Jump to content

Kinetic F-16 nose correction


Recommended Posts

The new F-16I Sufa has a corrected nose that is OK, just saw a built comparison between a Hasegawa, a Kinetic and a Tamiya one, after seeing that I picked up the Kinetic one, it is more value for the money at leasts IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The new F-16I Sufa has a corrected nose that is OK, just saw a built comparison between a Hasegawa, a Kinetic and a Tamiya one, after seeing that I picked up the Kinetic one, it is more value for the money at leasts IMHO.

All Kinetic kits save the AM, DG/DJ, and C Barak have the corrected nose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a few people talking about making a correction set, but none ever materialized.

Luckily you have the DJ kit as it's easier to correct, the "Corrected" nose on the Sufa just made the possibility of a correction harder.

Kinetic massaged the mold back to the intake trying to remove the pelican appearance of the nose, what that did was deepen the entire forward fuselage giving it a sausage appearance, it's always easier to remove material from a mold then to add it, and that is what Kinetic did.

To correct the original molded kits, the areas that need to be addressed start under the cockpit going forward, to include the upper fuselage stating in front of the glare shield, the fuselage top center section is sloped downward at too sever an angle, therefore dropping the nosecone too low, the crossection of the nosecone is all wrong to meet these dimensions and this is carried into the electronics bay doors.

What needs to be done is get a replacement nosecone from Tamiya or Hasegawa raise the forward fuselage section in front of the glare shield, fill (the inside ) and sand the lower fuselage to meet the nosecone, and modify/reshape the electronics bay doors to fit.

To correct the "New Tooled" fuselage you'll need to shave the lower fuselage clear back to the intake, removing the material they added by shaving the molds, this of course would leave you with a gapping hole so it's really not possible without filling (building up) the underside of the fuselage or adding in new plastic.

Curt

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be brutally honest, by the time you add the price of a resin nose correction to the Kinetic kit, it would be cheaper to just buy the Tamiya kit. So there isn't really any point.

That being said, I *think* Royale Resin do a one-piece radome which is a copy of the Tamiya kit part (assembled, seams filled and tapes added). It doesn't really fit the Kinetic nose, as Kinetic's cross section is different (wrong), but it would be a decent guide for what needs to be sanded/filed/filled - glue the Tamiya radome on, then sand the Kinetic nose until it matches. So it's not a 'correction', but it can be used to help fix the Kinetic kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it would be cheaper to just buy the Tamiya kit

Why is the Kinetic kit compared to the Tamiya kit ? Only American F-16s can be made out of the Tamiya kits. Resin (bubbles, shrinkage, etc included) + decals are required to do export aircrafts. If the Kinetic is to be compared to anything, it's to the Hasegawa kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because that is the kit Kinetic copied.

Ok. But does Tamiya the possibility to do an MLU OOB ? No. A Blk 60 ? No. The Tamiya kit isn't an alternative. The Kinetic kits may be crap to Viper freaks but they exist at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. But does Tamiya the possibility to do an MLU OOB ? No. A Blk 60 ? No. The Tamiya kit isn't an alternative. The Kinetic kits may be crap to Viper freaks but they exist at least.

Coming from someone who so roundly criticises many other jet kits for inaccuracies in things like windscreen shape and so forth that statement is a little incongruous to say the least! Of course the Tamiya kit is an option, it just depends how far you want to go to achieve another variant. Still makes more sense to start with an essentially accurate kit and work from there rather than start with with a badly inaccurate base shape and add an expensive resin correction before yo think about your chosen variant.

I'm still agog that the kit is so inaccurate given that it's a scaled down copy of Tamiya's superb 32nd kit. Not even well copied. Kinetic offer the chance to do an MLU OOB. . badly. And a block 60 OOB. . poorly. I see no reason to give them a pass simply for "existing". For someone who's other posts reveal a keen (and admirable) eye for accuracy your position on Kinetic's Vipers is odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Coming from someone who so roundly criticises many other jet kits for inaccuracies in things like windscreen shape and so forth that statement is a little incongruous to say the least! Of course the Tamiya kit is an option, it just depends how far you want to go to achieve another variant. Still makes more sense to start with an essentially accurate kit and work from there rather than start with with a badly inaccurate base shape and add an expensive resin correction before yo think about your chosen variant.

I'm still agog that the kit is so inaccurate given that it's a scaled down copy of Tamiya's superb 32nd kit. Not even well copied. Kinetic offer the chance to do an MLU OOB. . badly. And a block 60 OOB. . poorly. I see no reason to give them a pass simply for "existing". For someone who's other posts reveal a keen (and admirable) eye for accuracy your position on Kinetic's Vipers is odd.

It's probably because I'm a MiG/Sukhoi freak (to a certain extent: there are plenty of interesting subjects too) and not a Viper freak. I don't have a 3D mental image of the F-16 in my brain like Netz does but just a profil. When I look at the Hyperscale review which Juan kindly gave us a link to, I don't feel like bashing my head to the table. I do when I look at the Kinetic/Italeri F-84 intake (makes me feel like smacking the face the molds designer). I'd say that there are various levels of innaccuracies. The Kinetic F-84 intake or the Esci/Italeri MiG-27 front fuselage are catastrophic. Are the F-16 Kinetic noses as abominable ? I think not. Some inaccuracies are more critical than others. Oh. I've just thought about how to define a critical inaccuracy: an accuracy issue is critical if the reviewer doesn't have to write an explanation when he provides a picture of the real plane.The reader cannot do anything but say "OMG ! were they blind or what !?!". So the Kinetic F-16 isn't critically inaccurate.

Edited by Laurent
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Oh Boy, I'm gladd I'm building mostly OOB and got lack to any "Viper Experts".I've got 4 Kinetic Vipers and I like them.Nice kits for a good price by LM in Hong-Kong.I don't enter a contest.Only bring my models to a show.I have fun to make models and I hate a headache to compensate all inaccurecy of a kit.I don't care.

Just making a Revell H.Hurricane IIb in 1/72.Strickt OOB and I know the canopy is'nt right.I DON'T CARE!!!!!

I only will have a Hurricane on the shelf and will look at her,boy,is she nice!!!

Reg. Han Krol Holland -EU- . :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are the F-16 Kinetic noses as abominable ? I think not. Some inaccuracies are more critical than others. Oh. I've just thought about how to define a critical inaccuracy: an accuracy issue is critical if the reviewer doesn't have to write an explanation when he provides a picture of the real plane.The reader cannot do anything but say "OMG ! were they blind or what !?!". So the Kinetic F-16 isn't critically inaccurate.

Kinetic 1:48 version

The LM 1:1 version

I recommend this Link for the Kinetic kit toolers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok. But does Tamiya the possibility to do an MLU OOB ? No. A Blk 60 ? No. The Tamiya kit isn't an alternative. The Kinetic kits may be crap to Viper freaks but they exist at least.

This thread was specifically addressing the shape of the nose, not the different versions of the A/C that can be made from the box.

why not others builds of kinetic f-16 to compare?

like this one, or this one.

The angles of the photo's goes a long way of hiding the nose profile, those are great builds to use as an example, and the kit can be built to look very respectable. Albeit with a ton of work to clean up the poor fitting parts, heavy sprue attachment, and many punch marks.

Prototype pic. That was before the nose was modified. Now it looks like this.

I think one thing we all agree on, It has a shape issue.

Curt

Link to post
Share on other sites
why not others builds of kinetic f-16 to compare?

like this one, or this one.

I've seen these build ups, and they are truly excellent. They are testaments to the great amount of skill that some of our forum members possess.

My point was though, the Kinetic nose is a "critical inaccuracy" because just a simple glance at the nose of a real F-16 would show a great deal of variance between the two.

Prototype pic. That was before the nose was modified. Now it looks like this.

I understand the whole forward fuselage (including the nose) has been modified. Two things though:

1. There are still earlier Kinetic kits, such as the AM or DG/DJ that have not been modified.

2. The modified nose did not fix the problem. If anything, it created a whole new set of problems. While the nose droop is not as noticeable anymore, the modification created a problem with the thickness of the forward fuselage. While the Kinetic F-16 no longer looks like it carries a Flanker's nose, it looks like a goose that swallowed something too big to fit in its throat. This is especially noticeable in shots of the side under the cockpit, or underside shots. You know how the F-22 looks like something that swallowed something too big? That kind of look.

Kinetic botched the nose and made a half assed attempt to correct it, instead of truly fixing the problem. That may be fine for Kinetic, but when a professor hands me back my work and tells me "You know you could have done better, and you know you shouldn't have made such obvious mistakes" I give them back the work fully corrected and then some, instead of giving them some half hearted attempt and a lame excuse.

The Kinetic kit can be made up very well, as evidenced above. And with the Pablo cut, the earlier molds of the Kinetic kit can be improved as much as a modeler can improve it. It still does not get rid of the fact that there is something seriously wrong with the kit. This is coming from a guy who is currently building a 1/72 Italeri F-16B. I'll build it up as best as I can, to make it into something I will proudly display, but I'm not going to pretend that its inaccuracies are petty or that its ill fitting parts are excusable since I got it real cheap.

Based on the great variety in quality of kit I've come across over the years, I'm a firm believer that any kit can be made into a show stopper, but that doesn't mean that I'll gloss over the gross errors and put on beer goggles every time I discuss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I more or less followed the whole debate considering the Kinetic F-16 nose...

Could anybody confirm if there are shape issues with the Hasegawa nose? If not I would be surprised because the oulines are also quite different compared to the Tamiya version.

To me, the modified Kinetic nose is certainly not worse than Hasegawa. I built a Hasegawa F-16 some ten years ago, and I was never really satisfied with the look (although it's better than the original Kinetic one).

Best regards,

Guillaume

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...