Jump to content

Eduard 1/48 Bf109-E kits


Nick Belbin

Recommended Posts

I’m almost afraid to ask this question 🥴 . . .

 

I seem to recall the Eduard Bf109-G having ‘dimensional issues’ which I know was retooled and sorted. Did their Bf109-E kits have any such problems? Basically, are they accurate kits?

 

Thank you.

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick Belbin said:

I seem to recall the Eduard Bf109-G having ‘dimensional issues’ which I know was retooled and sorted.

Not totally,  I have seen moans the exhaust are too high by 50%,  which looks to be the case, and there is something funny about the UC legs and general sit. 

1 hour ago, Nick Belbin said:

Did their Bf109-E kits have any such problems? Basically, are they accurate kits?

 

probably depends on your AMS, this chap is not a fan...

 

 

4 minutes ago, Nick Belbin said:

I’ll stick with the Airfix kit.

 

3 issues which may or not bother you. 

1. The prop is toothpicky, but a replacement can be found (ironically) in the Edaurd F/G kit, which has 3 props, AFAIK the narrowest is the same as the E

Also, the Eduard Bf110F/G kits have unused the props for the Bf110C/D/F kits, and, again, AFAIK, they are the same.

 

2. the squared off canopy middle section is for a G, which has heavier framing. They measured up Hendon's E and the original centre bit was in the war, and a G part was substituted. The earlier rounded top canopy is fine.

 

3. UC leg sit, too high.  Some folks take out a small section and pin, but  I read an easy Lynn Ritger fix on Hyperscale, can't remember the details.  Maybe a case of just opening up the top of leg mount holes. I'll add it in if I can find it.

 

HTH

T

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I prefer the finesse of the details on the Eduard Emil over the clunky Airfix Emil. The one thing I don't like on the Eduard Emil is the length of the undercarriage legs, they need a couple of mm lopping off in my opinion.

 

IMG_1921_zpszcbyakak-600x400.jpg

Airfix kit, horrid clear plastic with very prominent frames. Toothpick propellor and long legs. The panel lines are trench like and the base of the fin looks a little portly. It went together ok but just didn't leave me very excited by it.

 

IMG_5274-600x450.jpg

Eduard kit, much nicer canopy and prop, panel lines are more refined but those legs are also too long in my opinion. The cockpit detail is much nicer inside the Eduard kit too. A bit of a fiddly build around the engine cowls and at least some of the (undersized) engine has to be built up to hold the exhaust stubs in place even if going for a closed up build. Ultimately a more satisfying build than the Airfix kit in my opinion.

 

Duncan B

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All pretty well covered in the previous posts. The Eduard builds up into a beautiful, slightly long in the fuselage and the wings model. I really like the finesse over the Airfix even though I tend to go for shape and dimensional accuracy as first priority. This was one exception. Wonderful kit to build. A bit of pre-planning on the exhausts and it's no issue. I took a little out of the length of the oleo rod and pinned to get the length more correct and adjusted the torque link. A simple change for a much better look. I would post a picture but these builds are back in Australia. Spitfire anyone? I have heaps of these completed builds with me.

 

Ray  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello chaps

 

I know this thread started as a conversation about Eduards Emil but how about the Tamiya kits as an alternative to Airfix’s clunky offering.  I know the E-3 is reported to have issues but I’ve read that these were sorted out for the E4/7 kit which builds up pretty nicely and quickly. 
 

Just a thought. 
 

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Duncan B said:

The one thing I don't like on the Eduard Emil is the length of the undercarriage legs, they need a couple of mm lopping off in my opinion.

An often seen complaint, not only for Messers, but other kits as well. 
One thing I would suggest before lopping off a section is checking the ground clearance of the prop with the aircraft horizontal as it would in take-off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, franky boy said:

Hello chaps

 

I know this thread started as a conversation about Eduards Emil but how about the Tamiya kits as an alternative to Airfix’s clunky offering.  I know the E-3 is reported to have issues but I’ve read that these were sorted out for the E4/7 kit which builds up pretty nicely and quickly. 
 

Just a thought. 
 

James

That's what I'll be using for my next -E build.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alt-92 said:

An often seen complaint, not only for Messers, but other kits as well. 
One thing I would suggest before lopping off a section is checking the ground clearance of the prop with the aircraft horizontal as it would in take-off.

 

I would presume the airframe they are based on are from museums and lack all the things that weigh them down in the pictures we see from the time. I would think fuel, oil, weapons and such all contribute to the lower sitting airframes we generally try to emulate.

 

I think most aircraft kits are made in empty ‘extended’ landing gear form.

 

Obviously on the take-off run, the load is eased as the lift increases too.

Edited by SimonT
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2020 at 09:12, franky boy said:

I know this thread started as a conversation about Eduards Emil but how about the Tamiya kits as an alternative to Airfix’s clunky offering. 

from https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/tamiya-still-best-me-bf-109e3-e4-in-1-48-did-eduar-t517263-s10.html#p2741219

 

this is by Lynn Ritger, author of the 109 Datafiles

 

" Eduard's kit is not a "totally inaccurate Emil", it's not a  Starfix kit for Chrissakes.  It has flaws, as do all the other ones on the market - ultimately it's up to the builder to determine which flaws are acceptable, and which are not.

Hasegawa:  Lower cowling contours way too wide; rather simplistic overall but builds up cleanly

 

Hobbycraft: Almost a clone of the Hasegawa, with a clone of the Verlinden resin interior, entire nose contour is somewhat dodgy, single piece canopy, hard plastic is sometimes a pain to work with but can be found for 5 bucks at swap meets

 

Tamiya: Excessive dihedral, too skinny overall, overly protruding exhaust banks, tailwheel too small, mainwheels too thin but builds up REALLY fast, and goes together almost perfectly

 

Airfix: Prop too skinny, lower pressure molding results in slightly soft details in some areas, mounting plates for main gear legs are too low in the lower wing, giving an oddly excessive angle to the completed model, but overall shapes are the best currently available in 1/48 and any Emil variant can be built right from the box

 

Eduard: Slightly oversized, upper aft fuselage contours not quite right, slat chord too wide, but it builds up very well and the surface detail is exquisitely rendered

Pick your poison - what do you want out of the kit?  
Lynn"

 

emphasis mine.   

Also noted, the Airfix is the only one with separate control surfaces.   

And the Bf110 C-E props are the same type as the 109E

 

On 11/08/2020 at 09:12, franky boy said:

 

 I know the E-3 is reported to have issues but I’ve read that these were sorted out for the E4/7 kit which builds up pretty nicely and quickly. 

The initials issue of the E-3 kit.  Later ones have the corrected nose.  IIRC you need ones with  Made in the Philippines on the box.
 

HTH

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello

It's all very interesting. After having spent my entire professional life in design & construction myself, I would like to say a few basic points. Every kit, of a Messerschmitt, no matter what type, that you can buy today, is incorrect. The fuselage is rolled in sections from sheet metal and slid over the rear edge of the front section. The panel lines that you see on the kits are actually the edges of the sections with their sheet metal thicknesses of the fuselage sheet.

The fuselage of the Bf 109 from the cockpit section is a half-shell construction that has been optimized primarily with a view to industrial mass production. For this purpose, the bulkheads were already integrated into the individual cladding elements by bending the edges (flanging) during the production. This machining only had to be carried out on half of the segments (even numbering) on both sides. The other half of the eight cladding sheets was designed as a simple flat sheet. It was no longer necessary to rivet additional frames for stiffening. When building the fuselage, all sheet metal segments of one half of the fuselage were stretched onto a pattern framework and riveted together.

Some replicas no longer have anything to do with the original production.

In any museum, the first thing you need to do is see what is really in front of you.

Today it is impossible to generate such a model even with 3D AutoCAD. It is even more impossible to generate an engine cowling.

However, it should be possible to adhere to the main dimensions. In my opinion, however, the blatant lack of knowledge in geometry and mathematics is responsible for this shortcoming. Many model makers get lost in details and completely lose sight of the whole.

Happy Modelling

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...