Eduard's Fw-190 Kits

From what I understand, their FW-190 Family is tricky.  I tried to do one a few years ago and put it back in the box.  They're actually nice kits so long as you go very slow, dry fit, test, dry fit again.  From what I understand if you goof on an alignment anywhere in construction it will affect the fit of everything else.  I do think that Eduard over-engineered this kit.  That can be both good and bad.  I think they learned their lesson though.  Their subsequent releases, Hellcat, BF-109E and Spitfires have been remarkable!

Seems Eduard's Fw 190 and Bf 110 family of kits are just tough fitting bastar...s! Their newer stuff like Stu said are sweet. I'm building their Mig-21 now and its a breeze. What happened in your build is the cockpit is too wide for the kit at the front where the 2 tabs on each side slot into the fuselage. You need to cut down those tabs, then the fuselage will close nicely at the nose. The Fw 190 Butcher Bird GB here address all those issues and has lots of hints and tips available. I just wish they could be pinned up somewhere.

If you feeling like changing Kit Brands, in the case of the 190A family, you can't beat the Hasegawa ones. Do stay away from the Tamiya 190s...in my opinion anyway..

Hi Nathan;

Good catch.  I got a little flashlight and looked in there and I can see what you mean.  I think adding the PE panels made it even just a bit wider higher up also.  I think I can make it all work.  I want to pose the gun bay panel up, so I just can't close it all up.

I post some photos once I get her done.

John

Also remember the firewall and gunbay decking parts don't glue together at perfect 90 degree angles. Make sure they are all aligned with the tabs inside the fuselage halves before you glue those. I think Eduard points that out in the instructions.

I did an Eduard 1/48 FW190D-13 for the Butcher Bird GB  that had a couple of very minor fit issues but nothing that a little sanding and trimming couldn't fix. It was a very well detailed kit with great decals. I have built a couple of their WWI birds and they fall together right out of the box. Once in a while, a little challenge sharpens up your skills.

TOR......................TURE.......

Wait till you get to the crappy fitting gun bay covers.  I agree with Nathan, stick to the Hasegawa kits which are gems....

Joe

lawdog114

TOR......................TURE.......

Wait till you get to the crappy fitting gun bay covers.  I agree with Nathan, stick to the Hasegawa kits which are gems....

Joe

Yes dog that was the main issue with my Dora. The doors were designed to be in the open position but I wanted one open and the other closed. I had to sand a ton of plastic off from the inside of the door and had to shim up the edges to get a decent fit. Also the cowl hood was way too thick in the open position. I wound up doing a replacement hood from wine foil.

Here's the comparison of the kit hood and mine

Gun door after sanding and thinning the inside. Note all the gaps around.

Door fit after some shimming with stretched sprue

I think that the Eduard kits are designed primarily to have all the access panels open. Most hassles involving the fit on that stuff comes from folks positioning them shut as shown above.

Nathan, just curius,  but why did you recommend to stay away from the Tamiya 190 kits? I have never  read of any problems with those kits before. What is your input here?

Stik- I just find the Tamiya 190s to be at the bottom of the list. Poor accuracy overall, which actually takes away from the real look and stance of the 190. Poor decals (worse than Hasegawa, who's newer decals are actually quite good), inaccurate decal and paint schemes, and with all this in mind, highly over priced. Not to say I havent' seen them built up to good models, but just my opinion. They do make lots of other nice kits, in all scales.

All;

Just some more of my thoughts on this kit.  Firstly, I am not in any way bashing Eduard.  I have one of their WW1 kits that I am looking forward to and have used a lot of their PE and brassin items.  But here is what a relative newbie "less than a dozen kits" thinks about this one.  I have it fully assembled just waiting or the primer to dry before I do the final painting and weathering.

1.  If the kit is designed to be displayed with panels open, then why is there no mention of that in the instructions?  Also, there is no reference to any MGs in the instructions.  I found a thread somewhere that took me to a similar set of instructions that is on the Eduard site which details their assembly.  the included instructions NEVER show a MG in any of the drawings

2.  I found a couple of threads from reviewers detailing that Eduard themselves had recommended a few things during their test builds.  That would seem to be a bit of a tip-off to me that there were some tricky areas.

3.  as well as the cowling and gun bay areas that we have talked about, I also had trouble with the wings as there was a gap at the leading edge.  I was able to fix it after trimming down the spar (part I16).  There is still a small gap that I had to fill with Mr. Surfacer.  Spars are really neat to look at and fun to build simulating the real-world process, but please don't make them to hinder the final look.

So I guess it is great to get a lot of really awesome detail and that means there will be some challenges to getting it all together.  I do think they could have engineered it with a little less "tightness" on the tolerances on some of the fittings though.  Just my .02.

John

Decals and paints are no biggy to me, I usually use AM decals and research the paint schemes myself for that reason. Price is not my worry either, as I already have a few in my stash (as well as Hasegawa & Dragon/Promodeler). But the accuracy? Again, this is the first time I have read any bad stuff about the Tamiya Wurgers. Are talking major issues, or something like panel lines being off by 1-3mm? Forewarned is forearmed so please, do tell sir! I love the 190 as well- far more so than the 109

Well, the accuracy issues may or may not bother a person, but here they are so you know: The A-8 and F-8 kits have a poorly shaped, too fat gun cowl bulge, poorly shaped prop and spinner, too short gear legs, too small wheels, and gear doors that are too short, and poorly shaped as to make the famous stance of the 190 look totally wrong and cartoonish looking. The Dora is a whole nother ballgame. No engine, enclosed gear bays, same landing gear and tire issues, poorly shaped prop and spinner, poorly shaped upper gun cowl and engine cowling, resulting in overly fat bulges and cartoonish looking profile. The lower wing is based on a D-13 and has wrong ejector chute openings and other things. These issues can be over come with aftermarket resin parts, and as you said with AM decals, the Tamiya 190s do end up looking good. These issues just make me rank them below the Hasegawa and Eduard 190 As and Dora offereings.

OK, Thanks. I have the Tamiya A3 & D9 in my stash, among others. Some of those issues do not apply, some do not bother me, and others. i will evaluate to see if and how I may need to correct them when I do build those kits.

Here's a link to a current WIP on Britmodeller. You'll see the AM he uses and how the Tamiya kit can of course still end up looking good:

www.britmodeller.com/.../index.php

Good thread to note issues with the Edward Fw 190A-8 as I have the kit in question.

Have a photograph of a 'Canadianized' A-8 that was found in a field & over painted with commonwealth roundels and flew around after VE day by a Canadian pilot before the aircraft was seized by higher authorities.

Good topic.  I have the Tamiya A-3 and D-9 in the stash as well, both patiently waiting their turn.  I built the A-8 a few years ago unaware of the accuracy issues and still thought it looked like a 190.  Since then, I've seen AM gear legs and of course wheels on E-bay for these kits that should fix the "stance" issue.  If my memory serves me correctly, the Tamiya D-9 was modeled after a plane that had a D-9 fuselage and D-11 or 13 wings (or vice versa?), which caused alot of the accuracy issues.  The closed gear bay doesn't bother me because my research revealed that some D-9 planes had closed bays.  This was only left off on later Doras when metal became scarce.  This made sense to me because who would want all that crud getting up into the engine area.  I've even read they all had closed bays and the exposed engine was an "intenet fad".  Either way I don't think anyone but the Wurger experts would care anyways. I also agree that decals and paint are a non-issue since I almost always go AM here too.  I usually only use the stenciling.  I was however unaware the props have problems.  I thought it looked ok on my A-8.      

All this said, I still prefer the Hasegawa kits for the Anton.  They are great kits.  I prefer the Anton over the Dora anyways so this is also a non-issue for me....

Joe      

stikpusher

I think that the Eduard kits are designed primarily to have all the access panels open. Most hassles involving the fit on that stuff comes from folks positioning them shut as shown above.

Oh quite contraire. The instructions give you the choice of open or closed cannon bay doors. But no biggie, just a minor surgery to fix things up.

Yes, I have the profipack A5 in my stash and have sat reading the instructions many times. But from what I have heard from folks who built the kit, either at IPMS or the LHS, the fit of those parts indicates that the open option is more "user friendly", so to speak. I have yet to build mine, so I can not say firsthand one way or another.

plasticjunkie

stikpusher

I think that the Eduard kits are designed primarily to have all the access panels open. Most hassles involving the fit on that stuff comes from folks positioning them shut as shown above.

Oh quite contraire. The instructions give you the choice of open or closed cannon bay doors. But no biggie, just a minor surgery to fix things up.

I'm (still) working on Eduard's 110D and I'm a bit surprised at the lack of locator pins.  Especially when the fit is so important to adjacent components.  I was test fitting the pit/fuselage last night and was getting mad from the number of times I had to keep putting the thing back together.  I decided it was best to walk away and get mad at something else.

I too had to do a bit of filing to get it to fit.  

Hopefully these pics will load, but I am getting close to finishing her.  Added the wire for the hydraulic lines.  Decals are working well.  Not sure if I should try the ones on the trim tabs.  They are super tiny..

Hey thats really nice. I love the JG 4 schemes and badge. Did you paint on the tail bands? Brake lines look real good.

Hi Nathan;

Thanks very much.  Yes, I painted the defense bands.  The bands are Vallejo Model Color white and black(really thinned down for the airbrush).  The other camo is Model Air.

Hope to finish in a couple of days.

John

This looks great John!!! I agree with Nathan on the JG4 color schemes and looks like you pulled this one off well to include those Defense of the Reich bands.

Well, I am just about finished.  Here she is after the last dullcote and the weathering.  All that is left is to add the canopy sections and the comms wires.  I got some silvering on some of the decals.  I just cant' seem to get that part right just yet.  I'll post some final thoughts tomorrow with the last pics.

John

Holy Moly, she looks sweet John!  Beautiful work on a cool bird.

Gary

Wow! Where were you for the 190 build???lol.  This is truly amazing work John! I like the faded effect in your weathering.

I am calling her done:)  I struggled with not only the front canopy section that was discussed , but also getting the gear angle correct.  There is a small slot in the spar that the gear leg is to go into, but the fit is very loose and it was tough to get the angles correct.

This was by far my hardest build since getting back into the hobby.  I will definitely build another one, but first a couple more simple ones to clear my head.

Some final photos:

John

Thank you, I enjoyed this one even with my errors.  I guess I never really tried to understand the group build thing.  I have gotten back into the hobby after being away for a little over 20 years.  

I pre-shaded the panel lines, and then sprayed the colors into them doing the insides and then working to the edges as some others has posted when talking about their techniques.  I found that by not trying to completely fill the panels I could get the faded look with them.  Before the final dull coat, there were some spots that I thought were a little too light and not blended well enough but the dull coat brought it all together.

John