Zoukei-Mura has released a few pictures of its 1/32 He-219: Even in the "undressed" mode, it is pretty clear at least the engine nacelles have more correct proportions than the ridiculous "slimfast" ones on the 1/32 Revell kit...:

http://sparforums.com/ipb/index.php?/topic/130-132-heinkel-he-219-more-exclusive-images/





This is way better than the Revell kit for the outline reasons below. You would think by the way that Revell might have something more interesting to do than to try butting heads directly with Zoukei-Mura? Just a thought...







It says a lot that even compared to a skelettal display, you can already see the outline errors of the competing kit (well at least some can )...

Gaston

P.S. To get an idea of how good Zoukei-Mura kits are, compare obvious exterior features on the Zoukei-Mura's P-51D with Tamiya's P-51D in the same scale: The sharpness of the wing leading edges for instance, and the way they blend in at the wingroot, and the finesse of the prop blades: In both cases the Z-M is noticeably ahead of even the great Tamiya kit, and concedes little to nothing in other ways (not to mention the Tamiya's "working" features)...

Z-M are also the only ones outside of Hasegawa to actually get the FW-190-type canopy shape exactly correct, the Eduard and Tamiya 1/48th kits being complete failures in that respect...

I think as well that the internal plastic structure is a superb way to avoid the endless alignment problems that plague almost all other aircraft kits: I estimate that 80-90% of kits I see at contests have serious alignment problems that would likely all have been avoided with a more "full" internal structure... (This includes a Tamiya 1/32 scale Spitfire Mk IX I recently saw at a contest)

People who complain that the internal structural details are inaccurate, or that they can't be seen, miss entirely what is the primary advantage of such a construction: In other kits, bending wings for better alignment often results in the hollow wing being "pinched" to a thinner profile at the root, or misaligned in pitch angle in one wing relative to the other wing... No such problems would occur with a near-full internal structure, which is a major advantage...

This rigidity advantage is less predominant in the smaller scales, but makes perfect sense in 1/32...

In general my advice to manufacturers is: Find out what Zoukei-Mura intends to do, and stay miles and miles away from it... With CAD designs, that now likely means stay away in all scales...

G.

Interesting that you've made no mention of prices; with Z-M kits in the £100-£150 bracket, and the Revell kit projected at £50, it's possible that modellers might give that a little consideration.
I'm sure that you'll be providing photos of that Tamiya Spitfire, with "serious alignment problems," won't you? After all, the only modellers, who experienced any problems, noted, afterwards, that they were due to them not fitting the engine accurately.
Finally, can we expect, any time soon, a retraction of your lie about Peter Cooke?
Edgar

Like Edgar mentioned before it's the price that will bring most of the modellers to a choice between the ZM or Revell kit.

I for sure will chose for the Revell kit, because of it's price-quality, and for some other reasons.
I just find the ZM kits to expensive for what it just is........a box of plastic, ofcourse, very nice detailed and for some people it will be the ultimate HE-219.

So simply said......respect for those who chose the ZM kit, and respect for those who chose the Revell kit to build.

That's what's modelling all about, no mather what model whe build, whe build it with enthousiasm and precision instead of breaking everything down like Gaston, who maybe never build a model in his whole life

oooppps......did i say to much

Grtz

Danny

Is Gaston working for ZM?

I find it interesting that anyone can claim one kit is "way better" than the other kit, based on a test shot of the Revell, and half a test shot of the ZM kit.

The ZM kit is still a WIP, one potential issue is that the initial shots showed it to be a mis-mash of different variants, rather than the A-0 that ZM stated it will be. Hopefully they have addressed this. Also, there are differences between the A-0 and A-7, which means the kits will be different if they are reasonably accurate.

Nonetheless, I am happy to have a choice of not one, but two kits to build an He219 in 1/32 scale.

Doug

Apart from the price of Z-M kit putting me off, has anyone established if the internal structure of the kit is accurate to the real aircraft, or is it a representation of the real deal?

I do remember reading reviews of the Z-M Ta152 in which the reviewers mentioned that the internal structure of that kit didn't really match the actual aircraft.

I think this guy is hilarious. Knows everything, builds nothing, disses Peter Cooke in the process- one step below useless, IMHO.....

Dacala understands and marks the true principles behind modeling very nicely.

At the end it's all about the fun you had building it, and the joy to show your model to others, no matter what it looks like or how much it's worth in dollars per plastic.


Be happy, build kits, feed the carpetmonster from time to time , and have fun while doing it!!
Heck, I'm 35 years old and I build plastic tanks and little tiny ships...and I'm damn proud of it!!!
lol
(my wife on the other hand...)

Come on Gaston, make that excuse. This is the only way some may take you to be serious.

And align your parallels properly. None of the two images of the real thing which you present are in alignment with the pictures of the Revell model. Look at the wheels of the first example, original foto and Revell foto.

There is one chance of seeing the real thig, at the annex to the national air and space museum where it is on exhibition, probably not fully restored. Here you can make your measurements, and people might believe you. But, firstly, make that excuse.

NPL

Talking about museums:
The guys from Revell were measuring the real a/c by their own for their new model

Yes, the wheels position are slightly mismatching... Is that the hope you are clinging to? Why don't you point out that the cockpit and fins somehow manage to look very similar, while the wheels also look round?:




Quote: "I do remember reading reviews of the Z-M Ta152 in which the reviewers mentioned that the internal structure of that kit didn't really match the actual aircraft."

That could be so, but given that 80-90% of built models are misaligned in some way, the intended purpose of the internal structure seems obvious to me: Whether it will actually cut-down on misaligned models is another matter entirely... I suppose I will find out on their 1/48th range...

I do know that when trying to fix alignment problems, the lack of an internal structure is often a terrible handicap that has resulted in many binned kits and a lot of wasted efforts for me...

As for not judging the nacelles from photos alone... The last time I complained about the ridiculously undersized Tamiya Il-2 canopy, from very poor, mismatching and blurry cellphone photos, did it not turn out like this?:



According to the "Flying Heritage" Il-2M3, the AM canopy (on top) is 3% oversized, while the Tamiya at bottom is around 10% undersized...

Funny thing is, it cost me two emails, and about twelve hours of waiting, to get the all the data I wanted from FHC, and they refused to take compensation for their efforts... You would think that's well within Tamiya's research budget...

I can't imagine what's going on when workers go in to cut million dollars moulds not knowing the canopy dimensions by heart... It is by no means their first foray into fiction: Similarly to Eduard, they "fictionalized" their 190s: Tamiya on the right, Hasegawa (dead-on as measured from a relic in Hungary) on the left:



We are talking the super-complex shape of a rectangle here... That's why I'll take blurry cell-phone photos over what they do any day...

I don't buy 1/32 scale, but I do note Z-M get the basics of the exterior right with extreme care: I can't think of one thing they did that looked anything like the above... It seems funny to complain about structural frames "liberties" when other makers provide nothing but a hollow and flexible void...

Gaston

You don't apologise for telling lies about respected members of the modelling fraternity, either. I'll be happy to pass on your retraction (should you ever summon up the strength of character,) to Peter Cooke, when I next see him.
Edgar

Ok everyone, let's keep this civil.

Good luck Edgar, he certainly doesn't exhibit any other professional behavior either, I've just given up on him. On a very positive note, I had the distinct pleasure to inspect the Z-M booth at the IPMS convention today. The president of the company is named Mr.Hideyuki Shigeta and after spending 20 minutes explaining their P-51D kit to me (which of course I just HAD to buy) he and his staff then walked me through the various subasemblies and showed me their final constructed He 219 UHU. Mr. Shigeta and his staff's professionalism and customer focus were ovrshadowed ONLY by the amazing final build this kit will make. I was so impressed by their finished kit and excited about it's impending 2013 release I nearly forgot to snag my ride back to the hotel where I am staying. So, ignore Mr. Marty, he's just not worth it if you keep all the real awesome developments and state of the art now in this great hobby. Take care and thank you for sharing your opinions and pleasant demeanor. It should be an example to Mr Marty as he struggles with his immaturity.

Jim

Hi all

Sadly, as with so many of Gaston's threads, this looks set to descend to the level of name-calling, so I guess it's time to lock it. Those who've followed similar threads will know by know that no amount of arguing or reasoning will prevail, so I would urge anyone simply not to get drawn in.

All the best

Rowan