Jump to content

Zoukei-Mura 1/48 F-4G officially announced


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Mr.Happy said:

Dave Williams,


If I may, pertaining to the ZM E kit is an example of a “Hard Wing’’ E model Phantom. 
 

The Kurnass (Heavy Hammer) derivative has / had the ‘’Slated Wing. ‘’
 

Hope that was a simple answer to your question?

 

Take care,  keep building, and have a Happy Thanksgivings holiday weekend,

 

Mr. Happy 

As Scout712 already said the early Israeli F-4E were hard wing versions so can be built from the current Zoukei-Mura F-4E offering. Here is one example, note it is already fitted with the MIDAS gun fairing:247603472_2446419218824914_8295392596965168110_n.jpg.43252ed0dc247f636a7b2dc472df2a4a.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RichB63 said:


TtWPjYy.jpg


LPoBuYl.jpg


Additional work will be required to close these gaps.

 

This is where the new Meng kit offers an advantage, with its one-piece fuselage. 
 

So each kit has it's pros and cons: the spine area, cockpit outline, splitter-plate stand-off's, exentended or optional slat position, belly strap, tail thickness, etc. And they both closely resemble a F-4G, at least they do to me. Just build the one you like best. I'll try my luck with the Meng kit unless everyone is dumping their Hasegawa G's and I can pick one up cheap 😁.

Link to post
Share on other sites


The tail antenna looks good: properly proportioned and positioned atop the tail…a marked improvement over the Hasegawa G in this area:

ublBH9t.jpg

 

 

The chin pod looks good too, at least to my eye…again, an improvement over the Hasegawa predecessor:

ECMWlRb.jpg
 

 

Edited by RichB63
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr.Happy said:

Dave Williams,


If I may, pertaining to the ZM E kit is an example of a “Hard Wing’’ E model Phantom. 
 

The Kurnass (Heavy Hammer) derivative has / had the ‘’Slated Wing. ‘’
 

Hope that was a simple answer to your question?

 

Take care,  keep building, and have a Happy Thanksgivings holiday weekend,

 

Mr. Happy 


All IAF F-4Es are called “Kurnass”, ever since they got the very first one in 1969, and prior to the Yom Kippur War, they were all hard wing.  After the war, they started upgrading their hard wing aircraft to slatted wings, as well as newer deliveries from the US coming with the slatted wing.  I believe what you are thinking of is Kurnass 2000, which is an upgrade program.  The Kurnass 2000 program didn’t have anything to do with the slatted wing, it was mostly a life extension program with additions to make it more effective in the fighter-bomber role.  Most, if not not all IAF F-4Es had been converted to slatted wing before the Kurnass 2000 program came alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for giving a simple quick abbreviated answer to your question Dave Williams & Nebbor Lol.

 

To clarify I did not say you could not produce a Israeli F-4E “Hard Wing from the ZM kit.

 

 That being said, should anyone that has the ZM F-4E kit and want to build an early representation of an Israeli F-4E they could. Their build could theoretically cover (exact dates vary from June to September the 5th depending on the source of references. ) 1969 when the Israeli’s took possession of their F-4E’s. Many NOT all, of the Israeli Early F-4E’s had the early Gun Blast Diffuser. 
 

For the purposes of this thread I am not going to get into every part and parcel  or update of what was included into or on those early Israeli F-4E’s. I’ll leave that up to who ever is building a representation of an early Israeli F-4E to research. 
 

A recommendation for further research is:

Airtime Publishing’s book on the F-4 Phantom, (I.S.B.N. 1-880588-31-5) McDonnell F-4 PHANTOM Spirit in the Skies, Editors: Jon Lake & David Donald

 

Warbird Tech Series Vol.8 McDonnell Douglas F-4 Gun Nosed PHANTOMS, By Kris Hughes & Walter Dranem

 

Of course the Internet will have a veritable cornucopia of reference on the F-4 Phantom. 

 

The Kurnass 2000 project was initiated in 1980 fist flight July 15th 1987. They were built with a ‘’Slated Wing.’’ Should anyone want to look up or resource more information have at it. 
 

Have a Safe and Happy Thanksgiving weekend folks,

 

Mr. Happy

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s be clear, you did say (or at least clearly implied), that you couldn’t build a Kurnass from the early F-4E kit.  One poster said he wanted to do a Kurnass.  I replied why can’t you use the early F-4E kit?  Your reply was 

Quote

 

The Kurnass (Heavy Hammer) derivative has / had the ‘’Slated Wing. 


That statement was incorrect.  Kurnass was the name for the all the Israeli F-4Es, regardless of which wing or gun muzzle.

 

If you are really interested in the Kurnass, there are a number of good references:

 

The Double Ugly two volume set The Kurnass in IDF/AF Service.  Vol 1, 1969-1988, and Vol. 2, 1989 - Today

 

Isradecal Aircraft in Detail #4 F-4E Kurnass in IAF Service

 

Isradecal Mini Photo Album #5 The One Squadron F-4E 1969-1989

 

For YKW era, try:

 

Ghosts of Atonement, Israeli F-4 Phantom Operations during the Yom Kippur War.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ thank you so much for the response, there was one I didnt have and  just now ordered, thanks!!

I guess I again will speak of my dream....an out of the box F-4E(S) Peace Jack, at least I have resin noses for someday

Edited by DarkKnight
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are misinterpreting what I am typing hear. 

 

To help clarify No I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE EARLY ISRAELI F-4E’s WERE CALLED ANYTHING OTHER THAN KURNASS (Which means ‘Heavy Hammer’)

 

The confusing was probably by me using the word Derivative (Ex; something that is based on another source) 

While I appreciate your enthusiasm on the subject of the Kurnass I have enough references on the Phantom and the country’s that flew the St. Louis Slugger, Smokey Joe, Double Ugly, Rhino, Tomb, Kurnass, Eisenschwein (Iron Pig), Flying Anvil, Flying Brick, Flying Footlocker, Worlds Leading Distributor of MIG Parts :thumbsup: etc.

 

You take care,

 

Mr.Happy 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkKnight said:

back to the Z-M G, does anyone else think the spine seam is rather large and unacceptable? I mean maybe for Revell, but this is Z-M

 

The small gaps either side of the ZM spine were easily filled on my J build with a smear of PPPutty… just project the adjacent robot detail with a little tape. 
 

K

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

I have built 3 of the Z-M F-4s (working on the 4th) and once the fuselage is glued securely and the center spine inserted there are no gaps.  It leaves a nice panel line.  

Geoff M

 

Concur with Geoff, I have also built 3 ZM F-4s and just checked all 3 of them from the display shelf and no gap at all on that spine.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike_45 said:

 

Concur with Geoff, I have also built 3 ZM F-4s and just checked all 3 of them from the display shelf and no gap at all on that spine.  

5 hours ago, Geoff M said:

I have built 3 of the Z-M F-4s (working on the 4th) and once the fuselage is glued securely and the center spine inserted there are no gaps.  It leaves a nice panel line.  

Geoff M

 

 

Now, Now that's not what we do here, we have to dismiss it without even building the kit first...  

 

That being said, I'm off to smoke some turkeys.  Happy Thanksgiving Everyone 

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

but I saw pictures of the gap in this thread, it was there wasnt it?

 

Look at the photos again. The fuselage halves are simply taped together, and you can see gaps between the two halves. This would of course leave larger than normal gaps on the insert, especially when you consider it's loosely put in place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
29 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

Not sure the relevance of a video about the Meng kit in a ZM thread.  There are two other threads on the ZM kit.

So ZM in a Meng thread is OK, the other way around isn't. And you COMPLETELY missed the point of this video, unless you did't care to watch it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... Well, so, basically this guy, more or less known in "scale modeling internet" likes kits easy to build in terms of fit and building speed, canion-wide panel lines, allowing to apply wash easier etc....
...while many other people prefer kits more challenging during construction phase, with more subtle detail, and more accurate at the same time.
"As long as it looks like the thing..." I hear this tune often lately... 😉

It's just his personal opinion, and choice, to be respected, but it's not any sort of "revealed truth" or objective truth. This personal statement doesn't really add any value to discussion here.
Plus, discussion about accuracy in case of model kit is rather natural for people, who do not satisfy themselves building OOB.

I always choose ZM over Meng 😉 . Although to be honest, for now I just wait for Tamiya move...

Edited by MRF
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nebbor said:

So ZM in a Meng thread is OK, the other way around isn't. And you COMPLETELY missed the point of this video, unless you did't care to watch it...

Take it easy, Dave is being perfectly polite and having an opinion is kind of the whole point of a forum.

Marc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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...