Richard J Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I haven't heard anything about the Tan model F-4E. Totally ignorant about that! I'm more of a short nosed Phantom guy, but I'll keep an eye open for that. It's a funny thing with F-4s, but there are quite a few kits that are most certainly "fat", and it's odd that it keeps happening. I was disappointed with the Tamiya not just because the rear fuselage has a similar problem (although not quite as bad) as the Z-M, but also because the intake shoulders are located too high, which leads to a slab sided fuselage and a spine that is too shallow. The Z-M has that same problem, and it just looks a bit chunky. The shape of the pilots canopy could be better, too. It's great that they can engineer kits of such high technical quality. And let's face it, the Z-M F-4 does look like a Phantom. I was going to say that a little extra research would have paid off, but they've almost sold out of them, so what do I know! It doesn't make the Hasegawa, Academy, or Monogram kits obsolete, which I suppose is a good thing in some ways. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Incaroad Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 It appears to me that ZM may have used a British Spey engined Phantom to size up that misshapen rear end of the C,D,J,S. I'm sure there are skeptics about that too. Cheers Larry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chek Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 That would be weird Larry, although I've seen similar comments about the Tamiya 1/32nd kit too. What's especially weird is trying to marry the larger diameter Spey rear end with the comparatively slimline J79 intakes. You have to ask WTF? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phantomdriver Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 The Spey has a host of other differences, bigger/ wider intakes, meaning a BIG difference in fuselage dimensions. Bigger splitter plates, exhaust thrust angle.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Whiskey Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Just to clarify, I haven't been able to conclusively find an answer, the AMT/ERTL F-4J kits are the ESCI or no? Came across a few dirt cheap but don't want to buy something I'll just end up getting rid of later on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ghostbase Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 56 minutes ago, Whiskey said: Just to clarify, I haven't been able to conclusively find an answer, the AMT/ERTL F-4J kits are the ESCI or no? Came across a few dirt cheap but don't want to buy something I'll just end up getting rid of later on. I wish I could give you a conclusive answer however my experience is that the AMT/ERTL F-4 kits are the old ESCI kits from back in the 80's and according to the Scalemates website the AMT/ERTL F-4J kit is the ESCI version. I have the 1989 rebox AMT/ERTL F-4C/D "Mig Killer" #8875 and it is definitely the old ESCI moulding with engraved panel lines. I have build several of these old kits and I love them, nice straightforward builds, the only problems are that the cockpit canopies don't fit too well and the cockpit is very sparse. I managed to get a spare Hasegawa cockpit into one and it worked really well. The Italeri/Testors Phantoms are not good. I have an RF-4C, an F-4E/F and the F-4S and they all have raised panel lines. I tried building the Testors F-4G and it ended up in the bin! Michael Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonbryon Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 On 1/21/2018 at 4:33 PM, Ben Brown said: 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 interested in this claim because, compared to the Hasegawa, I can't see it. I built three Hasegawa F-4s last year, and an Academy. I made an attempt at measuring the rear canopies and I reckoned they were almost the same. Have you got any photos or measurements? I do agree the Academy front canopy is shorter than the Hasegawa one, but it looks to me like the difference is in that fixed centre section, not the rear opening section. I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking someone to point it out to me a little more clearly 🙂 E.g. Hasegawa: Academy: Jon Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, jonbryon said: I do agree the Academy front canopy is shorter than the Hasegawa one, but it looks to me like the difference is in that fixed centre section, not the rear opening section. The sweep of the centre section's front frame in Academy looks too big. This impacts the front canopy of course. Edited March 24, 2019 by Laurent Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Whiskey Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Academy's center section of the canopy definitely looks wider and it is sloped more than the Hasegawa. The question then becomes, which one is correct? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Whiskey said: Academy's center section of the canopy definitely looks wider and it is sloped more than the Hasegawa. The question then becomes, which one is correct? Neither ? Hasegawa's front frame looks too vertical while Academy's looks too swept. Now ZM looks good to me in this area... (source: https://yhnjum.blogspot.com/?view=snapshot) Edited March 24, 2019 by Laurent Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JeffreyK Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 ...except that the ZM canopy centre section is a bit too skinny in length. I think overall, Hasegawa is the closest and ZM comes second. I don't think any Phantom kit on the market has captured the lateral, central bulge of the real canopy (and cockpit) though. But we're entering the esoteric realm now... 🙂 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Incaroad Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 27 minutes ago, JeffreyK said: But we're entering the esoteric realm now... 🙂 Exactly where we need to be Jeffrey! I've installed a set of your well thought out Zoukie Doukie correction pieces and though I haven't completed it yet, it SO adds to that Phantom look! Thanks for your eye! Cheers Larry Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JeffreyK Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Many thanks! Jeffrey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 On 1/21/2018 at 5:33 PM, Ben Brown said: 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. I think Hasegawa is a close second, ahead of Academy, due to the latter's higher initial cost to purchase and the need for additional $$ to fix accuracy issues . F-4S: Z-M. Hasegawa's needs a few mods to be an accurate F-4S, but it builds into a good-looking F-4S. Hasegawa has Air Force-style slats that are incorrect for the S and it's missing some other F-4S-specific details. Not hard to fix, just a little time-consuming. hey Ben, which of the ones you mentioned above has the tail area (near the exhausts) more correct as shapes? thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ben Brown Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 Hi All, I must revise my statement about the rear canopy on the Academy kits. The length is actually very close to that of the Hasegawa canopy. You all are right, it's the center section that is the problem. That's what I get for parroting something I read on the forums without actually checking! Alpagueur, I haven't really compared at that area of the kits. I don't like how Academy has the seam for the parts running right through the stabilator pivot. The best fix for that is to get some of Jeffrey's stabilators and use the photo etched parts to correct that area. Also, I'm now thinking that Hasegawa's F-4J is a slightly better buy than the Z-M kit, and Jeffrey has shown the Hasegawa kit has a better fuselage shape. If you add up how much it costs to bring the Has. kit up to a similar level of detail as the Z-M kit (intakes, cockpit, exhausts, stabs), you actually come out a little cheaper than buying the Z-M kit, especially if you add in the Hypersonic correction parts to get the Z-M kit's fuselage shape right. I think the Z-M kit still needs seats and canopy details, and some exhausts and wheels wouldn't hurt, either. I'll probably eventually sell my Z-M J in favor of the Hasegawa kit, if I ever decide I need a J on my shelf. Cheers! Ben Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Whiskey Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 It's all in the eye of the beholder.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 29 minutes ago, Whiskey said: It's all in the eye of the beholder.... Best comment on kit comparisons ever ! 👍 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
airmechaja Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 And when it comes down to brass tacks, who wouldn't love the craftsmanship by the 3 models displayed above? Great job guys! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ben Brown Posted March 26, 2019 Share Posted March 26, 2019 4 hours ago, Whiskey said: It's all in the eye of the beholder.... This! Ben Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.