1/48 Bf 109s gear oleo lengths (Eduard vs. Tamiya)

[Vlad]

Having now built two 1/48 Bf 109s, one Tamiya one Eduard, and since both are sitting on the same shelf, I noticed they sit at visibly different angles. The Tamiya has shorter gear legs and the legs are splayed outwards more, so the Eduard has a much higher nose position.

 

The question is... which one of them has goofed up?

Edited July 31, 2020 by Vlad

[Troy Smith]

39 minutes ago, Vlad said:

 

The question is... which one of them has goofed up?

 

I suspect, Eduard.  While they did retool their 109G after the howls of derision,  it seems they didn't retool all of it.  Photos of completed model do often like they are on tip toe though.

The Eduard 109 detractors are vocal, but poor at showing the faults. 

The main ones are the exhausts are 50%  too deep, which is noticeable, if you look closely and compare,   and they provide only one type of gear leg. (I said the fault finders commentary  was not great)

I have seen other mumblings, but they have not gone for illustrative comparisons.

 

FWIW, the 1/48th 109F/G  kits for accuracy are rated to be the Zvezda kits, as they got a 109 nut to provide manufacture drawings, which had the actual dimensions for making them on.... 

 

The other factor may simple be that Eduard did  not take into account how a typical load of fuel and ammunition may affect sit.   This has caught model companies out before.  

 

50 minutes ago, Vlad said:

Having now built two 1/48 Bf 109s, one Tamiya one Eduard, and since both are sitting on the same shelf, I noticed they sit at visibly different angles

 

this is the fun bit.  Get out the books, or do a search,  and then drive your self bonkers staring at image from different viewpoints...

 

this is a great Flickr for 109 images

https://www.flickr.com/photos/28092068@N03/with/50119739402/

 

and there is Asisbiz, also many images

https://www.asisbiz.com/Bf-109G.html

 

I'm going to avoid the temptation to go down that rabbit hole right now......

HTH

[Vlad]

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I suspect, Eduard.  ...

...

The other factor may simple be that Eduard did  not take into account how a typical load of fuel and ammunition may affect sit.   This has caught model companies out before. 

This was kind of my line of thinking as well. It's no biggie, I think the Eduard kit looks fine on its own, only the juxtaposition got me thinking. I don't want a rabbit hole of picture comparisons either

 

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

The main ones are the exhausts are 50%  too deep, which is noticeable, if you look closely and compare.

 

I knew there was something up with them but not exactly what. Now I see it, and it explains why I felt the lower cowl looked too narrow despite the overall profile being correct. Mind you, I'm really nitpicking here.

 

And Tamiya have slightly goofed the exhaust stacks too, they have missed the fact they are not parallel to the aircraft datum line. Again, very nitpicky.

 

Quote

FWIW, the 1/48th 109F/G  kits for accuracy are rated to be the Zvezda kits, as they got a 109 nut to provide manufacture drawings, which had the actual dimensions for making them on....

 

I have just unboxed a 1/48 Zvezda F-4, I figured I may as well complete the trinity of these new kits and use that as a basis to inform future kit choices. I'm building their 1/72 F-2 and consider that the best in scale, so here's hoping.

 

I would say though that Zvezda uses the same oleo and gear door parts for wheels up and down build options, so I am actually expecting "uncompressed" legs here too.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Vlad

[MDriskill]

Let me start with the caveat that I'm not really a "1/48 guy," but as Troy pointed out, many of the detail parts in the current Eduard 109G kits are carried over from their disastrous "1/46 scale" original release. I've noticed in the online builds I've looked at, that the newer kit - whilst vastly improved overall - does have an odd "tip-toes" stance. To my eye the struts are slightly too long, and could stand tiny bits more rake and splay as well. I believe that Tamiya absolutely nailed this detail correctly. 

 

I generally like the Eduard F's and G's though: good overall accuracy, superb molding, loads of detail, many optional parts, and multiple variants. I've seen some great-looking builds (including some where the gear has obviously been adjusted). But I think most 109 aficionados consider both Tamiya and Zvezda better in the fine points of out-of-the-box accuracy.

Edited August 1, 2020 by MDriskill

[Randy Lutz]

Vlad never specified if he was talking about the E's or the G's.  I cannot comment on the G variant, but I believe the way Tamiya has designed the E version, it is next to impossible to get the correct splay.  They just seem to set up a tad wide.  They want to fall somewhere between the splay of an E and a G.

 

All this may be irrelevant if Vlad is not talking about the E.

 

Cheers

[MDriskill]

1 hour ago, Randy Lutz said:

Vlad never specified if he was talking about the E's or the G's.  I cannot comment on the G variant, but I believe the way Tamiya has designed the E version, it is next to impossible to get the correct splay.  They just seem to set up a tad wide.  They want to fall somewhere between the splay of an E and a G.

 

All this may be irrelevant if Vlad is not talking about the E.

 

Cheers

Good point! Since he later tossed the Zvezda "F" into the fray, I assumed we were discussing G's. But I've been wrong before...

Edited August 1, 2020 by MDriskill

[Vlad]

My apologies, I was talking about the new Tamiya G-6 and their landing gear fit is rock solid, it's impossible to glue the angle wrong. The Eduard I'm comparing to is the G-2 I recently RFI'd. The landing gear attachment was awful and uncertain so the wrong splay/rake could be partly my fault, or to spin it a different way it means it could be wiggled to a slight improvement next time.

 

Whatever the other accuracy issues, the Eduard kits have that rivet detail as a trump card, which is a double edged sword because it makes painting far more stressful to try and preserve it. 🤯

Edited August 1, 2020 by Vlad

[Seawinder]

2 hours ago, Vlad said:

My apologies, I was talking about the new Tamiya G-6 and their landing gear fit is rock solid, it's impossible to glue the angle wrong. The Eduard I'm comparing to is the G-2 I recently RFI'd. The landing gear attachment was awful and uncertain so the wrong splay/rake could be partly my fault, or to spin it a different way it means it could be wiggled to a slight improvement next time.

 

Whatever the other accuracy issues, the Eduard kits have that rivet detail as a trump card, which is a double edged sword because it makes painting far more stressful to try and preserve it. 🤯

If rivet detail is a trump card, I'll be happy to play the hand in no trump.

[Ray_W]

14 hours ago, Vlad said:

I was talking about the new Tamiya G-6 and their landing gear fit is rock solid, it's impossible to glue the angle wrong.

Hi Vlad,

 

Unless Tamiya get the angle wrong. They did a brilliant engineering job on their new tool Mk I but didn't they lock in a Mk V angle? 

 

I have not seen yet the definitive answer on who got the G right. Of course, the best thing is to measure it and check it against some trusted source for the actual aircraft. If you haven't got the information, hopefully someone will post it. One starting point was this thread which has some of the necessary information in it. You'll remember it because of your contribution be it that the thread was on another subject.

 

 

Sadly the Eduard instructions show you the stance but do not give the angles - I like it when manufacturer's do. I built mine to replicate the Eduard instructions. Your right about the variability possible. 

 

Ray

[Vlad]

Aha, I forgot about the dimensions in that thread.

 

Well, if you take that 935 from the Russian drawings (which is frustratingly measured vertically not down the oleo leg) then Tamiya is about right to the best of my ability to measure that on a finished model. Eduard is as much as ~3-4mm too tall in that area, measured on the kit. Zvezda isn't built but just measuring the gear leg part, it may be about right, maybe ~1mm too long.

 

For the splay, both Tamiya and Eduard have the tyres ~2mm too far apart if using that 2002mm measurement from the German annotated drawing. So if the height is correct, then Tamiya has a little bit too much splay. Eduard has too little splay but due to the excess length comes out a bit too wide at the tyres anyway.

 

I'm building the Zvezda wheels up so I won't actually be able to get these measurements for that one, maybe someone else has one built they can take a ruler to?

Edited August 2, 2020 by Vlad

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, Ray_W said:

They did a brilliant engineering job on their new tool Mk I but didn't they lock in a Mk V angle? 

 

Slight divergence, on the new tool  Tamiya Spitfire Mk.I, apparently they have the UC with the forward rake of the C wing. (discussed in your Spitfire Vc conversion)

The Spitfire Va and Vb  UC rake are the same as the Mk.I/II, as the wings are the same,  despite what one reviewer online has said.

 

HTH

[Ray_W]

4 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

on the new tool  Tamiya Spitfire Mk.I, apparently they have the UC with the forward rake of the C wing.

Thanks Troy for the confirmation. Apologies for dropping off the C wing designation which we know well was with the revised rake. It does illustrate how Tamiya has provided a smart solution for modeller's undercarriage dilemmas and yet can get it wrong. 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Much like German cars, Tamiya enjoys presumption of superiority without it really being justified. They are far from immune to making mistakes.

 

None the less this is a useful thread for me. I have a Zvezda 109-F but it's a clunky thing so I haven't built it, and that rudder is just horrible so will need either remedial work or replaced entirely. I may either use it or look for something a little more "primary source" to ensure I get my Eduard G-2 based build right in this regard.

[Vlad]

40 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Much like German cars, Tamiya enjoys presumption of superiority without it really being justified. They are far from immune to making mistakes.

 

None the less this is a useful thread for me. I have a Zvezda 109-F but it's a clunky thing so I haven't built it, and that rudder is just horrible so will need either remedial work or replaced entirely. I may either use it or look for something a little more "primary source" to ensure I get my Eduard G-2 based build right in this regard.

 

I was a bit daunted by the over-enginnering of the Zvezda kit but the fit is excellent and the engine you need to build even if you want everything closed up in the end went together in no time. I no longer feel the large parts count and complexity are crippling disadvantages of the kit.

 

What's wrong with the rudder?

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

I have a Zvezda 109-F but it's a clunky thing

Are you sure it's the Zvezda kit?  Just 'clunky' is not how I'd describe it, more like over engineered, but finely detailed.

https://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/zve/kit_zve_4806.shtml

Maybe the ICM kit? 

https://www.super-hobby.co.uk/products/Messerschmitt-Bf-109F-4-R6.html

the rudder doesn't look great in the images,  sorry, can't get to the kits at the mo for a proper look.

1 hour ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Much like German cars, Tamiya enjoys presumption of superiority without it really being justified. They are far from immune to making mistakes.

I think Tamiya's reputation comes from to carry on the analogy, their "vorsprung durch technik" engineering and buildabilty, and a mistaken idea that good kit engineering is related to accuracy.

They do seem to have got a lot better at research though, I've not seen accuracy gripes on their recent offerings. 

 

cheers

T

[Crimea River]

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

They do seem to have got a lot better at research though, I've not seen accuracy gripes on their recent offerings. 

 

cheers

T

Well they did put the ground starter socket in the wrong place on their new Mk I Spit. Not major and easily mistaken given its been put there on modern restorations for safety.