Eduard 1/48 109G - too much hype?

Have 2 in the stash counting the overtrees. I know about the scale discrepancy, 4mm to wide and 1.5mm to long and possibly some contour issues in the rear fuselage and the bottom of the front cowling. My only real concern, which very few people are even talking about, is the forward angle of the landing gear struts looks too straight up and down and possibly the struts are unloaded. Nevertheless, I think it will be a fairly easy fix. I admit that I expected better than this from Eduard after their Spit but its by no means a deal breaker for me. At least until when and if Zvezda pops a G.

Absolutely, just for the detail.  That thing looks beautiful.  The "issues" with the kit appear easy to fix should one care about them.  I just wish Eduard would focus on subjects we actually need, like a new P-40 B/C or even the Merlin powered F/L variants.  The ones out there truly suck....  

Joe

The gear issue is a huge bummer for me. If there is one thing to get right and make a 109 look proper, its the gear angle. Correcting it makes the kit sort of unattractive for me. Also looks like the gear legs are a bit too long. One might want to cut down the oleo struts, just like on Eduard's Yak 3 and La-7 kits. Those look just wrong to me unless the gear is shortened. I certainly don't have the extreme feelings towards it like the Hyperscale folks though.

I was disappointed that there wasn't a Karaya 1 in the markings.

You can count me on the list of the folks that will definitely get one. I've already got the Eduard brassin engine and gun kit. All I can say is WOW! I'll correct the above mentioned discrepencies (save for the scale issue) no sweat. The detail is friggin awesome from everything I've seen. Hell I'll probably spring for a brassin interior set as well.

Hey I got one too!  Someone needs to start the "Unbuildable" GB for the Eduard 109 G-6!!!

I have no interest in the scale, but even still I'd have probably grabbed one if it weren't for two things: 1. The scale issue and 2. Eduard's attitude. The more I see the more obvious it is they mucked this one up. It's simply not 1/48 scale.

The surface detail and engineering is spectacular, but what good is it when it would be an eyesore next to a non-Eduard 109 on the shelf? It's moot though...1/48 is just inadequate for my taste when it comes to WW2 fighters.

What's more troubling is Eduard's attitude as of late. If you follow them on Facebook you've no doubt seen their snide snipes at the consumer. But it isn't anything new. They've been doing it since the Mig-21...if not longer.

They've got an inflated head for some reason...the common consensus is that their PE updates are usually not entirely accurate...heck...they seem to use a BAD match for RLM 66 on EVERY color PE instrument panel...be it a Luft subject or modern fighter....

Yes, I've seen it said some postings are pretty vicious, no doubt due in part for Eduard bragging how it would be the best accurate kit out there.   There has been mention that the museum craft that had been looked at was actually  refurbished a composite, so maybe that was part of the problem?

Myself, I wasn't interested in the mark that much as I'm more keen on the Luftwaffe of 1940.  The recent build up on Hyperscale does look fine, so maybe when it goes  on  sale on a  Black Friday event I'll consider it.

For the G version, apparently someone is working  on  a resin conversion to be used with  Zvezda's F kit.

regards,

Jack

I've been a huge advocate of Eduard for a while now.  I haven't seen any shots at consumers, but I don't usually delve too deep into social media.  Bummer to hear that they may have developed an ego.  I'll pick one of these Gs up, most likely the Royal Class offering coming out in July.  Rivet Counters be damned.  It takes substantial effort for me just to find time to sit at my bench.  I'm not going to waste it fussing and fretting about a mm here or a panel there.  If it's a good build and worth my time in the hobby then that is good enough for me.

I will ultimately buy one.  The landing gear would be the biggest disappointment for me as I agree it gives it the very distinct look with the way it sits.  A wingspan that is a mm or two off won't really bother me.  There is something "wrong" with every kit I imagine.

John

The wingspan is 6 to 7 mm too long, more than just a few mm here and there.

Man 6 or 7 mm is ALOT for a 1/48 scale plane. Yikes!!

I'll be passing on this one, not because of some minor inaccuracies, but simply because it's a 109. 

I've read total of 8mm, but that is in comparison to Hasegawa, which over the years has been acceptable in terms of wing measurement.

Again, it is a very buildable (and beautiful) kit, it's only a matter of whether superior surface details are more meaningful than accuracy to you.

regards,

Jack

Well I am FIRMLY in the build what you want camp. I accept a lot of accuracy issues that others wouldn't live with. I've received a lot of flak on some forums for living with stuff. I've also received a lot of heat for defending "inaccurate" kits in the past.

I guess we all have a line that we draw with these things. I'm pretty tolerant.

Brett Green has done a comparison with the (widely accepted "accurate") Hasegawa wing...and boy...it's off.

Saying it's too long/wide is a bit of a misnomer because it's not that simple. It looks proportionally correct...it just isn't 1/48 scale.

Basically, it looks like the choice is build the ancient, soft, poorly detailed (by todays standards) Hasegawa kit in 1/48 or build a nicely detailed and engineered  1/46ish Eduard kit....

I will get a "few"of these for sure. I consider Eduard kits to best around for "my cash"so i'm not going to concern myself with accuracy  as long as the final result looks the part - I don't include measurement indicators with my models anyway. I admit that 8mm on a 48th scale kit is "unrealistic" and I cannot believe that a company that has gone to such great lengths to get it right, would *** that up to that extent!! Have Eduard published any sort of response to the allegations? And more importantly, has anybody produced irrefutable and concise proof of these discrepancies?

Yes. Eduard has responded.  With infantile passive aggressive jabs at the consumer both on social media and other forums.

Yes. There is proof that the thing is oversized. It's all over the Internet for anyone who cares to find it.

Funny thing is... with all the picking, poking, criticisms, blunders or whatever...I'll be darned if it don't look like a G-6 when it's built.  They way some folks are talking you'd think it would look like a turnip.

Exactly Marc!

Zveda has just announced a G-6. Good to hear. Maybe competition will do Eduard some good.

If Zvesda does as well with the G-6 as they did with the F-4... that will be 1 fine looking turnip . 

I don't even know whats going on anymore. In all the junk I've seen about the Eduard stuff I've seen numerous comments suggesting the Zvezda F is the most accurate 109 in 1/48

I think it's time for a new hobby...this one is becoming too  stressful.

Zvezda's 109 is the most accurate in 1/48. It does have some minor hiccups, but every kit does. The mistakes in the Eduard G-6 have gone beyond minor hiccups. With alittle extra work in the cockpit, the Hasegawa kits actually have plenty of nice detail to them, especially considering they were released what, some 14-16 years ago?

ruddratt

I'll be passing on this one, not because of some minor inaccuracies, but simply because it's a 109. 

Blasphemy!

  Hehe.

Actually, reasoned, it's only because I burned myself out on 'em during the 90's.  Probably built well over  two dozen before I finally said "enough, never again."  I still look at 'em and enjoy 'em,  but I'll never build another one, especially now that WnW has entered the picture.

Doc, I am with you on that.

This hobby just changed for me, into something far less fun. Since I was 12 in the sixties and discovered Profiles and early Aero series books, and magazines and articles that told us how to build variants of popular aircraft and AFVs, I have been into searching for the info it takes to get a model of an early Skyhawk "right" compared to a late one. Or to build a GMC truck instead of a Studebaker.

now, today, even with the incredible promise of having an Internet at our fingertips,,,,you only need one of each type of airplane. Face it, if a person can't see a scale FOOT on a model aircraft,,,he couldn't see all the subtle details that make up a difference between sub-types anyway. And almost everyone claims to know the difference between a Bf-109E-4-123-ABC on november 22nd in the north after lunch in 1943, and a Bf-109G-6-789-XYZ three hours later in the south.

I will be sleepless tonight, in another thread on FSM, a guy typed out the difference between original Hemi and restored Hemi valve covers,,,,,,having that info available for free is weighing so very heavy on me,,,,and I don't even build MOPAR engines.

Rex

Rex, it does seem that the more advanced I get into building, the more time I spend reading instead of building; which is entertaining at times, but I end up getting little accomplished.

As for Eduard, they can afford to be snarky until sales dry up, which will probably happen if they keep it up with the folks who buy -109s.