_GOTOBOTTOM
World War II: Germany
Aircraft of Germany in WWII.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
Eduard's Bf 109E-1
Holdfast
Staff MemberPresident
IPMS-UK KITMAKER BRANCH
#056
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: September 30, 2002
KitMaker: 8,581 posts
AeroScale: 4,913 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 - 07:34 AM UTC
Yes looking very nice Rowan. I'm looking forward to getting one but that won't be until I move as I'm, sort of, banned from building up the stash by SWMBO. She never spotted the 1/32 revell Ju 88 though


Quoted Text

Not as bad as some comments on Hyperscale though . Some of those guy's are just nasty about the nick-picing which can be a turn off I find .


I posted one question on "Hypertension" and the replies that I got made me realise that it was simply a waste of my time and effort. (they wondered why I was asking the question, instead of searching the web!!!). Luckily I then found this place and never looked back.
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 10:13 AM UTC
Cheers Terri and Mal

I have to admit I seldom visit the Hyperscale forum because I just don't have time these days. Anyway, on a project like this I prefer to come at it cold and form my own conclusions - I've known far too many cases where some people have declared an otherwise perfectly fine kit "not worth building" because of some perceived problem or other. No kit is perfect - and even if one was, these extreme critics would still manage to find something to complain about!

I'm not including our own Andreas in that category; he's clearly hit some fit problems that I didn't encounter. I think it's fair to say Eduard's Bf 109 doesn't "build itself" - the same was true of their 1:48 Fw 190, where the fit was tricky in places. The Bf 109E-4 will be coming in next month and I can already see a couple of areas which I'd tackle differently in hindsight - so the next build should be more straightforward.

The one big thing I can see looming is that there's not a hope that the engine cowlings will fit with the engine in place. The instructions don't make clear that it's an either/or choice, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, because (unlike a lot of previous kits) the engine doesn't look undersized in order to squeeze it in.

All the best

Rowan
mpatman
_VISITCOMMUNITY
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: March 09, 2006
KitMaker: 248 posts
AeroScale: 160 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 11:57 AM UTC
Looking great so far..just need to keep making progress!
Kornbeef
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: November 06, 2005
KitMaker: 1,667 posts
AeroScale: 1,551 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 - 02:14 PM UTC
I've resisted so far but the E4 is gonna be hard to say no to when it hits our shores

Nice looking build Rowan, very nice....might have me swap my linen paint for dunkelgrau...or whatever colour..lol yet
Tankleader
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
AeroScale: 13 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 03:59 AM UTC
Hello Rowan,
Great build. I've just attached the rudder, ailerons and flaps on mine. I am perplexed however that if you put the engine in place that the normal cowling won't fit. In my opinion it would have been better for a cowling for both open or closed that would fit both.


Tanks
Andy
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 04:13 AM UTC
Hi Andreas

Re-reading the instructions, I see they do include quite a prominent note "alternative assembly for the closed nose" - the trouble is, it's 4 pages after you fit the engine... I think many modellers might make the same mistake I did and assume the option for building the engine, or not, is if you don't want the added complication, not because the cowling won't fit with the engine in place. Sometimes it does pay to actually read the instructions! Dohh! LOL!

To have the cowling fit over the installed engine, the latter would have had to be undersized due to the thickness of the plastic. That's how previous kits have tackled it.

All the best

Rowan
Tankleader
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
AeroScale: 13 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 07:00 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi Andreas

Re-reading the instructions, I see they do include quite a prominent note "alternative assembly for the closed nose" - the trouble is, it's 4 pages after you fit the engine... I think many modellers might make the same mistake I did and assume the option for building the engine, or not, is if you don't want the added complication, not because the cowling won't fit with the engine in place. Sometimes it does pay to actually read the instructions! Dohh! LOL!

To have the cowling fit over the installed engine, the latter would have had to be undersized due to the thickness of the plastic. That's how previous kits have tackled it.

All the best

Rowan


I agree with what you are saying. The note should have been much earlier in the build sequence. What I thought and I know this sounds stupid was that For the open or closed nose you would remove pares E-9 and E-14 on page 10. On page 6 at the top of the page it also shows D as an option but it shows it in place without the engine it is used as the attachment point for the instrument cluster.

Tanks
Andy
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 08:47 AM UTC
Hi Andreas

I'll see if I can take advantage of our contacts with Eduard to suggest that the instructions are clarified on this point. Unfortunately, it'll be too late for the 'E-4, but I'll make it clear in our Review.

As much as separate panels are welcome, Parts E9 and E14 are a bit of a mystery - as I understand it, they'd normally only be opened with the cowl in place to access the spark plugs, but why would you open them on the model if it will reveal that there's no engine inside?...

All the best

Rowan
CMOT70
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Victoria, Australia
Joined: August 23, 2007
KitMaker: 629 posts
AeroScale: 539 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 11:13 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Been following your build here and it's looking great so far Rowan . Even with all the issues every one keeps talking about . Not as bad as some comments on Hyperscale though . Some of those guy's are just nasty about the nick-picing which can be a turn off I find .


I was curious about this and went over to take a look for myself. Seriously, i think some of them Hyperscale people need to get over themselves! It's like "how dare Eduard try to push this onto us, the elite of modelling, and think we'd accept it!". One of them actually really said that in reference to themselves, "the elite of modelling". I really hate that sort of thing, i guess that why i hang around here and not there.

But i want to know, how is that the Bf109 expert Lynn Ritger notices and goes to such trouble about that canopy shape issue of the Bf109E-4 (if it even is a big problem), yet seems to have totally overlooked that the Classic Airframes Bf109D is over 6 scale inches too short between aft canopy and rudder- according to the drawings in his own book. I just checked it again to make sure. He never noticed something that obvious? Maybe it has something to do with his name being mentioned in the instruction sheets credits for that model?

I think it's all sour grapes, the Hyperscale boys are maybe a bit miffed that Eduard didn't feel it important to consult the elite of modelling for their input.

And very nice work on the model too Rowan. Now more than ever i'm keen to build this one, and at least the E-1's canopy is ok- apparently.

Andrew
Removed by original poster on 05/10/09 - 19:26:42 (GMT).
Tankleader
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
AeroScale: 13 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 08:12 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hello Rowan,
Here is a little bit of an update on my build. First off I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to the positioning of the Machine guns under the cowl. In some of my references the machine guns line up parrallel and not staggard like in the photo below. Is this correct?



I've also been browsing through some of my references and noticed that even when the cowl is open and the engine is exposed that part of the forward cowl is still in place. So with that in mind I peformed a bit of surgery with the result in the photo below.



I may tinker with the remainder of the cowl shown on the left and cut it in half to show each end propped open like in some reference photo's I've seen. I think that this will make for a slightly one off of what everyone else is doing.

Tanks
Andy
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 09:26 AM UTC
Hi Andy

I think your refs may be for later versions of the '109.

On German Emils the fuselage MG17s were staggered as you have them (but Swiss Bf 109Es were armed with 7.45mm EW MG 29s mounted side by side) - the MG 131s on G-5/6 onwards were side by side.

I hate to say it, but the cowling was actually correct as moulded. I think the pics you've found are probably for Bf 109 Fs or Gs, where the cowl was redesigned with a separate front section matching the diameter of the new spinner and hinged along the centre-line.

All the best

Rowan
Tankleader
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
AeroScale: 13 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 09:44 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi Andy

I think your refs may be for later versions of the '109.

On German Emils the fuselage MG17s were staggered as you have them (but Swiss Bf 109Es were armed with 7.45mm EW MG 29s mounted side by side) - the MG 131s on G-5/6 onwards were side by side.

I hate to say it, but the cowling was actually correct as moulded. I think the pics you've found are probably for Bf 109 Fs or Gs, where the cowl was redesigned with a separate front section matching the diameter of the new spinner and hinged along the centre-line.

All the best

Rowan


Bummer on the cowling then. I haven't glued it in place yet, the original ideat was to paint it up and have it sitting next to the aircraft so I guess I will just go back to that.. Now since I obviously have some mixed references, was the cover for the MG's two part? In the pics I have the part closest to the canopy only partially seems to cover the guns?

Tanks
Andy
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 10:22 AM UTC
Hi Andy

The illustration from the Bf 109E's manual and a photo of a downed Emil give a good idea of how the cowls were constructed and removed in service:





All the best

Rowan
TomM
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: June 19, 2006
KitMaker: 7 posts
AeroScale: 5 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 03:11 AM UTC
Hello Rowan & Andreas,

What color did you guys paint your engines? From all my references the DB engines were painted gloss black.

Tom
Tankleader
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Virginia, United States
Joined: April 29, 2003
KitMaker: 718 posts
AeroScale: 13 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 12:30 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Hello Rowan & Andreas,

What color did you guys paint your engines? From all my references the DB engines were painted gloss black.

Tom


Mine was painted a grayish black.

Tanks
Andy
 _GOTOTOP