steveski

Zoukei-mura 1/48 F-4J Phantom II

157 posts in this topic

 

To piggyback on Ben Brown's post...

 

Not really a 1/48 scale builder myself but I have examined the Academy F-4B & F-4J parts.  Does anyone else think the central windshield piece is a bit too wide for the Academy Phantoms?  I compared with a Hasegawa F-4 and Hasegawa's seems to be closer to the real thing than the Academy one.

 

http://www.cybermodeler.com/special/phantom2.shtml

Academy:

http://thumbs4.picclick.com/d/w1600/pict/191421090811_/ACADEMY-1-48-Aircraft-Vietnam-War-USAF-F-4C-Phantom.jpg

vs real:

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Phantom/Images/F-4E_7315.jpg

 

Academy's  windshield just looks too wide and too rounded to my eye.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here are some issues with the Academy kit:

  • Nose A/C intake wrong shape and wrong position (too low)
  • radome joint line is vertical where on the real one it should be perpendicular to the radome centreline, which is pointing downwards
  • canopy proportions wrong - front one too short, rear one too long and too narrow, very thick plastic, possible issue with armoured glass part
  • scribing on main wing tops not correct for the "B" version
  • lower wing part has "wobbly" surface on the thick wing versions (never established whether it's a tooling or manufacturing issue)
  • horizontal stabilators (both slotted and unslotted) have wrong proportions of the painted vs. unpainted areas and many completely fictional panel lines
  • slotted stabilators have got the leading edge connecting tabs perpendicular to the leading edge, while they should be in line with the airflow
  • tail section between the stabs ill-shaped - it should be a smooth shallow curve in plan view with vertical sides, the kit has all sorts of shapes going on there and is a bit too thin as well
  • refuelling probe door position a bit off, missing refuelling light
  • aft cockpit bulkhead should be vertical, not slanted in line with the ejection seat rails 
  • no Mk. H5 seats contained in the kit (although for a '71/72 VF-111 the H7 seats are likely correct)

For me, the stabilators, tail, canopy and A/C intakes are the biggest visible issues.

Jeffrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

Ok, here are some issues with the Academy kit:

  • Nose A/C intake wrong shape and wrong position (too low)
  • radome joint line is vertical where on the real one it should be perpendicular to the radome centreline, which is pointing downwards
  • canopy proportions wrong - front one too short, rear one too long and too narrow, very thick plastic, possible issue with armoured glass part
  • scribing on main wing tops not correct for the "B" version
  • lower wing part has "wobbly" surface on the thick wing versions (never established whether it's a tooling or manufacturing issue)
  • horizontal stabilators (both slotted and unslotted) have wrong proportions of the painted vs. unpainted areas and many completely fictional panel lines
  • slotted stabilators have got the leading edge connecting tabs perpendicular to the leading edge, while they should be in line with the airflow
  • tail section between the stabs ill-shaped - it should be a smooth shallow curve in plan view with vertical sides, the kit has all sorts of shapes going on there and is a bit too thin as well
  • refuelling probe door position a bit off, missing refuelling light
  • aft cockpit bulkhead should be vertical, not slanted in line with the ejection seat rails 
  • no Mk. H5 seats contained in the kit (although for a '71/72 VF-111 the H7 seats are likely correct)

For me, the stabilators, tail, canopy and A/C intakes are the biggest visible issues.

Jeffrey

Are all these issues absent in the Zukei-mura kit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, flybywire said:

Are all these issues absent in the Zukei-mura kit?

...from what I've seen so far, yes. Except of course the issues concerning the B model don't apply.

I think the ZM is the only kit on the market that has the rear cockpit bulkhead correct (even most aftermarket resin cockpits have this wrong). ZM even give you the four tabs between the fuselage and the intake ramps. And engines and the boundary layer outlets on the intake raps....

A build review over on Cybermodeler seems to suggest that it goes together quite well too.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

F-4J%20Tamiya%201-32%20compare%202_zpskg

 

Is the 1/48 Zoukei-Mura correct concerning that area around the exhausts nozzles? (a Phantom guy directed me to the problem of the Tamiya kit but I can not understand well so I was wondering if the Aacdemy and ZM kits are more accurate in that specific area... TIA for any help)

 

img_085b004.jpg

img_086b003_08.jpg

Edited by Alpagueur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2016 at 3:19 AM, JeffreyK said:

Ok, here are some issues with the Academy kit:

  • Nose A/C intake wrong shape and wrong position (too low)
  • radome joint line is vertical where on the real one it should be perpendicular to the radome centreline, which is pointing downwards
  • canopy proportions wrong - front one too short, rear one too long and too narrow, very thick plastic, possible issue with armoured glass part
  • scribing on main wing tops not correct for the "B" version
  • lower wing part has "wobbly" surface on the thick wing versions (never established whether it's a tooling or manufacturing issue)
  • horizontal stabilators (both slotted and unslotted) have wrong proportions of the painted vs. unpainted areas and many completely fictional panel lines
  • slotted stabilators have got the leading edge connecting tabs perpendicular to the leading edge, while they should be in line with the airflow
  • tail section between the stabs ill-shaped - it should be a smooth shallow curve in plan view with vertical sides, the kit has all sorts of shapes going on there and is a bit too thin as well
  • refuelling probe door position a bit off, missing refuelling light
  • aft cockpit bulkhead should be vertical, not slanted in line with the ejection seat rails 
  • no Mk. H5 seats contained in the kit (although for a '71/72 VF-111 the H7 seats are likely correct)

For me, the stabilators, tail, canopy and A/C intakes are the biggest visible issues.

Jeffrey

 

Thank you, this is useful. Do all of these issues carry over to 1/48 Academy F-4C/D? I tried to verify these on the online pics of the C kit I have seen. Except for the refueling probe (obviously) and the A/C scoops (seemed correct to me on the C), it seems that all the above issues are there on the C? If not, can someone elaborate the issues with the C kit? I am trying to decide whether to pull the trigger on the Academy kit or wait for ZM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Janissary said:

 

Thank you, this is useful. Do all of these issues carry over to 1/48 Academy F-4C/D? I tried to verify these on the online pics of the C kit I have seen. Except for the refueling probe (obviously) and the A/C scoops (seemed correct to me on the C), it seems that all the above issues are there on the C? If not, can someone elaborate the issues with the C kit? I am trying to decide whether to pull the trigger on the Academy kit or wait for ZM.

 

 

Wait for the Z-M kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2016 at 10:44 AM, flybywire said:

Are all these issues absent in the Zukei-mura kit?

 

Adding to what J said above, here is what is known to have happened during the development of the Z-M F-4 kit.

 

The Z-M team acquired every possible kit of the F-4 available from each manufacturer that produced one. After spending several months studying photos, drawings and measurements of the real aircraft, then comparing them to each of the available kits, they found roughly 50 items that were incorrect on all of the kits combined. They addressed each issue during the design phase to ensure they would not be present on their kit. The result of that is arguably the most accurate representation of the F-4 Phantom in any scale produced to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Z-M team plan for another variant e.g C/D/E version after this release?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, musangpulut said:

Does Z-M team plan for another variant e.g C/D/E version after this release?

They will be releasing a "S" model next, which iirc will be released early '17. I've read elsewhere on the Interweb that after the "S" will be the "C/D" models.

Edited by madmanrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Janissary said:

 

Thank you, this is useful. Do all of these issues carry over to 1/48 Academy F-4C/D? I tried to verify these on the online pics of the C kit I have seen. Except for the refueling probe (obviously) and the A/C scoops (seemed correct to me on the C), it seems that all the above issues are there on the C? If not, can someone elaborate the issues with the C kit? I am trying to decide whether to pull the trigger on the Academy kit or wait for ZM.

 

So far, all Academy Phantom kits (B, C/D, J) share many common plastic runners and I haven't seen any change or modification to them. The A/C scoops are on the runner with the outer wing parts, main intakes, radome parts and cockpit tub and as far as I can tell, they look exactly the same in all kits. Same goes for all the other issues. I'm not saying it can't be build into a great model (I've seen some stunning Phantoms based on the Academy kit), but if you strive for accuracy, you need to invest a bit into aftermarket (hint hint...) and/or some elbow grease and patience to deal with the issues.

But as Dave said, so far the ZM kit seems to be Top Dog among all Phantom kits. 

I believe it will be down to sales and finance how far they will go with their Phantom Phamily. They only ruled out a thin wing, but hinted at being up for doing the Spey Phantoms last. That would be surprising though as this would require a complete new tooling of fuselage and wings.

 

Jeffrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeffreyK said:

 

. They [ZM] only ruled out a thin wing, but hinted at being up for doing the Spey Phantoms last.

 

What??? That's definitely not what I was told by the ZM reps at the US Nationals as they specifically mentioned a B/N. I heard nothing at that time about the Spey Phantoms, but they did hint at an E model if sales of the J/S and C/D were good.

 

Gene K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last blog entry .. #89, near the bottom, states that  S will be next....  , then C/D E, F G then SPEY finally..

 

I wish people would just look at it, instead of reiterating the  same questions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, phantomdriver said:

I wish people would just look at it, instead of reiterating the  same questions...

 

:crying:

 

Gene K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, phantomdriver said:

Never rule out  the Spey version... ZM have always surprised everyone with their choices....

I've said this before and I think it bears repeating. If the sales are good, I really can't see Z-M NOT doing the thin wing Phantom II's. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Now conversely, Z-M wouldn't be the first company to make plans for something only to realize that the sales just aren't there to support those plans. While I know the interest is there for accurate J, S, C/D and E models, I don't know how far that will go when it comes to the F and G models, since they have much more limited marking options (hence appeal), than the aforementioned versions. That's why if it were MY company, I would start like Academy did, with the early models and work up to the later versions. But...well do I need to say it? It ain't mine.

Edited by madmanrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, madmanrick said:

I've said this before and I think it bears repeating. If the sales are good, I really can't see Z-M NOT doing the thin wing Phantom II's. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Now conversely, Z-M wouldn't be the first company to make plans for something only to realize that the sales just aren't there to support those plans. While I know the interest is there for accurate J, S, C/D and E models, I don't know how far that will go when it comes to into the F and G models, since they have much more limited marking options (hence appeal), than the aforementioned versions. That's why if it were MY company, I would start like Academy did, with the early models and work up to the later versions. But...well do I need to say it? It ain't mine.

"It ain't mine...."

 

You just answered it in a nutshell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, madmanrick said:

I've said this before and I think it bears repeating. If the sales are good, I really can't see Z-M NOT doing the thin wing Phantom II's. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Now conversely, Z-M wouldn't be the first company to make plans for something only to realize that the sales just aren't there to support those plans. While I know the interest is there for accurate J, S, C/D and E models, I don't know how far that will go when it comes to into the F and G models, since they have much more limited marking options (hence appeal), than the aforementioned versions. That's why if it were MY company, I would start like Academy did, with the early models and work up to the later versions. But...well do I need to say it? It ain't mine.

 it's because, when you have tooled the required parts to do a "E" you got 99.5% of the job done to get a a proper "F"... and 90% of the "G".   ...and for the limited marking options, that didn't prevent Hasegawa from doing numerous luftwaffe F-4F boxings (germans surely have done as much special scheme Phantoms as the japanese did...which is a lot...) 

Edited by mingwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phantomdriver said:

the last blog entry .. #89, near the bottom, states that  S will be next....  , then C/D E, F G then SPEY finally..

 

I wish people would just look at it, instead of reiterating the  same questions...

 

So to "reiterate" (:rolleyes:) - ZM will not produce a B/N?

 

Gene K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mingwin said:

 it's because, when you have tooled the required parts to do a "E" you got 99.5% of the job done to get a a proper "F"... and 90% of the "G".   ...and for the limited marking options, that didn't prevent Hasegawa from doing numerous luftwaffe F-4F boxings (germans surely have done as much special scheme Phantoms as the japanese did...which is a lot...) 

Obviously, it is much easier to get to the F & G, when you've already done an E model. However, when I said "limited marking options" I meant that the F was only flown by the German Air Force and the G only by the USAF. It isn't like the E, which was flown at various times by Australia, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Israel, South Korea, Turkey and the USAF, with many of those Air Forces still flying them (at least for a little while), so obviously that model will have WIDE appeal around the world and many more marking options (in terms of Countries and NOT individual squadron options).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phantomdriver said:

if the B/N ain't mentioned... NAY!

So I guess that you have inside information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Ben and Jeff for the list. Food for thought.

 

I'm more interested in E/G models so I'll wait to see what comes next from Z-M and Academy 

Share this post


Link to post
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