Jump to content

Zoukei-Mura F-4D, corrected fuselage?


Recommended Posts

i don't know, but i'm absolutely sure that there was no change made to the fuselage tooling. i'm not even sure if Z-M have acknowledge yet the shape issue of the aft fuselage of theirs F-4 kits.

let's hope they improve it for their long nose phantom series...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

In the mean time, Hypersonic Models has a correction set for it....

 

I would never buy such an expensive kit just to correct it with tons of work needed for the correction. I know that this correction set is great (in fact all their products are superb) but I just will not spend that time. 

Edited by EagleAviation
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, EagleAviation said:

Does anyone know if they have corrected the aft fuselage in their newest release, F-4D SWS48-7? 

 

 

You mean a correction to the most accurate rear fuselage ever done in plastic of an F-4?

Two years later nobody has ever shown thats its actually wrong ie conclusively from a post that pointed out an error off a test shot subsequently corrected.

We have bedn shown test shots, opinions and discussion but no hard evidence what so ever.

Plenty of opinions photos etc but no measurements conclusively showing anythng other than it is definitely the most accurate F-4 ever released in any scale.

All we have proven is the Hasegawa and Academy kits are wrong in the rear fuse by quite some margin however it hasnt stopped anyone admiring them for 25 years and around 8 years respectively.

When you can stand beside the real thing with a kit fuselage in hand and compare the two and scratch your head going where is the error it aint worth fixing something that aint broke.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dehowie said:

 

You mean a correction to the most accurate rear fuselage ever done in plastic of an F-4?

Two years later nobody has ever shown thats its actually wrong ie conclusively from a post that pointed out an error off a test shot subsequently corrected.

We have bedn shown test shots, opinions and discussion but no hard evidence what so ever.

Plenty of opinions photos etc but no measurements conclusively showing anythng other than it is definitely the most accurate F-4 ever released in any scale.

All we have proven is the Hasegawa and Academy kits are wrong in the rear fuse by quite some margin however it hasnt stopped anyone admiring them for 25 years and around 8 years respectively.

When you can stand beside the real thing with a kit fuselage in hand and compare the two and scratch your head going where is the error it aint worth fixing something that aint broke.

 

 

 

So you are saying McD's cross section loft drawings are actually wrong? At least that's what I went with - scaled to 1:48, printed and made templates. The fuselage was backed with plastic sheet on the inside and I sanded right through the ZM plastic and even my backing sheets have become really thin after I was finished.

And where was Hasegawa's fuselage proven wrong? Offering the templates up to the Hasegawa fuselage revealed quite a good match, right between Academy's too anaemic shape and ZM's to fat shape.

 

Whether or not the shape error is important to you or whether or not you think its worth fixing, or buying a correction set, is another matter and entirely up to the individual, but the fact is the error is there and it's quite substantial and even ZM themselves have said there is a problem and they will do it differently for the long nose Phantoms.

 

Jeffrey

Link to post
Share on other sites

G’day Jeffrey,

the Hasegawa and Academy fuselages where proven conclusively incorrect in the ZM firestorm of photos and comparisons which went up 12-14 months ago.

There was a particulary good topic going at HS with numerous comparison images they clearly showed fsr bigger issues on Academy and Has.

Both have incorrect shoulder curves that start in the wrong place, flare incorrectly and are far worse than both reality and the ZM kit.

The shape of both are incorrect in numerous aspects and the one thing proven was that ZM was the closest of the three in photos.

I find it a bit hard to believe your great eye cannot see the blatantly incorrect curves of either of those two kits.

So which MD drawings are you using in your correction set and how are they showing the correct shoulder curve etc above the engines at the various stations?

Any error is so subtle that to me standing beside an F-4S at the Palm Springs museum with the plastic half in hand was invisible to my eye.

Now if you feel you can identify an error and then expand that to the point you feel it needs correction as you said that is up to you.

 

PS i can be as retentive as the best when it comes to shapes and can spot subtle problems quite easily. Hence why i have bought plenty of your resin.

To me the international rule of convenience and the law of diminishing returns apply quite well to all these F-4 kits.

How about someone does a proper fuselage correction for the Monogram or HB F-105 kits which need fixing to get the look correct of the aircraft rather than at best a subtle change of shape?

 

Edited by dehowie
Link to post
Share on other sites

The loft drawings can be found at aviationarchives.blogspot.com , there are several versions, but all are essentially the same, at least in this area.

 

I don't remember right now which station this template corresponds to, it could be FS453? But the deviation was greatest in this area.

Zoukei Mura original:

ZM%20Original.jpg

During correction:

ZM%20Fuselage.jpg

Nearly finished:

Template2.jpg

 

The ZM plastic is 1.2mm thick - I went right through and then some into my backing plastic. I also used a template further forward (I think it was FS414) and then blended everything to match the rest of the ZM fuse, with many pics as reference.

 

The same template in the same position here on the Academy kit fuselage:

Academy%20fuselage.jpg

 

You see, way too much slope above the engine shoulders.

 

Same template in same position on Hasegawa fuse:

Hasegawa%20fuselage.jpg

 

Yes, not perfect, but out of the box the best of the three.

 

From the exhausts back, the ZM is by far the best rendition. Academy is awful in the tail area.

 

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dehowie say's: 'When you can stand beside the real thing with a kit fuselage in hand and compare the two and scratch your head going where is the error it aint worth fixing something that aint broke."

 

Well, I've stood by (within the last WEEK to be exact), real F-4's, but before, I photographed it, and posted it after the Zoukie-Mura kit was released and, the people that will spend boatloads of $$$ on an incorrect cockpit and say that the so and so kit is incorrect can't see that the Zoukei-Mura fuselage a$$ end ain't FUBAR just blows my mind! Accuracy of the outside of the F-4 should be the most important part, right?

 

And, besides the photo's Jeffrey posted above, who "PROVED" the Hasegawa, and Academy rear fuselage cross sections were so wrong? What's more, who has "PROVEN" that the Zoukei-Mura fuselage is more accurate? Sign In Now

Fact is, the Zoukei-Mura F-4C,D,J, and S rear fuselage portion that Jeffrey has provided a correction set for is, WRONG... Believe it or don't, it's no big deal to me, but telling Jeffrey that his conclusions are wrong is ridicules! I know, the Zoukie-Mura fuselage a$$ end is wrong, so I will correct it with and without the Hypersonics correction sets, because the rest of the kit is, very well done!

 

 Dehowie, why don't you show us the "PROOF" you so vehemently know, like, put up or shut up, that the Zoukie-Mura fuselage is "more accurate or correct" than any other kit!"

Further more Dehowie, you MUST have stock in Zoukei-Mura to defend this with such passion, and as you profess, being a "professional photographer," I don't understand your inability to see the problem that is right in front of you!

 

Well done Jeffrey, your work is right on, and no drought you won't be able to keep the correction set for the Zoukie-Mura F-4C,D,J, and S in stock due to the ones with a keen eye that, know what a real F-4 looks like!

Edited by Incaroad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that Z-M themselves would have just stood their ground on that shape, if they believed in it as strongly as some of the fans seem to.

Instead, they have decided to correct that area on their long-nosed Phantoms when they release those kits.

Sorry guys, but when tooling corrections get promised by a model manufacturer, that means that the guys that examine an area, decide it is off, and then say so in public,,,,,,,,are actually correct in saying so.

Y'all will know for sure, when F-4J Z-M models start showing up sometime in the future,,,,,,built with Z-M front fuselage halves and Z-M F-4E rear fuselage halves Kit-bashed together into one great model, with the shapes right on the nose end, and the rear end,,,,,,in one model. (same people said "shut up" when Academy pooched the nose,,,,,which is now today "proven wrong" when a new tool comes out by Z-M)

 

This is posted by a guy that likes the Z-M kit a lot,,,,,,,,,but, sorry,,,,,,,,,,,,,an error is an error.

 

Just like Larry,,,,,,,,,,,I can walk right up to a US Phantom in 1/1 scale,,,,,,,,,,take posterboard and make a shape template,,,,,,and shrink it down to 1/48 and lay that on a Phantom plastic model,,,,,,,,,any day of the week. Shrug,,,,,,, it is an F-4C,,,,,,,but that area only changed for the Spey birds, after all.

 

Rex, not paid by nobody to do or say nuthin',,,,,,,,,just tryin' to drag accuracy into the 2000's, and not let it stay stuck in the '50's.

 

 

Edited by Rex
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 2:00 AM, Incaroad said:

Dehowie say's: 'When you can stand beside the real thing with a kit fuselage in hand and compare the two and scratch your head going where is the error it aint worth fixing something that aint broke."

 

Well, I've stood by (within the last WEEK to be exact), real F-4's, but before I, photographed it, and posted it after the Zoukie-Mura kit was released and, the people that will spend boatloads of $$$ on an incorrect cockpit and say that the so and so kit is incorrect can't see that the Zoukei-Mura fuselage a$$ end ain't FUBAR just blows my mind! Accuracy of the outside of the F-4 should be the most important part, right?

 

And, besides the photo's Jeffrey posted above, who "PROVED" the Hasegawa, and Academy rear fuselage cross sections were so wrong? What's more, who has "PROVEN" that the Zoukei-Mura fuselage is more accurate? Sign In Now

Fact is, the Zoukei-Mura F-4C,D,J, and S rear fuselage portion that Jeffrey has provided a correction set for is, WRONG... Believe it or don't, it's no big deal to me, but telling Jeffrey that his conclusions are wrong is ridicules! I know, the Zoukie-Mura fuselage a$$ end is wrong, so I will correct it with and without the Hypersonics correction sets, because the rest of the kit is, very well done!

 

 Dehowie, why don't you show us the "PROOF" you so vehemently know, like, put up or shut up, that the Zoukie-Mura fuselage is "more accurate or correct" than any other kit!"

Further more Dehowie, you MUST have stock in Zoukei-Mura to defend this with such passion, and as you profess, being a "professional photographer," I don't understand your inability to see the problem that is right in front of you!

 

Well done Jeffrey, your work is right on, and no drought you won't be able to keep the correction set for the Zoukie-Mura F-4C,D,J, and S in stock due to the ones with a keen eye that, know what a real F-4 looks like!

Thank you!

exactly my thought...

and the most ridiculous of all...is that Z-M WILL CORRECT the aft fuselage on their long nose phantoms... 

 

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, galfa said:

Hopefully ZM will correct also the shape of the upper front fuselage just down the windshield.

 

What's the problem there (genuinely curious)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully ZM will remove all those ejector pin marks from places that can’t be seen on the assembled kit. Those ejector marks are totally inaccurate, they are not on the real jet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, habu2 said:

Hopefully ZM will remove all those ejector pin marks from places that can’t be seen on the assembled kit. Those ejector marks are totally inaccurate, they are not on the real jet. 

 

Oh CRAP! I just bought an F-4S kit. Now what am I going to do????? Maybe I can sell it. Sure as hell unbuildable. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites

the short nose and the long nose are not the same in that area. as Z-M got it (pretty close)right on their short nose phantoms, they'll have to change  it on their long nose, because there is a difference in between both (like shown in that post here by MoFo) ...but i wouldn't call that "to correct", they'll need to tool new parts, because those parts are different.

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2018 at 11:21 PM, dehowie said:

 

You mean a correction to the most accurate rear fuselage ever done in plastic of an F-4?

Two years later nobody has ever shown thats its actually wrong ie conclusively from a post that pointed out an error off a test shot subsequently corrected.

We have bedn shown test shots, opinions and discussion but no hard evidence what so ever.

Plenty of opinions photos etc but no measurements conclusively showing anythng other than it is definitely the most accurate F-4 ever released in any scale.

All we have proven is the Hasegawa and Academy kits are wrong in the rear fuse by quite some margin however it hasnt stopped anyone admiring them for 25 years and around 8 years respectively.

When you can stand beside the real thing with a kit fuselage in hand and compare the two and scratch your head going where is the error it aint worth fixing something that aint broke.

 

 

You know the two of us often go at it like two tomcats in a cardboard box (pun?), but when your right I'll tell you so!

     Awhile ago, I found a set of Royal resin unslatted parts for the Hasegawa Phantom. So I drug out the one Hasegawa Phantom I own. That kit is like a Lindberg kit compared to a ZM Phantom. I have looked at the Academy kit several times, and just can't see all that much of a leap forward. Some will say hey I can fix them with after market. Bet you butt you can, or can you really? If you do, your looking at a minimum of $130, and probably a little more. 

       When you first open the ZM box, you instantly see and feel quality. Quality that you wish some of the other vaunted brands would discover. Yet Everytime we get a shape issue or some other glitch the same four or five club members chime in; even though Gaston is long gone.

Gary to

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2018 at 2:39 AM, EagleAviation said:

Does anyone know if they have corrected the aft fuselage in their newest release, F-4D SWS48-7? 

 

 

Going back to this question, here are a few pictures. I too am curious about the answer. Sorry, didn't want to open the bags just yet. 

 

IMG_6827.JPG

 

IMG_6824.JPG

 

IMG_6826.JPG

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...