dnl42 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 On 4/11/2018 at 6:35 PM, mawz said: Revell Germany and their bloody mixes of paint nobody uses. Really hard to match a mix based on a paint line you can't buy most anywhere with non-standard names. The colors in a Revell kit are useless. You have to find an alternate reference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rex Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 Well, Dehowie, this is really simple. If you place three kits of the same subject next to each other, and they are different from each other in spots,,,,at least two of them are wrong. Maybe all three. It doesn't matter which subject aircraft is chosen, 3 kits, not matching, something is wrong on them. When the Academy kit came out, people shouted shut up about the nose and the stabs,,,,,now, since Z-M has a kit, the Academy kit's flaws are a given. (this happens with every new tooling,,,it is "the best", and not to be criticized ,,,until there are newer boxes in shrink-wrap to buy, then that one becomes "best ever" of that subject) I understand the Phantom not having a great, accurate, shape in 1966,,,,,,but, after decades of toolings, in multiple scales,,,,,all one would have to do is correct the criticisms aimed at the other toolings, and hold it up to a gateguard,,,,and the overall shape would be the best ever in the model industry. Then the small details would follow from that. (it also must be realized that if kits are never to be criticized, it is flat out impossible for there ever to actually be a "best kit of ______", deciding that involves criticizing kits) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 53 minutes ago, Rex said: Well, Dehowie, this is really simple. If you place three kits of the same subject next to each other, and they are different from each other in spots,,,,at least two of them are wrong. Maybe all three. It doesn't matter which subject aircraft is chosen, 3 kits, not matching, something is wrong on them. When the Academy kit came out, people shouted shut up about the nose and the stabs,,,,,now, since Z-M has a kit, the Academy kit's flaws are a given. (this happens with every new tooling,,,it is "the best", and not to be criticized ,,,until there are newer boxes in shrink-wrap to buy, then that one becomes "best ever" of that subject) I understand the Phantom not having a great, accurate, shape in 1966,,,,,,but, after decades of toolings, in multiple scales,,,,,all one would have to do is correct the criticisms aimed at the other toolings, and hold it up to a gateguard,,,,and the overall shape would be the best ever in the model industry. Then the small details would follow from that. (it also must be realized that if kits are never to be criticized, it is flat out impossible for there ever to actually be a "best kit of ______", deciding that involves criticizing kits) BINGO! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Neo Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 I feel thete are also some conparasing to previous best kit,i.e hasegawa F-4. but who kbow maybe they had it wrong and zm got it right. But we are so usef to the shape of the hasegawa that all tge other look wrong Just my 2 cents Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 (edited) Jeffrey Kubiak of Hypersonic models and others have already done fairly exhaustive research of this topic and have shown to my satisfaction the inaccuracies of the ZM kit's rear fuselage. It was discussed, along with photos, in earlier threads here on ARC. Here's the thread. 'Nuf said. Edited August 6, 2018 by Mstor additional info 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.