ZOUKEI MURA 2019-2020 - NEW P-51B/C, Bf-109G and Ar-234 ANNOUNCED!!!!!!

[nmayhew]

9 hours ago, MikeMaben said:

 

                      You said WHAT ??

                 

 

 

 

Exactly!

[Nigels modelling bench]

I have a Trumpy P-51B which I believe is way off in many areas?

 

I have a Revell G6 which I believe it's way off in many areas?

 

I have a Fly AR234, but am not sure what it's like? Buildability or accuracy?

 

Will the ZM kits be better than the above?

 

Are their 219 and 335 better than Revell/HKM? 

 

[Dave Williams]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Nige said:

I have a Trumpy P-51B which I believe is way off in many areas?

 

I have a Revell G6 which I believe it's way off in many areas?

 

I have a Fly AR234, but am not sure what it's like? Buildability or accuracy?

 

Will the ZM kits be better than the above?

 

Are their 219 and 335 better than Revell/HKM? 

 

 

It’s impossible to guess whether some future kit will be better than an existing kit, but based on Z-Ms kits released so far, I’d say yes, especially for the P-51B/C.

 

For the 219, the ZM kit is more accurate (the Revell kit has issues with the nacelles), has more far more detail (which is a hallmark of ZM kits, including a lot of things that will never be seen), but FAR more expensive.  Generally, price and ease of build are what make people choose one over the other.

 

For the 335, both kits seem to be close in accuracy and the prices are closer.  As is typical, the ZM kit is more detailed, however it lacks the nose weight that’s included in the HK kit, and a lot of people don’t care for the clear plastic fuselage.  The HK kit is a simpler build, but it lacks the nose radiator matrix.  The choice between these kits is more personal taste.

[MikeMaben]

9 hours ago, Gloucester Nige said:

I have a Trumpy P-51B which I believe is way off in many areas?

 

I have a Revell G6 which I believe it's way off in many areas?

 

I have a Fly AR234, but am not sure what it's like? Buildability or accuracy?

 

Will the ZM kits be better than the above?

 

Are their 219 and 335 better than Revell/HKM? 

 

 

Yes , which is why you'll pay 3 to 5 times as much for them. 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2019 by MikeMaben

[Artful69]

13 hours ago, Gloucester Nige said:

I have a Trumpy P-51B which I believe is way off in many areas?

 

I have a Revell G6 which I believe it's way off in many areas?

 

I have a Fly AR234, but am not sure what it's like? Buildability or accuracy?

 

Will the ZM kits be better than the above?

 

Are their 219 and 335 better than Revell/HKM? 

 

 

Hey Nige ... Happy New Year! .. Still haven't gotten around to watching your Lanc' review - but I do have it queued to watch at some point ... I just don't have the financial capacity to invest in the kit yet!!

 

I'm guessing that the Trumpeter P-51B kit was handed off to the 'B' team from inception as the 'A' team were either 1/ probably working on something else or 2/ were on holiday at the time. At any rate ... the 'B' team must have lost interest and handed the project over to the interns ... Aside from the accuracy issues and 'fake' detail, which are pretty much beyond fixable - I believe (from build reviews I've seen) that the kit has some really awful engineering/fit issues reminiscent of some poor kits created 3-4 decades earlier. So ... even if you weren't an accuracy nut - the build would frustrate you no end (probably?) ... I know engineering/fit/finish are weighted higher than accuracy in my 'buy or burn' index which is why i selected the Trumpeter P-47D over the Hasegawa kit.

 

The Revell G-6 ... If Revell's A team had worked on this kit (let's face it - they're becoming as hit-and-miss as Trumpeter is these days, albeit cheaper in Europe) then we probably would have ended up with the definitive 109G kit ... as it was we ended up with a kit that had some questionable engineering choices in assembly ... annnnnnd a few accuracy issues. Nothing, of course, like the Trumpeter P-51B above and most fall under the 'fixable' banner ... But it made the individuals 'buy-or-burn' decision between the Hasegawa, Trumpeter and Revell kits (leaving out the product fanboy factor) one of: which issues/inaccuracies can you live with? ... and what price you were willing to pay? ... In short, they all have issues - do your review research - and select based on personal taste. There is, of course, a plethora of AM detail and correction stuff available also.

 

The Fly Ar-234 represents a decent bang-for-buck kit ... and like most kits being issued from the Czeck Republic these days is a clever mixture of media to achieve the end result - which looks pretty decent. The IM components cover the basics and are fashioned in the typical limited or short run style ... yet the detail is well above average expected for this medium, really! Resin fills in the details in the outstanding way that resin usually does. it's not without the odd inaccuracy - which is really a take-it-or-leave-it proposition (wing and nacelle sweep/angle of attack I think??) ... and the only other option in this scale is Radu's resin kit design released through MDC - which IS accurate (as most - if not all - of his stuff is) - yet pricey in comparison.

 

It depends on what your definition of 'better' means in relation to the above ... In terms of the P-51B, it's hard to imagine anyone NOT putting together a kit better than the Trumpeter offering. So I'd say that, however ZM's kit turns out, it's bound to be better in just about every aspect ... although HKM has one in the pipeline also (announced a while back) so if both products make it to market in similar timeframes it'll be a case of making a comparison similar to the Do-335 I'd expect. In short - I'd say almost a definite yes!

Given that Tamiya haven't released a 1/32 kit for some time now - and the scuttlebutt is that they are shying away from 1/32 for a while ... I doubt we'll see an upscaling for the excellent 1/48 109G-6 that they released a little while back (though I still live in hope!). This presents ZM with an excellent opportunity to print currency ... Though a couple of their past kits have lacked some finesse in detail and have been slightly off in some (minimal) areas of accuracy - they seem to be improving exponentially and their later releases are (dare I say it) becoming Tamiya-esque in quality (they weren't too far off the mark with their first few releases anyway!). If they can get the accuracy part with the 109G-6 right (which no-one else seems to have done) ... then I'd expect we'll finally end up with a (close to) definitive 109G-6 - with the usual great detail given by ZM and very little quibbles. In short - More than likely, yes - but wait to see plastic/reviews.

As far as the Ar-234 is concerned ... With ZM IM plastic throughout (regardless of which drawings they use for wing/nacelle) I'd say the the answer is pretty much: As Above. Of course the same caveat will determine whether Radu's resin kit remains king of the mountain in the accuracy department. To be honest - and using my criteria for kit selection - the Fly Model kit is a satisfactory representation as it stands ... but I'd love to see what ZM come up with!

 

As far as the last two kits mentioned are concerned ... again, better is a highly subjective term. Personally I'd say that, if you have the cash available, the ZM He.219 is a no-brainer selection over the Revell kit ... it's far more detailed, has a unique build style (as all ZM products do) and is a far more accurate representation than it's Revell counterpart. It's not 100% (as no kit ever is) ... but the overall difference in just about every 'buy-or-burn' selection criteria (excepting price) is fairly substantial in comparison to the difference between the HKM and ZM Do.335 releases. With these two being more or less the same end result accuracy/external detail wise, I'd suggest the decision would ultimately come down to preferred build type (the usual IM kit style vs the unique ZM option) and price (which will depend on where in the world you are and what you can have your product delivered for).

 

Rog

Edited January 2, 2019 by Artful69

[Eagle Driver]

I am wondering, why there is still no thread specifically for Revell Mustang /FW-190 too deserves such I believe/ where everybody can blabber about it. If I remember this is a thread for ZM new releases. I bet that if you download this in word and do a keyword search for Revell or Tamiya you will get more hits than Zoukei, Mura or ZM.

[esarmstrong]

^^ Thread drift is very prevalent in here.  It always starts out about the intended subject.  Then someone makes a post about what they wish ZM would release and how we don't need another Bf 109G, etc. and then it becomes a "wish list" thread eventually.  Seems like all threads left to their own devices start turning into "wish list" threads.

[Nigels modelling bench]

5 hours ago, Artful69 said:

 

Hey Nige ... Happy New Year! .. Still haven't gotten around to watching your Lanc' review - but I do have it queued to watch at some point ... I just don't have the financial capacity to invest in the kit yet!!

 

I'm guessing that the Trumpeter P-51B kit was handed off to the 'B' team from inception as the 'A' team were either 1/ probably working on something else or 2/ were on holiday at the time. At any rate ... the 'B' team must have lost interest and handed the project over to the interns ... Aside from the accuracy issues and 'fake' detail, which are pretty much beyond fixable - I believe (from build reviews I've seen) that the kit has some really awful engineering/fit issues reminiscent of some poor kits created 3-4 decades earlier. So ... even if you weren't an accuracy nut - the build would frustrate you no end (probably?) ... I know engineering/fit/finish are weighted higher than accuracy in my 'buy or burn' index which is why i selected the Trumpeter P-47D over the Hasegawa kit.

 

The Revell G-6 ... If Revell's A team had worked on this kit (let's face it - they're becoming as hit-and-miss as Trumpeter is these days, albeit cheaper in Europe) then we probably would have ended up with the definitive 109G kit ... as it was we ended up with a kit that had some questionable engineering choices in assembly ... annnnnnd a few accuracy issues. Nothing, of course, like the Trumpeter P-51B above and most fall under the 'fixable' banner ... But it made the individuals 'buy-or-burn' decision between the Hasegawa, Trumpeter and Revell kits (leaving out the product fanboy factor) one of: which issues/inaccuracies can you live with? ... and what price you were willing to pay? ... In short, they all have issues - do your review research - and select based on personal taste. There is, of course, a plethora of AM detail and correction stuff available also.

 

The Fly Ar-234 represents a decent bang-for-buck kit ... and like most kits being issued from the Czeck Republic these days is a clever mixture of media to achieve the end result - which looks pretty decent. The IM components cover the basics and are fashioned in the typical limited or short run style ... yet the detail is well above average expected for this medium, really! Resin fills in the details in the outstanding way that resin usually does. it's not without the odd inaccuracy - which is really a take-it-or-leave-it proposition (wing and nacelle sweep/angle of attack I think??) ... and the only other option in this scale is Radu's resin kit design released through MDC - which IS accurate (as most - if not all - of his stuff is) - yet pricey in comparison.

 

It depends on what your definition of 'better' means in relation to the above ... In terms of the P-51B, it's hard to imagine anyone NOT putting together a kit better than the Trumpeter offering. So I'd say that, however ZM's kit turns out, it's bound to be better in just about every aspect ... although HKM has one in the pipeline also (announced a while back) so if both products make it to market in similar timeframes it'll be a case of making a comparison similar to the Do-335 I'd expect. In short - I'd say almost a definite yes!

Given that Tamiya haven't released a 1/32 kit for some time now - and the scuttlebutt is that they are shying away from 1/32 for a while ... I doubt we'll see an upscaling for the excellent 1/48 109G-6 that they released a little while back (though I still live in hope!). This presents ZM with an excellent opportunity to print currency ... Though a couple of their past kits have lacked some finesse in detail and have been slightly off in some (minimal) areas of accuracy - they seem to be improving exponentially and their later releases are (dare I say it) becoming Tamiya-esque in quality (they weren't too far off the mark with their first few releases anyway!). If they can get the accuracy part with the 109G-6 right (which no-one else seems to have done) ... then I'd expect we'll finally end up with a (close to) definitive 109G-6 - with the usual great detail given by ZM and very little quibbles. In short - More than likely, yes - but wait to see plastic/reviews.

As far as the Ar-234 is concerned ... With ZM IM plastic throughout (regardless of which drawings they use for wing/nacelle) I'd say the the answer is pretty much: As Above. Of course the same caveat will determine whether Radu's resin kit remains king of the mountain in the accuracy department. To be honest - and using my criteria for kit selection - the Fly Model kit is a satisfactory representation as it stands ... but I'd love to see what ZM come up with!

 

As far as the last two kits mentioned are concerned ... again, better is a highly subjective term. Personally I'd say that, if you have the cash available, the ZM He.219 is a no-brainer selection over the Revell kit ... it's far more detailed, has a unique build style (as all ZM products do) and is a far more accurate representation than it's Revell counterpart. It's not 100% (as no kit ever is) ... but the overall difference in just about every 'buy-or-burn' selection criteria (excepting price) is fairly substantial in comparison to the difference between the HKM and ZM Do.335 releases. With these two being more or less the same end result accuracy/external detail wise, I'd suggest the decision would ultimately come down to preferred build type (the usual IM kit style vs the unique ZM option) and price (which will depend on where in the world you are and what you can have your product delivered for).

 

Rog

 

Why thank you Rog. That reply must have taken an age to write.

 

It would appear clear that I should be looking forward to getting the ZM P-51B in my stash then.

[Artful69]

3 minutes ago, Gloucester Nige said:

 

Why thank you Rog. That reply must have taken an age to write.

 

It would appear clear that I should be looking forward to getting the ZM P-51B in my stash then.

 

No worries Nige ... I know how much you like details

 

I'd say you could purchase practically any ZM kit with confidence, really ... but then again, the smaller inaccuracies on any kit never bothered me.

There's no indicated release timeframe for any of these recently announced kits ... so you might be waiting a few years. The Fw.190 kits (complete series) are still in various stages of production and the recently announced to-be-released Ki.45 and Hs.129 came as a total shock! 

 

Rog

[MikeMaben]

17 hours ago, Artful69 said:

The Revell G-6 ... If Revell's A team had worked on this kit (let's face it - they're becoming as hit-and-miss as Trumpeter is these days, albeit cheaper in Europe) then we probably would have ended up with the definitive 109G kit ... as it was we ended up with a kit that had some questionable engineering choices in assembly ... annnnnnd a few accuracy issues.

 

Hey Rog , Revell consulted with some noteworthy 109 experts

but in the end chose to ignore their input. Likely production cost issues.

It coulda been a zinger.

I'm hoping ZM winds up producing the 51B as part of their 'Basic' series.

                     

 

If their 'Basic' series does really well (which I think it will) maybe they'll

move the Mustang over to that series .

The FW190 series goes like this ...

Fw190A-3  Basic
Fw190A-4  SWS
Fw190A-5/6/7  Basic
Fw190A-8  SWS
Fw190D-9  SWS

 

...so I read.

 

 

[Artful69]

2 hours ago, MikeMaben said:

 

Hey Rog , Revell consulted with some noteworthy 109 experts

but in the end chose to ignore their input. Likely production cost issues.

It coulda been a zinger.

I'm hoping ZM winds up producing the 51B as part of their 'Basic' series.

                     

 

If their 'Basic' series does really well (which I think it will) maybe they'll

move the Mustang over to that series .

The FW190 series goes like this ...

Fw190A-3  Basic
Fw190A-4  SWS
Fw190A-5/6/7  Basic
Fw190A-8  SWS
Fw190D-9  SWS

 

...so I read.

 

 

 

Yeah Mike ... I'm aware of the choice made by Revell to ignore the plethora of experts willing to contribute to the G-6 project (as well as the Spitfire Mk.IIa and the Erla G-10) - It really was a shame!!  ... I'm hoping that with the change of management they revert back to the era that brought us the Ju.88, He.111 and the Ar.196. Definitely it was an opportunity missed - yet, I doubt sales revenue will tell them that, given the pricing point it was released at. All of which means that ZM ... who have a passion for the kits they are making ... have that golden opportunity to get it right!!

 

Whether the P.51B arrives in Standard SWS format or Basic Series ... I'm sure the kit will be fantastic ... hopefully we get RAF Mk.III Malcolm Hood options  ...

In any case ... yes, I know you would rather it be in Basic format as stated previously, I'm just not sure how much cheaper it will be - or whether the retail pricing reduction (if any) will be significant enough to sway purchase of one over another in the market place.

 

With the Fw.190's: On the one hand, we all know (or should do by now) that ZM have had the feedback about producing a run of 'simpler' kits - which inspired the idea behind the Basic Series ... On the other hand we all know that people putting money where their mouths are is an entirely different matter. Expecting a Basic Series kit to hit the market at 20% (or even 60%) of the price of an SWS kit is beyond ridiculous ... and yet a lot of those providing such feedback will have this very expectation.

Feedback v's Actual sales is the gripping hand here ... Adding to the confusion in generating accurate statistical sales data in order to assess the demand of the Basic Series - will be a number of issues ...

From last news I had on the release schedule ... The A-4 was supposed to be the designated as the first sale in the line up ... followed shortly by the A-3. The lack of a simultaneous release means that the A-4 may outsell the A-3 regardless, based on availability alone? Then there's marking options - One kit might have a particularly attractive option to the bulk of the market causing people to purchase that kit over the other regardless of build complexity? Variant preference - Does the bulk of the market (choosing one option only) prefer the A-3 ... or the A-4? What about the section of the market who will buy all, regardless of build complexity (like me  ) - just because it may be either the most accessible option to them, or the most accurate option (or hopefully, both!) ... Personally I think it might have been a more successful marketing strategy to just design the kits to be built as SWS ... then box a run of the slightly cheaper Basic Series with a load of parts missing for a simpler build ... wherever your sales end up (demand wise) determines your production run of each kit type for the next release.

In the current release format, it's interesting to see that they plan the A-5 thru A-7 in Basic. Although visually, external differences fill the bulk of factory changes to these 3 variants, field mods were extensive and varied as pilots changed any number of things (such as armament fit and load outs) to suit their particular tastes ... the SWS system would enable the modeller to highlight such changes beautifully.

 

Either way ... with the recent releases (that still surprise me to think about!), the Fw.190's ... and now these three announcements, it's obvious that ZM are selling well enough to ramp up their production considerably. Good signs for the years to come!

 

Rog

 

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Artful69

[RBrown]

2 hours ago, MikeMaben said:

Hey Rog , Revell consulted with some noteworthy 109 experts

but in the end chose to ignore their input. Likely production cost issues.

It coulda been a zinger.

 

The Revell kit is dimensionally very accurate, but flawed in some of the significant details.

 

Revell could address most of the issues with the release of an early G, without the Beule, and with a new insert for the cowling with the correct spacing for the gun troughs.

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by RBrown

[Artful69]

2 minutes ago, RBrown said:

 

The Revell kit is dimensionally very accurate, but flawed in some of the significant details.

Revell could address most of the issues with the release of an early G, without the Beule, and with a new insert for the cowling with the correct spacing for the gun troughs.

 

 

True ... this would go a long way to fixing a few of the accuracy issues ... but not so much the engineering issues - such as the overly complex landing gear.

 

Rog

[LSP_K2]

21 hours ago, Eagle Driver said:

I am wondering, why there is still no thread specifically for Revell Mustang /FW-190 too deserves such I believe/ where everybody can blabber about it. If I remember this is a thread for ZM new releases. I bet that if you download this in word and do a keyword search for Revell or Tamiya you will get more hits than Zoukei, Mura or ZM.

 

21 hours ago, esarmstrong said:

^^ Thread drift is very prevalent in here.  It always starts out about the intended subject.  Then someone makes a post about what they wish ZM would release and how we don't need another Bf 109G, etc. and then it becomes a "wish list" thread eventually.  Seems like all threads left to their own devices start turning into "wish list" threads.

 

In my experience, conversational flux is the norm, not the exception.

[Andreas Beck]

7 hours ago, RBrown said:

 

The Revell kit is dimensionally very accurate, but flawed in some of the significant details.

 

Revell could address most of the issues with the release of an early G, without the Beule, and with a new insert for the cowling with the correct spacing for the gun troughs.

 

The still hibernating G-2/4 variants do have the correct spacing of the gun troughs. The fault was to take over this feature to the G-6 and G-10. Another point of criticism is that the tropical filter and the wing guns were not made. so many attractive variations cannot be represented. Revell is aware of this problem but producing these parts will need new tooling efforts and new investment, seemingly the main area of problems. (So the modelling community has to take some initiative to get this realized). Besides the G-2/4 has the correct landing gear struts and beautiful wheels.

I hope they release this kit along with the later P-51s,  latest in 2020.

Regards

Andreas Beck