For those who have built the ZM He 219A, is it worth the money

[Guest The Southern Bandit]

But seriously ... I agree, perhaps not having a real thing to measure is a good thing?

If you have nothing to measure it against ... where can you go wrong?

Good points all round, but if we have 1/48 and 1/72 Do-17s then why not 1/32 ones too?

[Iain]

I still believe the front fuselage is out on the ZM kit - the truth is somewhere between the Revell and ZM kits.

 

Others' mileage will vary...

 

Iain

[richdlc]

Hi guys - resurrecting this thread because I have read some interesting info re: accuracy of the ZM kit over on Facebook. Someone has done some exhaustive work on the nacelles, and reached the conclusion that ZM were also inaccurate in their depiction of this area of the kit...

 

what I am concerned with are specifically the scale plans - this is linked to my long-term publishing project. I will say that I have had the assistance of Ron Ferguson, the pre-eminent expert, but that unfortunately we parted ways. He claimed the plans are accurate, but did provide me with a list of errors - interestingly he didn't mention the nacelle shape. Perhaps someone else would like to comment on this inaccuracy, as well as any other inaccuracies in both the plans and the kit, as I assume both would have been produced in parallel?

 

It'll be interesting to see if impartial observers point out the same inaccuracies that I am aware of.

 

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

Rich

[Tony T]

 

It wouldn't do any harm to try the German engine manufacturers - Daimler AG et al. The worst response you'd get is nothing or PO.

I was told, off the record, that such drawings still exist showing the nacelles, oil tanks and engine arrangements but are mostly in private archives. Doing accurate books is always 90% research and can be a grind - the internet era has made people a bit lazy.

 

The only other realistic approach is to forensically photograph or scan the American-owned Uhu, once it's been fully reassembled, and delay any drawings until then.

 

Wish you well with your endeavours,

 

Tony

[Darren Howie]

ZM 3D Lidar scanned the NASM HE-219 thats accurate into tenths of a millimeter.

No photo or plan will ever be that accurate no matter how well intentioned.

Ever.

[D Bellis]

ZM 3D Lidar scanned the NASM HE-219 thats accurate into tenths of a millimeter.

No photo or plan will ever be that accurate no matter how well intentioned.

Ever.

Unfortunately, ZM did so with the airframe disassembled, and therefore there are unanswered questions about the wing incidence angle as well as proper nacelle shapes. 

 

Also, going from scan to CAD to CNC mold to plastic frequently results in translations errors, so the process is FAR from foolproof.

 

D

[Guest Peterpools]

I'm about 60% though the ZM kit and have a build thread as to my progress. I haven't worked on the kit in a while but plan on getting back to it later this summer. There is absolutely no comparison between the ZM kit and the Revell kit in terms of details, and accuracy in my opinion. But it's a very complicated kit that requires a lot of attention, part clean up (flash) and loads of fit issues. I've gone the route of leaving all the panels open, the engines exposed and have needed to pay the price in time and effort. No way am I not going to finish

Which kit would I choose if I were to start over with a clean sheet of paper: ZM!

Peter

Here is the link to the LSP thread;

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=67207&page=1

Just a few pics of the details:

 

 

 

Peter

[Dave Williams]

Unfortunately, ZM did so with the airframe disassembled, and therefore there are unanswered questions about the wing incidence angle as well as proper nacelle shapes.

 

Also, going from scan to CAD to CNC mold to plastic frequently results in translations errors, so the process is FAR from foolproof.

 

D

.

 

I don't get this comment. A company takes the trouble to measure the only existing airframe using modern measuring techniques, and that's not good enough? They shouldn't have bothered because it's not fully assembled? How is any company supposed to “get it right†in the accuracy department?

 

I don't think it's reasonable to expect any company to spend unlimited resources to find every decades old factory production blueprint or drawing just to make a plastic toy for us to assemble and paint. The limitations of injection molding means it's never going to be 100% accurate anyway. I'm grateful there are some companies out there who will make the extra effort to try and make a kit as accurate as they reasonably can, even if they may not always be absolutely correct.

[D Bellis]

.I don't get this comment. 

Because you're taking it out of context while injecting your own interpretation.

 

What I posted was a direct response to Darren Howie's claim about ZM's scanned results were "accurate into tenths of a millimeter". 

 

HTH,

D

[CATCplSlade]

Unfortunately, ZM did so with the airframe disassembled, and therefore there are unanswered questions about the wing incidence angle as well as proper nacelle shapes. 

 

Also, going from scan to CAD to CNC mold to plastic frequently results in translations errors, so the process is FAR from foolproof.

 

D

 

I believe what you are trying to say that perhaps Dave is missing is that while ZM was certainly able to measure and scan those parts, they did so without the benefit of having them all in their respective positions relative to one another as they would be on the completed aircraft. If they recognized this fact during the CAD work, hopefully they took that into account when creating the parts and laying out the tooling. If they did not realize this, their parts--while accurate in all other ways--may not appear exactly as they should in reality.

 

Would this be your intent?

 

Now, when I was there in July 2014 the engines looked like this:

 

The rear section of the nacelles looked thus:

 

If they were like this when they worked on it, wouldn't they be guessing a little bit as to how all the pieces sat against each other when assembled? I am no CAD expert by any stretch of even the most psychotic individual's stretch of the imagination so I don't know if such a thing is even an issue.

[D Bellis]

Would this be your intent?

Yes, precisely.

 

D

[Guest Peterpools]

Surely might explain some of the fit issues of the kit.

Peter

[Juggernut]

I believe what you are trying to say that perhaps Dave is missing is that while ZM was certainly able to measure and scan those parts, they did so without the benefit of having them all in their respective positions relative to one another as they would be on the completed aircraft. If they recognized this fact during the CAD work, hopefully they took that into account when creating the parts and laying out the tooling. If they did not realize this, their parts--while accurate in all other ways--may not appear exactly as they should in reality.

 

Would this be your intent?

 

Now, when I was there in July 2014 the engines looked like this:

 

The rear section of the nacelles looked thus:

 

If they were like this when they worked on it, wouldn't they be guessing a little bit as to how all the pieces sat against each other when assembled? I am no CAD expert by any stretch of even the most psychotic individual's stretch of the imagination so I don't know if such a thing is even an issue.

 

 

I was just there last month and they look exactly the same.  If they do plan to reassemble this guy, they're in no particular hurry to do so.

[The Dude]

Does the NASM have the rest of the parts to complete the plane or are they missing?

[Juggernut]

Does the NASM have the rest of the parts to complete the plane or are they missing?

 

I have no way of knowing for certain but in reviewing my photos of the aircraft,  it all seems present with the exception of the landing gear, windscreen and nose cone w/radar aerials.  Those are probably around the facility someplace but I don't know that for sure either.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Juggernut