Jump to content

1/48 - McDD F-4J + (UK) & S Phantom II by Zoukei-Mura - released - Quinta Studio cockpit set


Homebee

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Masinissa said:

The crease that starts at the engine intakes still goes too far back.

The crease is one face of the coin, the engine bulge that fades too late is the the other.

 

ZM: the problematic area is between the 2nd and 5th line. Cross-section is two convex curves attached together.

zmF4S.jpg

 

The cross-sections should have rather be a convex-concave-convex curve. Illustration on the Academy kit.

academyF4J.jpg

 

The problem with the ZM rear fuselage cross-section is that there's hardly any concave area. The rear fuselage "has shoulders".

Edited by Laurent
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DIO said:

I guess this one has the corrected fuselage cross section, right?

 

I was wondering how long it would take before the first whack on the dead horse would occur. You didn't disappoint.

 

Gene K

Edited by Gene K
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Nocoolname said:

But... it 'looks' like a Phantom... ? :confused:

The overall impression is F-4 Phantom, but if you look closely is becomes "Phantomish".  It's not like the Trumpeter, Monogram, or Hobbycraft P-40 which have serious shape issues - sure they "look like a P-40", but now we have the Airfix P-40 so . . . 

 

ZM has the best overall Phantom in 1/48 and I'll still build my Eduard boxings of Academy's F-4B/C/J. 

 

There is a correction set being worked on for the incorrect ZM fuselage. I've purchased A-6 Intruder and Academy Phantom correction and enhancement sets from Hypersonic Models so I know his work will be perfect (and easy to use).

 

I'm planning on buying this F-4J and the F-4S from ZM. Already have their first F-4J and it's worth the price. Really if Tamiya produced this kit it would be $100, so $75 for a modern state of the art F-4 model kit is a bargain. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gene K said:

 

I was wondering how long it would take before the first whack on the dead horse would occur. You didn't disappoint.

 

Gene K

I expected it would have been fixed.  Apparently it didn't. How am I to blame for? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gene K said:

 

I was wondering how long it would take before the first whack on the dead horse would occur. You didn't disappoint.

 

Gene K

Nails scratching on a chalk board........

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DIO said:

I expected it would have been fixed.  Apparently it didn't. How am I to blame for? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

 

11 hours ago, DIO said:

I expected it would have been fixed.  Apparently it didn't. How am I to blame for? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

No Tamiya kit is 100% perfect, or any kit for that matter. So why should ZM be any different? They still have the best Phantom on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Scooby said:

 

No Tamiya kit is 100% perfect, or any kit for that matter. So why should ZM be any different? They still have the best Phantom on the market.

It depends on what is "the best" for you.

Regardless of the details, an error in the basic structure - form  (it is the fuselage we are talking about) for me is a no-go issue.

I wouldn't really enjoy the situation where after spending a year to super detail something, I end up with a model that is having such an obvious shortcoming.

But this is just me...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2018 at 15:57, Laurent said:

The crease is one face of the coin, the engine bulge that fades too late is the the other.

 

ZM: the problematic area is between the 2nd and 5th line. Cross-section is two convex curves attached together.

 

 

The cross-sections should have rather be a convex-concave-convex curve. Illustration on the Academy kit.

 

 

The problem with the ZM rear fuselage cross-section is that there's hardly any concave area. The rear fuselage "has shoulders".

 

If McD's own loft drawings are anything to go by (and at least I went with them) then the Academy fuselage is off at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. too lean, sloping away too much. The closest match is the Hasegawa fuselage. My correction set is at an advanced stage, but I need my full tool and work shop equipment to arrive in Japan before I can complete the masters.

 

J

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still feel love and affection for the old Hasegawa F-4E... By the way, still waiting for a good replacement (yes, I know I keep whinging like an old goat)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have a closer look on the ZM Phantoms when they release an F4F / RF4E. Together wich a correction of the rear fuselage, this will most probably be what I will do.

I really value the efforts and dedication ZM is putting into this project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

 

If McD's own loft drawings are anything to go by (and at least I went with them) then the Academy fuselage is off at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. too lean, sloping away too much. The closest match is the Hasegawa fuselage.

I wasn't taking the Academy as a "quantitative reference" ("convex part 1 has radius of cuvature A° and arc is B-long, concave part has radius of cuvature C° and arc is D-long, convex part 2 has radius of cuvature E° and arc is F-long") but as a "binary reference" (Academy rear fuselage cross-section has a convex-concave-convex profile as almost any F-4 kit, the ZM just doesn't). I didn't have a Hasegawa kit on hand at the time the photos were made. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Laurent said:

I wasn't taking the Academy as a "quantitative reference" ("convex part 1 has radius of cuvature A° and arc is B-long, concave part has radius of cuvature C° and arc is D-long, convex part 2 has radius of cuvature E° and arc is F-long") but as a "binary reference" (Academy rear fuselage cross-section has a convex-concave-convex profile as almost any F-4 kit, the ZM just doesn't). I didn't have a Hasegawa kit on hand at the time the photos were made. 

Eh?!?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2018 at 10:54 PM, DIO said:

I expected it would have been fixed.  Apparently it didn't. How am I to blame for? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

Why would you expect it to be fixed on this kit?  

On 6/15/2018 at 4:43 PM, DIO said:

I still feel love and affection for the old Hasegawa F-4E... By the way, still waiting for a good replacement (yes, I know I keep whinging like an old goat)

I too am waiting a new F-4E/G etc. Hopefully ZM's F-4E series will be even better than the F-4J/S etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Calum said:

Why would you expect it to be fixed on this kit?  

 

Because of the work Great Wall Hobbies have done correcting glaring errors made in their F-15 kits and their Mig-29 kit (the keel was wrong in the initial release, but you could hide this with the centerline drop tank). Great Wall retooled the fuselage and fixed the problem! Then Eduard took a big financial loss (at first) when they threw out their original Bf-109G (2014?) and then went back and retooled a whole new kit. They fixed their error and tooled a Bf-109G that is a really quick fun build.

 

Now because of this the expectations are changed in the high end modeling community. ZM's fuselage shape issue seems like it should be a simple fix with a low cost initial investment loss. The error is confined to one sprue - unlike the Great Wall F-15 and Eduard Bf-109G.

 

Come to think of it the Kinetic F/A-18 family has seen numerous molding tool tweeks to make their F/A-18 and real accurate kit. IIRC Kinetic has retooled the tails in their kit since the initial release had shape issues.

 

This is why it's now expected that errors by manufactures are corrected. It also builds trust and brand loyalty. 

 

I'm far more likely to buy kits from a company that stands behind their products and works to make their models better.

Edited by Masinissa
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Masinissa said:

Because of the work Great Wall Hobbies have done correcting glaring errors made in their F-15 kits and their Mig-29 kit (the keel was wrong in the initial release, but you could hide this with the centerline drop tank). Great Wall retooled the fuselage and fixed the problem! Then Eduard took a big financial loss (at first) when they threw out their original Bf-109G (2014?) and then went back and retooled a whole new kit. They fixed their error and tooled a Bf-109G that is a really quick fun build.

 

Now because of this the expectations are changed in the high end modeling community. ZM's fuselage shape issue seems like it should be a simple fix with a low cost initial investment loss. The error is confined to one sprue - unlike the Great Wall F-15 and Eduard Bf-109G.

 

Come to think of it the Kinetic F/A-18 family has seen numerous molding tool tweeks to make their F/A-18 and real accurate kit. IIRC Kinetic has retooled the tails in their kit since the initial release had shape issues.

 

This is why it's now expected that errors by manufactures are corrected. It also builds trust and brand loyalty. 

 

I'm far more likely to buy kits from a company that stands behind their products and works to make their models better.

And yet those 2 examples are still exceptions to the rule.

 

And I'd argue those, like yourself, who expect (as oppose to wish) for a manufacturer to re tool a kit to correct an error are in the minority. Especially if the kit is selling well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Calum said:

And yet those 2 examples are still exceptions to the rule.

 

And I'd argue those, like yourself, who expect (as oppose to wish) for a manufacturer to re tool a kit to correct an error are in the minority. Especially if the kit is selling well.

I don't expect any manufacture to retool and correct errors. So you're assumption isn't correct. However you imply that those who "wish" for errors to be corrected are somehow more reasonable than those who "expect" errors are corrected. Just because a kit is "selling well" - i.e. popular - then those in the minority should keep quiet, be polite, then buy and eat the cold porridge. Sorry, but wall meet porridge.

 

I'm more likely to buy kits from manufacturers who correct glaring errors. It demonstrates their own commitment to achieving excellence. I'll never buy a Kittyhawk Banshee (cuz it sucks and they won't ever fix it), however it's just a matter of time before Trumpeter/Hobby Boss takes a shot at tooling one. If they get it closer to looking like a Banshee then boom - they have my dollars. 

 

I have the Hobby Boss A-6 Intruder overall an excellent kit, but it needs the top of the tail reshaped and early bang seats. Do I expect Hobby Boss to correct this? No. Do I expect ZM to retool their F-4 fuselage? No.  (In both cases it's Hypersonic Models to the rescue!:yahoo:)

 

It will be excellent if ZM, after measuring and scanning a real F-4E, doesn't make the same mistake with the rear fuselage. Afterall they will be tooling a new sprue for the longnose Phantom.

 

There are far more than 2 exceptions to the rule when kits glaring errors are corrected. Looking at you Tamiya Meteor! (New wing sprue)

 

Of course I've always wanted a decent 1/48 Lily. Hasegawa isn't pumping out kits the way they have in the 1990s, so AZ Models stepped up. However their kit had a very misshapen nose. This is business. They sold those kits for almost $80. I'm not buying it. However recently they revisited their kit and made a new clear sprue which corrected the problems with the nose. Nice job AZ Models! So I took my hard earned dollars and bought that kit. What really impressed me was - without being asked - they offered this correction set as a stand alone item. :cheers: Trumpeter's 1/32 Su-27 was a real mixed bag. There are very expensive correction sets by Zactoman. Now made moot because Trumpeter fixed most of the problems in the Su-27 kit and in so doing they made a fantastic 1/48 Su-27. Remember the 1/32 F4F Trumpeter fiasco? It was a botched kit and when people refused to buy it Trumpeter retooled it. It's a shame that the kit has such a bad rep now and no one has given it a second look. But I win because they sell on eBay for 1/3 of the MRSP! 

 

(Note to Plastic Model Makers: If you make kits that don't require a huge investment in aftermarket corrections then there will be more money modelers have to spend buying your kits! Please don't be a company that has Caveat Emptor as the mission statement. :doh:)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Masinissa said:

I don't expect any manufacture to retool and correct errors. So you're assumption isn't correct. However you imply that those who "wish" for errors to be corrected are somehow more reasonable than those who "expect" errors are corrected. Just because a kit is "selling well" - i.e. popular - then those in the minority should keep quiet, be polite, then buy and eat the cold porridge. Sorry, but wall meet porridge.

No it's more like being realistic.  And you did use the word expectation in your original post.    

Quote

 

I'm more likely to buy kits from manufacturers who correct glaring errors. It demonstrates their own commitment to achieving excellence. I'll never buy a Kittyhawk Banshee (cuz it sucks and they won't ever fix it), however it's just a matter of time before Trumpeter/Hobby Boss takes a shot at tooling one. If they get it closer to looking like a Banshee then boom - they have my dollars. 

I'm more likely to buy kits from people that get it right (or close to it) first time.. but I get your point.

Quote

 

I have the Hobby Boss A-6 Intruder overall an excellent kit, but it needs the top of the tail reshaped and early bang seats. Do I expect Hobby Boss to correct this? No. Do I expect ZM to retool their F-4 fuselage? No.  (In both cases it's Hypersonic Models to the rescue!:yahoo:)

I'll be interested to see the correction for the F-4.  Is it going to be a whole fuselage? 

Quote

 

It will be excellent if ZM, after measuring and scanning a real F-4E, doesn't make the same mistake with the rear fuselage. Afterall they will be tooling a new sprue for the longnose Phantom.

Lets hope so. I'm much more interested in the long nose variants

Quote

There are far more than 2 exceptions to the rule when kits glaring errors are corrected. Looking at you Tamiya Meteor! (New wing sprue)

 

Of course I've always wanted a decent 1/48 Lily. Hasegawa isn't pumping out kits the way they have in the 1990s, so AZ Models stepped up. However their kit had a very misshapen nose. This is business. They sold those kits for almost $80. I'm not buying it. However recently they revisited their kit and made a new clear sprue which corrected the problems with the nose. Nice job AZ Models! So I took my hard earned dollars and bought that kit. What really impressed me was - without being asked - they offered this correction set as a stand alone item. :cheers: Trumpeter's 1/32 Su-27 was a real mixed bag. There are very expensive correction sets by Zactoman. Now made moot because Trumpeter fixed most of the problems in the Su-27 kit and in so doing they made a fantastic 1/48 Su-27. Remember the 1/32 F4F Trumpeter fiasco? It was a botched kit and when people refused to buy it Trumpeter retooled it. It's a shame that the kit has such a bad rep now and no one has given it a second look. But I win because they sell on eBay for 1/3 of the MRSP! 

Didn't they just rip of Chris's work?  Again these are a few exceptions.. There are far more Tump/ Hobby Boss kits they've never bothered to fix 

 

 

Edited by Calum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I did use the word expectation(s) in my post but as a description about how many in the modeling community feel. I didn't mean to imply that I expect this. Mine is more a hope.

 

The correction for the ZM fuselage is being done by Hypersonic Models. He's relocated to Japan so it may be a while before these sets are done. The correction is just on the rear and will require some cutting. Hypersonic Models parts quality are at the same level as Eduard's Brassin line. Crisp, clean, well detailed, accurate, and very easy to use. 

Did Trumpeter rip off Chris's work? Well in Hollywood they would say that it's an homage or inspiration! But it did light a fire under someone to retool the kit. Yes there are more than a few Trumpeter kits that will never be corrected. The HB Wildcats in 1/48 are very nice. In fact they're more accurate than the much praised Tamiya kit. From the outside it looks like T/HB have different design teams. The A-Team makes kits with a few nit picks. The B-Team makes kits that can have flaws that may need major/minor surgery to correct (Su-15, Su-24, MiG-17PF, . . ), and then there's the C-Team that would rather be making Egg Planes.

 

I think that there may be a correlation to the popularity of a particular subject and the likelihood it will get the retool treatment. An IAR-80's sales will never justify the cost of retooling. Bf-109s? Well let's just say it's like Eduard's printing money with those kits. Oh and they're making money off Tamiya's Bf-109G with aftermarket items. Win-Win.

 

Now if ZM makes the same shape issue on the F-4E I will still buy the kit, but will have to buy a correction set. I have an old AeroMaster sheet waiting for a proper F-4E. Then there's those Japanese F-4E/Js . . . 

 

Regards

John

 

Edited by Masinissa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2018 at 9:40 PM, Masinissa said:

Because of the work Great Wall Hobbies have done correcting glaring errors made in their F-15 kits and their Mig-29 kit (the keel was wrong in the initial release, but you could hide this with the centerline drop tank). Great Wall retooled the fuselage and fixed the problem! Then Eduard took a big financial loss (at first) when they threw out their original Bf-109G (2014?) and then went back and retooled a whole new kit. They fixed their error and tooled a Bf-109G that is a really quick fun build.

 

Now because of this the expectations are changed in the high end modeling community. ZM's fuselage shape issue seems like it should be a simple fix with a low cost initial investment loss. The error is confined to one sprue - unlike the Great Wall F-15 and Eduard Bf-109G.

 

Come to think of it the Kinetic F/A-18 family has seen numerous molding tool tweeks to make their F/A-18 and real accurate kit. IIRC Kinetic has retooled the tails in their kit since the initial release had shape issues.

 

This is why it's now expected that errors by manufactures are corrected. It also builds trust and brand loyalty. 

 

I'm far more likely to buy kits from a company that stands behind their products and works to make their models better.

Revell made all the same errors GWH did and more on their F-15E kit, there was never a call to re-tool that kit. Had the GWH kit came out at the same time it wouldn’t have been re-tooled either.

 

Tha Kinetic F-18 wasn’t drastically re-tooled, in fact it still has shape issues. Still a good kit, I worked Hornets and a good friend of mine was instrumental in getting that kit developed.

 

Dont buy the SWS kit then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...