Jump to content

ZM F-4 shape issue?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Vodnik said:

Yes, we know. Some of us care, some don't.

 

Exactly and thecmain reason is the errors, if there are any are all significantly smaller than if compared to the other 48th F-4's on the Market.

in short the best 48th F-4 available is ZM dollowed by Academy closely and Hasegawa.

All can give you a great looking 48th F-4.

All we see time and again is people trying to make either a name for themselves(generally bad) raising such small issues that have never been seen in any previous kits simply because noone looked.

The ZM F-4 is a cracking 48th model with incredible detail oob and has been the target of numerous incorrect and innacurate posts.

Tall poppy syndrome at its best.

If your after the best F-4 in any scale on the market just go buy it.

There is NO better F-4 available.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can pick out errors in any kit. There is no perfect kit, PERIOD. I think its funny that people complain about having to drop money for resin pieces to update the tamiya tomcat or zm phantom but wont blink an eye when they do it for hasegawa kits. I have spent money on alot of steel beach, eduard, black box etc that i should be a share holder. Its my choice to do so. I understand that with what we pay for the newest and greatest kits, but i dont think 100% accuracy is ever going to be fully achieved. Yes, tamiya and zm have raised the bar lately but they arent perfect.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dehowie said:

... If your after the best F-4 in any scale on the market just go buy it.

There is NO better F-4 available.

 

 

Well, well, well, in writing these words you show no interest for accuracy. Two very visible areas in the ZM Phantom - the nose and the rear fuselage - are badly mishaped.

 

Shape wise Monogram and Hasegawa are far better, notwithstanding all their issues.

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

Don't discount the Monogram kit. It may have the best shape of all of them, though fit it challenging and the details aren't as good. However, they can be picked up for $10 and turn out quite nice.

1111818_orig.jpg

In 1/72, the Monogram Phantomsare really hard to beat, out of the box. Darren, yours looks phantastic!

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, galfa said:

 

Well, well, well, in writing these words you show no interest for accuracy. Two very visible areas in the ZM Phantom - the nose and the rear fuselage - are badly mishaped.

 

Shape wise Monogram and Hasegawa are far better, notwithstanding all their issues.

I wouldn't say they are badly misshapen. Yes, they are off the mark, but it's not all that noticeable. Now, if you want badly misshapen, the Academy 1/48 F-14's nose is right up there! Also, remember that not everyone has accuracy as their number one concern. For many, including myself, it's the fit and/or detail that I look for. I don't have time to sand and putty if I don't have to. If the shape is close, I'm happy. But that's just me. Others don't care to build a kit because they don't care for the shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm the odd man here. You could probably line up a dozen real Phantoms, Tomcats, or Spitfires, and all would vary a little bit. Molds change, dies wear out, just as machinery changes from day to day. I'm getting tired of listening to the so called arm chair experts call out this error or that shape issue, so when you can do better let me know!

gary 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something that I just plain don't understand about the online aspect of this hobby.

 

The promise of names like "research center", "hyper", and "fine" in the scale modeling sites all imply a place to look things up, and find accurate info.

 

So, people look over models, post about them,,,,,,,,,,and then 473 people say "I don't see that", and go on a campaign to try and shut people up about those things.

 

Now, mind you, these shape errors that famous people claim that they don't see,,,,,,,,,are unimportant, supposedly. BUT, at the very same time, people want to know the exact load carried by an aircraft at 1:24 PM on an exact date. Or they want to get the shape of the font just right for the tail codes on an aircraft that may have only been photographed once. And at the same time,,,,,,heaven help any company that gets the thickness of a kit's nose wheel wrong. (the airframes can vary from kit to kit,,,,,,,,but, omg, NOT the tires and wheels)

 

If eight companies make a paint color to match a standard chip, you might get eight different colors,,,,,,,and as long as the label matches the paint the modeler is looking for,,,,,,that is a match, lol.

 

I've got a suggestion for the people that are always saying they "can't see that" when someone points out a shape or size error,,,,,,,but, it is rude and as unproductive as their constant typing. It is veryyyyy ironic to see one of those same people use the word fanboy in discussions of real aircraft, sometimes. (because some of them are "instant fanboys" of any new kit, regardless of the shape or in one famous case, the scale)

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

 

Well, well, well, in writing these words you show no interest for accuracy. Two very visible areas in the ZM Phantom - the nose and the rear fuselage - are badly mishaped.

 

Shape wise Monogram and Hasegawa are far better, notwithstanding all their issues. 

indeed, for years that member have make it personal to deny any kit's inaccuracies. it's not that he shows no interest in accuracy, he dislike those who wanted accurate kits (i mean "shapewise") and always come along in any thread in regards of a kit accuracies just to post something like " those intake are correct" and so on... 

luckily for US, there is other members than " dehowie" here, so, in the end, you might find valuable information...because he mostly, if not always, got it wrong in regard of accuracy... makes me begin to think that he might better stated a modeling club for blind people ...no one there will contradict him.

 

 

 

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rex said:

There is something that I just plain don't understand about the online aspect of this hobby.

 

The promise of names like "research center", "hyper", and "fine" in the scale modeling sites all imply a place to look things up, and find accurate info.

 

So, people look over models, post about them,,,,,,,,,,and then 473 people say "I don't see that", and go on a campaign to try and shut people up about those things.

 

Now, mind you, these shape errors that famous people claim that they don't see,,,,,,,,,are unimportant, supposedly. BUT, at the very same time, people want to know the exact load carried by an aircraft at 1:24 PM on an exact date. Or they want to get the shape of the font just right for the tail codes on an aircraft that may have only been photographed once. And at the same time,,,,,,heaven help any company that gets the thickness of a kit's nose wheel wrong. (the airframes can vary from kit to kit,,,,,,,,but, omg, NOT the tires and wheels)

 

If eight companies make a paint color to match a standard chip, you might get eight different colors,,,,,,,and as long as the label matches the paint the modeler is looking for,,,,,,that is a match, lol.

 

I've got a suggestion for the people that are always saying they "can't see that" when someone points out a shape or size error,,,,,,,but, it is rude and as unproductive as their constant typing. It is veryyyyy ironic to see one of those same people use the word fanboy in discussions of real aircraft, sometimes. (because some of them are "instant fanboys" of any new kit, regardless of the shape or in one famous case, the scale)

Thank You REX

one of the very valuable members here... thank you to come and give us some real facts.

i miss the time that forum was the place for the modelling geeks, full of experts(first hand experience) where we could find something else than goodenuff trolls

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rex said:

There is something that I just plain don't understand about the online aspect of this hobby.

 

The promise of names like "research center", "hyper", and "fine" in the scale modeling sites all imply a place to look things up, and find accurate info.

 

So, people look over models, post about them,,,,,,,,,,and then 473 people say "I don't see that", and go on a campaign to try and shut people up about those things.

 

Now, mind you, these shape errors that famous people claim that they don't see,,,,,,,,,are unimportant, supposedly. BUT, at the very same time, people want to know the exact load carried by an aircraft at 1:24 PM on an exact date. Or they want to get the shape of the font just right for the tail codes on an aircraft that may have only been photographed once. And at the same time,,,,,,heaven help any company that gets the thickness of a kit's nose wheel wrong. (the airframes can vary from kit to kit,,,,,,,,but, omg, NOT the tires and wheels)

 

If eight companies make a paint color to match a standard chip, you might get eight different colors,,,,,,,and as long as the label matches the paint the modeler is looking for,,,,,,that is a match, lol.

 

I've got a suggestion for the people that are always saying they "can't see that" when someone points out a shape or size error,,,,,,,but, it is rude and as unproductive as their constant typing. It is veryyyyy ironic to see one of those same people use the word fanboy in discussions of real aircraft, sometimes. (because some of them are "instant fanboys" of any new kit, regardless of the shape or in one famous case, the scale)

Seems like this is a never-ending debate, doesn't it? Since it's deja vu, I'll post what I always post when this discussion comes up. The bottom line is passion. If you are passionate about a subject, you'll see errors where others won't. I agree Rex that you've got people who want to know the exact loadout at a certain time but don't worry about accuracy of shape. I also agree that no one should be shouted down or told to be quiet. We all get enjoyment out this hobby in different ways. Different things are important to us. There are those on both sides that try and push their view by being the loudest. I would say they are the small minority. I would also add that there might be a touch of ego involved as well. If they have knowledge about a certain subject, it can be very tempting to expound on that knowledge in a less than tactful way. If someone disagrees, big deal! Life goes on. In the end, there is room for everyone, from those that love Starfix kits (wait, are there any of those?) to those that don't build a thing because they can never find a kit where the shapes are exactly like the line drawings they own (don't laugh, there's a guy in my club who's like that!). Now, I have to get back to decaling a certain 1/72 RA-5C Vigilante. It's almost done Rex!

Edited by Darren Roberts
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are some people that are the ones that keep me going online to see what the talk is about each day.

 

The other kind get a bit overwhelming sometimes.

 

We have some members, on all of these sites, that are getting up there in years,,,,,,we need to be able to read guys like Gary, talk about Chu Lai, and all of the other guys that do that for us,,,,,,without the static in the background.

 

".......love Starfix kits"?,,,,got a build I'll do for you, Darren,,,,,a 1/72 Starfix kit, with extremely modern decals (and a cockpit swap), and using modern paints and finishing products. Heck, it is even a Navair aircraft.

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

 

".......love Starfix kits"?,,,,got a build I'll do for you, Darren,,,,,a 1/72 Starfix kit, with extremely modern decals (and a cockpit swap), and using modern paints and finishing products. Heck, it is even a Navair aircraft.

I can't wait!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ohh, wait a second, Darren,,,,,,,,,,,,that Starfix kit will have to wait just a bit.

 

I walked over to the bench (yeah, I really do have one, lol), and saw the VA-43 Tiger sitting there waiting for primer.

 

Since that is a "build brother" for your VF-21 Scooter,,,,,I think I better finish it first.

 

Then I will work in the Starfix Surprise (Hasegawa Quality Kit). I'll just sweep some Phantoms and Skyhawks aside with my arm, to make room for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rex said:

ohh, wait a second, Darren,,,,,,,,,,,,that Starfix kit will have to wait just a bit.

 

I walked over to the bench (yeah, I really do have one, lol), and saw the VA-43 Tiger sitting there waiting for primer.

 

Since that is a "build brother" for your VF-21 Scooter,,,,,I think I better finish it first.

 

Then I will work in the Starfix Surprise (Hasegawa Quality Kit). I'll just sweep some Phantoms and Skyhawks aside with my arm, to make room for it.

Woohoo!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rex said:

 

 

Then I will work in the Starfix Surprise (Hasegawa Quality Kit). I'll just sweep some Phantoms and Skyhawks aside with my arm, to make room for it.

 

 

You NEVER NEVER NEVER sweep a Phantom aside!!!!!!!!

 

What the heck !!!!!!!! Did your Mom not give you enough hugs as a child???????

 

What is thjs world coming too????

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, Phantom

 

So very sorry bud,,,,,,,,,,,but the Phantom is my SECOND favorite aircraft type.

 

Scooters is "all it" for me,,,,,,I can't help it. Then Phantoms, then Crusaders (sorry Tom), then Intruders (sorry Gerry), then the "Nifty Fifties" jets,,,,,then 'Raiders, then Harriers (sorry fellow Ace of Spades), then, umm,,,,,,,,all the rest of Navair types, with Tomcats (sorry Darren) and the two Hornets coming in last.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...