Jump to content

Hmmmm, Meng 1/48 F-4G?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

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.

 

Just curious, do you actually own the ZM kit or basing your criticism off someone else's build? Who said the ZM kit requires putty and re-scribing? I can pretty much bet that for every modeler that has problems with a kit, there is another modeler that doesn't have any issues with the same kit.

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

 

 

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.

 

Here is my Z-M F-4E built in the last month and I did not need any putty to fix any issues.  More pics in the Display Case.  

 

Geoff M

2 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

IMG_1033.thumb.jpg.97e0e9031f31ab9662112fe9b6611247.jpg

 

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

 

Here is my Z-M F-4E

Geoff M

 

That looks great. Phinally somebody who builds a model to draw his conclusions. I am building a 72 scale Sword T-38 at the moment (using your great TopGun decals). The kit is very rare to find but how high was it lifted when it came out. What a great model it was supposed to be. But despite it not being available for sale or trade since years, you rarely find a built model on the net. And it is a beast in my opinion, totally in contradiction to the high praise it received. Putty or not, aren't we model builders or collectors? Where is the fun in the hobby if you cannot put a personal note into a model? No need to get into a barfight over them.

B/r

Michael

BTW, the only detail I'd like to mention about your F-4E is that at the timeframe your model is depicted the 388th flew the ALQ-87 on the right inboard wing station not in the forward AIM-7 well. The 34th TFS directly attached on the inboard pylon the 469th  usually at the bottom station of the TER. Only in 72 or so they started to fly 2xALQ-87 beneath the forward fuselage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

Just curious, do you actually own the ZM kit or basing your criticism off someone else's build? Who said the ZM kit requires putty and re-scribing? I can pretty much bet that for every modeler that has problems with a kit, there is another modeler that doesn't have any issues with the same kit.

Ive built the ZM He 219 kit, I have the Go 229 kit and their F-4D.
 

Yeah you see until you build it you will only be basing your idea on the kit on their other kits which isnt the same thing.

The short nose Phantoms are great, without a single problem, but there are several people who have had problems with the long nose Phantoms

 

Have you built one of the long nose Phantoms youself?

Do you have any photos of the F-4E or F-4EJ of it built up and without any problems with the spine fitting well into the fuselage and the nose sections not going together as well as... well the entire F-4S kit as a for instance?

 

Before you tell me Im wrong and tell me some people might have problems with it have you actually done it yourself? 

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

Ive built the ZM He 219 kit, I have the Go 229 kit and their F-4D.
 

Yeah you see until you build it you will only be basing your idea on the kit on their other kits which isnt the same thing.

The short nose Phantoms are great, without a single problem, but there are several people who have had problems with the long nose Phantoms

 

Have you built one of the long nose Phantoms youself?

Do you have any photos of the F-4E or F-4EJ of it built up and without any problems with the spine fitting well into the fuselage and the nose sections not going together as well as... well the entire F-4S kit as a for instance?

 

Before you tell me Im wrong and tell me some people might have problems with it have you actually done it yourself? 

Have you read the entire 7th page to this thread?  Look four posts above yours for your long sought proof that the zm f-4e can be built without putty.

 

Further before you get so fired up about a kit you havent built and let alone dont even have why dont you try it first?  Tough to take you seriously when you admit you havent tried it and you post in multiple threads about how bad it is.

 

And yes before you ask I have built a zm E, S and D and have a G, E, and S to still be built.  No problems with nose or spine.

 

 

ETA - I will buy and build the meng G and E also.  

Edited by mike_45
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have built neither of the two (Meng vs ZM) F-4s. Several things:

 

- I am of the opinion that, in this day and age, you don't need to have the plastic at hand or build the model yourself to tell if there is something wrong. All of us routinely pass judgements on things we don't physically have, and based solely on photos. 

 

- I have looked into several ZM F-4E WIP builds. There are a few on YT as well. I have to agree with EelctroSoldier that they all seem to have an issue with the spine. Here are two examples: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1R69oHZ16Y

 

https://www.scalemodellingnow.com/aircraft-zoukei-mura-f4ej-kai-phantom2-phantom-forever-2020-build (in this one, look at the posted videos. there are several instances where you can see the spine does not fit all that well)

 

- Photographic evidence is *key*. Just saying that you have built something and it was perfect does not mean much. Everyone's definition of perfect is different. While I love Geoff M's build a ton, there is not enough close up photos of the spine area to make an informed judgement. This is not a slander at Geoff at all, it is just saying that I am still inconclusive about whether it is problematic or not. 

 

I'm myself torn between ZM and Meng. I like the one piece fuselage of Meng, but surface details look much better on ZM. Like everyone else, I am forming my opinions about both kits as we go, but I want to point out that what ElectroSoldier is saying has merit. I think we are quick to dismiss opinions unless the person has the plastic at hand and has built it, but I think this is wrong. Now that I have seen enough pictures that there is a problem with ZM spine (albeit somewhat small in my world), I would love to see close up WIP photos that show it is in fact not a problem. The latter, I have not seen yet.

Edited by Janissary
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive not built it, I dont own any of the long nose Phantoms yet, I would like one to build up in Israeli markings, otherwise Ill end up with the Italeri kit.

However there are now several people I know who have built it and whos modelling experience can not be questioned (or at the very least are very good model makers) who have built it and have had problems with it.

 

Can you post a photo of the build without problems? Because I would like to see how you have put it together and not got the problems many others have.

 

Does this thread mean I will now have to hand my ZM Fanboy badge back in and hang my head in shame?

Edited by ElectroSoldier
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:

 

 

Does this thread mean I will now have to hand my ZM Fanboy badge back in and hang my head in shame?

It does and you should.

 

You have an axe to grind on this subject and thus I'm not going to argue anymore with you.  I had no problem with my builds you watch videos and say theres a problem.  You and I will agree to disagree on this subject.  And in the future I will not dare question the Electrosoldier

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

It does and you should.

 

You have an axe to grind on this subject and thus I'm not going to argue anymore with you.  I had no problem with my builds you watch videos and say theres a problem.  You and I will agree to disagree on this subject.  And in the future I will not dare question the Electrosoldier

I havent got an axe to grind at all, their He219 is an amazing kit, the short nose F-4 was too.

If you dont like my opinion on it I dont really care. Im still going to have it and say it.

 

When I finally get round to getting it then maybe my opinion will change, but for now thats what it is.

 

Edited by ElectroSoldier
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Based off the videos online everything ive seen leaves the Meng kit trailing in quality by a large margin in every aspect.

Panel lines, cockpit detail, burner cans, ejection seats to start.

Where i am and where i shop the Meng kits will be either very close in price or more expensive than ZM so i dont even see the point in a comparison where the ZM kit is so clearly superior.If Meng was half the price there might be a discussion and maybe they will dump them for that in the US but they are not that here nor where i buy most of my kits.

Modelling time is to short to waste on second tier kits when A grade ones exist.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Based off the videos online everything ive seen leaves the Meng kit trailing in quality by a large margin in every aspect.

Panel lines, cockpit detail, burner cans, ejection seats to start.

Where i am and where i shop the Meng kits will be either very close in price or more expensive than ZM so i dont even see the point in a comparison where the ZM kit is so clearly superior.If Meng was half the price there might be a discussion and maybe they will dump them for that in the US but they are not that here nor where i buy most of my kits.

Modelling time is to short to waste on second tier kits when A grade ones exist.

 

 

 

 

 

The Z-M canopy profile, especially in plan view, is so off that it spoils the whole model.

The Meng kit looks a bit rougher in some regards (but the real plane was too!) and to my eye, at least, looks much more accurate in shape. 

I honestly believe that a thoughtfully made Meng will yield a way more accurate result than the Z-M, even though the latter is probably slicker for an airliner type finish.

 

Essentially, we're lucky to have two such good kits to choose from: the last new F-4G came out 37, nearly 38, years ago!

 

Tony 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, tony.t said:

The Z-M canopy profile, especially in plan view, is so off that it spoils the whole model.

Deleted. My post was not in keeping with The Christmas Spirit.

Edited by GeneK
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2022 at 8:02 PM, tony.t said:

 

The Z-M canopy profile, especially in plan view, is so off that it spoils the whole model.

So the solution could be a vac form or clear resin aftermarket canopy. If that's the only problem that should be a quick fix.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SCOUT712 said:

So the solution could be a vac form or clear resin aftermarket canopy. If that's the only problem that should be a quick fix.

Michael

 

Not a solution I'm afraid. Because the canopy is only a symptom, not the disease. The actual problem is that the fuselage around the cockpit is too slim. There is a notable bulge right in the middle, between the fore and aft cockpits and the most visible part of it is the canopy shape. Tamiya has captured it and Meng as well (although to a slightly lesser extent).

A "corrected" canopy would not fit onto the ZM fuselage.

That is also the reason why with canopies in the open position I can live with the error even though I see and know it's there. If there was an easy way to fix it I would (re: short nose aft fuselage correction...) but there isn't, it also affects the cockpit interior, the splitter plates etc. etc. 

But back to the Meng kit in the Meng thread.... 🙂

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2022 at 4:35 AM, GeneK said:

Deleted. My post was not in keeping with The Christmas Spirit.

 

Nothing personal Gene. If you like the Z-M kit, great. 

The Meng looks better to me, if a little rougher and omitting some essential features like the belly strap (but I'm really waiting to see what Red Pills Models does in 1/32 scale). 

I'm building the Meng F-4G next year as a stocking filler and it will need some work, including the strap and stabilator doubler plates, sourcing a long ALQ-184 pod etc. 

 

Happy Holidays

 

Tony  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2022 at 11:25 AM, ElectroSoldier said:

Ive not built it, I dont own any of the long nose Phantoms yet, I would like one to build up in Israeli markings, otherwise Ill end up with the Italeri kit.

 

 

 

Italeri? instead of ZM, if you had a choice you would pick Italeri?

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

 

 

Italeri? instead of ZM, if you had a choice you would pick Italeri?

I dont own the ZM kit.

I am wanting to build an Israeli F-4E and was thinking about the Italeri kit as it comes  with the decals I need and isnt as hard to find as the Hasegawa kit. Then I heard about the ZM kit.

 

I am interested in reading about all the shape and fit problems with the ZM kit.

The more I read the more problems I see. Having said that the ZM kit would Im sure turn out better, but as its more than double the cost it should be.

It should also be better than it is given the cost though.

Meng, ZM, Italeri and Hasegawa all have their problems. I dont pretend they are perfrect in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Italeri kit from the 80s is doing well for you, no problem! It is your choice and if you are happy with it, 👏!
 

However, the Z-M and Meng kits represent modern almost state of the art technology and this makes the kit an attractive buy for many modellers, even if it the price tag is twice. Figuratively, it is the same with modern cars. A 1980 VW Golf can transport the same number of people from A to B, but the 2022 edition can do it better for most people in these days.

 

The aforementioned glitches of the Z-M or Meng kits are not that significant and do not affect the good or excellent general impression of these kits in my opinion. Most can be corrected by the avid modeller with little effort or are not eyecatching at all after the model is finished with all the details well elaborated. On the other side, the aftermarket firms will pay extra attention on those popular modelling subjects to offer easy to fix sulutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Italeri kit can be corrected by the avid modeller too.
 

Im not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here.
Are you trying to shame me in some way because I dont mind building the Italeri F-4E?
Or maybe because I dont see the ZM or even Meng kit being all that state of the art given the errors they have?

 

At no point have I either said or implied that any one kit is better than the other/s.

 

I have said the ZM kit has problems. Because it does.
Im sure the Meng kit has too, and I know Italeri kit does.

 

I would not write off building any of them. And who knows, maybe ZM have fixed the problems with the long nose Phantoms in the F-4G kit

 

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...