I'm thinking the Me.109 must be one of the most refined and redefined aircraft of the war. Personally, I seem to only ever consider the E-4 when I think Messerschmitt (must be Galland syndrome). This looks like a really nice kit, though, and the wonderful multi-talent input in this thread certainly offers a great pitch. Well done

Cheers Steffen and Jean-Luc

Obviously, I'm failing just by writing this - but I'm doing my best to keep off the PC...

Great work, both of you. In my mind, there's certainly something not quite right about the undercarriage without a little tweaking. I hope a few day's rest for my wonky hand will be enough to let me get back into business and make a bit of progress again.

The finished boxing has come in, but I haven't had a chance to check it out yet.

All the best

Rowan

Hi again

I've got the afternoon off work tomorrow, so I'll risk a return to the workbench. It's been a very frustrating few days and I'm itching to do a bit more to this beauty. I'm just praying my arm feels the same way!

All the best

Rowan

Here is Mansur Mustafin's take on it:

www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1399892221/Eduard+109G-6+isoversized+like+109E+%28%2B%29


Quote:

Eduard 109G-6 isoversized like 109E (+)May 12 2014 at 6:57 AM Mansur Mustafin (Login mmoustaf)
HyperScale Forums
from IP address 160.83.30.183
wingspan - 214 mm (original 9920mm / 48 = 206.6mm)
max chord of a rudder from axis to light tip - 14.5 mm (original 596mm / 48 = 12.42 mm)

Hmm.....

--------------------------------------------

That's 14 scale inches too big in span, and nearly five inch off in rudder chord.

It is supposed to be roughly proportional at around 1/46 scale overall... Amazing...

Gaston

Hi all,

This is a small update to show you that I am still working on the Bf 109G-6. I have applied some weathering to my model. The first picture shows the Hasegawa kit "clean" like I would have built it when I returned to the hobby around 15 years ago...



And this is the Eduard kit with weathering...



Dimensional errors and Eduard "mistakes" aside, the surface finish is an invitation for such "special effects". This last picture is specially dedicated to Gaston who is notoriously a fan of such things...

I think I will be able to finish the model tomorrow. To be continued...

Jean-Luc

Hi Jean-Luc

Superb! - and, of course, you build "clean" beautifully too!

I managed a little bit of painting this afternoon, but gave up at the first sign of trouble to be on the safe side. I may finish in a couple of weeks at this rate...

I sat the spare test-shot parts on Kagero's plans and there are several areas where they don't tally, notably mid wing, around the cockpit and, as Gaston quotes, the rudder. Trouble is, of course, without being able to go take a tape measure to Black 6 at Hendon anymore, I can't vouch for either the kit or the plans (the plans are suspect to my eyes in how they depict the undercarriage with a "load" on it, and if one aspect's "wrong"...).

I'll plod on and post some pics when I manage something worth showing.

All the best

Rowan

Hi all,

very slow progress on my kit as I am still a bit ill but have to work nonetheless.

I have added the exhaust stains to my kit. As a comparison I have added a cutout from the original photo. Both pix are distorted in some way so do not make a direct comparison for measures, But you can see the problem with the u/c angle on my model and you can see the extensive exhaust stains:



all the best

Steffen

Hi all,

Steffen, interesting comparison shot. The exhaust stain you have achieved looks very realistic. As I mentioned earlier, I do think there is a problem with the u/c angle of the Eduard kit and I am already thinking about another, simpler, way to modify it...

I consider my build finished...













So much has been said about the kit that I don't know what more I should add. I guess the best is to let the pictures speak for themselves... in a way or another...

Jean-Luc

Cheers, Jean-Luc,

Great Build!

As for the u/c angle, Mine is definitely wrong due to my build error. It bugged me enough te break off the lhs u/c leg and reglue it .. still not 100% satisfied but better:




I will probably adjust it again...

all the best

Steffen

More than dimensional errors it really puzzles me how Eduard staff could end up with such weird mistake with the UC legs positioning...Looks like a newbie was assigned the task

Hello Jean Luc.

I really appreciate your effort and paint work.

Madcop

Steffen, Santa-Luc, very nice builds a shame about the errors in the kit as the model does look very good.

Hello Jean-Luc,

You know I'm definitely not a 109 fan, but when I see a nice kit and a nice model, I just can say : wow !

Your usual high-standard (plus, damn' you're fast !) work is another time obvious.

More, I'll let the "Experten" counting the flaws and just enjoy the sight.

Best,

Bravo et félicitations,

Stef (#6)

You guys all are doing great work with the new kit; the results are very impressive. I am no experten but it looks like an outstanding kit to me.

Would anyone care to venture a guess as to when we might expect to see an F-2 from Eduard? I can only assume they will being doing Friedrich soon now that they have tackled Gustav. My collection is all US WWII, but I'd be thrilled to do "Irmgard" in her captured livery if Eduard puts out an F-2 matching the quality of this kit.

Again, great work by all of you. It's an impressive kit.

Steffen,& Jean-Luc,
Two really excellent builds. Both have superb camo paint schemes, and each has very realistic weathering.

Jean-Luc, your modification to the landing gear took an expects eye to catch, and a dedicated modeler to correct. Well done.

After all the hype, to read the list of those dimensional mistakes just has to make one wonder how that could have occurred. Just doesn't seem like the path that Eduard would take. I do wonder just how accurate those plans are that those measurements were taken from. In any event, the finished model certainly looks like a Bf109-G-6, and that's the bottom line for me.
Joel

No model is ever going to be perfect. The question to ask is "Does it look like its subject once it's properly built and painted?"

Well the whole question is just what is the limit of what is acceptable and what is not...

What is the limit? 1 mm? No OK. 3 mm? No OK. 5 mm? No OK. SEVEN MILIMETERS?!

Yes, the wing span is the largest dimension, and I'll admit right out that, this not being the fuselage, I certainly could not easily tell you, from just photos of the kit, that there was an error without another kit next to it in the same photo: The wing plan view is just not an easy thing to keep in memory, there being so few pictures of a perfect plan view against a strongly contrasting background...

It's a little bit like the hull bottom of a ship in a way: not visually familiar by itself, but with the added problem of "visual projection" at other viewing angles...

Even then, you have to wonder, what will this kit look like next to any other kit in the same scale? Has Trumpeter ever made such an absurd error? So Trumpeter can be excoriated, but Eduard should be praised? Even Trumpeter fixed their Wildcat fuselage...

The Me-109 was aways described, and always known, as an unusually small fighter: This kit, next to any other WWII fighter, will give almost no clue as to why that is. It now matches within about six inches the wingspan of its stablemate, the FW-190A, always known as a much bigger aircraft...

When the kit fails to even match the verbal descriptions of it to a blind person, I think it's fair to say we have left the realm of scale modelling far behind...

Gaston

Hi Gaston,




This is certainly the main point. I wonder if the kit will achieve a similar success than their Spitfire in term of sales.




Nobody in this thread has praised the Eduard kit. In a whole Rowan, Steffen and myself are rather neutral and we haven't tried to make the kit better or worse than it is. Most of the people interested in 1/48 aircraft kits, after the extensive Eduard Campaign, are now very well informed and know what the kit is and what it isn't. This takes us back to point one...




I can't answer to this question for someone else...

Jean-Luc

Jean-Luc,
the absolute correct and acceptable answer.
Joel

Hi Gaston

I can only presume you haven't bothered to read my posts (I concurred with you that there are dimensional discrepancies against the plans I have. ).

All the best

Rowan

Hi again

I can only blame lack of practice recently for a classic c*ck-up! After making somewhat laborious painting progress, I tried to hurry things along and picked the kit up to do one extra coat, not realising there was a little thinners left on my hand from cleaning the previous colour out of mixing pot... The result? A neat thumbprint right across the fuselage mottling to try to disguise!

All the best

Rowan

Nice to know not only us beginners leave such latent evidence for the modeling police to discover.

Hi Ben

Yep - I could hardly have made a more basic blunder! I can't say I ignored any "alarm bells" in my haste to get on - because none were ringing in my head. Pure carelessness, and another sign that I really do need to spend more time at the work bench to drum some good fundamental modelling habits back in.

All the best

Rowan

I've been following this thread with interest as the Bf109 is one of my favourite aircraft.

Has this made me change my mind in regards to the dimensional errors that may be present? Not really it still looks like a 109 to me, yet some of the odd things about the kit bug me.

The work on exhibit here shows the pitfalls of the kit and points out how to correct them.

Should we damn Eduard for them? Probably not as there is no such things as a perfect kit.

It remains to be seen if they will react to these "errors" in the same manner as their 1/32nd scale Bf109E kits.

Have these "errors" changed my mind about buying the kit? Definitely not as it still looks like a 109G to me.

Gaston a quick check of the web shows that the 109 and 190 were dimensionally very close to each other.

Wing span of the 109 was 9.91 metres, while the 190 had a span of 10m.

Lengthwise the 109 was 8.95 metres long and the 190 was 8.97 metres long.

So your assumption that the 190 was a much larger aircraft is from my reckoning not true. In fact the 190 was known as being one of the smaller radial engine aircraft.