Jump to content

Hmmmm, Meng 1/48 F-4G?


Recommended Posts

On 11/30/2022 at 10:49 AM, serendip said:

Weapons and decal options on the Meng are very tempting however. Might splurg and get both just for that.

Any non-Meng provided pictures of the Meng around anyone?

 

Thanks,

Marc.

Meng doesn't have the best track record as far as the accuracy of their ordnance.  I own two of their Super hornet kits and all of their older ordinance sets.  Some of them look great, some are cartoon renditions of the real thing.  Their GBU-12s and AIM-54s are terrible.  AIM-7s are great.  Aim-9s are OK.  Markings are pure fiction on most of their sets.

Edited by sigtau
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, RichB63 said:

A curate’s egg…parts of it are very nice.

Exactly my impression a well. Meng has captured the subtle bulge around the cockpit centre, some surface detail is really very nice and sharp (esp. on the wings). The cockpit detail is comparable to ZM (or better, e.g. throttles) but lacking in some areas. The nozzles are quite good out of the box, better than ZM.

But the panel lines and other surface detail on the fuselage is rather big and chunky, the tail section is, hmmm, urgh. The joint between fuselage and lower wing in the engine area is a bit awkward. The stabilators are pretty bad as well.

A number of details are missing or wrong (belly strap, underwing access panels, splitter plate brackets...). 

The available photos of the build-ups suggest some fit issues in the wing to fuselage area.

 

On the other hand they do give you PE parts for the cover plates, pre-cut canopy masks and lots of ordnance (Standard AGM-78...).

J

Edited by JeffreyK
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2022 at 9:46 AM, phasephantomphixer said:

UGH, looks like Mung is no answer to the ZM question.

Could you remind me of the "ZM question" to which you refer,  please?

 

Is the question based on your assertion that you:

Quote

"find the wingtip RHAW ant. misshaped, are slats only as deployed?, upper taper of chin pod larger than chin pod, 370 tanks tilted too much, aft part of splitter top and forward lower angled too much, intake probes located too far down, 600 gal. tank bogus raised details, Nose wheels in too far, oversized antenna behind canopies (canopies themselves quite nice), and toughest to correct, vert. stab too thick

?

Appers you haven't gotten the ZM kit, nor will you be getting the Meng. That taints your continued/continuous Phantom kit bashing. :rolleyes:

 

Gene K

 

Edited by GeneK
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mirage3 said:

 

Any suggestions about what's bad things and how bad is overall :whistle:


Based off the sprue tour video linked to above…


Likes:

- one piece fuselage 

- overall surface detail and textures

- complete air intake ducting 

- landing gear, speed brakes and cockpit 

- self-adhesive pre-cut masks

- raised weld detail on fuel dump

- it’s a Phantom!

 

Dislikes:

- forward wingtips misshaped

- no wing strap

- belly access panels wrong for USAF F-4’s

- wing tank pylon breech detail incorrectly “handed”

- separate air conditioning panel on LH side

- stabilator arrowhead reinforcements

- missing antennas on vertical stab

- grooved heat shield 

- windshield piece not “built into” fuselage 

 

Many of these weaknesses are eminently fixable (or dismissed, depending on your tastes), either through aftermarket replacements, should they be forthcoming, or homemade remedies like parts modification/substitution and scratch building. I rather enjoy the latter and, were it not for a Zoukei Mura Golf kit already in my possession, I would pick up one of these Meng offerings in a heartbeat, as it easily outclasses the competition from the 1980’s, at least in many important respects.

 

Edited for spelling and grammar 

 

Edited by RichB63
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, GeneK said:

Could you remind me of the "ZM question" to which you refer,  please?

 

Is the question based on your assertion that you:

?

Appers you haven't gotten the ZM kit, nor will you be getting the Meng. That taints your continued/continuous Phantom kit bashing. :rolleyes:

 

Gene K

 


Gene,

 

As we’re all aware, the Phantom, like the Mustang and Messerschmitt 109, is a popular and well researched aircraft. It is therefore subject to heightened scrutiny from modelers, especially subject matter experts like phasephantomphixer. I’ve learned a great deal from this member’s posts (as I have from yours) and I can understand his disappointment when highly anticipated kits that show so much promise and potential let us down in key areas and, confoundedly, miss the mark so obviously.
 

If that’s kit bashing, then so be it. Oftentimes, the criticism is deserved, or at least understandable.

 

Rich

 

Edited by RichB63
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RichB63 said:


Based off the sprue tour video linked to above…


Likes:

- one piece fuselage 

- overall surface detail and textures

- complete air intake ducting 

- landing gear, speed brakes and cockpit 

- self-adhesive pre-cut masks

- raised weld detail on fuel dump

- it’s a Phantom!

 

Dislikes:

- forward wingtips misshaped

- no wing strap

- belly access panels wrong for USAF F-4’s

- wing tank pylon breech detail incorrectly “handed”

- separate air conditioning panel on LH side

- stabilator arrowhead reinforcements

- missing antennas on vertical stab

- grooved heat shield 

- windshield piece not “built into” fuselage 

 

Many of these weaknesses are eminently fixable (or dismissed, depending on your tastes), either through aftermarket replacements, should they be forthcoming, or homemade remedies like parts modification/substitution and scratch building. I rather enjoy the latter and, were it not for a Zoukei Mura Golf kit already in my possession, I would pick up one of these Meng offerings in a heartbeat, as it easily outclasses the competition from the 1980’s, at least in many important respects.

 

Edited for spelling and grammar 

 

 

Thanks for the list 👍 So it's plenty of room for Jeffrey K. resin stuff 😅

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, GeneK said:

Could you remind me of the "ZM question" to which you refer,  please?

 

Is the question based on your assertion that you:

?

Appers you haven't gotten the ZM kit, nor will you be getting the Meng. That taints your continued/continuous Phantom kit bashing. :rolleyes:

 

Gene K

 

"ZM question" was hoping the Meng kit was more a Tamiya F-4 kit than ZM.

 

You state that I must own these kits to call out what issues I see in posted photos? Did I read that right? 

Only continued/continuous posting I have done is in response to these odd responses.

If you don't see the issues of the areas pointed out GREAT, go enjoy your kit. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RichB63 said:


Gene,

 

As we’re all aware, the Phantom, like the Mustang and Messerschmitt 109, is a popular and well researched aircraft. It is therefore subject to heightened scrutiny from modelers, especially subject matter experts like phasephantomphixer. I’ve learned a great deal from this member’s posts (as I have from yours) and I can understand his disappointment when highly anticipated kits that show so much promise and potential let us down in key areas and, confoundedly, miss the mark so obviously.
 

If that’s kit bashing, then so be it. Oftentimes, the criticism is deserved, or at least understandable.

 

Rich

 

 

But it's no excuse for being condescending and putting people down as in:

If you don't see the issues of the areas pointed out GREAT, go enjoy your kit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, serendip said:

 

But it's no excuse for being condescending and putting people down as in:

If you don't see the issues of the areas pointed out GREAT, go enjoy your kit. 

Wait, how did you read that as such? Putting someone down?

How about we go back and ask why these accusations and aggression for pointing out kit issues?

If you don't agree, so be it. On and on...geez

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JackMan said:

The meng kit somehow seems to lack the finesse of the Zoukei-Mura kit.

Im not sure if having to putty and rescribe a kit is finesse.

 

I would like to see a build photo of the ZM long nose F-4 family that is built up without needing putty or other such filler in the spine and on the nose.

Until then the ZM long nose F-4s are not that great, not as good as what you would expect a ZM kit to be when you know the short nose Phantoms.

 

Having said that however, I have built their He219 now, which was an amazing kit that was on a level all of its own so I can understand why the fan boys of ZM will not allow anybody to talk ill of the long nose phantoms inspite of all the evidence that has now been stacked against them towards their build up not being what you would expect.

 

I would like to see how the Meng kit builds up. It has its faults but I wonder if those faults are not as bad as those on the ZM kit are when you actually build it.

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...