Jump to content

Heinkel He-219


SimonCornes

Recommended Posts

At Omaha, there was a ZM and Revell sitting side by side, and you could not tell the difference. Personally, I would use the Revell.........Harv 

I can tell you that both He-219 at Omaha were  ZM kits because one of them was mine 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Revell it is nice but if you want one that is correct the ZM kit is the way to go its not a bad model kind of over engineered . i have built one before it goes together well and i have another one ill build some time in the future .

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the 219. I have both ZM & Revell kits. I'm also in the UK like Simon, where the price differential between these 2 is significant. £120 vs £25 if I remember correctly (I bought my ZM kit at Telford so no import duties - I had previously been put off by the price, but I caved.). I fully understand and appreciate the accuracy issues of both (and, being as constructive as possible, the firmly established positions taken by the 2 modelling camps on here of 'accuracy' and 'looks good').

 

But being realistic, an almost five-fold price difference? And the Revell kit builds well?

 

I would suggest that each model has its place. But perhaps AM for the Revell kit needs careful thought as purchasing this will very quickly eat into the ££ between them (and, has already been highlighted, not address the shape issues of the kit) . Wheels and cowl flaps as suggested; much more (such as the £75 'detail up set' available for the Revell kit) might be argued to be counter-productive.

 

Remember when we just had the ID & Combat Models He219 vac kits to choose between?

 

We are so fortunate today :). I will enjoy both of mine.

 

Padraic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Very useful information.

 

I have the Revell 219 A-7 for "another lfe" and was wondering if anyone has used the Profimodeller (or other make?) brass antler horns, and can vouch as to complexity and overall benefit from substituting the plastic parts.

 

The Profimodeller brass gun barrels and LG reinforcing pins are already tucked into the Uhu box.

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Revell it is nice but if you want one that is correct the ZM kit is the way to go its not a bad model kind of over engineered . i have built one before it goes together well and i have another one ill build some time in the future .

Steve

 

Not sure where this idea that the ZM kit is "correct" keeps coming from.  It's not - plain and simple.  For example, the rear of the nacelles point up too far.  They should point to a spot just under the tailplane, not above it.  Revell's does point too far down, so both kits have an issue in that area if you want it to be "correct".  I think the problem for both kit makers is that the Smithsonian's 219 is not assembled, which would make getting things like the nacelle angle correct difficult to do.

 

The ZM kit also has a few other minor issues as well.  It can certainly be built into a beautiful model OOB, but it won't be "correct" just like the Revell kit won't be "correct".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Doug.

 

I couldn't agree more with your comments above. I've also discussed this same concern with a few LSP members over private email. The aft engine nacelles are not right with the ZM kit. (Just my observation here). They took the examples of the rear nacelles that are restored in the U-Hazy center and projected what they thought would be accurate once assembled to the rest of the engine nacelles. They don't represent the period photos on the He-219 with a general upper nacelle slope aft of the trailing edge wing IMHO. Both kit's have issues. Well pointed out. Just because a kit is 3-4 times more expensive doesn't mean it's more accurate. Just look at the recent P-39 kit comparisons as a prime example.

 

Bottom line, we have two great offerings of the same subject. Research your own opinions and wallet may show you the way forward. By the way, I own both kit's. We live in good times regardless of all the banter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed - the nacelles on my Revell build don't point up as high as the ZM kit - but all a guesstimate based on looking at lots of period photos.

Also note how the ZM cockpit sides curve in towards the nose in plan view - there's a pretty clear photo of a crashed nose section that appears to show they are parallel/straight.

 

post-260-0-67241000-1503771732_thumb.jpg

 

The truth is somewhere between the two kits - and, echoing above, it's great that we have two injected kits to work with - rather than the old vacs. And no kit is ever perfect.

Iain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where this idea that the ZM kit is "correct" keeps coming from.  It's not - plain and simple.  For example, the rear of the nacelles point up too far.  They should point to a spot just under the tailplane, not above it.  Revell's does point too far down, so both kits have an issue in that area if you want it to be "correct".  I think the problem for both kit makers is that the Smithsonian's 219 is not assembled, which would make getting things like the nacelle angle correct difficult to do.

 

The ZM kit also has a few other minor issues as well.  It can certainly be built into a beautiful model OOB, but it won't be "correct" just like the Revell kit won't be "correct".

This suggests that there is some kind of equivalency between the "inaccuracies" of the ZM and the Revell kit.  If this is what some on here need to do so as to convince themselves to enjoy their building experience with the Revell kit, then knock yourselves out.  As earlier photographs in this thread show for anyone willing to see, there is a glaringly "noticeable" difference in the two (2) kits, especially in the area of the engine nacelles and the windscreens.  Of course, if anyone wants, they can ignore their "lying eyes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This suggests that there is some kind of equivalency between the "inaccuracies" of the ZM and the Revell kit.  If this is what some on here need to do so as to convince themselves to enjoy their building experience with the Revell kit, then knock yourselves out.  As earlier photographs in this thread show for anyone willing to see, there is a glaringly "noticeable" difference in the two (2) kits, especially in the area of the engine nacelles and the windscreens.  Of course, if anyone wants, they can ignore their "lying eyes".

 

I think this illustrates the issue we all have when discussing any kit's accuracy - everything is subjective.  In this example, the differences between the ZM and Revell kit are "glaringly noticeable", while for others, the kits look the same built up.

 

What is important to note here is that both opinions, and opinions of any degree in between are correct.  No kit can be perfect, it's just not possible.  So it's up to the individual modeler to decide what is important to them for any given kit.  For some, "build-ability" will be most important, for others the highest degree of accuracy, and for others cost will be most important.  Each modeler will make a personal decision and purchase the kit that gives the best combination based on what is or is not important to them. 

 

That being said, I will be the first to agree that having a civil discussion about the accuracy and even build-ability of any kit is one of the greatest values of a forum like this one.  I am grateful to have the knowledge of those who have built a kit to determine its "build-ability".   I am just as grateful when those who are highly knowledgeable about a given subject can tell us where a kit most accurately replicates the real airframe and where it does not.

 

I am grateful because that dialogue lets me decide if a given kits accuracy, build-ability, and cost make it something worth buying and building, or not, in my personal opinion based on what I am looking for in a kit of a particular subject matter. 

 

So thanks to everyone who contributes to the discussion of any kit without making it personal and thinking only one perspective can be correct.

Edited by DougN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This suggests that there is some kind of equivalency between the "inaccuracies" of the ZM and the Revell kit.  If this is what some on here need to do so as to convince themselves to enjoy their building experience with the Revell kit, then knock yourselves out.  As earlier photographs in this thread show for anyone willing to see, there is a glaringly "noticeable" difference in the two (2) kits, especially in the area of the engine nacelles and the windscreens.  Of course, if anyone wants, they can ignore their "lying eyes".

 

Doug wasn't suggesting anything, he was pointing out a fact. As I said before, unless set side by side

only a 219ophile would (might) see the inaccuracies in one or both. You seem to suggest that the only

way to 'enjoy' any kit is to pre-verify it's complete accuracy in contour and dimension.

My eyes can be wrong, but they 'never' lie.

 

edit : What drawings are most people using to verify the 219s contour and dimension ??

          I'd really like to know.

Edited by mmaben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug wasn't suggesting anything, he was pointing out a fact. As I said before, unless set side by side

only a 219ophile would (might) see the inaccuracies in one or both. You seem to suggest that the only

way to 'enjoy' any kit is to pre-verify it's complete accuracy in contour and dimension.

My eyes can be wrong, but they 'never' lie.

 

edit : What drawings are most people using to verify the 219s contour and dimension ??

          I'd really like to know.

Doug spoke for himself just fine, IMHO and at length.

The only thing any of us can do is speak for ourselves, but as for me to enjoy a kit is to believe it to be reasonably accurate and, if inaccuracies can corrected, to correct them as much as my feeble skills allow. Mileage may vary for others. I also like lots of detail when I have a choice with the larger scale kits (1/32 and larger).

 

Regarding plans for a 219, since there is not one built up, I am not aware of the sources that are being used. Given the exhaustive detail in the ZM kit it would be interesting to know their sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... seem to suggest that the only way to 'enjoy' any kit is to pre-verify it's complete accuracy in contour and dimension.

My eyes can be wrong, but they 'never' lie.

 

Mike ...

 

While I won't ever suggest that the ONLY way to enjoy modelling is with 'complete' accuracy ... Some of us that want to try to create something accurately representing history will pursue this path!

For me - discovering my 'parameters' or tolerances - was a small period of self awaking at the beginning of my reentry into the hobby.

After a couple of really 'poor' choices which I made on purchases initially (again: a personal assessment) ... I began to consult in-box and build reviews prior to purchasing ...

It is indeed, very much a personal choice ... 

 

This suggests that there is some kind of equivalency between the "inaccuracies" of the ZM and the Revell kit ...

 

It does come across that way a little, doesn't it? ... However the overall statement is correct ... No kit is completely accurate ... And its a case of selecting which kit best fits in with your own personal criteria.

In my own case  - the ZM kit wins hands down. Overall it appears to be more accurate than the Revell kit when I compare photos/drawings against the end result.

For those who adopt a different set of guidelines - the Revell kit is more than satisfactory ... especially when considering initial outlay.

 

Rog :)

Edited by Artful69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug spoke for himself just fine, IMHO and at length.

The only thing any of us can do is speak for ourselves, but as for me to enjoy a kit is to believe it to be reasonably accurate and, if inaccuracies can corrected, to correct them as much as my feeble skills allow. Mileage may vary for others. I also like lots of detail when I have a choice with the larger scale kits (1/32 and larger).

 

Regarding plans for a 219, since there is not one built up, I am not aware of the sources that are being used. Given the exhaustive detail in the ZM kit it would be interesting to know their sources.

 

I wasn't speaking 'for' Doug, I was speaking 'about' what Doug said,

and if both kits have flaws (and they do) then he is correct.

I didn't read him saying anything about the flaws being equal, just that

they both had flaws. I'll assume you were just being snarky (in a humorous way)

when inferring that some people need to make excuses or are blind

to reality in order to enjoy one kit over another. :) :) :) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...