I have the new Eduard 109G (thank you Martin!).

For those who have followed the Great 109Gate Brew-Ha-ha (that's an alcoholically-fueled argument about something with no meaning outside the argument) over at That Other Place, here are some observations about the kit. (For those living on Mars, there is Great Wailing And Gnashing Of Teeth over the possibility that the new kit is not One Hundred Percent Perfect. Eduard pretty much brought this on themselves with their woldwide declaration that it was The Bestest 109G Kit That Will Ever Exist.)

I have compared the fuselage with the fuselage of their Bf-109E-7. They are an exact fit in the rear fuselage, panel for panel, putting the two together. The 109E kit is claimed to be a "bit oversize" in the fuselage compared to a Hasegawa or Tamiya kit, which would support the claim this one is, too.

However, let us continue...

I have compared the fuselage with a Hasegawa 109G. There are very interesting measurements.

1. Measuring from the rear, the fuselages from the rudder hinge line to the wing trailing edge, are the same. length. However, the Eduard cockpit is 4mm forward of the Hasegawa kit, and the nose is 4mm longer. Get this: the canopy pieces of both kits are interchangeable dimensionally, so the Eduard is not wider than the Hasegawa.

2. However, if you measure the fuselages lined up wing root to wing root, with the wing leading edges exactly matched, the nose length from the wing leading edge to the front end is the same for both kits.

3. Measuring from the nose, the Eduard kit is approximately 2mm wider in chord at the wing root (with the additional area to the rear), and the rear fuselage is 4mm longer at the rudder hinge line. There is thus an "extra" 2mm somewhere in the area of the cockpit, and then in the rear fuselage, comparing the two kits. Where that is in the area of the cockpit is hard to say, since the canopies of both are interchangeable.

4. Comparing the Eduard fuselage to the Hasegawa fuselage, measuring from the cockpit aft, the rear fuselage panels line up exactly to panel line 4 (just ahead of the radio compartment) at which point the Eduard panels are slightly wider, adding up to about 1.5mm at the leading edge of the vertical fin. So, the extra 2mm in the rear fuselage is from the radio compartment aft.

I then compared the wings. (The complaint here being the Eduard kit is "several scale feet" longer in wingspan than it should be)

The Eduard kit is approximately 4mm longer span on each wing than the Hasegawa kit. If you compare the upper Hasegawa wing part to the upper Eduard wing part, they are an exact match out to the inner edge of the leading edge slats. The extra length is at the outer end. If you were to cut off the Eduard wing at the end and then attach its tip, the wing would be the same span as the Hasegawa. The Eduard leading edge slat is longer than its Hasegawa mate by 4mm, and the aileron and flap are each also longer than the Hasegawa parts in span by 2mm.

So, if the Eduard wing is cut at the end to equal the Hasegawa wing (which everyone says is OK dimensionally), everything fits and you have the right-size wing. If you trim the Eduard flap by 2mm, and then the aileron by 1mm on each end, everything will overall fit and look right.

Overall assessment: Eduard's "oversize" is not proportional overall. It is slightly different at the wing, and there are differences throughout the length of the fuselage in minor measurements, adding up to the overall 4mm in fuselage length and span of each wing.

Given the taper of the rear fuselage, I don't see any place one could cut out a 4mm plug. If one leaves the fuselage alone and cuts the wing down to equal the Hasegawa kit, I think the result would be a model that won't look "outsize" next to a Hasegawa kit to anyone who doesn't have exact measuring devices implanted in their eyes. (

Overall verdict: unless you are so OCD that you are in desperate need of medication (See: Kermorgant, V.), "some modeling skill required" will give you a model that is "close enough" if you're one of those who hold dimensional accuracy up with cleanliness as being next to godliness. None of what has to be done is beyond the ability of the average scale muddler. And it can be done without harming the very nice surface detail.

Most people can get away with leaving it alone, because sitting there as a completed model, the differences are just not really big enough to make a difference (unlike the Hasegawa Spitfire IX fuselage).

I am going to modify the wing to show people how easy that is if you must do it, and will be leaving the fuselage alone.

UPDATE:

Here are in-progress photos.

The photo of the wing shows the one bit of "work" you have to do: cut 2mm off the end of the wing. This makes everything look better, since you then have that inspection plate centered in the outer panel, as it should be. Attach the wingtip (you have to cut off the tabs and butt join it, which is no problem) then trim the aileron and the leading edge slat to fit.

Three photos of the cockpit. This is easily the best non-resin cockpit in a 109 I have seen. I wrapped the lap belt around the stick, which was common in the Luftwaffe to keep the controls from flapping if there weren't any control locks. Then the elevators will be full rise, which looks different from the usual full drop.

UPDATE 2: I have added photos of the model assembled. "Looks like a 109 to me." 🙂

(Oh, gee, have I violated Amazon's "patent" on photographing objects against a white background? Inquiring minds want to know!)

10 attached images. Click to enlarge.

Wasn't there an old cigarette commercial that spoke of a "silly millimeter" longer...?

There are now.