My first Eduard kit is challenging...

[Jim Kiker]

HI all,

 

I have recently started building Eduard's 1/48 scale Bf-109g-6/AS.  This is my first Eduard build and I have some thoughts and a request for assistance.  And please take note, I am "experienced" so this is not my first rodeo.

 

First, I cannot recall it from previous reviews and articles that the main pieces, but the fuselage and wings have no location pins.  As an old timer I find this amounts to a bug, not a feature, and it's more difficult for me to assemble the kit.

 

Second, the horizontal tails and the top of the vertical fin are virtually a butt join, consisting of two small and short pins to glue them on.  From experience this seems flimsy; have any of you had issues with these parts?

 

Third, I appreciate all the extra parts included, but they are spread out among the "stock" parts.  I have wound up referring to the parts trees diagram showing the "do not use" bits, back to the instructions, back to the diagrams, and so on.  If I had the chance, I would put those extra parts on their own trees so the modeler can easily put them aside while the main build work continue, or make use of them as desired.  And what type of 109g-6/AS are they good for? Just curious!

 

And so to the request portion of this note.  Is there a document somewhere explaining tips and tricks to make the building of these kit an easier task?  I am open for any enlightenment you may wish to share.

 

Cheers, Jim

[fastterry]

Hi Jim,

I have the G-6A/S and the Erla G-10 and they are both the same ie no locating pins on the fuselage. I have built the G-14 and don't remember any real problems. I think I taped the fuselage sides together and used thin liquid cement and so far the tail planes are still attached. Regarding the bits you don't use I go through the parts trees before I start and remove the unused bits, this then simplifies the build a bit. Having said that I have a pile of Bf109, Spitfire and Fw190 bits in boxes left over from a number of builds which may come in handy as spares in the future.

TRF

[treker_ed]

First thing before starting is to remove the "do not use" parts and put them to one side, so that you do not get yourself confused as to which parts you will be using . I do this for all the kits I build if there is a parts list that either lists or shows which parts are not for use... Unless I'm using the kit as a basis for something different.

 

I recently built a Hobby Boss BAe Hawk 100 series and converted it into more of an RAF T.2, some of the parts identified as not for use, were actually of use in that version! 

 

Eduard kits are sometimes known for being on the more difficult end of the spectrum of builds (ie over engineered), but they are buildable. I have a number of their Spitfires which were delightful builds, and a few (not many) of their 109's. The only ones I ever really struggled with were the original FW-190's. These were really designed to have panels opened and not closed up and were real pigs to have the panels closed up. I think I managed 2, and had to bin another couple. I was rather glad when they went back to the drawing board and redesigned them!

[Paws4thot]

Well, I've not built any 109, but I tend to remove and store optional bits as part of the sprue check, before I begin construction. Of course, this is easier if the destruction leaflet includes a sprue map. (Yes Airfix and Tamiya, I am looking at you!)

[Graham Boak]

I think you'll find that the spare parts are not for any G-6/AS but for G1, 2....14 variants.  or a selection of those, anyway.  This permits Eduard to reduce the amount of tooling that would otherwise be required for entirely individual kits.  They may be less useful for spares than you might imagine: for example the 1/72 Spitfire contains a wide range of different canopy variants but only one windscreen.  Not even a PR alternative.  This wouldn't matter if all Spitfire kits managed to accurately represent the shape of the part.  It is more annoying to find that among the wide range of extra parts, a key part of one of the transfer sheet option isn't given - in my case the wide cannon fairings for the early Mk.VIII.

[Beazer]

There’s a couple learning curves to the eduard 109s it seems.  I find without locating pins I make sure to test fit and sand the mating surfaces and use tape or whatever’s necessary to keep the fuselage together.  I was impatient with my recent g6 build so had some cleanup. 
If your not opposed the 109 stgb is happening soon and I bet there will be a ton of eduard kits present.  I myself intend on doing a g6/as and a Czech version so I’m sure you could follow along and gleam any insight or mistakes we all make.

[fastterry]

42 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I think you'll find that the spare parts are not for any G-6/AS but for G1, 2....14 variants.  or a selection of those, anyway.  This permits Eduard to reduce the amount of tooling that would otherwise be required for entirely individual kits.  They may be less useful for spares than you might imagine: for example the 1/72 Spitfire contains a wide range of different canopy variants but only one windscreen.  Not even a PR alternative.  This wouldn't matter if all Spitfire kits managed to accurately represent the shape of the part.  It is more annoying to find that among the wide range of extra parts, a key part of one of the transfer sheet option isn't given - in my case the wide cannon fairings for the early Mk.VIII.

GB I reckon you're right about the majority of the left over parts, looks real impressive but most pieces will never be used.

TRF

[Werdna]

6 hours ago, Jim Kiker said:

And so to the request portion of this note.  Is there a document somewhere explaining tips and tricks to make the building of these kit an easier task?  I am open for any enlightenment you may wish to share.

 

The best thing I can suggest is to check out YouTube - it's likely that there will be at least one video build of the kit in question - or if not, then another Eduard 'G' build which may help you...

[Prenton]

With all those parts "not for use" - what I do is cover them, still on the sprue, with a bit of masking tape, on both sides.  That way, when I have finished, I will know what kit they are from.  I then put the bits of sprues with the remaining pieces, plus the instructions, in the spares bin.  That way, you don't have a pile of loose spare bits that you don't really know what they are.

 

Oh yes - before I do anything at all, I wash the complete sprues in warm soapy water, and then rinse and air dry them.  It may not be necessary, but better to do it now, rather than have a problem after the kit is made up and the paint doesn't adhere well........Eduard are good that way, but some others from the eastern part of Europe, or further east again, do need that treatment to get rid of mould release.

 

Also, where I can, I paint the bits while still on the sprue (that's why the masking tape bit works, if you are spraying....)

 

HTH

 

Philip

[DaveyGair]

I built a 1/48 109G, my first Eduard kit and found it a breeze to build. Use liquid cement and take your time. Use Blutack to support butt joined parts. Use liquid cement on these butt joined parts and press them hard up to 'melt' the join.

Sometimes l cut the pins off other kits to get parts to line up.

As mentioned previously the left over parts are for other variants and is to reduce tooling costs. This is the same in their 1/72 kits.

I'm an old timer as well and some kits like AZ and older Special Hobby are tricky but so far enjoyed the Eduard ones.

Davey.

[Vlad]

The lack of locating pins is troublesome, but I found it in the end not as big an issue as I feared (built a G-2 and a G-6/AS). For the fuselage sides, the cockpit tub acts as the main locating helper, just need to align the nose and tail. For the wings, the wheel well walls similarly act as helpful guidance, so if you align the wingtips and leading edges carefully the rest just falls into place. It might not have pins but is otherwise excellently engineered and well fitting.

 

The tail butt joins gave me no issue. Sure it's not as nice as deeper pins (or Tamiya's solution of one piece horizontal tail), but again no insurmountable difficulty here and strong once the glue is dry.

 

Spare parts is par for the course with Eduard, but I don't see why you need to remove them, cover them or constantly refer back to the parts list. The instructions tell you at each step exactly which part to use and they're pretty clear when there are options too. What I do if unsure is just find the part by number, cut off that part only and set the sprue aside, prepare and glue on, go back to the sprue.

 

Do you have the "Weekend" or "ProfiPack" kit? If its the former, the build is surprisingly simple in terms of parts count and breakdown, once you filter past the spares. No engine assembly and associated (necessary) over-engineering of the front end like the Tamiya and Zvezda kits. You don't even get flap posing options (well, you do, but it's DIY not separate parts).

 

Further tips:

• landing gear attachment is the most "unsure" and easy to misalign one, spend lots of time holding it while looking at it from every angle
• cut off large parts from the sprue very carefully and support the parts - I've found the sprue gates on these kits have a tendency to rip holes out of the part if even slightly bent
• there's nothing helping you align or support the canopy if you want to glue it open - if it helps, 109 canopies are hinged via a pin at each end, so the lower edge should be visible inboard and overlap the fuselage side by approx. the frame thickness when open
• paint very lightly and carefully, there's a lot of fine surface detail that's very easily lost

[Graham Boak]

3 hours ago, fastterry said:

GB I reckon you're right about the majority of the left over parts, looks real impressive but most pieces will never be used.

TRF

Yes, that that's generally true for your spare parts/bits boxes, and why they mount up to occupy cubic feet.  However, when they are useful they are excellent.  I must admit planning to use the spare bulkheads in the Eduard Spitfire on the new Airfix Mk.Vc - both to replace the tub and to fill the empty gap in the forthcoming simple kit.  But that still leaves two new seats to find....

[IanC]

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

They may be less useful for spares than you might imagine: for example the 1/72 Spitfire contains a wide range of different canopy variants but only one windscreen. 

 

Which becomes even more of a problem when you crunch the windscreen underfoot and trawl desperately through a spares box brimming with canopies...

[Graham Boak]

The answer to both problems is the Falcon Spitfire canopy set.  Or the RAF fighters one, if you imagine you are never going to make that many Spitfires (famous last words).  Either way, all the spares in the Eduard never get used - but are still handy, honestly.

[IanC]

56 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

  Either way, all the spares in the Eduard never get used - but are still handy, honestly.

 

 

They are. I used one on my Airfix Mk Vc - a vacform would have been better but I had a few Eduard canopies available! 

 

[Paws4thot]

4 hours ago, Prenton said:

what I do is cover them, still on the sprue, with a bit of masking tape, on both sides.

Never thought of this, but find myself thinking "bulky". As a compromise, how about sticking the spares to masking tape labelled, say, "Spitfire IX mainwheels"? That way you keep labelled spares, but get rid of several feet of empty sprue and address the OP's issue.

[Jim Kiker]

Hi all,

 

Thanks for all the input, gents; there are some really good ideas being passed along and I know they will help.  With the basic cockpit pieces together, I will paint them and continue on from there.  As a courtesy back to you all, a tip of my own; I normally use a .005" thin saw blade in my fingers to saw off big parts as well as the little ones with very little cleanup.  This is working well on this kit because the fiddly bits are truly fiddly and easy to break.

 

Cheers all!

[Paws4thot]

1 hour ago, Jim Kiker said:

I normally use a .005" thin saw blade in my fingers

I use a scalpel saw, which is much the same thing but designed to be held in a Swann Norton #3 or #4 scalpel handle.

[Holzhamer]

I’ve built a few of Eduard’s Gustavs and one Friedrich, and besides what others have already mentioned, like keep the cleaning of the parts to a minimum sanding possible or the vague(ish) positioning of the Uc legs (but they do assemble properly mind you!), a heads-up regarding the even more flimsy attachment of the IP.
Make sure you use adequate portion of glue, I know because one fell by itself after all the kit was done & ready for paint...and I just couldn’t get it back up in place without removing the wings and the cockpit tub.

Still a fabulous kit

[Prenton]

On 12/05/2021 at 15:58, Paws4thot said:

Never thought of this, but find myself thinking "bulky". As a compromise, how about sticking the spares to masking tape labelled, say, "Spitfire IX mainwheels"? That way you keep labelled spares, but get rid of several feet of empty sprue and address the OP's issue.

What I do is I cut of all the bits of the sprue that have nothing on them, and then put what is left is a mid sized jiffy bag with the instructions (minus the coloured profiles etc). I find they lie down fairly flat, so not too bulky...

 

But your idea is an interesting one too.

 

 

Philip

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

I use small pkastic stripping about 1/8” to 3/16” wide about 6-8 mm’s long. I glue them to one half of the fuselage and let them set. When dry I use those as locating tabs. Ive built 5 Eduard 109G’s now and it always seems to work for me. 

[Paws4thot]

13 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

I use small pkastic stripping about 1/8” to 3/16” wide about 6-8 mm’s long. I glue them to one half of the fuselage and let them set.

Just one half? On the odd occasions I've used the technique (for my few vacforms), numbering from the nose I've put odd number tabs on the port half, and even numbers on the starboard.

[Graham Boak]

Seems like a useful idea, but so far I've never needed tabs on kits without locating pins, either injection or vacforms.  I've had bigger problems with kits where using the location pins guarantees poor alignment of the halves and you have to cut them off.  Or where the fuselage halves just don't match whatever you do.  (Very unlikely to be the case with Eduard.)  One concern about using tabs is that with the thin sides of the vacform, and a curved surface, any tab crossing over from one to the other will tend to push the incoming half either up out of alignment or not touch and therefore be of little use anyway.  Yeah, it's just a matter of care and dry runs, isn't it?  Perhaps if I made larger vacforms, with flatter tops/bottoms, I'd find the approach more necessary.  Though I must add that I have an old Canadian vacform of a Glenn where the fuselage sides are so thin I probably need to use not so much tabs as an entire strengthening strip.  (There is a more correct technical term which I have forgotten.)

[Paws4thot]

I see your point Graham; I should add that one of those few vacforms was a Prestwick Twin Pioneer (partly because one of my uncles used to work for Prestwick/Scottish Aviation/ BAe (Jetstream). (and yes I have built a Scottish Aviation Bulldog, and indeed a Jetstream).

[Walter]

I've built a few Eduard kits and just finished a G6. I don't seen any trouble at all with any projects I've tackled. I don't feel there is any tips that would help just following the instructions works for me. 

 

I've had more problems with other kits rather than Eduard in either 1/72 or 1/48.

Anyway I hope you enjoy the build and I look forward to the finally reveal.