1/72 - Messerschmitt Bf.109E "Emil" family by Special Hobby - box art+schemes+decals+3D renders - Bf.109E-4 release November 2020 - other boxings in 2021

[MiG-Mech]

8 hours ago, Borisz said:

Fighters surface should be as smooth as its possible for the figher speed. For this, panel joints and rivet holes were often sealed or filled with some kind of pasta.

Well yes, but actually no.
Btw: A golf ball has no smooth surface.

[Graham Boak]

The smoothness of the finish rather depends upon the aircraft and the time.  It is fair to say that the very high standard of finish on the P-51 was noted as being outstanding for its time - however even the lower production standards were still better than some people seem to believe nowadays.  Particularly on differing parts of the airframe - the wing leading edges would be much superior to the rear fuselage where the boundary layer was thick and protuberances cause less drag.  In the case of the 109: the build standard of the E, being early in the war, was considerably better than that of the K.

[Wez]

Can we stop calling them rivets, they're not rivets, they're holes.  Rivets fill holes they don't leave holes.

 

I hope this is a one-off, I particularly hope they don't do this to their forthcoming Mirage III/5 series.

[Wulfman]

On 11/11/2020 at 17:28, Botan said:

 

It was RPM Link, unless you think about older vacuformed kit from JMK

Built one, nice kit with very nice decals.

Wulfman

[Nick Nichols]

On the sprues, the covers of MG-FF drum magazine looks over-sized, convex.

[DominikS]

16 hours ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

I really don't see any reason to complain. If you don't like riveted kits, there are still Bf 109Es from Tamiya or ICM available. Both are nice sets, cheap and easy to build.

 

I myself like the kits riveted by the manufacturer, so I will have a choice - riveted or smooth. I really don't understand why you want to take that option away from me.

Piotr,

No-one wants to take anything from you (maybe apart from your credit card  , just joking) but those holes should be called "rivets" not rivets. I wouldn't mind riveting if  the rivets on models looked like rivets. As far as I remember, no company has ever made them look like rivets. They are all holes in the surface. I think only one person made them look like the real ones while building FW 190, methinks.

So I think we should start call these holes "rivets" not rivets.  And as I have said before, de gustibus... I don't like this feature on models, you like them. That's fine with me. 

I only wonder who made the forms. Eduard or some Chinese company. And I wonder if the engine cowling will fit ok.

 

Happy modelling.

[Giorgio N]

About these rivets (apologies if we're drifting off-topic...)... yes. they are holes, or better I prefer indentations (to me a hole goes through the plastic) and they are not rivet... but let's keep in mind that this is not a real Bf.109E, it is a model of a Bf.109E that is 72 times smaller than the real thing and made in plastic through a certain manufacturing process. For this reason every feature on this model will be a representation of features present on the real aircraft: panel lines will be represented as narrow channels in the plastic surface and rivets will be represented with indentations and so on. Not because on the real aircraft panel lines are actually channels or rivets are actually indentations but because with the current technology this is the easiest way to represent such features on a plastic model and be able to sell it to us for 364 Koruna / £ 12.5 / €14 and still make a profit !

Is this accurate in terms of how a real aircraft is made ? No it is not. Does this work in giving the "impression" of the features ? It can work, within the limitations of what is possible today without having to charge huge money.

Now I understand that some may like the presence of the representation of rivets and some do not, we all have our taste and we are all right in this respect. But that's where the story really is, I don't buy the "techical" explanations. With some exceptions rivets are used on real aircraft and, with some exceptions, they are generally visible if looking at the skin from close enough. It is then up to the manufacturer to decide if they want to add a representation of this feature and how to do it. And of course it's up to the individual modeller to decide if she/he likes such representation. It's not a matter of the model being realistic, it's more a matter of the model looking realistic. To some it looks better with rivets, others prefer not to have them. And of course, as with every aspect of surface detail on a model, there's the effect on the building process.

Personally I like the way Eduard treats these feature on their 1/72 Spitfires, the representation of the rivet is such that they are practically invisible unless looking at the model from very close, where they become visible. Eduard in those kits also represent rivets/fasteners/screws in a different ways, so that certain features are more visible than others, as happens on the real aircraft... but mind, they are still representations, not 1/72 scale reproductions of the real thing. And of course, this is my personal opinion based on a certain kit and my personal taste.

With this kit being made in collaboration with Eduard, hopefully the rivet lines will be represented in the same way, but I'll be able to tell only with the plastic in my hands.

 

More serious to me is the fact that if the kit is based on the Eduard ones it could include the same shape errors.. and getting the shape and proportions right is something that can be done with the technology currently available !

Edited November 13, 2020 by Giorgio N

[Work In Progress]

On 11/12/2020 at 12:06 AM, AlCZ said:

Where is problem with riveting ? Model without rivets looks extreme obsolete and toyish, and many companies offer a riveting whells.  Rivets out of the box are simple +. 

 

 

This is a massive giveaway to the fact that certain manufacturers pursue fashion rather than scale fidelity. The question of what a Bf.109E looks like at a certain distance has not changed in the last 70 years.  If you think a model "looks obsolete" then it's an admission that a manufacturer is just doing marketing rather than attempting to recreate the appearance of a full size aircraft. The fashion for holes as rivets is a fashion cult, nothing more. It is just the same as the "play value"marketing-led fashion in the late 60s and early 70s for retracting undercarriages with fudged geometry to make them work, and wobbling control surfaces with over-scale hinges. I look forward to its demise

[Giorgio N]

25 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

This is a massive giveaway to the fact that certain manufacturers pursue fashion rather than scale fidelity. The question of what a Bf.109E looks like at a certain distance has not changed in the last 70 years.  If you think a model "looks obsolete" then it's an admission that a manufacturer is just doing marketing rather than attempting to recreate the appearance of a full size aircraft. The fashion for holes as rivets is a fashion cult, nothing more. It is just the same as the "play value"marketing-led fashion in the late 60s and early 70s for retracting undercarriages with fudged geometry to make them work, and wobbling control surfaces with over-scale hinges. I look forward to its demise

 

This is an assumption made very often in our hobby: that a model should represent the real object from a distance proportional to the scale reduction factor... but it's an assumption without any basis ! A 1/72 model is not a reproduction of a 1/1 scale object seen from a distance, a 1/72 model is a different object that is 72 times smaller. The two things look the same (the small and far away Dougal thing...) but are in reality very different. The only thing they have in common is that the real object at 72 m and the model at 1 m will roughly occupy the same angular field in our view. One however will be close to us, the other will be not, it will have 72 m of air in between. One will be likely under artificial light and the other in natural light... and there are a lot of factors that change what we actually see. An aircraft at 72 m will often make anything under the canopy invisible, serial numbers and other markings will look blurred to the eye and so on... yet we want clear canopies and markings printed with good resolution, we want certain details to be well reproduced and sharply moulded... Most of us will struggle to recognize facial features at 72 m, does it mean that in 1/72 figures manufacturers should just use blobs with a rough indication of the eyes instead of faces ?

 

[noelh]

Personally I don't mind all those rivets, no doubt they'll disappear under a coat of paint unless the modeller gets out the black paint and highlights the lot of them, coz you know, that's what a real Messerschmitt looks like.

No as long as the correct number of rivets are there. I'd be happy. But if the rivet count is wrong then the kit is unbuildable.

 

 

[Work In Progress]

22 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

This is an assumption made very often in our hobby:  ... etc

 

You're trying to make me say something I didn't say. It's really extremely simple so there's no need to try to over-complicate it.

People making our kind of models are, by and large, attempting to make something which visually resembles the full size subject.

Once in a while, marketing trends emerge. "Play value" kits were one such marketing-driven trend. "Verlinden style" lurid panel lines were another.  "Rivet divots" are no more and no less than another visual distortion, a (pretty successful in some circles) attempt to create "must have" fashion at the expense of genuine realism

[Homebee]

Next boxing - ref.  SH72443 - Messerschmitt Bf.109E-3 expected early next year.

It will be followed by the E-1 and the export versions.

Source: https://www.specialhobby.net/2020/11/dalsi-info-k-pripravovanym.html

Box art

 

 

 

V.P.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Homebee

[TEXANTOMCAT]

Just one more to complete the line....

 

TT

[John Thompson]

As I suspected, the stark appearance of the rivets, or "rivets", or holes, or pockmarks, that everyone is going snakey about, is an artifact of the CAD rendering process making them seem more visible than they will be on the real life model kit. See here, from someone who certainly has the experience to know:

 

 

So, as always, it's best to wait until we have the finished product in hand before getting too disturbed about this.

 

John

[Yes_Man]

Co-developed with Eduard, might we be about to see the ultimate 1/72 Emil? As for the rivets, I like them in 1/72. They may not be accurate but they add a lot more interest to the surface especially on the Bf 109 with it's large flat panels. If in doubt then a quick fill and sand job usually does the trick.

[John Thompson]

Test shots:

https://www.specialhobby.net/2020/11/sh72439-bf-109e-4-prvni-fotografie.html

 

Several canopy options, but none of them is one-piece, FWIW.

 

John

[Giorgio N]

11 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

You're trying to make me say something I didn't say. It's really extremely simple so there's no need to try to over-complicate it.

People making our kind of models are, by and large, attempting to make something which visually resembles the full size subject.

Once in a while, marketing trends emerge. "Play value" kits were one such marketing-driven trend. "Verlinden style" lurid panel lines were another.  "Rivet divots" are no more and no less than another visual distortion, a (pretty successful in some circles) attempt to create "must have" fashion at the expense of genuine realism

 

I apologise if I misinterpreted your thought !

Personally I agree that there are "fashions" in modelling and today the representation of rivets is one such fashion. However I don't see these as something that goes against realism per se. To me a realistic result is more in the execution of the detail than in the presence of the detail alone, be it for rivets, overlapping panels, stressed skin and all other kind of surface detail. If well executed they are features that may add to realism, if poorly executed they end up detracting and I'd rather not have them.

[VMA131Marine]

If this builds as nicely as it looks on the sprues, I’ll certainly be having a few.

[IanC]

8 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

If this builds as nicely as it looks on the sprues, I’ll certainly be having a few.

 

Me too. 'Rivets' or no rivets. It looks great.

 

But I wouldn't have minded a one-piece canopy amidst all those options as I usually have my models buttoned up.

[Homebee]

More 3D renders

https://www.specialhobby.net/2020/11/predstaveni-dalsich-pripravovanych.html

 

Quote

We considered the Messerschmitt Bf 109E 1/72 model really thoroughly. We announced that the Bf 109E-4 version, model SH72439, will be the first to be sold. It will be followed by the Bf 109E-3 version, model SH72443. But that is not all. We have also prepared a version of the Bf 109E-1 with a machine gun wing, a Swiss export version, with different armament, engine cover and cockpit details. And we did not forget the fighter bombers Bf 109E-4 / B and other versions, equipped with bombs. The Bf 109E-7 and E-7Trop versions equipped with an additional tank are a matter of course. You can see some of these upcoming versions in rendered images.

 

Bf.109E-3

 

Bf.109E-1

 

Swiss Bf.109

 

 

Details

 

V.P.

[Homebee]

- ref. SH72439 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4 - in the Special Hobby eshop: 

https://www.specialhobby.eu/en/our-own-production/messerschmitt-bf-109e-4.html

 

 

V.P.

[Wulfman]

My wallet is going to take a beating !

 

Wulfman

[AlCZ]

When you have a biggest scale kit, (1/48)  a surface without rivets looks strange. When i compared a new Spitfire Mk. I with any kit of this type Eduard surface looks most detailed - and rivets are under surface and over surface. Yup, in small scale Emil are holes. But in 1/32 Tamiya WW II are holes too. And when you have a really big piece of aircraft - as WW II bombers are good in small scale. Yes, you must make it ideal an artistic patine of surface, but when you make it good, result is gorgeous and model looks more plastic. (For example - graphic in video game is simple  a virtual space, surface, avatar and  stuffs creation, but PC graphic and artist renders and coloured  hyper - realistic.) Surface details on model kits a are details in real 3D model, not only virtual 3D render. And still looks surface with all details better as without. But i know a Czech Republic is the same case as South Korea in video games. (In Britain it is more "hobbyist" in Czech more "artistic and competition"  style and this is a difference. (In new gaming consone and hi-tech PC HW is discussed now a HDR, raytracing etc.. and when you make a patine on surface a kit a you creation a picture on real surface.) Our brain and sight make an non exist surface details...  And modeling style are hobbyist (old time scale modeling) and artistic (modern style of scale modeling). And kits with rivets are most suibtable for artistic style. 

[Homebee]

Source: https://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77712&start=5130#p2369795

 

Quote

We are preparing the following separately sets for the model Bf 109E:
- ref. 100-M72009 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4/7 Mask
- ref. 100-M72010 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E-1/3 Mask
- ref. 129-7455 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E Engine
- ref. 129-7456 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E Fuselage Machine Guns and Ammo Boxes
- ref. 129-7457 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E Wing Guns
- ref. 129-7458 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E FuG VII Radio Equipment
-,ref. 129-7459 - Bomb trolley for Bf 109E-4 / B and other planes
- ref. 129-Q72384 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E Wheels
- ref. 129-Q72385 - Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4 / B SC500 bomb and rack
- ref. 129-F72369 - Bf 109E ace A. Galland and mechanic

(...)
Alfred Riedel

 

V.P.

[Graham Boak]

On 11/15/2020 at 3:40 PM, AlCZ said:

 And kits with rivets are most suibtable for artistic style. 

Ah, but which artistic style?  Impressionist? Art Nouveau?  Cubist?  I know - Surrealist.

 

No prizes awarded for anyone suggesting aircraft designs most suited for the above.