Shawn M Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 thank you for keeping this going, Im fascinated by the wealth of knowledge and resources you all are pulling from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Thanks for posting James. I notice you have some seriously hollow sprues on your Revell kit there, particularly on the second image. Are all the parts fully moulded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHatch Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I think they are ok. Perhaps it's some fish-eye due to not setting proper macro up properly. They were rush images and I probably went to close to the sprue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peterpools Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Really enjoying the discussion and learning quite a bit Thanks guys for continuing on. Peter :popcorn: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutik Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Had a look at G-factor 's Ju-88 u/c. Very impressive! Does anybody know, if G-factor is now making u/c struts for the Uhu? If not: Some experiences with the metal u/c inserts made by Profimodeller of Czech? Regards - dutik Edited December 12, 2012 by dutik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHatch Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Can anyone who wanted these images chime in here? Seems to have gone real quiet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Hi James, sorry, I couldn't really think of much to say about the pics i asked for because, low and behold, they don't really show a massive difference. I'm talking about the rear of the nacelles.... It's obvious that ZM have placed theirs higher on the wing than Revell, but we have yet to see who's is the most accurate. I must say, I'm surprised to see the limited rivet detail on the latest generation of Revell kits, but am very surprised to see the total lack on the ZM kit, in the areas pictured. Do you know of the ZM Undercarriage fits the Revell kit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmayhew Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Now that I have the "pleasure" of working nights, I have just gone through this thread from start to finish - great stuff so far. I can imagine a raft of aftermarket for the Revell kit coming available, especially landing gear, because the base kit is so cheap and should therefore sell well. From what I have seen so far, both kit look very good, but with different strengths and weaknesses. Interesting that the Z-m kit seems to have assumed the accuracy high ground - it is assumed to be the accuracy benchmark, and if differences then the Revell assumed wrong. A little like the Z-m vs Tamiya P-51, except there the Tamiya was the one assumed accurate. Fwiw, all those assumptions were proven correct (but the Z-m 'Stang I still very good indeed, just the Tamiya is a better). I guess time will tell with these 2 kits. Thanks again for all the hard work and research that has gone into this thread. Cheers Nick Uncarina 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHatch Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) I don't think anyone can really draw a conclusion at the moment with regard to the accuracy of the ZM kit, as apart from those who saw the finished model at a show, or have the test shots, no one has seen this kit to assess. It can mistakenly be assumed that by saying the Revell is inaccurate, that this means the ZM is accurate. I've used the limited ref I have (Kagero and Valiant Wings books) to look at the ZM only, and I'm pleased with what I see. The Revell one is different though as this is now released. Edited December 13, 2012 by James H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afvmodeller Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Hello everyone, a bit late in the day but I have some thoughts and questions to add to the mix as I am currently building both Revell and ZM kits. Revell if find to be generally very nice with a surprisngly good fit for the spine and ventral tray but also a liitle vague and flashy in places too. The crew seats I have completely reworked on mine - the pilot's seat cushion is too uniform and if you remove it the seat back is too thin in my view. Also the shoulder guard/headrest mount is not the correct shape. The curved lower portion of the observer's seat is not right and the foot pegs are wrong. I have conflicting info on the seatbelts for the Observer's seat - some saying lap and shoulder belts - others just lap belts - what do you think? The windscreen armour plate looks far too thick but again I have had feedback that this was only a feature of pre-production aircraft? The internal windscreen has a lip along the bottom edge that I can find no reason for? The ventral gun tray is provided with the tips of the gun barrels whereas the actual guns were mounted such that the barrel tips are hidden inside the pod. My solution is to not fit them. Nose wheel hub is perforated on one side and solid on the other? The Valiant wings book shows pictures of a V series aircraft with a solid hub and another wheel photographed from the same side with perforations. ZM provide both wheel hubs as perforated. Main wheels are modelled unloaded - I see my pictures of this have already been posted here - I think it is fairly self-explanitory. I am not quite as far on with the ZM build but I can say that the differences between the two are minimal in terms of overall shape. The ZM cockpit blows the Revell one out of the water but even they have not got the shape of the shoulder guard correct and have raised rivet detail on the seat backs. They also do not appear to provide the rear seat launch rails - perhaps James can confirm this? I am working without instructions! I enclose a couple of shots of th nacelles which may help - it looks like the ZM version has the nacelles at a different angle but with the wings not glued yet dont take these as gospel. regards David AIR Modeller Magazine dutik 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Kevin Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Thanks for your input David. The rear portions of the nacelles seem to be where the two kits differ the most, with ZM's renditions markedly different in shape, proportions and orientation to Revell's. By the way, lucky bastage! Kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutik Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Difficult queation about the rear seat harness. Most Uhu images sre made from the fronbtal arc, and the few from above or behind are with closed (and reflecting) canopy... At least we have images of the front seat: http://www.schleudersitz-soellingen.de/html/katapultsitz_he-219.html Regards! - dutik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afvmodeller Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Indeed Dutik! Diagram drawings appear to show just the lap belt - no one seems to photograph the Observer's seat in the preserved example either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee White Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 And, just to throw some more uncertainty on top of the issue, the MLG wheel wells look considerably longer on the Revell offering..... almost going to a panel line, where on the Zookey kit they stop quite a bit short of the same panel line- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Thanks for that comparison David - sums up my thoughts on the nacelles nicely. I've not arrived at my thoughts on the Revell kit by starting from the premis that the ZM kit is the correct one. Purely worked from photos of the original that support the ZM shapes that we've seen. We spotted differences when comparing both side by side at Telford and that was the catalyst to close study of original photos. This has led us to the belief at this stage that the ZM kit is the more accurate with regards to the nacelles. An example to note - the ZM kit has the trailing edge fillet on the nacelle at almost half way point (vertically) - Revell near the top. Manic week with work, work do tonight and broken cars causing us logistical nightmares (we live in the stix) - so won't be able to post update on my thoughts until weekend at least. But that image should illustrate why we started the head scratching in the first place - they are quite different! Have fun! Iain Edited December 13, 2012 by 32SIG boogieman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now