The Fokker E.IV was a result of trying to increase performance of the
E.III. It was thought that just by adding another gun (or two, in some
cases) as well as a larger engine that performance and fighting ability
could be increased. However, the E.III was as optimal as the Fokker Eindecker
could get. By adding the extra gun (or two) and the bigger engine only
meant poorer performance especially in regards to maneuverability. There
was also a problem with the synchronizer gear in the two (or three) gun
arrangement. All in all with the problems associated with the E.IV only
29 examples made it to the front.
The MAC E.IV consists of 28 injected molded parts, a photoetch fret
of 6 parts, and a clear film representing the instrument panel. Decals
are for three specific schemes: Wintgens, Boelcke and an indistinct one
with a serial of 127/15. They also contain extra markings for some unknown
ICM E.IV consists of 45 injected parts and 2 clear pieces. The only scheme
on the decal sheet is for Boelcke's machine, even though the box top shows
The following comparison was done using the only known 1/72nd scale
plans of the Fokker E.IV, which were published in the July 1983 issue
of Scale Models (SM).
the ICM fuselage is much nicer, even though it is molded in four parts
- left and right sides, top and the separate, forward "hump". This means
ICM could easily do an E.III by replacing the "hump", cowl and engine.
The "hump" in front of the cockpit - which gave the E.IV its distinctive
shape - is more accurate in the ICM kit than the MAC. The MAC slopes down
too quickly directly in front of the cockpit. ICM's "hump" is separate,
whereas MAC has molded theirs in-situ with the rest of the fuselage.
wise, the ICM is also nicer, although both have different representations
for the "instrument panel". The MAC consists of p/e and "film", while
ICM's is a decal. However, the differences don't stop there. Detail wise
the MAC consists of three "dials", while the ICM's decal is quite busy.
I'm not sure which one is more accurate. The ICM kit has molded in cockpit
detail, while the MAC does not. In addition, the inside of the MAC fuselage
halves will have to be thinned and "squared off"; out of the box it unfortunately
has a rounded shape to the insides.
Fuselage/cockpit winner is definitely ICM.
According to the SM plans both wings are short in span 1mm; however,
MAC provides the "riblets" in between the normal ribs. Point to MAC. On
the other hand, ICM molded in the location for the compass - and include
a piece of clear plastic to represent this compass. Point to ICM. Regardless,
both wings suffer from large ribs and thick trailing edges. All in all
both kits are tied in the wing department.
Both kits suffer from too small tail surfaces. The ICM tailpieces show
a little more finesse and are thinner - but one of my horizontal tails
is short-shot. Plus, the ICM rudder comes closest to representing the
distinctive shape of the Fokker Eindecker rudder. Again, ICM wins in the
tail surfaces departments, especially
since they provide a separate "tube" that the horizontal tail pieces slot
into, which gets installed as the fuselage halves are put together. Huge
score for ICM.
Cowl and Engine
The MAC cowl is overly thick, has a lot of flash in and around the cooling
holes, and is missing the distinctive brace at the front of the cowl.
The engine is nothing but a blob of plastic, only representing an engine
in the shape area.
The ICM cowl is nicely cast, has very little flash and is quite thin.
The engine is very nice, accurate and molded in two halves to ensure the
detail is consistent across cylinders.
ICM definitely excels in this area.
As far as the smaller details are concerned, ICM wins hands down. All
struts and the like are very fine and relatively too scale. The landing
gear area is a piece of art and is relatively complete. The MAC struts
are extremely clunky and thick, and are missing some distinctive items
that make up their uniqueness.
Unfortunately the ICM guns are much too thin and will need to be replaced.
The MAC guns consist of the barrel only, which gets glued into an opening
that "kind of" represents the rest of the gun.
Instruction wise, it's split 50/50. ICM's are better laid out and more
"professionally" drawn, but lack rigging information. MAC comes not only
with rigging drawings, but what appear to be scale drawings as well. In
addition their scheme drawings are small pieces of art. ICM's scheme drawing
is just - well - there.
To me it's obvious that ICM is the comparison winner. MAC is just too
"clunky" while ICM's E.IV shows more finesse. In fact, I can see why they
split the fuselage into three pieces - the detail is better with it molded
this way. In addition, you can pick up two ICM E.IVs for the cost of one
MAC. ICM offers excellent value for the money.