Dave Williams

Yeah, it’s been out for at least a couple of months, just not available in the US because of the lack of a US distributor. Like the 1/32 Super Bug, if you’re in the US and want one, you’ll have to get it from overseas. I got mine off eBay.

Before. It was to test the design of the slatted wing.

Trumpeter is also a Chinese company, and some of their kits have been heavily criticized for years, but they seem to ignore it, so I don’t think that explains anything. I’m curious who these “competitors” that are supposedly doing all of this criticism, and what they would have to gain. Tamiya would be the nearest realistic competitor, but they just do their own thing and don’t criticize other people’s kits. I’m not sure the Hasegawa Tomcats are currently in production, and they don’t criticize other kits either. Hobbyboss? Maybe, but their kits also have issues. The Monogram, Revell, and Italeri kits are all older and less detailed kits, and really aren’t competitors, not to mention most of the kits have been OOP for a while.

I’m not sure I’ve seem companies claim that their plastic models kits are the best ever or are game changers or other such hyperbole. If they did, I must have blown past in because it didn’t register at all. Marketing is marketing, and it’s the same for almost any product. Usually the things that get my interest are things like features, optional parts, details, decals, etc. If claims of accuracy by the company are an issue, it’s fine to examine them and see if they are correct, but it should be based on hard, provable facts. I’m fine with people pointing out real errors in a kit in a respectful way so I can make an informed decision on how important they are to me. However, I’ve noticed that some seem to delight in pointing out inaccuracies, going beyond simply pointing out errors to seemingly pointedly sticking to companies that dare claim that their kits are accurate by proving they aren’t with endless posting of photos proving that their little lump of plastic isn’t accurate to a full sized metal object. Heaven forbid that a company doesn’t immediately pull the kit and fix things, or people claim that an inaccuracy doesn’t bother them, because they are the “expert” and deserve to be listened to, and if you don’t agree, you’re part of the problem of why we get mediocre kits. This is the whole “it looks like X to me” modeller vs. “accuracy Nazi” modeller debate that has raged on for years, will keep going on for eternity as long as the internet and social media exist, and has frankly grown tiresome. When a kit comes out, judge it by your own standards, buy it or not, and simply move on.

Thanks for the pictures of the Tamiya kit. So, the Tamiya kit is OK, then? If so, why all of the hoopla over the AMK kit? Sounds like we already have a good new tool 1/48 Tomcat available, so if the AMK kit comes out and it’s messed up, no loss for modellers.

Actually, I already have two Es, one F, and one G, so I already have that option. But, the Trumpeter kits are not without problems either.

Has anyone looked at these areas on the Tamiya kit, or is it fatally flawed and we’re waiting on the AMK kit to be the Holy Grail of 1/48 Tomcats?

The other issue is that the rear edge of the canopy matches the curvature of their spine, so how do you deal with that? Ignore it and hope it’s not too noticeable, or make a new canopy too? The flat spine is noticeable, so do you try and make the whole thing truly accurate, or just round it somewhat so it just looks better? Maybe in the case of this kit making it look better is better than making it completely accurate, because there are other issues. Fortunately, the spine issue will be less obvious on the twin seater, if it ever gets released.

By 1983, the F-4 had been replaced in the A-A role by the F-15 and F-16, and were only used as precision bombers carrying GBUs, Walleye, Popeye, etc. For self defense, they might carry an IR missile like AIM-9 or Python 3, usually on an adapter in a front Sparrow well since the wing mounted A-G weapons were normally large enough to prevent carrying A-A missiles on the inboard pylons.

For the F-4 Kurnass. F-15 Baz still use Sparrow, or if they stopped, it’s only very recently.

The kit was also released as a B/N, but I think all of the parts were always in all of the B releases (even though Scalemates says ”new parts”). https://www.scalemates.com/kits/academy-12315-f-4b-n--1025178 Kit wise, it’s just adding the intake ECM fairings and variations on the undernose pot and tail tip, but those were always in the kit. https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/1/7/8/1025178-36-instructions.pdf

Yes. All F-4Es had the slotted tailplains, and the F-4E(S) was a converted F-4E.

I’ve found use of a primer mandatory with the new Spanish paints, especially Vallejo. Never used to prime with enamels or Tamiya paints.

That seems about right, but the problem is I don’t think the plastic is thick enough to round off that corner without sanding all of the way through the plastic.

Wishing that Tamiya would make a kit of so-and-so won’t help with the kits we actually get and have to deal with.