Jump to content

1/48 F-4 Phantom best kits


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, anj4de said:

Do you have a picture of your template held against the fuselage before you started sanding? Should open even the closest eyes...;-)

The ZM kit is so expensive that Jeffrey bought only one so he can't show that anymore :rofl:

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

The ZM kit is so expensive that Jeffrey bought only one so he can't show that anymore :rofl:

 

Since you mentioned RoG before...this is one of my main complaints about for example  ZM that I have...they are bloody expensive! Revell as you said is outsourcing almost everthing and the end results are hits and misses...but the pricing is top! For example their 48 Strike Eagle...best kit around, out of the box just beautiful (if you like Air Force ;-)   ) and the rate is around 30EUR or less. Their latest 1/32 109, 190 and now Mustang are the also regarded as top...some even competing with Tamiya kits that are 100EUR more. If a 30EUR kit has a fault, even more a fixable fault, that's still acceptable. From an 85EUR kit that is hyped like Jesus I expect a lot more. ;-)

Anyway...locking fwd to Jeffrey's solution. I have bought some of his offerings before and they all were spot on! Hypersonic rocks...

 

 

 

Edited by anj4de
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, anj4de said:

Since you mentioned RoG before...this is one of my main complaints about for example  ZM that I have...they are bloody expensive! Revell as you said is outsourcing almost everthing and the end results are hits and misses...but the pricing is top! For example their 48 Strike Eagle...best kit around, out of the box just beautiful (if you like Air Force ;-)   ) and the rate is around 30EUR or less. Their latest 1/32 109, 190 and now Mustang are the also regarded as top...some even competing with Tamiya kits that are 100EUR more. If a 30EUR kit has a fault, even more a fixable fault, that's still acceptable. From an 85EUR kit that is hyped like Jesus I expect a lot more. ;-)

Indeed. When a company adopts a "über kit" marketing approach with high retail price, customers tend to be less forgiving. Hype communication strategy can turn into shooting oneself in the foot.

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

For the Hasegawa ? Academy intakes , just substitute  A2zee intakes..

For the A/C intakes on the Academy , Hypersonic have  a fix, lus a host of upgrade/ corrections for ZM and Hasegawa and Academy...

 

Hi Phantomdriver,

 

I intentionally didn't mention aftermarket, because there are so many options. Based on the photos on their web site, the A2zee intakes for the Academy kit look like they are just copies of the incorrect kit intakes with the seams cleaned up. XMM and DMold make correct intakes for the Academy kit. XMM also provides corrected ACS scoops to replace the too-narrow kit parts. Hypersonic and Steel Beach also sell the corrected ACS scoops.

 

XMM, DMold, and Rhino all make correct intakes for the various Hasegawa Phantoms. Cutting Edge also made some, but they're not as good as the current crop because they are more difficult to install. 

 

GT Resin sells intakes for the Z-M kits. 

 

Gene, here is the link to the discussion on Hyperscale: LINK

 

Cheers!

 

Ben

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

I can't remember who said it, but it was spot on. The Monogram Phantom just has more "Phantomness" than any other kit.

That happened to be me, thank you very much. To my eye the Monogram kit just seems to capture the spirit, the "essence" of the actual aircraft very well. Sure the kit is dated and can use some work to bring it up to a proper state, however that's alright with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ben Brown said:

 

Hi Phantomdriver,

 

I intentionally didn't mention aftermarket, because there are so many options. Based on the photos on their web site, the A2zee intakes for the Academy kit look like they are just copies of the incorrect kit intakes with the seams cleaned up. XMM and DMold make correct intakes for the Academy kit. XMM also provides corrected ACS scoops to replace the too-narrow kit parts. Hypersonic and Steel Beach also sell the corrected ACS scoops.

 

XMM, DMold, and Rhino all make correct intakes for the various Hasegawa Phantoms. Cutting Edge also made some, but they're not as good as the current crop because they are more difficult to install. 

 

GT Resin sells intakes for the Z-M kits. 

 

Gene, here is the link to the discussion on Hyperscale: LINK

 

Cheers!

 

Ben

 

 

XMM intakes for the Academy bird are spot on! Here is where I am right now...ZM and Academy

 

ZM_and_Academy_with_XMM.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

On my Academy F-4B, one XMM intake was basically a quick drop-in fit and the other took an hour of tweaking to get it installed. As usual for my models, there's a good chance that User Error had something to do with that. :whistle:

 

Ben

Edited by Ben Brown
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, anj4de said:

A prime example of what should be done is AMK.

 

To be fair to ZM, AMK didn't acknowledge the issue with their Kfir for ~ 4 years.  Granted, they didn't release further boxings in the mean time, but still, it took a while before it was re-tooled.  

 

And while Eduard re-tooled their -109, AFAIK the real -109 fanatics still consider it to be 'off'.  I'm pretty sure the Zvezda kit is considered to be the most accurate choice in the scale, while eduard's suffers from a few subtle, nitpicky shape issues (not unlike the ZM Phantom - it's nothing major and most people can't see it or don't care, but it is wrong)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Gene K said:

 

Nice. So what are your production plans???? 

 

Gene K

 

Hi Gene,

once ready, I'm going to cut out the reshaped fuselage sides, add mounting lips/tabs and attach a casting block. The replacement parts will be large, but hopefully casting be relatively simple. The set will require cuts through the entire fuselage, but they will be straight and simple, fool-proof cuts, and away from most panel lines.

Let's see how this will go...

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darren,  Once again, you have done some beautiful work on those older plastic kits.  Congrats!

 

Jeffrey, I like your template test.  But, I would not spend that much time sanding a Z-M kit that goes for $75!  I might do it on a Testors-Italeri RF-4B for which I paid $10.  Monogram is still good enough for my current skills, anyway; Hasegawa if I want a B/N. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 6:33 PM, Ben Brown said:

Since you don't mention which version, here are my opinions that I posted when this question came up on Hyperscale last month:

 

F-4B/N: Academy is better than Hasegawa's, due to Academy's scribed panel lines and better detail. Academy needs a few fixes, though. 
F-4C/D: I would say Z-M over Academy, due to the better detail and the accuracy issues detailed below. Hasegawa's is easier to build than Monogram's, but they both have raised panel lines. Monogram's has a better cockpit than Hasegawa's. 
F-4E/F/G: Hasegawa. It will be interesting to see what Z-M and Academy eventually come up with. 
F-4J: Z-M. Academy's is a close second, with Hasegawa's not far behind. 
F-4S: Z-M. Hasegawa's needs a few mods to be an accurate F-4S. Hasegawa has Air Force-style slats that are incorrect for the S. Not hard to fix, just a little time-consuming. 
RF-4B/C/E: Hasegawa. There is no available thin wing RF-4B, but Royale Resin has parts to convert the thick wings. Testors had a 1/48 RF-4C, but it lacks the detail of the Hasegawa kits. I don't know how it stacks up to Hasegawa shape-wise. 
Phantom FG.1/FGR.2: Hasegawa is the only option and they are excellent kits. Just need some cockpit details and intakes. 

Overall, Z-M's kits are probably the best F-4s available. You'd have to buy some aftermarket stuff to bring the others up to the same level of detail that you get out of the box with Z-M. They do have some accuracy issues, such as an odd curvature of the aft fuselage over the engines. This was debated in great detail over on Plane Talking not too long ago. 

Academy's kits are very good, but they need to have the ACS scoops on the side of the nose corrected, and the break between the paint and natural metal areas of the stabilators is in the wrong place. An easy fix for the unslotted stabs, but not so easy for the slotted stabs. Academy provides intakes, but they're not correct. The center section of the front instrument panel needs to be moved forward about 1.5 mm. The rear canopy is too long, so the center section is pushed forward and the front canopy is shortened to make up for it, but it isn't really noticeable unless it's sitting next to Hasegawa kit. I've read that the Hasegawa canopies will fit the Academy kit. I'm not a big fan of the kit seats. Construction is a little fiddly, but the fit is pretty good. 

Hasegawa's F-4s are the easiest to build and are generally accurate, but they need aftermarket cockpits, intakes, and afterburners to bring them up to the same level of detail provided by the Z-M kits. Once you do this, you've paid about as much as you would spend on a Z-M kit. 

 

Cheers!

 

Ben

 

EDIT:  Darren, that ESCI F-4 is gorgeous!

 

Do you like Phantoms  ?

 

Superb overview, much appreciated. I guess I need to fork out for ZM, although it looks like some Academy kits would do.

 

For now I have only the F-4B Good morning Danang reboxed by Eduard with lots of goodies

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm a bit of a lurker, this subject is quite interesting to me, so I'll venture out from beneath my bridge to comment!

 

The Academy mid/rear fuselage is, in my opinion, the most accurate of all. I suspect that they actually 3D scanned the real thing, because the shape is really very accurate. Most manufacturers don't reproduce the slightly bulged sides of the intake, instead making the sides a straight vertical line, which isn't correct. So shape wise I think Academy is best in that department, but of course there are other issues. Aside from the length of the canopies, the centre panel windscreen is too wide. The cooling inlets on either side of the nose are pretty badly misshapen, and need fixing. The fuselage/radome line is too vertical, it should lean forwards a little more than it does. And as others have mentioned, the bare metal parts of the stabs are too narrow. Some of the panel lines are a little off on the fuselage (the hinged panel line where the NAVY marking goes is a little too high where it meets the exhaust).

 

Unfortunately, that rear fuselage error on the Z-M kit just ruins it for me. I can't look at one of those without my eyes going directly to that part of the airframe. A shame really, because otherwise it looks really good. As it is, I think the multiple issues with the Academy are much easier to fix than the single big error on the Z-M kit.

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

once ready, I'm going to cut out the reshaped fuselage sides, add mounting lips/tabs and attach a casting block. The replacement parts will be large, but hopefully casting be relatively simple. The set will require cuts through the entire fuselage, but they will be straight and simple, fool-proof cuts, and away from most panel lines.

Let's see how this will go...

I think I'm in for a set at least. I hope I'll be able to attend Telford to pick it up.

Edited by Laurent
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2018 at 8:23 AM, Ben Brown said:

 

Hi Phantomdriver,

 

I intentionally didn't mention aftermarket, because there are so many options. Based on the photos on their web site, the A2zee intakes for the Academy kit look like they are just copies of the incorrect kit intakes with the seams cleaned up. XMM and DMold make correct intakes for the Academy kit. XMM also provides corrected ACS scoops to replace the too-narrow kit parts. Hypersonic and Steel Beach also sell the corrected ACS scoops.

 

XMM, DMold, and Rhino all make correct intakes for the various Hasegawa Phantoms. Cutting Edge also made some, but they're not as good as the current crop because they are more difficult to install. 

 

GT Resin sells intakes for the Z-M kits. 

 

Gene, here is the link to the discussion on Hyperscale: LINK

 

Cheers!

 

Ben

 

GT Resin also makes intakes for the Academy and Hasegawa Phantoms.   In fact Sprue Brother cannot keep them in stock the are going out so fast.   Making more this week!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ghatherly said:

GT Resin also makes intakes for the Academy and Hasegawa Phantoms.   In fact Sprue Brother cannot keep them in stock the are going out so fast.   Making more this week!

 

 

 

D'oh! I forgot about those! :doh:

 

Ben

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Richard J said:

While I'm a bit of a lurker, this subject is quite interesting to me, so I'll venture out from beneath my bridge to comment!

 

The Academy mid/rear fuselage is, in my opinion, the most accurate of all. I suspect that they actually 3D scanned the real thing, because the shape is really very accurate. Most manufacturers don't reproduce the slightly bulged sides of the intake, instead making the sides a straight vertical line, which isn't correct. So shape wise I think Academy is best in that department, but of course there are other issues. Aside from the length of the canopies, the centre panel windscreen is too wide. The cooling inlets on either side of the nose are pretty badly misshapen, and need fixing. The fuselage/radome line is too vertical, it should lean forwards a little more than it does. And as others have mentioned, the bare metal parts of the stabs are too narrow. Some of the panel lines are a little off on the fuselage (the hinged panel line where the NAVY marking goes is a little too high where it meets the exhaust).

 

Unfortunately, that rear fuselage error on the Z-M kit just ruins it for me. I can't look at one of those without my eyes going directly to that part of the airframe. A shame really, because otherwise it looks really good. As it is, I think the multiple issues with the Academy are much easier to fix than the single big error on the Z-M kit.

 

Sorry, but I totally disagree. Shape wise, the Academy kit is to me the worst of all the offerings (I actually tend to agree that the Monogram kit is the best in that department, followed by Hasegawa. ZM could be top if it wasn't for that fuselage error).

Apart from the issues you listed, the aft fuselage from about half way down to the aft end is bodged. The engine shoulders/bulges always looked a bit too shallow and "soft" to me, but I didn't have any proof. My cross section templates have now confirmed this. Where the ZM kit has too much "meat", the Academy has too little. But worse still, the whole tail end is quite dodgy shape wise. The vertical sides between the stabs should be just that, vertical, narrowing down with a smooth, continuous, gentle curve. Academy's tail is a weirdly shaped diamond, both in cross section and plan view.

And no, I've not come up with this yesterday, I've been saying this for a few years...and the reason why, despite my own upgrade/correction parts, I still haven't build up the full kit. I have adapted a Hasegawa tail end to fit onto the Academy fuselage (hence the cut-off tails in my pictures above), but still haven't gotten 'round to adding the surface detail.

I do acknowledge though that everybody's priorities are different.

J

 

Edited by JeffreyK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeffrey,

 

You are probably right!  To quote my late modeling mentor, Fred Amos, "To build a good kit, you need to start with a good kit. To build a great kit, you need to start with a great kit." 

 

So I commend your bravery, perseverance, and sharing your wisdom with the community in attempting to correct the obvious errors of the Academy & Z-M kits.  And, while everybody's priorities are indeed different, it is a hobby (pastime) after all.  So I try not to go broke spending more time and money fixing a "great" model.  Hence my respect for your bravery.  Anyway, my model skills are atrophied to the point that a "good" model is probably good enough for me right now.  But I am enjoying the shared wisdom of the group.

 

R/

Dutch

Edited by Dutch
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-01-21 at 7:33 PM, Gene K said:

Thanks! Definite difference.

 

So the Academy kit is the most correct according to "other evidence", I gather. If ZM acknowledges and  alters this fuselage section, then good. If not, I'll continue to get the rest of the line above any others out there.

 

Thanks again.

 

Gene K

 

 

No, ZM is still the most accurate. The Academy kit is not without its faults either, especially in the nose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-01-21 at 3:14 PM, Laurent said:

I've taped electrician black tape strips on rear fuselage of an Academy F-4J and a ZM F-4S. It's difficult to match the strips positions perfectly because the breakdown of the kits is different... and because I used Eyeball Mk.1.

 

zmAcadF4.jpg

 

Here's the Academy. You can see that the engine bulge - spine junction crease begins to become a curve at the second strip (convention: 1st strip is towards the front of the fuselage). The fuselage cross-section shape is er... let's say a "stretched S and a half" (convex-concave-convex)

academyF4J.jpg

 

Here's ZM's F-4S. You can see that the engine bulge - spine crease starts to become a curve at the 4th strip. The "stretched S and a half" cross-section shape is really there at the 6th strip. On previous strips, top of engine bulge "disappears too late" so the rear fuselage has "shoulders". Convex-convex cross-section.

zmF4S.jpg

 

 

 

These strips don’t appear to be in the same position. Do they start at the same forward point? They don’t appear to end at the same end point. ZM still has the fuselage insert to add with the circular ends that the burner cans mount to.

 

As well, the fuselage angles aren’t the same. I’d like to see strips added to a real Phantom with photos at the same angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scooby said:

 

No, ZM is still the most accurate. The Academy kit is not without its faults either, especially in the nose.

 

Only when you count the number of faults...when you look at the fixability of the faults the situation looks differenty. Now...once Jeffrey has a replacment section available things again might be different.

The other issue is still the price though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-01-22 at 4:01 AM, anj4de said:

 

Since you mentioned RoG before...this is one of my main complaints about for example  ZM that I have...they are bloody expensive! Revell as you said is outsourcing almost everthing and the end results are hits and misses...but the pricing is top! For example their 48 Strike Eagle...best kit around, out of the box just beautiful (if you like Air Force ;-)   ) and the rate is around 30EUR or less. Their latest 1/32 109, 190 and now Mustang are the also regarded as top...some even competing with Tamiya kits that are 100EUR more. If a 30EUR kit has a fault, even more a fixable fault, that's still acceptable. From an 85EUR kit that is hyped like Jesus I expect a lot more. ;-)

Anyway...locking fwd to Jeffrey's solution. I have bought some of his offerings before and they all were spot on! Hypersonic rocks...

 

 

 

 

I think the RoG F-15E is awesome, although I feel the best F-15 kit on the market is the GWH kit. They have released the F-15 B/D, F-15I, and F-15K in the duals. The original release had the error with the hump behind the dual canopy, which GWH has fixed.

 

That same error is on the RoG kit and has never been fixed.

 

Again, I feel the RoG kit is awesome.

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...