Category Archives: Reviews

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1:72 Shock & Awe Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, or, Why You Can’t Trust Scale Drawings! Plus massive historical confusion about Revell-Monogram!

I’m an idiot; a nut for the combat ineffective F-104 ‘Missile with a Man in it’ Starfighter so I’ve collect too many, and then I went and spent what precious little money I have on a book of scale plans.  And now those scale plans might actually be wrong!

I checked my collection of 1:72 (1/72) scale F-104s against the Mushroom Modeling Publications (MMPBooks) Scale Plans:  Academy, ESCI (ERTL, Italeri), Hasegawa, Heller, Matchbox and Monogram (not Revell), with interesting results.

Click the pics in the gallery to see more:

Conclusion: I’ve compared only the canopy, fuselages and wings because there is a plethora of aftermarket detailing sets out there, so all you really need are decent canopy, fuselage and wings.

All kits had fuselages longer than the MMPBooks Scale Plans, but both Academy and Heller have the largest fuselages in length and circumference.  Academy is the worst offender due to the obviously oversized cockpit and canopy.

Despite being an old kit (almost as old as the Heller kits) the ESCI kit still looks good.  Matchbox looks toy like but seems to be shaped right.

Everybody likes Hasegawa, so much so that many kit builders find it heresy to even question the accuracy of their kits.  But I remember the days when their kits were junk!  This Hasegawa kit is definitely not from their junk days in the 1970s.  It’s the best two seater F-104 available in 1:72 scale.

The 1990s issue Monogram kit is the winner for straight out of the box appearances.   What’s interesting is that there are some reviews out there about the Monogram F-104C that complain of too many rivets, canopy defects and even that the Monogram kit is the same as the Revell F-104G kit with raised panel lines. My kit has fine recessed panel lines and neither too many rivets or a defective canopy and is hands down the best looking of the bunch.  I believe there is confusion because before Revell and Monogram were forced to merge (by parent company Odyssey Partners of New York, in 1986) they issued their own F-104 which was an old kit with raised panel lines and lots of rivets.  Since the merger many kit bashers think every Monogram kit was originally a Revell kit, or vice versa.  In 1996 Monogram issued a new tooled F-104C, it is not the older Revell kit. Lets confuse you even more by talking about Revell Germany.  Currently it’s known as Revell Germany here in the U.S. and since 2000 they’ve issued a lot of Hasegawa kits under their label.  However, through the 1970s to early 1990s Revell Plastics, or Revell AG (what we now call Revell Germany) issued a lot of junky kits, old Revell kits with raised lines and masses of rivets, crappy old Frog kits, and even Matchbox kits when they bought all the Matchbox molds.  From 1980 to 83 Revell was owned by a French company called CEJI, sometimes kits were issued with the label Revell-CEJI.  In the 1990s Revell Germany (officially Revell KG, or Revell GmbH) was issuing almost anything under the sun regardless of how crappy the quality was (or is, as they are still issuing old Frog and Matchbox kits).  Clue, since the late 1990s Revell Germany has been using blue bordered end opening boxes.  And for even more confusion, in 2006 Revell Germany became officially independent of what we now call Revell USA (or Revell-Monogram), however, between 2007 and 2012 both Revell-Monogram and Revell Germany were taken over by Illinois based Hobbico.  And don’t forget there’s also ‘Revell-Japan’ sometimes Takara sometimes Gunze Sangyo, ‘Revell-Mexico’ Lodela and ‘Revell-Brazil’ Kikoler!  So, the only way to tell the quality of the kit is to open the box and look at the parts, something hard to do when many surviving brick-n-mortar shop owners would shoot you for doing so, and when most kit purchases are now made through the mail or internet.

Another indicator that the MMPBooks 1:72 Scale Plans might be wrong is that all the kits had main wings and elevators (horizontal tails) that were identical to each other dimensionally, and were slightly larger in span and cord than the Scale Plans.  For even more evidence that the Scale Plans are wrong; when you compare the kit fuselages to the overhead view they’re even longer than in the side view! This could put me off buying anymore MMP Scale Plans books.

For those who love math, to find out how long the F-104 fuselage should be in 1:72 scale do it yourself!

1:72 comparison F-86 Saber Fujimi vs Heller, or, Nobody is Perfect!

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1:72 comparison F-86 Saber Fujimi vs Heller, or, Nobody is Perfect!

In 2011, I compared Heller, Hobby Craft (now issued by Academy) and Fujimi F-86F Sabers but did not have any scale drawings to check accuracy.   I’ve gotten my hands on some Japanese 1:72 scale drawings and checked the Fujimi, Heller and a High Planes conversion fuselage (I no longer have the Hobby Craft kit).

Click pics to make bigger

Part One: Heller, Fujimi & Hobbycraft F-86 Sabre kits compared 

 

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss.

Image

I ‘built’ a collection of 1:48 scale Ling Temco Vought A-7 Corsair 2s.  Time to compare them, as a lot of kit bashers always want to know which is the best, or at least which looks the best out of the box.

The first 1:48 A-7 was the old 1969 issue Aurora kit.  It was marketed as a D version, but is actually an A/B/C version.  The main difference is that the A/B/C versions had two single barrel Colt Mark 12 20mm guns firing through troughs on either side of the air intake.  D and E versions had a single six barreled M61 20mm Vulcan gun on the left (port) side.  The Aurora kit has two gun troughs on either side of the air intake, making it an A, B or C version.

Click the pics to make bigger

The old kit is interesting in that it has recessed panel lines (Matchbox ‘trench’ style), something unique for a 1960s kit.  Other than the recessed surface details the kit is basically a toy.  There are very little details anywhere else and the landing gear and ordinance are pathetic.  I do not have 1:48 scale drawings of the A-7, so the best I can do is compare the kits and make judgments based on the 1:72 scale drawings I have.  The Aurora kit is mentioned because the next 1:48 scale A-7 kit to be issued came from Monogram, and supposedly evolved from the Aurora kit.

In 1976-77 Aurora went out of business and sold-off its kit molds.  Monogram bought most of the molds.  Reports say Monogram re-tooled the Aurora A-7, if this is true they did a crappy job (compared to the ground breaking kits they issued in the mid 1970s-early 80s).  It is currently issued by Revell U.S.A. (do not confuse it with the recent A-7 issued by Revell Germany, which is a re-boxing of Hasegawa’s A-7).

Monogram made some major changes, which resulted in raised panel lines and a longer fuselage. The wing span is also longer.  The most ugly change was the widening of the cockpit area, the canopy is not only bigger than the original Aurora canopy, it’s the biggest of all the kits I compare.  The ordinance is no better than Aurora’s but at least you get big external fuel tanks.  At least Monogram made the tailpipe more oval, as Aurora’s is round.

Monogram did market it as an A-7A.  So far Hobby Boss is the only other kit maker to issue an A-7A Corsair 2.  The Monogram-Revell kit is a crappy kit, and I’m surprised by how much the original Monogram issue kit sells for on the internet.   I’m also surprised Revell U.S.A. re-issued the thing, especially when Revell Germany sells the Hasegawa kit (unfortunately, I’ve discovered that sometimes Revell-Germany also issued the old Monogram kit).

Close on the heels of the Monogram issue came Italy’s ESCI A-7D/E versions.  I read many posts saying how bad the ESCI kit is, but in my opinion it’s still better (in some ways) than the Monogram/Aurora kits.

AMT has re-issued the kit after ESCI went bust.  AMT’s instructions call the U.S. Navy refueling probe a “missile launch rail”.  Also, the kit I have is supposed to be a USN A-7E yet the instructions have you mount the USAF A-7D refueling receptacle on top of the fuselage anyway.

The kit has some good points like a long intake trunk, the onboard boarding ladder, a separately molded radome, separately molded folding wing tips and some okay looking ECM pods, Snakeye bombs and Maverick missiles.

Some of the bad points are lack of cockpit/wheel well details, the fuselage is molded in four parts with the forward parts being slightly larger in diameter from the rear parts, and incredibly bad ordnance ‘ejector racks’ which look like sticks of plastic.

Compared to the Revell-Monogram kit the ESCI fuselage seems the same length, but the ESCI intake lip is further back from the Revell-Monogram kit (I line up the fuselages at the tailpipe end).  The ESCI intake is too round.  From the rear, the tailpipes are similar in shape, but the ESCI elevator location is higher up on the fuselage. The Revell-Monogram main wing and elevators are slightly larger than the ESCI kit, with the ESCI elevators too narrow at the tips.

Finally, in the 1990s Japan’s Hasegawa issued a 1:48 A-7D and E Corsair 2.  Out of the box it’s the best yet, with good looking shapes, recessed panel lines, exposed avionics bays, boarding ladder, intake trunk, some cockpit and wheel well details, separately molded wing tips, flaps and slats, nice looking Sidewinder missiles and even a separately molded air (speed) brake (which can only be posed in the extended position if you model the plane in-flight with wheels up).

I compared it to the Revell-Monogram kit, which has a slightly longer fuselage. From the rear the tail pipes are similar in shape, but the Hasegawa’s is larger and, like the ESCI kit, the position of the elevators are higher up on the fuselage.  The main wing span is longer than Revell-Monogram’s, but the folding wing area is smaller than Revell-Monogram’s.  The elevators are similar.  The Hasegawa external fuel tank is the same length but skinnier.  The downside is Hasegawa does not provide bombs or other ground attack ordinance and, as usual, Hasegawa’s decal color register is off (the only time they get it right is when they subcontract with aftermarket decal printers).

In 2009 China’s Hobby Boss issued a new series of A-7 Corsair 2s, including an A-7A.  Out of the box it looks great, until you spend more time looking it over.

The fuselage is the longest, with a skinny nose/radome, and the most oval shaped (and skinny) tailpipe of all the kits. The main wing does not have a folding section, is shorter in span than the Hasegawa kit yet much wider.  This is interesting because the Hobby Boss 1:72 scale A-7 wing matches the scale drawings I compared it to.

The external fuel tank is longer and skinnier than the Hasegawa kit.  The canopy size lies in between the Hasegawa and Revell-Monogram kits.  The Hobby Boss kit does have nice looking ordinance including FLIR pods, but the Mark 82s are too skinny.

As far as surface details (panel lines) all the kits are different.  I’ve read that some of the Hobby Boss surface details for the A-7A are in the wrong location and are more accurate for later versions of the Corsair 2.  Apparently the two gun troughs are the only surface detail that matches an A-7A.

It looks like the Hasegawa kit is still the overall best 1:48 scale A-7 Corsair kit available.

USAF A-7 CORSAIRS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO?

1/72 scale A-7 Corsair 2 comparison: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix & Hobby Boss

1:72 F-100 SUPER SABER KIT KLASH, OR MORE REASONS WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS

 

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1/72 REVISED comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix, Hasegawa, Matchbox, Revell & Hobby Boss. More reason not to trust scale drawings?

Image

I’ve collected a few LTV A-7 Corsair 2 kits in 1/72 scale, and noticed a lot of difference in shape.  I’ve also learned that the latest and greatest kit issue from Asia isn’t so great.

Update: I recently got the ancient 1979 The A-7 Corsair II in Detail & Scale and immediately noticed a difference in the Ed Moore scale drawings and the Bunrin-Do (1989 #18 Famous Airplanes of the World: LTV A-7 Corsair II Navy Version) drawings I originally used for this review.  The Bunrin-Do drawings look much better than the Ed Moore drawings but does that mean they’re more accurate?

Click the pics to make bigger and read results

The Hobby Boss kit (it needs to die or be completely re-tooled) is disappointing dimensionally, even the Mark 82 bombs are incredibly anorexic!  The Hobby Boss main wing is almost right on with the Bunrin-Do drawings. The elevators are accurate close to the fuselage, but start to slightly narrow at the tip (but nothing like the narrowness of the other kits).   Despite the fuselage being too narrow, the canopy is slightly too fat.  If you think the Hobby Boss kit fuselage is too long and skinny, wait until you compare it to the Ed Moore drawings; it’s anorexic!  Amazingly the wing is almost spot-on in shape, span and chord! The elevators are ever-so slightly short in span. The canopy is still fat.

The 'mold parting' line on this Hobby Boss canopy is not in the right place to be the result of mold halves, but matches the center line used by drafters of scale drawings!

The ‘mold parting’ line on this Hobby Boss canopy matches the center line used by drafters of scale drawings!

And I think I’ve discovered why many Chinese made kits have ‘mold parting’ lines down the center of their canopies: Perhaps they’re not mold parting lines, but the lines from scale drawings?  However the Chinese companies are transcribing scale plans of aircraft to the mold making process, they’re including the line drafters use to indicate the center-line of the fuselage?

(Note: I didn’t check windshields, just canopies.)

The ancient Hasegawa kit (still being issued) fuselage has good shape but is slightly short when compared to the Ed Moore drawings.  The antennae on the spine are in the wrong place.  The old issue kit is missing the ECM antenna on the vertical tail, but supposedly later issues were revised. The elevators are too small.  The wings are slightly short in span but match the shape of the drawings. The canopy profile matches the drawings but is slightly fat in cross-section.  Compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the Hasegawa fuselage is too short.  Here’s where it gets weird, the elevators and canopy match the Bunrin-Do drawings, but the wings are even shorter in span when compared to the Ed Moore drawings!

When compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the Airfix (also issued by MPC) kit fuselage is the most accurate shape wise, but the main wings are too short in span, narrow in chord, and the wing tips are cut straight instead of being curved.  The elevators are too short with incorrect shaped tips.  The canopy looks the right width, but the rear portion of the frame is missing as it is part of the kit fuselage, so no way to pose it open.  Compared to the Ed Moore drawings the Airfix main wings have the same problem; too short, wrong shape. The elevators are not only short in span but in chord as well.  The canopy is slightly fat.  The fuselage length matches the Ed Moore drawings, but the vertical tail is further back on the spine and the antennae are in the wrong place.  Interestingly the 1979 edition of the Detail & Scale book praises the Airfix kit as being “the best kit available”.

The Matchbox kit fuselage matches the shape of the Ed Moore drawings almost perfectly (the kit was issued after the Detail & Scale book was first published) but is slightly long.  The canopy is slightly flat in profile, but matches in cross section, it is molded as a one piece canopy-windshield, and like the Airfix kit, the framing for the canopy is molded as part of the fuselage. The wing matches the span and wing tip shape of the Ed Moore drawings, but is narrow in chord.  The elevators match the drawings.  Compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the elevators are the correct size, but the tips are the wrong shape. The wing is too short and too narrow. The canopy matches the profile and cross-section.  The fuselage is too short, and too narrow at the ass-end.

Revell’s ancient kit (repeatedly re-issued, somebody put it out of our misery!) matches the shape of the Ed Moore fuselage, but is slightly long.  The ECM antenna on the tail (apparently added to later issues of the kit) is too small.  The canopy-windshield matches the drawings, but like the Airfix and Matchbox kits, the framing for the canopy is molded as part of the fuselage.  Revell’s wing is the best as far as how it mounts to the fuselage; it is molded as part of the spine which greatly reduces the need for filling in join lines (debatable), however, the wing is the wrong shape and long in span.  The elevators have too great a sweep.  According to the Bunrin-Do drawings the wing is too short in span and too narrow. The elevators have the same sweep-back problem.  The canopy-windshield seem slightly small compared to the drawings.   Like the Matchbox kit, the fuselage is too short, and too narrow, at the ass-end.

Comparing the ESCI (re-boxed by AMT-ERTL/Italeri) main wing to the Bunrin-Do drawings it is way too short in span, and the elevators are too narrow.  The canopy seems the right width, but the rear portion of the frame is not correct.  The Ed Moore drawings say the same thing about the main wing, the elevators fair better by barely matching the drawings.  The canopy looks good.  The fuselage matches the profile of the drawing but is slightly short. The tip of the vertical tail does not match Ed Moore’s drawing, but none of the kits do as the drawing shows the tail tip being rounded, which is wrong (oh my, you mean an authoritative scale drawing is wrong?)! ESCI kits usually come with good decals.

The Fujimi main wing is barely short going by the Bunrin-Do drawings.  The elevators are way too narrow, and the canopy slightly fat with incorrect rear frame.  The fuselage matches the Ed Moore drawings.  Spine antennae are in the wrong location.  The canopy matches.  The elevators are narrow in chord and have incorrectly shaped tips.  The wing is slightly short in span due to incorrectly shaped tips.  Nice decals came with my kit.

Ordinance:  The only kits in this review with decent weapons load are the ESCI and Fujimi kits, not great, but better than the lumps of plastic you kit with the other brands.  The skinny Hobby Boss Mark 82s come with optional fuse extenders.

IFR (In-Flight Refueling):  The Matchbox kit provides IFR for USAF aircraft only.  The Airfix kit provides IFR for USN aircraft only.  Hasegawa provides IFR for USN only, which is interesting because the AMT re-box (A-693:130) comes with markings for a USAF version.  Revell’s kit has IFR for USN only, despite numerous re-issues with USAF decals.  Fujimi, ESCI and Hobby Boss provide IFRs for both USAF and USN (depending on which issue of the kit you buy).

Out of the kit manufactures I compared none are accurate overall (and none got the main wing tip shape correct).  I read from other kit builders that the only way to get an accurate 1/72 scale A-7 is to kit-bash several kits from different makers.  From my perspective, it might be done by combining the Fujimi or Airfix fuselage with the Hobby Boss wing, for a start.  If you’re planing on building a kit to enter into a highly competitive model contest then kit-bashing is your only choice, but most of us don’t have the time (or money).

The A-7 has such a unique look and all the kits capture that look despite having shape issues, so, if you’re building one just for the heck of it then save some money and buy the cheapest one you can find, and go for it.

Notes: Before re-boxing the ESCI kit, AMT also re-boxed the Matchbox kit (late 1970s) and the super-ancient Hasegawa kit (early 1970s). The AMT/Matchbox issue uses the original Matchbox artwork and the phrase “Molded in 3 Colors” (using the U.S. English spelling of the word colors).

The website ScaleMates reports the Ace Hobby Kit A-7 is a copy of the Hasegawa kit, wrong!  The Ace A-7 is a re-tooled terrible copy of the ESCI kit.  Ace offers it in A, B, D, E versions, but all are wrong, like not having the correct parts, or decals, for the version offered!  Stay away from the Ace kit.

Heller re-boxed the Airfix A-7 in the 1990s when Airfix and Heller were owned by a single parent company (Humbrol).

USAF A-7 CORSAIRS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO?

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss 

Cold War Aggressor:  EA-7L THE ‘ELECTRIC’ TA-7C CORSAIR-2

Cold War Maintenance Walk Around: A-7D CORSAIR-2

1:72 F-100 SUPER SABER KIT KLASH, OR MORE REASONS WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Revell 1937 Ford Pickup or Why model assembly instructions can be wrong!

Image

Click/tap pics to make bigger and read the text:

Here’s a real 1930s Ford pickup truck in Idaho: 2015 Chubbuck Days Car Show 

Kit Bashing: MULTI-MAVERICK OR WHY MODEL ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE WRONG!

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Kit Bashing: PJ Production has new stuff for 2014!

Image

16 February 2014 (00:40 UTC-07 Tango)/15 Rabi ‘ath-Thani 1435/27 Bahman 1392/17 Bing-Yin (1st month) 4712

Click pics to make bigger:

2013: PJ PRODUCTION HAS NEW STUFF!

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Multi-Maverick or Why model assembly instructions can be wrong!

Image

14 September 2013 (22:11 UTC-07 Tango 13 September 2013)/09 Dhu ‘l-Qa’da 1434/23 Shahrivar 1391/10 Xin-You (8th month) 4711

Click pics to make bigger and read why the instructions are wrong:

Kit Bashing: 2006 MUSTANG FUNNY CAR DRAGSTER

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Kit Bashing: PJ Production has new stuff!

Image

Click the pics to make bigger:

Click pics to make bigger

2012:  PJ PRODUCTION HAS NEW PILOT FIGURES; 1/72 SWEDISH GRIPPEN & GERMAN F-4 PHANTOM 2

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Revell’s Chevy COPO Nova

Image

Click pics to make bigger

Kit Bashing: SUPERCHARGING THE OLD AMT OPEL GT KIT

 

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Kit Bashing: Hobby Boss F-5E Tiger II, not an “Easy Assembly” kit, but well worth the little bit-o-money it costs!

Click on the pic to see more.