Stephen,

Eduard appears to have based their wing spans on Peter Grosz's assertion in the E.I/E.II Datafile that the E.IIs and E.IIIs in operational use carried wings of the same span. Close scrutiny of their geometry (location of the rigging points and their relationship to the national markings) in the available photos bears this out.

I have noticed from the sprue-shots that the "squared" cowling cheek that Eduard have included resemble that used on the E.I rather than the E.II. The E.I's lower edge is roughly level with the bottom of the cowling. The E.II closely follows the contour of the chin, going down to the lower longeron.

I hope Eduard is not intending to use this fuselage for the E.I, as the M5 is considerably different from the M14.

When the E.II was inservice many were refitted with the longer wings. This simply gave it a higher ceiling. But the official designation was still the smaller wing area.

Hi Stephen

Maybe this is what Eduard were referring to in their latest Newsletter:

"The only possible drawback with this kit is its long development time of three years. During that span, there was a lot of research development, but we weren’t able to apply all the new knowledge to our kit. So, if you will find some discrepancies comparing our kit with the newest drawings, be discreet with your criticisms. Historical research is so fast these days that it is difficult to incorporate all of them into a kit with a longer development period. Our effort to include the newest research delayed our Fw 190D project; remember the troubles with the landing gear wells. It is always a tough decision. to stop a project and restart again, and I simply decided not to change the Eindecker design despite new research revelations."

Looking forward to seeing your Review and notes on building the kit accurately.

All the best

Rowan

"OK, here goes. The following are "quick-fix" suggestions that will improve the kit considerably as built as a standard E.III. An E.II or early E.III such as 105/15 would require scratching a few parts particular to the ammunition storage & feed (which are incorrect as provided). An E.I of any stripe (geddit?) would require major surgery.

Eduard Fokker E.III corrections: The "easy" list

• Sand off all internal structure contours on the outside of the fuselage fabric-covering. This is never visible in any photos, other than fabric staining.
  
• There are no rib tapes or battens on the rudder or elevators, although, in this case, the fabric would conform to the ribs.
  
• The map case should be removed (good luck) and placed on the port side, next to the seat.
  
• The cockpit floor should actually extend all the way to the bulkhead behind the seat and is made of plywood, not aluminum. The bulkhead itself is also plywood, if you're inclined to get rid of the lacing.
  
• The shoulder harness does not have the connecting chest piece and the individual straps are clipped to lugs in the upper back corners of the cockpit. (the lap belts should attach to the lower rear corners)
  
• An easy detail to add would be the absent fuel lines, going from the rear fuel tank to the fuel controls along the starboard side of the cockpit.
  
• The rear fuel filler should be off-center to starboard, so use piece C4 and drill a new hole for it.
  
• The cockpit coaming should extend all the way forward, under the metal side panels.
  
• The fabric lacing on the underside does not extend all the way back to the aft edge down the center of the fuselage. It only goes back to the forward portion of the tail-skid pylon, where it diverts to the lower longerons and continues beneath these to the fuse knife-edge. There is no lacing under the knife-edge. There is also no lacing under the longerons in front of the stirrups. There may be above the stirrups themselves (it would make sense), but I've yet to see conclusive evidence.
  
• The fairings attached to the undercarriage struts only go behind the struts, not in front, and all 6 moving pieces should have them. (the "V" shaped pylons were already made of aerodynamic cross-section tubing, although this is not reflected in the kit pieces. The upper pylon is correct)
  
• skip PE5 for the compass mount - nonesuch
  
• One sticky issue to deal with is how to depict the various doors & openings in the nose panels. The side-view "doors" were not hinged as molded, but were sliding panels mounted on the inside of the cockpit, and should be recessed, not proud of the fuselage side. The engine maintenance access doors should be the same, but are completely absent. There should be a large open aperture in the lower panel to allow downward viewing. The lower end of the joystick protrudes through this as well. Do you really want to try to fix this? Hmmm.
  
• Another relatively easy addition would be the wind deflection panel riveted to the chin between the undercarriage struts.
  

Decals & Markings

• The A9 prop most closely resembles a Heine (correct for the E.III), which carried no decals. B10 kinda looks like a Reschke, for which there are no decals included, but was rather rare anyway. A Garuda would have been a better choice.
  
• The painting guides show the fuselage bay markings as aluminum. Only the 3 rearmost bays were marked and these were black paint.
  
• Unfortunately the wing cross decals provided are too large. These were not full chord. The instructions for "Die Erste Kannonen" boxing seem to have addressed this, whereas the Weekend Edition goes back to full chord. Don't know if the actual decals from these 2 kits are the same though.
  
• The werknummer on the elevator should go in the inner "triangular" portion, not along the trailing edge.
  

As mentioned, making a truly accurate E.III would require more work, such as addressing flaws in the fuselage and wing shapes, and rib spacing, but that's only for crazy people."

". . .The front edge of the mapcase is clipped to the mid-cockpit vertical frame-member, with the aft edge clipped to a bracing wire. It sits inside of the bracing wires, a bit under half the cockpit height.

I doubt very highly that the plywood was painted. Varnish, I would think.

if you put the port edge of the filler cap on the center line, it would be close.

To make an E.II, you would need to replace the starboard cowling cheek which housed the ammunition. The Eduard part is not the right shape. The bottom of the E.II cheek followed the contour of the chin. The supplied piece resembles the cheek of an E.I with the bottom edge being level with the engine cowling, but still should not be barrel-shaped. It was round at the front to conform to the engine cowling, but flattens toward the rear to end up vertically parallel to the fuselage side. The actual feed to the gun is not open like the later E.III's, but had its own enclosed chute. The upper decking would also need to be amended, as there is no open port to access the (non-existent) internal ammunition storage. There is a trough to view the fuel gauge and the decking has a slightly more arched appearance to it. "