Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

CLICK HERE to see new posts in last 24 hours
Mark all forums read
Welcome to 72nd Aircraft. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Did Eduard err with the bottom wing detail of their Fw.190A-5
Topic Started: Mar 1 2018, 10:55 PM (634 Views)
Blekster
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Not that I build 1/48, but I do like to check out Eduard's releases as a bit of a teaser as to what we might see in 1/72.

Looking at the new March releases, I saw their Fw.190A-5 light fighter. The plate that goes beneath the wing guns looks quite different from what I can see on the 1/72 Fw.190A-5 release (of the same version):

Latest 1/48 Fw.190A-5 lower wing:
Posted Image

1/72 lower wing of same variant:
Posted Image

So what is happening here?

(FYI, both are the same aircraft - Maj. Hermann Graf's plane)
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
You nailed it—the 1/72 kit is incorrect (and for what it’s worth...several other versions of the kit have niggling goofs in this same area).

Eduard assumed that this panel was similar to those on later aircraft designed to carry MG 151’s outboard—I.e., that its edges overlapped the actual opening in the wing. But in fact it fit flush with the opening, and carried the interesting narrow shallow bulge seen on your photo of the 1/48 kit.

Here’s a link to the A-5 at Paul Allen’s Flying Heritage museum in Seattle, which has a great view of this panel:

https://acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/under-the-cowl-of-the-flying-heritage-collection-fw-190a-5/

(BTW this amazing aircraft is by far the most original 190 on earth, and the only one flying with its original BMW 801. It bellied in after an engine failure in 1943, and was pulled out of a Russian forest in the late 80’s with the pilots helmet still lying on the seat!)
Edited by MDriskill, Mar 3 2018, 10:15 PM.
Goto Top
 
Chuck1945
Hero
[ * ]
But if it was built without outboard cannon (the 'light' version) would the bulged panel have been used? Just wondering
Chuck
Eastern WA, USA
Finished 2018:
Eduard Spitfire IXc, VIII, Monogram/Starfighter BFC-2
On the active bench:
Eduard Bf 110C, Hasegawa B-24D, SH P-40E
Goto Top
 
Blekster
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
MDriskill
Mar 2 2018, 11:20 AM
You nailed it—the 1/72 kit is incorrect (and for what it’s worth...several other versions of the kit have niggling goofs in this same area).

Eduard assumed that this panel was similar too those on later aircraft designed to carry MG 151’s outboard—I.e., that its edges overlapped the actual opening in the wing. But in fact it fit flush with the opening, and carried the interesting narrow shallow bulge seen on your photo of the 1/48 kit.

Here’s a link to the A-5 at Paul Allen’s Flying Heritage museum in Seattle, which has a great view of this panel:

https://acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/under-the-cowl-of-the-flying-heritage-collection-fw-190a-5/

(BTW this amazing aircraft is by far the most original 190 on earth, and the only one flying with its original BMW 801. It bellied in after an engine failure in 1943, and was pulled out of a Russian forest in the late 80’s with the pilots helmet still lying on the seat!)
Thanks for confirming. I'd be interested to read about the other "niggling goofs" if you would not mind posting about them

Not that I am any sort of an expert on the 190 by a very, very long shot, but when I first bought and examined Eduard's 190A-5 kit, something about that panel nagged at me as not being exactly right (great photo BTW, thanks for posting it). Where there is no such thing as the "perfect kit", I somewhat blindly trusted that Eduard did their research and figured that they got the majority of everything right. Well, so much for that...

Having given this a little more thought, to help improve that panel, what do you think of this...
- at the top/front of the panel where it juts in, scribe that straight across, deep enough to get into the wing section below it
- then, scribe completely around the remainder of the panel
- finally, sand down the panel to be flush with the surfaces around it
- as for the little bump, I am not quite sure how to address it - yet

Do you think that should address most of this error?

The lower wing of the 190A-5 as Eduard originally did it, does it represent anything "accurately" for other 190A-5 variants (or A-6/A-7/A-8)???

I would hope that Eduard has plans to address this with future releases.
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
Chuck1945
Mar 2 2018, 04:24 PM
But if it was built without outboard cannon (the 'light' version) would the bulged panel have been used? Just wondering
As far as I know, all A-5's without the outboard cannon mounted, used the flush panel with the small bulge.

Some experts think the empty outer gun bay was actually the “default” factory configuration for most A-5’s, the MG FF’s being added only to specified batches, or by depot-installed conversion sets.

The flush panel was of course a necessity on attack versions, which typically mounted a pair of ETC 50 racks under each wing.
Edited by MDriskill, Mar 5 2018, 01:33 PM.
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
Blekster, your fixes sound good to me.

If you got rid of that portion of the panel forward of the “notch” in the side, the shape would be right.

You could then “flush out” the remaining portion as you describe...but to be honest, I’d probably wimp out and leave it alone! It’s only raised a tiny amount, and quite crisply molded; not sure I could make it look a whole lot better.

I would do the shallow mini-bulge with a shaped bit of .010 or .015 plastic strip.
Edited by MDriskill, Mar 3 2018, 10:48 PM.
Goto Top
 
Chuck1945
Hero
[ * ]
I am confused now. In the photos posted at the top of the thread, both are supposedly the A-5 'light' fighter w/o the outboard cannon and the response to my question about the absence of cannon was

"No, the early wing typically had the flush panel as described above when the MG FF’s were absent. As far as I know, it would be possible to remove the cannon and leave the bulged panel in place, though I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that combo in a photo."

It would appear that Eduard was correct in leaving the bulge off the 'light' fighter in the 1/72 version (lower picture) although the panel shape may be incorrect. The Eduard Fw 190A-5 'heavy' fighter w/outboard cannon does have the lower wing panel in the correct shape and with the bulge matching the photo of the 1/48 kit
Chuck
Eastern WA, USA
Finished 2018:
Eduard Spitfire IXc, VIII, Monogram/Starfighter BFC-2
On the active bench:
Eduard Bf 110C, Hasegawa B-24D, SH P-40E
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
Notes for the outer underwing gun panel in other Eduard 190’s:

Early wing with outer MG FF’s mounted (sprue G): The shape of the panel is correct, it overlapped the front of the actual wing opening and extended forward, which was needed to work out the contours of the cannon bulge. But again the sides and rear of the panel should be flush with the wing, and IMHO the bulge should blend into the panel with a slightly more gentle radius. But really they got pretty close with it; not sure I’d bother to change anything.

Early wing without outer MG FF’s (sprue J): As discussed elsewhere in this thread, the panel should fit flush, have its front extension beyond the wing opening removed, and the small narrow bulge added.

Standard wing with outer MG 151’s mounted (sprue H): They got very close on this one. In real life, the panel actually did stand proud of the wing opening with this gun mounting, and the outer edge of the panel considerably overlaps the opening in the wing. But the outer rear corner should be at a shallower angle, if that makes sense (this angle is correct for the later universal MG 151 panel; this corner of the opening was enlarged on that wing. Arthur Bentley’s famous drawings show the difference clearly).

Standard wing without outer MG 151’s (sprue I): Quite a few errors. The panel was fit into the actual wing opening, with no overlaps. So it should be quite a bit narrower, with a straight line on the outer edge, and should fit flush.

Universal wing with outer MG 151’s mounted (sprue C): This one was in the first release of the kit, the A-8 Profipack. The panel is just about perfect, but Eduard omitted the blanked-off MK 108 ejection port just inboard of it. Easy enough to scribe it in, or there is a PE piece for this in subsequent issues with this sprue. As noted above, the outboard rear corner angle is correct for this version.

Universal wing with outer MK 108’s mounted (sprue E): Basically well done, though there may have been some variation in the small smooth bulge for the gun. I believe most aircraft have a shorter, wider, smooth bulge, as shown on Bentley’s drawings.

Universal wing without outer guns (sprue F): The lower wing appears exactly the same as on sprue I, and has the same errors. In addition, it omits the adjacent blanked-off MK 108 ejection port, same as sprue C.
Edited by MDriskill, Mar 6 2018, 03:07 PM.
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
[I am confused now.]

Any confusion is my fault, I got my bulge terminology confused!

I thought your question referred to the “big” bulge for the MG FF ammo drums, when you were in fact referring to the “little” bulge on the no-gun panel. So apologies for my reply, which I have edited to hopefully make more sense.
Edited by MDriskill, Mar 6 2018, 02:31 AM.
Goto Top
 
Blekster
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Thank for all that helpful information. I'll be spending some time now reviewing it with the kits I have on hand.

MDriskill
Mar 3 2018, 11:19 PM
Universal wing with outer MG 151’s mounted (sprue C): This one was in the first release of the kit, the A-8 Profipack. The panel is just about perfect, but Eduard omitted the covered MK 108 ejection port just inboard of it. Easy enough to scribe it in. There’s also a PE piece for this in subsequent issues with this sprue. As noted above, the rear corner angle is correct.
Are you referring to newer releases of this particular kit or other releases of this same variant?
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
Blekster
Mar 4 2018, 10:30 PM
Are you referring to newer releases of this particular kit or other releases of this same variant?
Good question...my statement above may be a bit too broad.

The only subsequent release of the A-8 with universal wing that I have on hand, is the Royal Class kit, which has the altered PE sheet. The later A-8/R2 Profipack may have it too (although this kit has sprue E—outboard MK 108’s—so doesn’t need to blank-off the port of course), but I don’t know if it made it into later production of the original A-8 Profipack.
Edited by MDriskill, Mar 6 2018, 02:34 AM.
Goto Top
 
jvenables
Member Avatar
Hawk
[ * ]
I'm finding this an interesting thread, especially as I only a marginal interest in the subject. But it's good, constructive discussion which is always useful & enlightening.

Quote:
 
Here’s a link to the A-5 at Paul Allen’s Flying Heritage museum in Seattle, which has a great view of this panel:

https://acesflyinghigh.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/under-the-cowl-of-the-flying-heritage-collection-fw-190a-5/

Thanks for that. I follow historical aviation news and activity pretty closely and I never knew there was an original Fw.190 flying! I thought there was only a few of the Flugwerk replicas airworthy.

Quote:
 
Having given this a little more thought, to help improve that panel, what do you think of this...
- at the top/front of the panel where it juts in, scribe that straight across, deep enough to get into the wing section below it
- then, scribe completely around the remainder of the panel
- finally, sand down the panel to be flush with the surfaces around it
- as for the little bump, I am not quite sure how to address it - yet

I can see from the OP's photos that the panel in question seems to be in raised but I suspect the amount of relief is exaggerated by the preshading (and wash?) around its edges.

Quote:
 
You could then "flush out" the remaining portion as you describe...but to be honest, I'd probably wimp out and leave it alone! It's only raised a tiny amount, and quite crisply molded; not sure I could make it look a whole lot better.

I agree. I'd just leave it alone but don't put any pre-shading or wash around it. Or if you must, just do these very lightly.
James from Brisbane, Australia
Now living in Laos

Nil illegitimi carborundum
Goto Top
 
hobbykiller
Member Avatar
Beast
[ * ]
MDriskill
Mar 3 2018, 11:19 PM
Notes for the outer underwing gun panel in other Eduard 190 [...]
MrDriskill - good idea with taking notes, but they need some corrections. As I understand you use "Arthur Bentley's famous drawings" as a source. They do have errors, especially on late Fw-190.
I thought it may help if I clean this up. Basically good observations on A5, not quite good on A8 and totally wrong on A8 "light" and F8. Feel free if you like to rethink you notes and use my comments.
This is is not my intent to preach, just trying to help.

First what we need to say is that Eduard designer still does not know this plane enough. I would say he is lacking some informations and does not catch differencies between versions very well. They mixed some things, and many areas of 1/72 model has errors. On the other hand, some areas are excellent and made at level never seen in 72 scale.
When Eduard re-released 1/48 kit, they corrected few errors and... retained other(s)
1/72 model is still best over the world in my opinion, but not perfect - some errors are significant, some less. If you consider all them together it does not look too good. Fun fact is that if you show errors to Eduard, they will not take it seriously.
Second: there were no terms "universal, light or heavy wing". This is terminology introduced and promoted by Eduard, and does not reflect reality. In fact Fw-190 wing was universal itself. Changes to role were made by specialised technicians at repair depots or unit level (U or R mods). Before war turned bad to Germans there was also possibility to "order" a batch of specialised version ready at factory level, even with special painting scheme (especially for night groups) but it occured rare and I believe not after mid-1944.

BTW Blekster - I am not sure where sits the source of idea of retool an 1/72 model. They don't plan it. At least for now, but I doubt they will retool it in the close future, if ever. Moreover, Fw-190 D versions are "not significant" for them and they did not considered this model at the start. Now after many questions from modellers and 3 years after radial engined release, CEO Eduard said they will do them in a far future, but he seem to be not so excited about it. For me personally it is good news, I bet 190D will be in their modern "Spitfire" standard. Now I think they might retool whole Fw-190 family when they attempt to design D-versions.

So this thread is on the wings, not talking about fuselage (just stupid) errors.

Those underwing panels had many versions and nothing is as simple as it looks. Especially on the Bentley plans you can find simplifications or strong/misleading errors. Considering they were first drawn in 1977, it is completely understood.

How about late wing panels? First thing off: they all had outline bigger than wing cutout and sit always overlapped and never more flush like on the early A/C. Those "no gun" too. All of them. Dot. However in a different ways. Gun cover was higher from the wing surface (it had pressed chamfer edges) than flat covers which overlapped by the metal sheet thickness only.

1.MG151 cover introduced on A-6 onward.
They had - at least - five versions. 1/72 Eduard represent most common later version. The other were : early with different front undercuts, later with flat bulge, standard with different front undercuts and other bulge with specific triangle trailing reaching cover's rear edge. Let's consider those specific one's as an "experts" point of interest and focus on standard represented in Eduard.
This flap is well known, raised and overlapping, with a hinge. IMHO Eduard catched it correctly.
The idea of a different angle of the back undercut has reflection in early A-6 cover which indeed has a little different undercut angle. Until you find a good picture of particular A-8 plane with this cover, it should be considered they all had later cover with smaller angle (allowing to cover bigger opening in the wing, even there was currently smaller under it).
So at this point I would disagree with comment that sprue H - so called by Eduard as a standard - has wrong outline. It should be considered good.
However if you like to use it as an A-6 base conversion, you should consider rework of this detail.

2. MK108 cover. This gun was quite big, and required more space in the wing. Bulge on the cover had to be all long as present in Eduard kit, the gun would not fit with "short bulge". This short bulge is an error on Bentley plan. I am not aware of any variation of the MK flap, and considering relatively small amount of planes fitted with them, I doubt if there were any variants.

3. Flat panel for later version has good outline in Eduard kit. It is raised as should be (however some of you may think it is too high to represent metal plate thickness). Technically, similarily to the earlier versions there were sub-variants with and without fuel pump.
It is not true late flat panel sit flush. It is not true they have different outline than those MG and MK versions and fit wing opening. Due to shape of the opening, unstraight edges and changed lock system, cover always overlap this opening at all edges.
Bentley plan show it wrong and Eduard outline is correct.

Finally, small cover for spent chute opening for MK108 gun. It's presence correspond with blister at top wing surface, and it was attached flush. Eduard missed this (at least on the F sprue) and corrected by adding PE parts to glue under wing, it is giving us raised panel. IMHO better solution would be scribing it, but if glued on carefully it still looks good.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
cheers, Mark
Goto Top
 
MDriskill
Hero
[ * ]
Hobbykiller...thank you!

This is a great post! I’m embarrassed to have disseminated bad information (your points are all verified by my own references, had I been paying attention!), but always happy to advance the state of my own knowledge—especially on the 190, my favorite aircraft.

And I’m almost as happy, that I don’t have to muck about fixing those wing panels when I build the kits! _^

I would be very interested in your other comments on the accuracy of the Eduard 1/72 Fw 190’s—I certainly have some ideas on my own in that regard. But I would respectfully suggest that be a dedicated new thread, in lieu of continuing this one.
Edited by MDriskill, Mar 7 2018, 11:10 AM.
Goto Top
 
hobbykiller
Member Avatar
Beast
[ * ]
MDriskill
Mar 7 2018, 12:44 AM
I would be very interested in your other comments on the accuracy of the Eduard 1/72 Fw 190’s—I certainly have some ideas on my own in that regard. But I would respectfully suggest that be a dedicated new thread, in lieu of continuing this one.
MrDriskill,

I am impressed by your effort to systematize what Eduard have done in the 1/72 model and it will be my pleasure to participate.

I'll set up new thread and let's write about all of those wing and fuselage flaws together.
I just need some time to think how to start. I'll post photos to show what I am talking about, so need to upload them on the server etc.
cheers, Mark
Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »