Heinkel He-219

[D Bellis]

Let's be fair Darin. No one can argue the differences when place side by side.

Take that away and "I can't tell the difference" becomes more justifiable.

 

Side by side photos wouldn't help someone who hasn't looked closely at the 219.  

I disagree, Mike. Determining the differences between the two kits does not require any knowledge whatsoever of the real thing. 

 

However, determining which one is more accurate does require comparison with the real thing. But, that is not the issue. The obvious differences between the kits despite declarations to the contrary is the issue.

 

D

[misha71]

the revell uhu has too many shape issues for me. sure everybody will recognize that it is uhu but..........

[blackbetty]

i liked the revell kit. built it inbetween "serious" builds

 

6 by karl holubar, auf Flickr

5 by karl holubar, auf Flickr

4 by karl holubar, auf Flickr

3 by karl holubar, auf Flickr

2 by karl holubar, auf Flickr

1 by karl holubar, auf Flickr

[LSP_K2]

And it looks great, Karl.

[Mark_C]

The "I can't tell the difference" argument sounds like my wife unsuccessfully trying to differentiate between a Fiat and a Ferrari. That point of view may hold true for you right now, but what happens later when something new is learned, and suddenly the difference becomes apparent? Will it then be necessary to make up some other excuse to justify one's perspective?

 

From Ian's build thread (posted by "afvmodeller"):

 

 

 

 

Revell's windscreen on the left, Zoukei Mura on the right:

 

 

 

After all the infirmation was carefully considered, I bought the Revell kit because it suits me - not because I claim ignorance of the differences. 

 

D

 

Sorry to fling in all the photos instead of just the one I'm concentrating on, but in the last two, the ZM windscreen looks opaque.  Is that deliberate, or is there something wrong with it?  I ask because I looked at a review of the kit, and didn't see any mention of opacity.

 

Thanks.

[Iain]

That was a pre-production test shot - prior to some changes and the polishing of the moulds to produce clear parts.

 

Iain

[esarmstrong]

^^ True. The canopy was the last thing that ZM modified before release of their kit. The "old man" wrote about it in his blog at the time.

[Mark_C]

Thanks!

[MikeMaben]

I disagree, Mike. Determining the differences between the two kits does not require any knowledge whatsoever of the real thing. 

 

However, determining which one is more accurate does require comparison with the real thing. But, that is not the issue. The obvious differences between the kits despite declarations to the contrary is the issue.

 

D

 

I didn't mean each kit in comparison to the real thing.

I meant comparisons between the kits side by side (as in the photos).

Looking at each kit seperately, one wouldn't notice the inaccuracy of

the Revell kit unless they knew the 219 pretty well.

[SimonCornes]

Well my Revell kit arrived today, complete with Kagero Vol 1, all for £40 delivered. I have  to say that I am very impressed but sorry that Revell Germany couldn't get the shape of a German aircraft spot on when all kit manufacturers have the same reference material! I'm afraid I will follow Iain's example and resort to the saw! Thanks for the inputs from you all

[FunkyZeit]

You'll much more enjoy the Revell kit. Be weary of in-box reviews, they do not reflect how the model will build.

Pete and I will both nicely let you know that the ZM kit is not fun AT ALL to "put together". It requires much more surgery than some reshaping of the Revell.

Do enjoy your Revell Owl

Edited August 19, 2017 by FunkyZeit

[LSP_K2]

You'll much more enjoy the Revell kit. Be weary of in-box reviews, they do not reflect how the model will build.

 

Pete and I will both nicely let you know that the ZM kit is not fun AT ALL to "put together". It requires much more surgery than some reshaping of the Revell.

 

Do enjoy your Revell Owl

 

That's a good point. Of what reviews I've done here, I do not ever touch upon accuracy or buildability issues. That's an area of the review process, that I have absolutely no interest in pursuing, and likely never will, so it certainly pays to check with multiple sources.  

[Artful69]

That's a good point. Of what reviews I've done here, I do not ever touch upon accuracy or buildability issues. That's an area of the review process, that I have absolutely no interest in pursuing, and likely never will, so it certainly pays to check with multiple sources.  

 

 

Yes ... that ones a BIG grey area ... I grabbed the ZM kit because of the following - in order of importance to me:

 

* I was earning some good surplus coin at the time and wanted to buy a few of the more expensive kits going around ... like the Tamiya offerings.

* It's a ZM kit ... I'd seen various posts ranting on about the difference in the SWS approach - and wanted to have a look at one. Also I was buying a Shinden kit for Kev, at the time, who piqued my interest in the first place!

* It was reviewed to be a lot more accurate in outline than the Revell kit ... besides being more detailed.

* Reviews were mixed on fit and finish ... I've certainly encountered some who have struggled with ZM kits and their approach to construction ... but also the exact opposite.

The fact that the finished product is highly detailed and accurate was the deal sealer for me ...

the ZM kit I did build (a P.51D) ... I built alongside the Tamiya offering. I had no problems at all - and found it to be the more enjoyable of the two ... others have mentioned that it was frustrating.

I was exceptionally pedantic about testing the fit of parts and surroundings before proceeding with glue ... but then again, I am with every kit that I've ever built. Perhaps this approach will assist when building any ZM kit?

The only two kits I've ever attempted to build that I had real frustration issues with were a Hasegawa Bf.109E and a Revell Bf.110C-4 - both relegated to the round filing cabinet!

 

Rog

[FunkyZeit]

Rog, every model can be made great. My only suggestion is manage your expectations. I went into the 219 build with the idea that since it was twice the price of a Tamiya kit - then it HAD to be twice as good. Sure, in some areas it was - but in other areas it wasn't. The 219 kit had me lay up modelling for over 6 months - I'm just now starting to build again. Your experience may be totally different, maybe you thrive on the challenge. Every area that I struggled with, Peter met the same struggles. I may be guilty in saying that it's a bad kit because it wasn't an easy kit. I think I've maybe used the word "bad" too many times when speaking of the ZM 219. The words I should be using are: "it's a hard kit". It's by no means paint by number, shake and bake or whatever other sayings we can use about perfectly engineered kits. I will tell you that the kit itself and all of the challlenges I faced, ten fold increased my skills. So for that, I'm thankful.

 

Somewhere on these great forums you can follow some of what I'm taking about in my build thread. Around half way through I stopped posting as I was just too frustrated. Nearing the end, you can find some finished photos of it. It's truly a beautiful model.

 

If you have any questions about the kit or about 219's - let me know.

 

Justin

[Bomber_County]

I think Peterpools was building a a ZM 219 and if I remeber he put it onto the back burner for a bit, maybe worth having a dig.......