Looks like a major flaw in the size of the wings.  If the price drops, so much the better, or Eduard will do a mea-culpa and fix the problems.

I'm more curious about its build-ability.

In the famous words of Patsy: "It's only a model."

Gary

Found this today chaps

www.youtube.com/watch

The there is this one for you "rivet counters"!    I'm not saying I am not one, I just think these are funny! And this seems like the right thread for them!

www.youtube.com/watch

Holy CRAP!! This is hilarious.  =D

CRAP!!

Show me one built Eduard Bf-109G that any of the "hated rivet counters" have commented on. The only one I saw all finished was in a post of one that popped up well after the errors were pointed out. And even then, it was to show the huge difference in span compared to another -109G, and the comments were by the builder himself.

OKAY,,,,,,,the "duffers*" have accomplished their mission. I for one, will take down EVERY post of mine on here that was intended as a help to other modelers, and will not ever post such a thing again, or answer another accuracy question.

You just don't get it,,,,,the books, the decals, the resin, the kits, and the answers on forums ALL come from people that "know some facts that not everyone else knows"

And I am brave enough to call it what it is, it is called being used, twice,,,,,,once by people that won't look it up for themselves because they won't buy the books (advertised on the very sites where the questions are asked),,,,,and once again as amusement and a fake cause of hurt feelings during a lull when no one needs something answered.

*(note that even an angry "hated rivet counter" doesn't know what the insulting term is for the people that ooo and ahh over good models, ask detail questions, and then insult rivet counters,,,because the damned insulting names only go in one direction)

Rex, formerly helpful forum member

Wherever you stand on this point, you have to congratulate that effort:)  I am still laughing.  "1/47 scale" will be heard 'round the World:)

John

TarnShip:  This is the internet, and the video was a joke.

Glad you guys liked the vids!  

Thanks Mike,,,,,I think that jokes that exhibit poor taste and a lack of good judgement are still not funny.

Of course, that is just the inadequate opinion of one of the guys that is the intended butt of said joke.

Rex, one of the people that gave his time to opposing folks like Ole Sweet Uncle Adolph, there.

For anyone that may be interested, read the editorial in this months Info Eduard. They own the problem and are looking at correcting it after the Royal Class release if I understand correctly. It's a step...

Info Eduard e-Mag

I decided to take a look at their Facebook page given these "Snarky" remarks they've apparently given their followers.  I did find that they themselves posted the 1/47 "Downfall" youtube link on their own page.  The certainly seem to be owning the issue with a bit of a sense of humor.

What has happened to this hobby?  I certainly don't remember walking into a (now defunct) LHS in my middle/Highschool days and being concerned about the accuracy of a kit.  If the box art was cool that was good enough for me!

Now a-days it seems we all want to look a gift horse in the mouth.  A new-tooled, highly detailed kit of a sought after product (At least for a few of us!) gets thrown in the proverbial rubbish bin due to some innaccuracies.  So if the internet says I should just give up and only build perfect kits that are exact replicas of the real thing then please, oh wise internet, tell me where is this perfect kit?

Until that kit is revealed I'll continue to try and put a dent in my stash of wildly inaccurate and "unbuildable" boxes of plastic.  

Just an editorial comment.  Not a condemnation of anyone's preferred tastes.

Stu, the difference is that back in the sixties when I walked into a hobby shop to buy a P-40 and P-36 to kitbash into an accurate XP-37,,,,,,,,,there were not six month long campaigns claiming that the P-36 was the "best P-36 model ever",,,,,,,and then all the modelers that found out that that P-36 was wrong didn't get called a bunch of nasty names by other modelers and the kit manufacturer.

I now find that Hitler video funny,,,,,,,since the three other *** in the room turned out to be correct and Hitler turned out to be wrong.

And yes, building accurately shaped and detailed models is that old of a segment in this hobby,,,,,,I first read about it before I was old enough to be able to do it with my skills at that time in the sixties.

Reference books, magazines and articles, accurate decals, paints matched to standards, corrections to kits, ,,,,all of those things were around in the Sixties. And people did correct the kits that needed to be corrected,,,,,,,,,and we talked about the things like the 1/70 kits that were supposed to be 1/72, or the single seat 1/72 Skyraider that came out with the Two-seater's width.

Tarn, I completely understand your point.  And it's quite valid.  If someone's going to boast the best this, biggest that, neatest those, then they had better be spot on.  They shouldn't be surprised in the least when the criticism shot back at them is equal to their own boasts.  They made their bed and now have to sleep in it......Only to have to make it again cause they just slept in it  (That metaphor was always lost on me.)

For me I just wonder when the switch got flipped.  I never used to care about accuracy to the extent that seems to permiate the hobby now.  I'm just as guilty as anyone of not pulling the trigger the day of a new kit's release as I try to gather as much info as possible before making a >$50 purchase.  I learned that lesson the hard way when Kinetic's A-6 hit the market some years back.  I then passed on the Great Wall P-61, KittyHawk's F-35, and pretty much anything from Trumpeter or Hobbyboss because the reviews stated they were akin to New Coke in plastic form.  To that extent I should be greatful to the rivet counters.

On the other hand, at some point this hobby went from fun thing to do and a great way to spend money earned mowing lawns to something more serious.  Will I still buy the Eduard G, maybe.  Warts and all, since at the end of the day what I get out of this hobby is the joy of building something fun and spending a few moments of my limited time in the tranquility that a hobby offers.  If I were building for a museum or for an IPMS contest then no, it likely wouldn't make the cut.

This hobby has turned me into a walking contradition.......And I love IT!

You've mirrored my thoughts, Stu.

My focus is 1/48 scale WW2 fighters.  I want to see the comparison between different aircraft.  I won't knowingly put a 1/47 or 1/50 aircraft among them.  I don't want to look at 2 Bf-109's and ask "Hey, why are they different sizes?"

As a standalone kit, I would build Eduard's new kit for the detail.  I've put up with inaccuracy for the sake of a unique kit (Trumpeter's AVGP's, for example), but not if I don't have to.

I would be just as happy buying Monogram or Pegasus' kits.  As I said on another thread; I'm not perfect, and my builds are an extension of me.

Extract from Eduard's June Newsletter.

Our brand new Bf 109G-6 has already been feeding various Internet discussion boards for five weeks now, and it doesn´t seem like things are about to change. Despite there being plenty of discussion regarding the details of this new release, this has been totally eclipsed by many forum ‘flames’ which singled out the dimensions of our new kit. Unfortunately, we do have to ad­mit that our kit is definitely larger than the scale for which it was designed, and therefore oversi­zed. It is our fault. We admit that. We wrongly calculated the expected dimensional attributes of the final model, in comparison with the master model we were using. In our case, this is a virtu­al 3D master model. If we accept 9020 mm as a correct length of the real aircraft, then we are about some 3 mm longer in scale, which means the kit is about 1.5% larger than it should be, and therefore gives an overall scale of 1:47.26. Concerning the wingspan, we are wider in ove­rall span by about 2.6mm on each half of the wing, giving an average oversize of around 2.5%. I want to let you know that I’m personally very sorry that this has happened. We are cu­rrently finding ways in which we can fix this pro­blem, but please understand that acquiring the correct dimensional accuracy and implementing this with tooling re-works requires time.

The destiny of this release is in your hands now. You have to decide, if the dimensional problems are so huge, and so dominant a factor, that it de­stroys the other qualities of this kit. By this, I mean the quality of our overall detail. I also mean the quality of the surface details and the fit of the parts, which are exceptional, without a doubt.

We are searching for a way in which to make wing shorter without loosing the proportions of the kit. As the kit is larger in scale than it should be, it is important that we keep in proportion the parts of the model as a whole. I already read about one solution, which was to cut the wing down in the last outboard panel, be­fore the wingtip. Don´t do it! The wingtip shapes may look strange, and you may proba­bly not find these shapes and dimensions on any published drawing of the Bf 190G-6, but I assure you that it is indeed correct. We traced the actual shape for this area around a real aircraft wingtip. This also answers the question about what we do in the museum; if we don´t actually record the correct scale dimensions. It is simple. We never take ge­neral dimensions. We always verify the dimen­sional details for problematic areas/shapes of these most noticeable areas. There are plenty of such problems during the design of any kit, and because 2D drawings are not always correct, these pictures often depict the shapes of these areas in an unclear manner. Cross-sections can be particularly problematic, with the side view and subsequent plot not matching as they should. What we are really interested in is how they look on the actual machine. How does this subject really look? As I have already said, we never take general dimensions. That’s simply not the way that Eduard works. The topical issue here is a technical error; not one of unknown dimensions. The published dimensions are correct, the length of 9020 mm, the wingspan of 9924 mm. I am sure we will find a solution to these issues, and we will have these corrections implemented for the boxings which will follow the Royal Class edition.

Vladimir Sulc

Hopefully they have things worked out by the time they release the Weekend Editions.  Perhaps by then I'll be looking to do another 109.  Until then, I've got lots of other planes on my wish list!

I guess the lesson to learn is that the higher the hype, the higher the fall if you miss.

Well, seems to me the wing is only a teeny bit too big- you just need the proper tool to cut it down to size... 

Seriously, if this were the only kit out there I'd be willing to let it slide- hey it looks like a Bf-109 right??? But considering how many other kits are out on the market if it's not right I'd be way more likely to buy a cheaper older kit than spring for some huge price on a new model.  My two cents for what little it's worth. 

LOL, Gamera...it just makes a bigger target!

mississippivol

LOL, Gamera...it just makes a bigger target!

Hehehe... sorry sometimes I get a little smart@#$... 

All this being said, I will still want Trumpeter's Whirlwind, despite the inaccuracies pointed out in a review I just read on Cybermodeller.  It's to only game in town!

I did get written confirmation from Eduard that there will be no modifications to the landing gear to fix the forward rake in the future which is the most disappointing news about their 109 series I have heard to date.