Eduard 190 Problems

[GazB]

Hi all.

 

Has anyone else ever had problems with Eduard kits? Or to be specific to my particular case, the Eduard Fw-190D-9 (Revell rebox).

 

In addition to a fair amount of flash, parts have incredibly poor keying points, are overly large to fit, don't match the instructions or don't even make sense. I started assembly in the cockpit area and it was straightforward until the footpedals, which have such a poor connection point and appear larger in reality than the instructions depicts. Next up was the gun bay, which again had terrible locator positions for the parts so they had to be manually aligned. It then asked me to add in a pipe that was far too long, but as I looked ahead, completely disappears from the instructions and another part is added to the same place!

 

To try and align things properly I test fitted this section to the fuselage, which has two tiny locator bumps, one at the front and one at the rear, and the rest is basically fitting by eye. It took a lot of force to get the parts to somewhat line up, and I still don't know if it'll fit correctly. I'll have to paint these parts before I continue, but so far this feels like such a chore, and so incredibly disappointing given how often I see people saying Eduard kits are amazing. I don't think I've had a kit with this much wing it construction since Airfix back in the 90s and 2000s, and I don't even think it felt that bad then 

 

Almost reminds me of my experience with my Miniart T-55 have similar shallow location points or parts that didn't fit properly.

 

Oh, to have every kit build like a Tamiya one.

 

Gaz

 

Edited September 5, 2021 by GazB
typo fix

[fishplanebeer]

I have no experience of this kit but would say that this sounds all too familiar with Revell kits, their F4U-1A being another prime example of 'vague' instructions, poor fit and poor or no locating pins/lugs etc... for fitting parts. I was so exasperated with the Corsair it ended up in the bin and I spent the extra on the Tamiya equivalent which was money very well spent.

 

Certain Revell kits look good value when compared with the competition but sadly you get what you pay for, or even less!

 

Regards

Colin.

[Graham Boak]

Like all manufacturers, Revell vary a lot, some very good, some poor.  They do rebox a lot of other companies' kits, and shouldn't be chastised for the quality of these.  This kit is apparently Eduard.  Eduard pride themselves on their tooling, and their supporters see them as up to Tamiya standards if not superior.  I don't think that either reach the Olympian standards they are credited with, and there are Revell kits that are every bit as good.  One of the good points about the internet is that it is possible to find out which kits are good/bad/indifferent, but avoid simple black/white judgements as this can mean buying clunkers and missing gems.

[dov]

Just to ask: Is it a Revell kit ftom origin? Yes or no, please. 

I built all the Doras a while ago, I had a mix from all companies for my Papageien Staffel.

I got a headache, at this time.

But Tamiya was no better. The landing gear is wrong from the angle!

I know today no proper Dora kit at all. Maybe someone else.

Actually, I have Miniart experience: There is a big hughe difference in quality!

For Dragon kits, I would agree! Shallow location holes, wrong in diameter, or no one at all!

Happy modelling 

[Ray_W]

For your entry into the world of Eduard kits I would have to say their D-9 is not a simple build and yet builds up into a very nice rendition. It does take a little work. Judicious dry fitting and some fettling needed to close up details if you're not showing the armament. Adding your own location devices helps. I had minimal flash in the Eduard boxing. I recall problem areas were adjustment to ensure lower fuselage halves close up at the wheel wells, cowling adjustment to ensure it finishes in the correct position and wing root cannon covers need to be fitted if displaying closed.  It is a case of test fit, test fit, test fit. I did not need to use filler other than a smidgen on the rear of the wing root cannon cover. Would I buy another? Too right -thoroughly enjoyed the kit.  EDIT: I forgot to add, importantly, the most work was thinning the leading edge of the fin. It is too thick.

 

 

 

Thankfully once Eduard stopped showing motor and armament details, thing got a lot simpler. 

 

Ray

Edited September 5, 2021 by Ray_W
More info

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, GazB said:

completely disappears from the instructions

Did you try the Eduard instructions?  They are on the Eduard site.

They maybe be better?

Their old tool Fw 190 kits are noted for being designed to be built opened up, and are also tricky builds.    

 

Apparently the Hobby Boss late Fw 190's are decent builds, and I have only seen very minimal moaning about them in the accuracy stakes as well.

37 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

this sounds all too familiar with Revell kits

Not a Revell original, but a rebox.   Conclusion, research.    Revell do a vast range of kits, of varying ages,   and plenty of reboxing.     Like any company with a large and convoluted back catalogue, research. 

But any blanket statement about them from one kit, or drawing conclusions from one kit is misguided.     

If you can't find information on a specific kit online, then ask here, but it's very rare I can't get an idea of a kit from searching.  

 

12 minutes ago, dov said:

ust to ask: Is it a Revell kit ftom origin? Yes or no, please. 

No, as stated in the OP first line.  Reboxed Eduard.

 

 

[Werdna]

11 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

Apparently the Hobby Boss late Fw 190's are decent builds, and I have only seen very minimal moaning about them in the accuracy stakes as well.

 

Agreed.  Unless you want to display open gun bays, etc, then I don't think there is a better option in 1/48 than the Hobbyboss D-9 (or their D-11 & 13).  The cowling gun bulges are a little 'flat' in terms of accuracy, but they are simple, easy to build, with good surface detail.  It's just a shame they don't offer any of the 190A series in 1/48.

[dov]

I asume, with your kit, the Revell moulds would have reached the end of their lifetime.

Whoever did the injection moulding process. 

Rebox: As I understand it: The carton, box and instruction printed on paper as well decals are from Eduard.

Happy modelling 

[GazB]

1 hour ago, fishplanebeer said:

I have no experience of this kit but would say that this sounds all too familiar with Revell kits, their F4U-1A being another prime example of 'vague' instructions, poor fit and poor or no locating pins/lugs etc... for fitting parts. I was so exasperated with the Corsair it ended up in the bin and I spent the extra on the Tamiya equivalent which was money very well spent.

 

Certain Revell kits look good value when compared with the competition but sadly you get what you pay for, or even less!

 

Regards

Colin.

As a clarification, its a reboxed Eduard kit. The sprues all have Eduard on them. Scalemates could be suggesting the tooling is from 2010, but it doesn't draw lineage exactly between the rebox and the original kit. 

45 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Like all manufacturers, Revell vary a lot, some very good, some poor.  They do rebox a lot of other companies' kits, and shouldn't be chastised for the quality of these.  This kit is apparently Eduard.  Eduard pride themselves on their tooling, and their supporters see them as up to Tamiya standards if not superior.  I don't think that either reach the Olympian standards they are credited with, and there are Revell kits that are every bit as good.  One of the good points about the internet is that it is possible to find out which kits are good/bad/indifferent, but avoid simple black/white judgements as this can mean buying clunkers and missing gems.

I used to get a lot of Revell kits years ago, and I don't really recall many problems with them (when I was a lot less experienced and prepped for issues). I searched around a few times about the 190, and kept finding reviews both written and video pointing to this one. However, if Eduard are supposedly close to Tamiya in tooling, well, I'm really not seeing it. Even the old 1/48 Mig-15 by Trumpeter I have fit together with less trouble than this kit so far. 

29 minutes ago, Ray_W said:

For your entry into the world of Eduard kits I would have to say their D-9 is not a simple build and yet builds up into a very nice rendition. It does take a little work. Judicious dry fitting and some fettling needed to close up details if you're not showing the armament. Adding your own location devices helps. I had minimal flash in the Eduard boxing. I recall problem areas were adjustment to ensure lower fuselage halves close up at the wheel wells, cowling adjustment to ensure it finishes in the correct position and wing root cannon covers need to be fitted if displaying closed.  It is a case of test fit, test fit, test fit. I did not need to use filler other than a smidgen on the rear of the wing root cannon cover. Would I buy another? Too right -thoroughly enjoyed the kit.  EDIT: I forgot to add, importantly, the most work was thinning the leading edge of the fin. It is too thick.

 

 

 

Thankfully once Eduard stopped showing motor and armament details, thing got a lot simpler. 

 

Ray

I can understand complex or time consuming builds, and I've tackled my way through a few of them (mostly armour, but also some aircraft). This one just seems unnecessarily poor in fit. I fitted the wing gun bays and then test fitted the upper wing sections with the lower. Having to force parts together, and even then gaps are showing. Then trying to test fit the wing assembly to the fuselage brings up even more gaps and fit misalignment. Panel lines at the tail are out of alignment along the join line if the lines at the nose are aligned and vice versa. It feels like such a shame because details wise its pretty nice, although certain parts seem to been slightly off in the moulding process so you can see the seam and one half is a bit off. It feels like I have to force a lot of parts into position, and I have doubts glued sections will hold while doing so, and there will be inevitable position issues.

26 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

Did you try the Eduard instructions?  They are on the Eduard site.

They maybe be better?

Their old tool Fw 190 kits are noted for being designed to be built opened up, and are also tricky builds.    

 

Apparently the Hobby Boss late Fw 190's are decent builds, and I have only seen very minimal moaning about them in the accuracy stakes as well.

Not a Revell original, but a rebox.   Conclusion, research.    Revell do a vast range of kits, of varying ages,   and plenty of reboxing.     Like any company with a large and convoluted back catalogue, research. 

But any blanket statement about them from one kit, or drawing conclusions from one kit is misguided.     

If you can't find information on a specific kit online, then ask here, but it's very rare I can't get an idea of a kit from searching.  

 

No, as stated in the OP first line.  Reboxed Eduard.

 

 

I looked around a couple of times for 190 kits, and everything kept pointing to Eduard for good tooling and build quality for fairly low pricing. If this kit is originally tooled in 2010, its still pretty poor from an engineering standpoint. When I get a Tamiya kit, even something from the 90s or early 2000s, they go together extremely well. The parts for this kit have a ridiculous amount of play in them that you're having to judge things via the eye. I have serious worries about whether the fuselage will even align correctly, not to mention the high probability of a very prominent join line requiring sanding and loss of details like rivets and such. One part of the instruction tells me to drill out a hole for the antenna beneath the wing. Not hole on the actual part to drill out, no indication of size, and the part's peg isn't even round but rectangular. 

9 minutes ago, Werdna said:

 

Agreed.  Unless you want to display open gun bays, etc, then I don't think there is a better option in 1/48 than the Hobbyboss D-9 (or their D-11 & 13).  The cowling gun bulges are a little 'flat' in terms of accuracy, but they are simple, easy to build, with good surface detail.  It's just a shame they don't offer any of the 190A series in 1/48.

In hindsight I should have looked at something like Hobbyboss. I built up the 262B1 kit from them in 1/48 and it fit like a dream. I don't even remember having to use filler. 

9 minutes ago, dov said:

I asume, with your kit, the Revell moulds would have reached the end of their lifetime.

Whoever did the injection moulding process. 

Rebox: As I understand it: The carton, box and instruction printed on paper as well decals are from Eduard.

Happy modelling 

At the earliest, the moulds are from 2010 from Eduard. Everything else is Revell, including the decals I believe. 

 

Gaz

[Bozothenutter]

I'm working on the same kit, and agree completely!

At least 4 extra hands are required.

Tip: glue the top rear of the fuselage first, without glueing the cockpit. Then slide that in and glue the rear bottom.

Oh, and the engine 'bulkhead' doesn't fit at the bottom, so needs trimming.

[GazB]

4 hours ago, Bozothenutter said:

I'm working on the same kit, and agree completely!

At least 4 extra hands are required.

Tip: glue the top rear of the fuselage first, without glueing the cockpit. Then slide that in and glue the rear bottom.

Oh, and the engine 'bulkhead' doesn't fit at the bottom, so needs trimming.

Appreciate the tip 👍

 

I actually just discovered a small air scoop to apply to the upper engine cover has...not actually been moulded with the sprue at all O_O

 

Also a sort of small battery unit that you install in the wing gun bays supposedly has a mirrored part, but its a duplicated part, so it can't match the illustration.

 

Did want to have the prop able to spin, but I'll need to glue it into position ahead of time due to the cowling not matching up properly at the top and leaving a gap if I painted separately. Well, glue it all up without adding the prop so painting isn't a nightmare, that is. Also mucked up the cowl flaps a bit while gluing because they wouldn't sit flush ><

 

The battle continues

 

Gaz

[Sturmovik]

10 hours ago, Werdna said:

shame they don't offer any of the 190A series in 1/48.

Hopefully they'll release the A versions in the future, would be a nice option to the Hasegawa kits.

 

I think I'm going to give Eduard's Dora a shot, it can't be THAT bad. I plan on building the wings first, and then the engine compartment (Eduard released an errata mentioning the modeller shouldn't glue the engine cowling, and that the gun firewall should be glued not at 90°, but at 89 or 91).

 

[Ray_W]

3 hours ago, Sturmovik said:

Hopefully they'll release the A versions in the future, would be a nice option to the Hasegawa kits.

 

Eduard has released simpler build Anton options commencing with their new tool 1/48 series from 2017. These do not have open covers and eliminate the complexity around the troublesome engine details and cannon/MG's. Like all their FW-190's they are exceptionally detailed kits, yet require less work than their early 190's. They offer the most complete 1/48 range including the A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-8 and F-8. All in various guises.  Pick up one of these up and the experience is different to their early Anton renditions and the Doras.  Lovely kits. My pick for FW-190's. Very much up to Eduard current standard. 

 

Check with Scalemates that you are picking up one of these "new tool" kits starting with kit no. 82142 from 2017. Here is the link:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/eduard-82142-fw-190a-4--1071160

 

You can follow the product timeline. You will also see the Revell D-9 boxing.

 

Also, to ensure you get the right kit, check that it has the simple engine front face plug and armament installation by downloading the instructions from Scalemates or Eduard.

 

Eduard has not offered a new tool Dora and continue to use the moulds even releasing a couple more renditions in the current year - a D-11/D-13 ProfiPack and D-9 Weekend Edition - I have been tempted to do another one of these. One advantage of these kits is they do reveal the rear engine detail visible from the wheel well in the Dora. 

 

Ray

[VMA131Marine]

14 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Their old tool Fw 190 kits are noted for being designed to be built opened up, and are also tricky builds. 

The radial engined variants are designed to be built opened up, but the D was not, not having an full engine. Although, you can open up the gun cover in front of the windshield.

 

Here’s a build review of the kit; certainly there are no problems, such as the OP described, noted in the review. The kit has been available for quite a long time and if there were major assembly issues I think they would have been documented by now.

 

https://web.ipmsusa3.org/review/fw-190d-9-late

[fastterry]

I have built the old tooling of the A-5 (well almost as I lost a bit for a while) as well as the D-9 and the new simpler A-2 & A-3 and I can say that the older tooling A-5 was a bit of a nightmare (old news). I didn't have any real issues with the D-9 except the fitting of the wing halves. From my experience all of the Eduard Fw's need to have the ribs over the wheel wells shaved down to get the upper wing halves to fit the lower wing without gaps. Having said all that I love the A-2 & A-3 that I built and I have the A-4, 5, 6, 8 and the A8/R2 in the stash waiting. I'm not sure if I'll go for the D-11/13 yet but if I do I will know most of the pitfalls. I think the thing with the D-9 and the D-11/13 is to commit early - open or closed and if closed glue the wing and fuselage gun covers on early. hth

TRF

[Duncan B]

I've built the Eduard Dora 9 and while it is a kit that needs careful dry fitting and assembly to get the best out of it I don't recall having any problems with the instructions. I am guessing that Revell print their own instructions for this kit so would suggest downloading the Eduard instructions directly from the Eduard website (it's possibly too far down the build process to be of any worth to you now though?).

Revell's instructions for their own kits can be a liability rather than a help as I've found out to my own cost over the years.

 

Duncan B

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

It certainly isn't Lego, but the Eduard kit will build up very well with a lot of care. They are best for experienced modellers but not in the way one might say that for a vacuum formed kit. It's not that you just glue it where it touches, smother it in filler then sculpt to shape. The experience is knowing what to dry fit and knowing how to tweak alignment whilst preserving the excellent surface detail.

[GazB]

4 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

The radial engined variants are designed to be built opened up, but the D was not, not having an full engine. Although, you can open up the gun cover in front of the windshield.

 

Here’s a build review of the kit; certainly there are no problems, such as the OP described, noted in the review. The kit has been available for quite a long time and if there were major assembly issues I think they would have been documented by now.

 

https://web.ipmsusa3.org/review/fw-190d-9-late

Well, I mean, its not like I just made up all the issues experienced so far. There are significant fit and connection problems, incorrect or missing parts. Fitting the wing assembly leaves a pretty significant gap on the ventral tail connection, and panel lines are still slightly misaligned. The only way to get rid of the gaps on the wings is to spread the bottom of the fuselage, but in doing that you're pulling apart the upper connections and using tape to hold them together will pull it in away from the wing roots 🤷‍♂️

 

Gaz

[Werdna]

4 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

Here’s a build review of the kit; certainly there are no problems, such as the OP described, noted in the review. The kit has been available for quite a long time and if there were major assembly issues I think they would have been documented by now.

 

https://web.ipmsusa3.org/review/fw-190d-9-late

 

Worth noting that in that build, the reviewer opted to display all the gun covers (cowling and wings) in the open position, so will not have encountered many of the fit problems being discussed here and on previous threads.  

[GiampieroSilvestri]

I started building the Eduard Focke Wulf Fw 190 D-11.The fit was so bad that I combined the parts necessary to make the D-11 and the open wheel wells and the cockpit with a Italeri D-9.The rest was thrown away only the landing gear and the tail were kept for the spare box.

 

Saluti

 

Giampiero

[Bozothenutter]

1 hour ago, GazB said:

Well, I mean, its not like I just made up all the issues experienced so far. There are significant fit and connection problems, incorrect or missing parts. Fitting the wing assembly leaves a pretty significant gap on the ventral tail connection, and panel lines are still slightly misaligned. The only way to get rid of the gaps on the wings is to spread the bottom of the fuselage, but in doing that you're pulling apart the upper connections and using tape to hold them together will pull it in away from the wing roots 🤷‍♂️

 

Gaz

Hence the 'not gluing in the cockpit ' bit.

Do wish they'd update this kit.

Need a proper 'blown' canopy as well, have a few Rob Taurus items for that.

[Bozothenutter]

Btw, looking at period pics of 190's, the root part of the wing gun cover fit badly on some of the real ones too! With the rear edge standing proud of the root.

[tempestfan]

40 minutes ago, Bozothenutter said:

Btw, looking at period pics of 190's, the root part of the wing gun cover fit badly on some of the real ones too! With the rear edge standing proud of the root.

The contest judges were all transferred to the ARmy to form Kampfgruppen, surely. 😛

[Sturmovik]

11 hours ago, Ray_W said:

 

Check with Scalemates that you are picking up one of these "new tool" kits starting with kit no. 82142 from 2017. Here is the link

I already know how Scalemates work.

[Antti_K]

Hello guys,

 

I have no experience of the Eduard Focke-Wulffs, but I'm currently building their 1/48 scale P-39Q Airacobra (kit #8470). The fit is OK, no big nasty surprises there. The kit is rather inaccurate when compared against the real thing and some factory drawings. Here are my findings:

 

- the nose is pretty accurate. There are some hatches that shouldn't be there and some missing

- the fuselage overall shape is good

- the number of screws is wrong on many panels (usually one missing)

- replace the air outlets on the nose with scratch built items as the kit parts are out of shape and too small

- the wing leading edge is located at the right position

- the wing chord is some 3 millimeters too short!

- the wing cross section is completely wrong and especially the trailing edge is far too thick

- the wing panel lines are completely wrong for a P-39Q; especially on the under sides

- some bulges are missing from the fuselage bottom

- main gear bays are over simplified

- painting instructions for interiors and details are inaccurate

 

Then comes the really nasty part:

 

- the clear parts are 1,3 millimeters too tall (look at the door window shape. It is a demanding and frustrating correction to do)

- thanks to the "narrow" wing, all rear fuselage panels are of wrong size and at wrong locations. Eduard has done a great job masking this problem out of sight

- aileron, rudder and elevator hinge lines are far too shallow

- at least half of the stencils are missing from the decal sheet (Foxbot offers a very good looking set for P-39Q)

 

I'm not impressed by this kit. I was expecting a lot better mainly because Eduard kits are so popular. It seems I have to try my hands on a couple of more Eduard kits to see if they are better.

 

Cheers,

Antti