line to the wing trailing edge is the same length. However, the Eduard cockpit is 4mm forward of the Hasegawa kit, and the nose is 4mm longer. Get this: the canopy pieces of both kits are interchangeable dimensionally, so the Eduard is not wider than the Hasegawa. 2. However, if you measure the fuselages lined up wing root to wing root, with the wing leading edges exactly matched, the nose length from the wing leading edge to the front end is the same for both kits, and the cockpits are in the same location. 3. Measuring from the nose, the Eduard kit is approximately 2mm wider in chord at the wing root (with the additional area to the rear), and the rear fuselage is 4mm longer at the rudder hinge line. 4. Comparing the Eduard fuselage to the Hasegawa fuselage, the rear fuselage panels line up exactly to panel line 4 (just ahead of the radio compartment) at which point the Eduard panels are slightly wider, adding up to about 1.5mm at the leading edge of the vertical fin. But when you line up the fuselages nose to nose with wing root leading edges matched, you get the 4mm longer rear fuselage. . Thus, the 4mm length difference is spread out, with 2mm happening in the immediate rear of the cockpit area and the other 2mm happening between the radio compartment and the rudder hinge. I then compared the wings. The Eduard kit is approximately 4mm longer span on each wing than the Hasegawa kit. If you compare the upper Hasegawa wing part to the upper Eduard wing part, they are an exact match out to the inner edge of the leading edge slats. The extra length is at the outer end. If you were to cut off the Eduard wing at the end and then attach its tip, the wing would be the same span as the Hasegawa. The Eduard leading edge slat is 4mm longer compared, and the aileron is 2 mm longer than the Hasegawa, and the Eduard flap is wider in span by 1.5 mm than the Hasegawa. So, if the Eduard wing is cut at the outer end to equal the Hasegawa wing (which everyone says is OK dimensionally), everything fits and you have the right-size wing. If you trim the Eduard flap by 2mm, and then the aileron by 1mm on each end, everything will overall fit and look right. Overall assessment: Eduard's "oversize" is not proportional overall. It is slightly different at the wing, and there are differences throughout the length of the fuselage in minor measurements, adding up to the 4mm. Interestingly, the tail units - vertical fin/rudder, horizontal stab/elevator - are the same exact size compared directly. Given the taper of the rear fuselage, I don't see any place one could cut out a 4mm plug. If one leaves the fuselage alone and cuts the wing down to equal the Hasegawa kit, I think the result would be a model that won't look "outsize" next to a Hasegawa kit to anyone who doesn't have exact measuring devices implanted in their eyes. Overall verdict: unless you are so OCD that you are in desperate need of medication (See: Kermorgant, V.), "some modeling skill required" will give you a model that is "close enough." None of what has to be done is beyond the ability of the average scale muddler. And it can be done without harming the very nice surface detail. Most people can get away with leaving it alone, because sitting there as a completed model, the differences are visually just not big enough to make a difference (unlike the Hasegawa Spitfire IX fuselage). Tom Cleaver Make of it what you will. Edgar P.S. He's followed it up with this:- So, I took off 2mm from the end of each wing and aileron and leading edge slat. Glue the wingtip on and it's 1mm either side longer than the Hasegawa 109 wing. At a distance of the usual 12-18 inches from which most models are viewed by anyone not packing a penlight, you can't tell the difference. The wings really do need that, because they do look too long otherwise. With wings attached to fuselages and sitting wingtip-to-wingtip next to each other on the bench, you can't see the fuselage "discrepancy" unless you display your models on a measuring board. There's also the fact the fuselage is practically an exact fit to drawings in a book written by a Major 109 Fan. For those who are worried that "it might be bigger than my Spitfire," it isn't. The amount of alcohol-permeated hot air that's been expended on this could power a medium-sized city for a month. "The reason academic wars are so bloody is there's so little at stake." Substitute "modeling" for "academic." Edited May 23, 2014 by Edgar 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share Posted May 23, 2014 So what are still the best Freidrick and Gustavs then? Trevor F model, Zvezda. It can easily be converted into an early G. [G1, G2] With some modelling skill and spares [cowl bulges, canopy, wing bulges, tall tail, which are optional spare parts in Academy/Fujimi kits] you could make any of the later variants, though a late cowl G or K would be a big job, but would get you an accurate late 109. As for an OOB 'G', all the kits have their faults, hence the hope held for the Eduard kit. Cleaver's points are interesting, but does not detract from the basic point, the Eduard kit is not 'The Most Accurate G kit Roll on Zvezda 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeusa Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 After reading this thread and others, I wonder about whether it is "inaccurate" versus improper scale deliniation? Most of the faults in this kit that are being posted are it is not 1/48, but rather 1/45 or 1/46 scale. That being the case, if it is the scale being incorrect, once the scale is set, doesn't that throw the "inaccurate" arguments to the wind? Most of the criticism is of the scale designation rather than the basic outline and shape of the kit. If it truly is a larger scale than 1/48, then any measurment comparisons with a 1/48 kit would point to inaccuracies as you are trying to fit a large kit to a smaller kit. Taking the above argument to the extreme, if you use the 1/48 Eduard Spitfire as the base and compare it to the Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire, would you then conclude the Tamiya Spitfire is horribly inaccurate because it doesn't "measure up"? Of course not, the Tamiya kit is just a bigger version. Perhaps the same should be said of this Eduard 109. It's just a bigger version as it is not in 1/48 scale. So, is it inaccurate or just incorrectly labelled as to scale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Pete Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 So, is it inaccurate or just incorrectly labelled as to scale? As I understand it, it both incorrectly scaled and inaccurate. The scale error on wing span is different to the scale error on the fuselage length, thus distorting the whole shape. Plus any other actual shape issues. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Its only a model. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeusa Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Its only a model. I agree. Just fanning the fire. I will get this model and build it. What I expect from 99.99% of the comments after I build it is "Sure wish he knew what he was doing as that was one beautiful kit!! Shame it went to waste!" Just out of curiosity, when Eduard came out with their Emil, wasn't there some complaints about the fuselage length just as with this G version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Roberts Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) 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 Edited May 23, 2014 by Peter Roberts 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeusa Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Pssst, Peter, go look at the Whirlwind threads. A fun bunch they are! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feldr Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 similarly, they did a monkey bum in the case of their Mig-21bis... , as they were told the nose was wrong............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Hope they will figure out the way to rectify it... Aside from totally retooling the wing and fuselage, there's nothing they can do to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 I will stick with my Hasegawas I guess. I just really hope that when they do their Spit Mk XIV that it won't be a disaster. Personally I would prefer Airfix to do one, they are 90% there already with their Mk XIX. Oh...,,. Forgot that we were talking about 109's. I got Spitfires on the brain I guess. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caution Wake Turbulence Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Aside from totally retooling the wing and fuselage, there's nothing they can do to fix it. They just need to issue everyone who bought the kit with a set of new rulers..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusty one Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) well i certainly would never tell anyone to just shut up and just build..but neither am i a rivet counter,i will adjust or correct to a certain degree but thats all...from my experience almost all model kits have flaws from poor fitting parts to panel lines in the wrong place or poor decals, the list goes on ,yeah this is a biggie from a well known and respected name but in my opinion the modellers who want 100% accuracy, quite righty point out the fault ...so dont buy it...while the guys who just want to build it for what it is fill yr boots ,if people want to compain i hear eduards customer services are excellent and it may help stop this sort of thing happening again Edited May 24, 2014 by The Crusty one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 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:- I do love a good Tom review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusty one Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 I hear that the difference between the kit wingspan and the wingspan it's supposed to be is around 3% And I hear that we all make mistakes... So, small test: what would you all do if you find that your next month's salary is down by 3%, you go to the account department and they tell you "sorry, someone made a mistake... ehy, we're human, we all make mistakes " ???? I'm pretty sure that most of us would have very rude words about the "we all make mistakes" thing... ok so say the mistake had been, a resin engine that should never have been included was put into every box by mistake...its still eduards mistake but how many people would kick up a fuss saying"hey ive got 3% more than i expected in the box have your damn model back mr eduard and get it right next time!. Just like if you got 3% more pay in your wage ,how many would stamp into accounts demanding it to be corrected....its still a mistake just depends who gets the most benefit from it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlanceHR Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) I love all his (Edit: Cleavers) online reviews....NOT. He can write whatewer he wants, the kit is still a nicely detailed XL-sized 109G-6 wannabe. And no, it's not proportional. If it were a Trumpy or HB or KH kit, it would be "situation normal, nothing to see here" and we would move on. But being Eduard, everyone is trying to salvage it. And the only way to salvage it is a new wings and fuselage. Reminds me of AZ Vengeance. Oh well, I read on HS that a resin G-6 conversion for Zvezda F-4 is coming. Made my day. Vedran Edited May 24, 2014 by dragonlanceHR 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilneBay Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 To tell the truth I have around 30 built 1/48 109s running from the earliest to the latest. Eduard's kit never figured very large in any building plans I might have. Yes they may well have stuffed up but then we only have the word of a competitor to that but overall a few tweaks seem, as Cleaver suggested fix it. I'm not about to declare that world has ended. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachnid Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Just re-box it as a Luftwaffe'46 paper project, it's odd size caused the ack-ack guys to recalibrate their sights and then when the correct sized bf 109's came in view they missed 'em completely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Not sure I get the connection here. 3% difference in your salary could very well mean the kids/ dog/ goldfish might miss out this week and is therefore bad. A 3% variation in a plastic model of an aircraft that's been done to death pales in comparison. Again I'm with Patsy on this one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts