This thread (first at the bottom) came up on Hyperscale and has some valuable info: It seems the new 1/48th Eduard kit repeats or worsens most of the errors of the 1/32nd kit, especially with regards to the OA length: The overall length appears the same or worse, the swelling in the spine is still there but less obvious (it should actually be a very slight concave in that area), and it seems it should not be considered a serious competitor to the very good recent Airfix 1/48th kit.

The discrepancies with the other 1/48th kits, who all seem to agree roughly with one another on the OAL, are huge...

Overall length of the real Me-109E should be 8800 mm according to Mansur Mustafin, who has the blueprints and helped Zvezda make their Me-109F in that scale.

If I am not mistaken, the Airfix Me-109E has too narrow prop blades but still seems the one to beat in that scale.

The Hasegawa Me-109Es (if consistent with their F/G/Ks) have fuselages 26 mm deep instead of the actual 26.8 mm (1288 mm from M. Mustafin). They are also too wide being 14 mm wide at the bottom of the canopy and 8 mm at the top, instead of the actual 13 mm (625 mm) bottom and 7.5 mm top (360 mm). They superficially look good but are apparently not real contenders compared to the more serious Airfix kit...

A few relevant links:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1328758720/Eduard+1-48+Bf109E+vs+Tamiya+%5Bpics%5D


http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1263501599/A+visit+to+a+past+question-+A-C+drawings---

Gaston

Thanks for your views Gaston but to be honest it doesn't really bother me as it looks like a Me109 to me. So much so that I've just order one and an over-tree set from Eduard for Camogirl and I

Oh dear, it is "Fatally flawed"?

I will definitely be ordering one of these they look ptretty good.
Off topic i know but do you think eduard will ever bring out a avro lancaster?

I forgot to post this interesting link about the 1/32 kits: Note how much longer is the Eduard kit, this fairly evenly in both the nose and in the tail, but more in the tail: The rudder hinge, when the whole kit is lined up to the canopy opening, is very much longer:

http://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/WW2/raypeterson/me109pt1/me109pt1.php

A lovely article I would like to see more of, especially in the other scales...

Now for the weird part: In Brett Green's HS comments on his 1/48th Eduard review and the 1/32 scale kits, he says the "Dragon" 1/32 kit (Cyber Hobby in the article I assume) is only 1 mm different in length from the very good Cyber Hobby kit, at 245 mm long vs 244 mm for the OAL, from the rudder hinge to the back of the spinner, yet the overlaid comparison in the article shows nothing of the sort: The rudder hinge of the Eduard is easily 2 mm further back from the cockpit opening reference point, and the spinner base roughly the same thing more forward (versus the Cyber Hobby kit at least)...

Quote, Brett Green: "By way of comparison, I measured the length of the fuselage of the 1/32 scale Eduard and Dragon kits from the rudder hinge line to the front of the fuselage (i.e. not including the spinner). They were only around a millimetre different, at 245mm for the Eduard and 244mm for the Dragon.

If we scale this down to 1/48, it would represent 163.33mm.

The Eduard 1/48 scale fuselage is actually 165mm, while the Airfix fuselage is around 162mm. "

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1328819362/Eduard+1-

So the 1/48th Eduard Emil is even longer than the 1/32 scale Eduard?!? Does the overlay in the linked article not shows the 1/32 Eduard to be at least 4 mm longuer than the Cyber Hobby kit?!?:-?

This following quote also seems a bit weird if the 1/48th Airfix is any good, and the above linked article's overlayed drawings accurate:

Quote, Brett Green:"The Eduard fuselage does appear to be just under 3mm longer than the (1/48th) Airfix kit. Both kits pretty much line up from the rudder hinge line to the cockpit, so most of the difference is in the nose."

Whatever the conclusion is, is it just me or are we litterally drowning in Me-109Es these days? In 1/48th scale, the "state of the art" (sadly) Me-109G Gustav is still the terrible Hasegawa kit, now happily heading towards its quater century mark...

Despite being about 80% of the Me-109's production run, according to industry "market experts", a new well-researched 1/48th Gustav just does not have any sales potential, and this ongoing for nearly 25 years apparently...

I really would like to see the pictures of the people running these companies one day...

Gaston

Hi Gaston

You neglected to quote Brett's closing comment:

" So what is the conclusion? Honestly, I don't think it would be sensible to draw any definitive conclusions based on this information and published plans. I am just putting the raw numbers out there. "

I'm really looking forward to getting hold of the kit so that I can form my own opinion first hand. Until then, I'm reserving judgement...

All the best

Rowan

I guess it all comes down to whether or not you want, or in some cases demand, millimetre perfect accuracy with kits.

I know that I'll buy this kit simply because I feel that Eduard kits are some of the best kits going in today's market.

Am I concerned with the kit being 3mm out in some dimensions? Not at all, if it looks like a 109E then it is.

Gaston,while you did bring up some pertinent information in regards to the P-61, you risk undoing all that good work by carrying on with figures that most people don't really care about.

If this kit was grossly out in some dimensions, then I would stay away from it.

As it stands it looks to be very very good.

By the way, have you actually got an exmaple of this kit or are you basing your information on what has been said on other websites?

Gaston, I also share Matt's point of view.

I am really genuinely interested in another observation I have about your posts. Do you have any links to a completed builds that you have done? Mere mortals like me could learn from how you overcome the challenges posed by the kits you comment on.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck.....must be a duck.

You are talking such miniscule dimensions, that most people could care less about.

The kit is gorgeous (just like their 1/32 cousins), and probably the best out there in terms of detail, fit and finish.

One explanation that occurred to me for the mismatch between what Brett Green says and the overlay images in the 1/32 scale comparison article, is that the overlaid 1/32 kit part photos are not to scale to the drawing, or each other, but changed in size to get the best possible "fit" to the drawing. On the other hand, the line drawings themselves remain the same size to serve as a non-scaled proportion-only reference.

This strikes me as less useful than scaling everything to the exact kit part size vs actual 1/32 drawing size, but I don't know how to overlay images like this so...

Given the veritable deluge of Emils in all scales (a fairly unique situation for a WWII type, it seems to me), I think a detailed discussion of how they compare is pretty useful (while we wait and hope for more useful releases)...

Gaston

Well, Gaston, I guess you have no place for my incomprehensible and mildly prolific muddling with the available, average models that are infiltrateing our quiet hobby. I still stand by the unmoveable brain-wave that if it looks like a spitfire, then build it.

I do admire your thoughts; and I'm positive that some highly technical, university caliber text book publisher would be interested in your ideas. But that would be the Alpha Fi guys. Not the dumber population; like me.

Models are fun, not precise. If you can help yourself, don't draw little red lines through my photographs to prove inaccuracies. I'm not saying you,ve done that; just don't start. Your ideas are yours. Mine follow a lead to improve personal artistic expression.

You are free to give your opinions on a models value, and obviously, people are reading your input. I'm just saying, that I'm having fun, even if the model is only close to the real McCoy.

Don't be offended if I buy an Airfix 109 because its darn good value, or an Eduard 109 because I just want to. They both look like 109's to me.

I am still waiting for you to post your magnificent and worthy, exact modeling replica. Perhaps you can change my mind.

We might end up with the perfect kit well before we see Gaston's work......

Gaston we are talking millimetres here in scale replicas of real aircraft, not working full size ones.

If you can't build a kit without resorting to complaining about how it is 1mm too long or 2mm too wide, then I seriously suggest you look at a different hobby.

I build kits of subjects that I like. If a kit is out by a millimetre or two, I don't declare it to be fatally flawed, I shrug my shoulders and get on with it.

I guess what I'm trying to put across here is that by going on and on about perfecta accuracy you come across as a rivet counter, the worst type of modeller in some circles.

By all means point out some terrible flaws, like your work with the P-61, but it looks like most people have accepted that Eduard have done a very good job with this kit.

As some people are saying here, if it looks like a 109E then it is a 109E, and that is more than enough for me.

me too. But I agree with Allen. Always interesting to hear Gaston's views, although I try not to let him put me off getting a particular kit for my collection. To be honest though do I really need another 48 scale Emil?

Hi,

look at those rivets on fuselage, do You think designer of a kit saw real BF-109E?


Picture from: http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/FirstLook/Eduard/Kits/Bf109E-1_48_PP/Edu_Bf109E-1.html

I wander, when Dragon will shrink their 1:32 into 1:48

Not that I wont buy one if it comes along at the right price. At present I have an emil in the stash and one on the bench, probably all I'll need. I think Im more put off by the excessive rivet detail(IMHO) more than some small dimensional discrepancies. I dont recall too many pics of operational 109s showing much in the way of the rivets, at least in my limited studies

Ohhhh:|

the rivets do look a little deep for 1/48 - and i am not too bright but dimensions do matter to me when there is so much choice in that scale/aircraft.

if it looks like a 109 etc - well the more it can look like the real thing is the one i want to buy - it is good to be properly informed

Just found a very interesting link here, and I am posting it before I lose it again:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1294942654/1295031518/I+received+a+Dragon+1-32+Bf-109E+today+and...

It seems Brett Green's detailed claim about the 1/32 kits is wrong, and I'll repeat my full puzzled quote of his review article:

"Now for the weird part: In Brett Green's HS comments on his 1/48th Eduard review, and the 1/32 scale kits, he says the "Dragon" 1/32 kit (Cyber Hobby in the article I assume) is only 1 mm different in length from the very good Cyber Hobby kit, at 245 mm long vs 244 mm for the OAL, from the rudder hinge to the back of the spinner, yet the overlaid comparison in the article shows nothing of the sort: The rudder hinge of the Eduard is easily 2 mm further back from the cockpit opening reference point, and the spinner base roughly the same thing more forward (versus the Cyber Hobby kit at least)...

Quote, Brett Green: "By way of comparison, I measured the length of the fuselage of the 1/32 scale Eduard and Dragon kits from the rudder hinge line to the front of the fuselage (i.e. not including the spinner). They were only around a millimetre different, at 245mm for the Eduard and 244mm for the Dragon."

Well... The link I posted above in this post clearly shows, directly on the ruler, a difference of a full ONE QUATER INCH, or about SIX milimeters, this to the EXACT SAME QUOTED POINTS on the models...

There is no question Brett Green's quote here is factually incorrect, and while acknowledging he doesn't know the final overall length answer on the real aircraft, he certainly does not clarify the issue, or address (even in subsequent posts on this issue) where he got the 245 vs 244 mm 1/32 kit dimensions...

It was important to get this right, because the Dragon kit is so far clearly the apparent "unofficial" benchmark in almost every other respect compared to most of the other kits...

Of note in 1/48th is that the Airfix kit is 0.5 mm longer than the Tamiya kit, which is in turn apparently 0.8 mm (40 mm) too short versus actual, according to Mansur Mustafin (Zvezda adviser) and his blueprints ... In 1/48th scale I would say the Airfix kit is still the benchmark minus its prop or pending the 1/48th Dragon kit's arrival.

This is just a mistake on Brett Green's part no doubt, but a very weird one given the 1/32 kit lengths are actually quoted...

Gaston

Still looks like a duck to me!

We've just got them in (MJW Models) and it looks a very nice kit in the box - certainly resembles a Bf109 to me! It's also good value for money as well with the etch and mask included, I think if you bought the Airfix kit plus mask and etch, you'd probably spend slightly more. The canopy can be modelled open to show off all that lovely cockpit etch too. There are of course the bombs, bomb racks and drop tanks, so a hint that other E models will be here soon. All in all, I'd recommend it!

thanks
Mike

Gaston, If this discussion is about the 1/48 Eduard kit, can I ask why you keep referring and linking to discussions about the 1/32 scale kits?

It is Brett Green's 1/48th review that referred to the 1/32 scale kits, and mistakenly completely misrepresented the length issue that was there...

The 1/48 Eduard kit shares most of the research errors of the 1/32 kit, so it is completely relevant to what is here...

Gaston

This is not the problem of the rivets deep, but of the placement. It should not be as in the model on one side of the tail segment, but on both of wide, and none on the narrow. This is just a sample. It's not that i think it is not looking as 109E, Tamiya, Airfix and Hasegawa also looks like. It is a question of accuracy and precission of designing a model of airplane wich You can see in few museums, which has very good technical drawings etc.
It is not a bad model, but with all the nice things which are in there it could be better with all that small mistakes. It is the reason i'll wait for a Dragon, hope they will do 1:48 as good as their 1:32.