pollie
-
Content Count
2,340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by pollie
-
-
2 minutes ago, Raymond Chung said:
Thanks for information
do you mean we should include this in the manual ?
Yes, a good description of the specifics of the jets you provide decals for would allow everybody to build the most accurate representation of that particular jet. If modellers choose to follow those guidelines is up to each individual, but as manufacturer of kits you would build a reputation for being attentive to detail.
-
13 hours ago, falcon91352 said:
@pollie: Can you post some detail photos to show the differences?
Sure. Here are just a few differences, focusing on the area around the intake that are different between either the country, version or differ from the Kinetic kit. The more I look at sprue shots, the more things I notice.
I hope this helps you guys build an even more accurate F-16AM!
-
2 hours ago, Raymond Chung said:
Do you expect that we will have different intake for A and C on NSI for the different panel line ?
You are missing my point, Raymond. If you knew there are differences in panels, why didn't you just indicate these in the instructions? You did with more obvious things like, for example, the removal of beercans from the LEFs on MLU birds.
And secondly; there is no such thing as A or C NSI. Talking F-16A/B alone: there are differences between the intakes of Block 10 A/B, Block 15 OCU A/B and MLU AM/BM. Comms panel, EPU pin location, EPU fired indicator, access panel left hand side with ENG NO GO indicator etc etc. You would need to mould many different air intakes which is complete nonsense because the differences are small. But they are there and therefor noticable.
-
On 12/3/2022 at 8:54 PM, sigtau said:
- Cockpit is VERY narrow compared to the B-2, looks to be single seated or perhaps tandem like the B-47 and B-58
Looking at how they designed the cockpit glazing, this would mean no forward vision for a singleseat pilot in the middle? Good luck landing this plane 🙂
-
14 hours ago, Niels said:
You have to keep your versions straight here;
The original release was an F-16AM MLU Viper. In parallel they released a block 25/32/42 - both have the "small" mouth intake wich is in the kit.
I disagree. If I look at all the bulges, beercans etc you need to scrape off and the panels they got wrong this kit seems like an F-16C that they also released as MLU without clearly marking all the differences.
As I pointed out, small mouth is not small mouth. There are exterior differences between small mouth A and C intakes, and Kinetic failed to notice or chose to ignore.
QuoteAs for block 5/10/15 - they were all upgrade to MLU standard, both A and B versions. Depending on country, they have some differences that cannot be removed through the upgrade. These are different panels etc. - check you references.
Kinetic should have checked their references more thoroughly and clearly marked differences in the instructions! They've missed a few, so when building it you'll end up with some kind of AM/C hybrid airframe.
I realise a lot of ppl in the 'close enough' category won't understand me but that's fine. It is probably the best MLU F-16 on the market and like I said before; I applaud Kinetic for bringing it to us. But having worked on these d*mn jets for 24 years I immediately spot things that aren't right, whereas these differences might be irrelevant to others.
Is this kit now unbuildable? No way, I'll probably buy one if I didn't already have a million kits in the stash. I firmly believe Kinetic can go for Gold (see what I did there) if they would have researched the subject a bit more and devoted a page or two in their instructions concerning differences between AM and C, even country specific details. As it stands, I can't help but feel a bit disappointed, solely because I have such a love affair with the real thing and consider myself a rivet counter when it comes to this bird.
-
45 minutes ago, Solo said:
So what is wrong with that? There is small mouth intake in that box and that is proper intake for MLU. I am wrong?There is a difference in intakes between the F-16AM and F-16C. I have never seen a hinged access panel on the left side of the F-16AM except for a Block 10 MLU prototype. The F-16C has it.
There are also small oval, springloaded panels on the left and right side of the intake which are F-16C specific. Kinetic tooled it on their intake but shouldn't be there for an MLU.
The intake navigationlight bulge is also non-existent on many older F-16s. Some MLU models have a strengthening plate there, but this is way too thick.
I applaud Kinetic for giving us a new-tool F-16. However, a kit of an F-16C with some MLU parts thrown in still doesn't give us a proper F-16AM.
-
4 hours ago, Solo said:
Here you can find all pages of instruction:
F-16 Builders Support Group | FacebookThank you Solo!
I had a look at the instructions and they confirmed what I expected. Build out-of-the-box and you have an F-16C intake.
Quite some mistakes in the instructions: dragchute was carried by Dutch and Norwegian planes, Carapace system by the Belgians in the same location. Kinetic tells you to install Carapace for a Dutch Viper.
Sniper was carried not only by the Norwegian jets, but by Belgian and Dutch as well.
Curious how the Kinetic Viper looks when glued together.
-
On 12/6/2022 at 11:24 PM, jenshb said:
Not an expert in Dutch F-16s, so can't comment, but Airliners.net for example should come up with some pics of the aircraft you want to build. That period may also coincide with the introduction of the LAU-129 launchers capable of carrying both AMRAAM and Sidewinders (non-MLU'ed F-16s from the Royal Norwegian Air Force got this capability before the MLU program), and those launchers as well as AMRAAMs are included in the kit.
Same with the Dutch F-16s, although I think only the Block 15 OCU aircraft could carry AMRAAMs (besides the MLU jets of course). Don't know if they put LAU-129s on the Block 10s since we had a lot of the 16S210 older style launchers laying around. Finding references is the safest bet.
When looking at the Kinetic plastic, some filling and rescribing is in order to produce a Block 10/15. The left intake requires work for example. I haven't yet seen the Kinetic instructions; hope all these changes needed to come up with a true-to-scale F-16A(M) are documented.
-
On 11/16/2022 at 12:31 AM, jonwinn said:
I am looking to do another F-16 in 1/72 and would like to do an F-16 last flown by the Dutch before they acquired the F-35.
The Dutch still fly the F-16 (next to the F-35). They are slated for withdrawal in 2024.
Only the F-16AM is still in use since the last twoseat BMs were retired during the summer.
-
12 hours ago, habu2 said:
Not to speculate, but I videoed this exact routine last year. At the time of the accident the B-17 was flying straight and level, parallel and adjacent to the runway. The P-63 was "joining up" to fly formation on the B-17. The P-63 impacted the fuselage of the B-17 just aft of the wing, severing the tail section. For the life of me I can't understand how the P-63 pilot hit the B-17, the sun was at his back and, in the turn, the B-17 should have been in clear unobstructed view.
A longer clip of the incident shows at least one aircraft, probably P-51, flying in front of the B-17. I believe the P-63 was trying to catch up with the P-51, and in doing so, the pilot's eyes were glued to the Mustang in the distance. The P-63 was also in a left bank meaning the B-17 was in the blind spot. I firmly believe this was not an attempt to join up. The poor P-63 pilot wasn't aware of the B-17's position until he hit it mid-ship.
Try this video to see how much bank that P-63 was in: Boeing B-17 and Bell P-63 Kingcobra planes collided at Dallas airshow and crashed - YouTube
-
-
Info on colour schemes on their FB page. Sadly no Bulgarian option, but two Czech....
-
14 hours ago, Captain Tyler said:
Any information on if HAS will do the F-35C?
I don't think it is a matter of 'if' but more of 'when'. My bet will be an announcement during Shizuoka hobbyshow 2023 (May).
-
Nicely done!
-
On 8/1/2022 at 9:23 PM, ya-gabor said:
And todays winner of Identify the Background test
is:
Pollie!
Thank you Gabor! What did I win? Having worked about a kilometer down the road from the NASA compound for a year and half is what made me recognize it instantly.
Strange choice by FineMolds, but that doesn't affect the high quality of the kit fortunately...
And I am eagerly awaiting them to do an F-4G Wild Weasel!
-
On 4/13/2022 at 3:58 PM, GeneK said:
New decals and great box art.
Gene K
Great box art? Why is an Iranian Phantom bombing NASA's Neil Amstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB??
-
8 hours ago, Solo said:
So in that box is just FA-50 without pylons?Yes. Although it is called a T-50TH, that's essentially an FA-50 (with correct tail and gun in LH strake area).
-
T-50 and FA-50 have a different tail, to name the most important visual difference.
The T-50B aerobatic aircraft has a smoke producing system onboard, externally not different from a standard T-50 (except the paint scheme of course)
-
Nice camo. Where did you find the decals?
-
Nicely done!
You are not going to put any missiles on the model? 😉
-
I sincerely hope the colour profiles shown on their FB-page are not anything like the kit, cause else we have a hybrid AM/C airframe on our hands.... Some of the panel lines shown are C/D-specific.
-
It find this kit a bit confusing; Revell provides you with a set of decals from the 2017/18 timeframe, yet the weapons in the box (AIM-9L, AIM-7, Mk.82, GBU-12, LANTIRN pod) make it more like an early 1990s aircraft.
Has this kit been in the design stage that long??
-
There has been fierce fighting going on, including helicopter assaults and rocket attacks, at the airport. I find it hard to believe an aircraft of that size would remain unharmed.
Why wasn't it flown out before hostilities started? Four Ukrainian An-26/32 aircraft along with four IL-76 freighters and three Super Puma helicopters flew to Poland last friday.
-
5 hours ago, boom175 said:
I'm sorry if I missed it, but has there been a price established for this kit yet?
Saw it on pre-order for almost 45 euro (US$50). Curious to see how sanctions will hit the sale of this kit.
New tool F-16AM MLU in 1:48 announced by Kinetic
in Jet Modeling
Posted
A whole lot of manufacturers DO provide some info on variants in their instructions. 'Use part 6 for decal version 1', 'Fill hole for version B' etc etc. Kinetic does the same in their F-16AM kit. However; the info Kinetic provides is partially incorrect and incomplete.
To give you an example of variant differences in the Kinetic instructions: the small hole in the panel on the right hand side of the cockpit (externally) is noted in the instructions as something like 'fill hole except for Belgian F-16'. It would be very easy to overlook that small vent hole (I believe it's for Carapace system) so big kudos to Kinetic for noting it and including how to deal with it in the instructions. But what puzzles me is that larger differences between the specific aircraft they provide decals for go unnoted.
Why would they not if they have the info? See my comment above about the small vent hole in the Belgian jets. They clearly did research.
If Tamiya were to rerelease their F-16C Block 50 with Block 25 decals would everybody be fine with it and 'make the changes based on their knowledge and references' or would a lot of people go: "hey, wait a minute"?
Besides; I am sure there are modellers that want to build an accurate F-16AM but just donot have the knowledge: this is where instructions could help and bring a kit to a higher level IMHO.
Correct, and a percentage of that percentage can be found here, on this forum. I put some info in this thread for those people that want to build a more accurate F-16AM. If Kinetic uses that info; fine. If they don't: fine too.
When it comes to the F-16AM, I am part of the percentage that cares about such details. Others are not. What strikes me is that in all threads on this and other forums where people point out inaccuracies in model kits some find it necessary to immediately try to downplay by saying the usual things; "use your own references", "did you expect a shake-and-bake kit?", "close enough is good enough", "why are you such a rivet counter", "yeah, but my favourite modelkitmaker don't make mistakes" etc etc etc. Thereby making it necessary for people that are looking for detailed info to wade through tons of posts that add completely nothing to the thread. But that's the downside of a forum we'll have to live with.