MESHER Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) Looking for feedback from people who have purchased the new Academy F-15E/K and I kits on how they stack up compared to Hasegawa and Revell F-15 kits? I remember years back buying the Academy F-15C/D and E kits and I had some pretty bad build experiences with them so are these new kits any better? And what about purchasing the new Academy F-15E or F-15I kit and for another $15 each purchasing the ROG F-15E and then using the Academy new pieces and weapons to update the Revel kit...would this work? Edited February 15, 2010 by MESHER Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Marv Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 The "new" Academy kits are the old Academy F-15, with updated parts, such as weapons, etc. The kits are still good and make up into very nice completed models, with a little effort, of course. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Personally, I'd view the new Academy boxings as addon sets for the RoG kit, which is still the only real Strike Eagle kit in any scale, with a bonus F-15B/D kit thrown in. Just my €0,02. Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spitfire88 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Well the reason I was asking is the review on Cybermodeler advises that these new kits have now taken the trophy from the Revell kit as the best most accurate Eagles. I see Academy is releasing a new F-15C kit as well this year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PNW_Modeler Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 and as Andre eluded to....you are still not going to get an accurate F-15E out of it. It's basically a F-15D with CFTs on the side Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Roberts Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Ok so what DIDN'T Academy add to thier kits to get up to Strike Eagle snuff? The gear doors are revised for the bulge, the fairing that is on the c/l for loading the 20mm is now there. The only thing I am unsure of is the uprated landing gear - but I am not sure I could even tell if the parts are right or not even sitting side by side with the old kit. The cockpit has new IPs which was an error before. Then you have the engine bulge '*itch' that will inflame the nether regions of a sizeable, and vocal, minority. I guess I have gotten tired and cranky after reading all of the posts over the last week complaining about the new Eduard FW Dora 9 without a picture being found to actually show what is 'wrong' with the wing. I see a similar trend with the Academy Eagles...much complaining and crtisizing that they are 'wrong' but other than the engine bulges on the back I have yet to see what is 'really' wrong and not just something not to somebody's taste. And yes I just finished a P/M Beagle in the last week and yes it does look better than the original release Academy Baz hanging next to it but many of the bitches I have heard leveled against the Academy kits over the years (as well as most F-15Es in all 3 scales!) seem to have been addressed in the latest issues - except again whatever 'tweak' the higher rated landing gear is. Back to my Italeri Dora 9..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dagger00 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Well I agree with you on this one Matt..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 other than the engine bulges on the back I have yet to see what is 'really' wrong and not just something not to somebody's taste. Matt, I have built more 48th Academy F-15s than any other brand. The engine bulges have too much of a sharp edge where they join the fuselage. They should be smoothly fared in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Please forgive me for hijacking the thread. Ok so what DIDN'T Academy add to thier kits to get up to Strike Eagle snuff? The gear doors are revised for the bulge, the fairing that is on the c/l for loading the 20mm is now there. The only thing I am unsure of is the uprated landing gear - but I am not sure I could even tell if the parts are right or not even sitting side by side with the old kit. The cockpit has new IPs which was an error before. Then you have the engine bulge '*itch' that will inflame the nether regions of a sizeable, and vocal, minority.I guess I have gotten tired and cranky after reading all of the posts over the last week complaining about the new Eduard FW Dora 9 without a picture being found to actually show what is 'wrong' with the wing. I see a similar trend with the Academy Eagles...much complaining and crtisizing that they are 'wrong' but other than the engine bulges on the back I have yet to see what is 'really' wrong and not just something not to somebody's taste. And yes I just finished a P/M Beagle in the last week and yes it does look better than the original release Academy Baz hanging next to it but many of the bitches I have heard leveled against the Academy kits over the years (as well as most F-15Es in all 3 scales!) seem to have been addressed in the latest issues - except again whatever 'tweak' the higher rated landing gear is. Back to my Italeri Dora 9..... Am I right if I say that you are tired of people criticizing kits using questionable methodology (comparing a kit to another kit which is assumed to be accurate, comparing a kit to drawings that are assumed to be accurate) or using no methodology at all (knowledgable people who have worked years on a plane and that know what is right or wrong). A good accuracy issue discussion should be based on comparaison with photos of the real subject and nothing else. The reader isn't told what to think about an accuracy issue but he can decide himself if it is important to him or not. Yes or no ? Edit: thank you Ken. That's a good demonstration... for me at least. Edited February 9, 2010 by Laurent Quote Link to post Share on other sites
boom175 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Thanks Ken, It seems now if you pont out a flaw in a kit nowadays you get slammed!! even if you say "it will still look good put together, but this that and the other are incorrect" Matt, I am sorry you feel that way, I dont see it as complaining, but I see it as realistic criticism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Roberts Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I know and have made my peace with the engine bulges (Nice pics Ken, they show it beautifully) but all of the angst over other details that were or were not added when they tweaked the kits last year is what I am wondering about. The critics points with the ORIGINAL Strike Eagle were with the CFTs and bomb racks being prototype rather than operational standards and the non-bulged doors on the main gear being the two most often cited (other than the engine bulges) and then some of the airframe details around the back end as they went operational - the ends of the booms and between the engines. Those Acad fixed in the latest releases, you still have to cut off the original bits but no worse than adding say the Wolfpack bits. The Cockpit also has been upgraded with new instrument panels and many of the antennas have been added (again trim off the original molded on detail). I'm just asking what did (or didn't) Academy do to the new releases to warrant the amount of angst I see. If it is the engine bulges - ok but if it is something other than that I am curious to learn what it is happy Modeling Matt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BlackThor 06 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) Some thoughts on this... Academy did some reworking on the old molds. The engine bulge isn't that prominent. Not flawlessly done, but the effort is very noticeable. IIRC someone posted images of the old versus reworked fuselage some time ago. The thing that's being slammed is the spine behind the speed brake; its too prominent compared to photographs of the actual subject. Im sure this can be addressed by some sanding. Strangley, the F-15K kit doest have them, only on the Es. Airframe details are still more of an F-15C/D, such as that oblong-shaped object (a grille?) between the engine bulge - that feature is plainly visible in the photo provided by Ken Middleton. What annoys me is Academy still left out the grille at the right side of the forward fuselage, just behind and below of the cockpit - its still a shallow circular depression. No way I can address that except for PE. While new/reworked IPs and bang seats have been done, the WSO's pit still lacks the had controllers on the side consoles. The new kits are still devoid of sidewall details. Overall though, I am impressed and like the kit/s very much (I have 1 F-15K and 3 F-15Es in the stash, haven't built them yet). I know the R/M offering is still the top of the line, but if one wants to build a present-day F-15E straight OOB, he/she would have turn to the Academy kit and nothing else. BT6 Edited February 10, 2010 by BlackThor 06 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Roberts Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Thanks BT6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Qian Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 What annoys me is Academy still left out the grille at the right side of the forward fuselage, just behind and below of the cockpit - its still a shallow circular depression. No way I can address that except for PE. That's the secondary heat exchanger vent which on the F-15K, is no longer there. It was uncorrected on the F-15K kit but has been reworked on the OIF F-15E where they added on some details. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
speedlimit Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Some thoughts on this...Academy did some reworking on the old molds. The engine bulge isn't that prominent. Not flawlessly done, but the effort is very noticeable. IIRC someone posted images of the old versus reworked fuselage some time ago. The thing that's being slammed is the spine behind the speed brake; its too prominent compared to photographs of the actual subject. Im sure this can be addressed by some sanding. Strangley, the F-15K kit doest have them, only on the Es. Airframe details are still more of an F-15C/D, such as that oblong-shaped object (a grille?) between the engine bulge - that feature is plainly visible in the photo provided by Ken Middleton. What annoys me is Academy still left out the grille at the right side of the forward fuselage, just behind and below of the cockpit - its still a shallow circular depression. No way I can address that except for PE. While new/reworked IPs and bang seats have been done, the WSO's pit still lacks the had controllers on the side consoles. The new kits are still devoid of sidewall details. Overall though, I am impressed and like the kit/s very much (I have 1 F-15K and 3 F-15Es in the stash, haven't built them yet). I know the R/M offering is still the top of the line, but if one wants to build a present-day F-15E straight OOB, he/she would have turn to the Academy kit and nothing else. :) BT6 Hey Randy thanks for the feedback. Havent seen you for the longest time my friend. Howzit been? Eric Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Roberts Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Now the next interesting thing is over on the lair of the Teen Fighter Mafia, a comment was made that the nose profile looked better than the original issue. Now another question to be added. I wonder if they may have redone the nose for the fighter Eagle kit?. And again thanks for actually answering the questions. It is of more help to actually know of the issues and if they are big enough to worry about versus repeating the mantra of 'it's only good as a parts donor for the R/M kit'. I think it is a problem with the web, people say things enough and eventually they are taken as fact. Sometimes it is valid like the engine humps on the Eagle or the Kinetic Viper nose issues, but sometimes it can border on the absurd like the tenth of a millimeter on the Eduard Dora 9 tail wheel that the current flare up around the boards are. Though finally someone posted pics of the underside of the lower wing on that kit to see what the furor is all about. Thanks again for posting pics and as Quin points out we sometimes learn something new every day Matt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MESHER Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share Posted February 10, 2010 So taking this all into account, what is the concensus of the new Academy F-15E, F-15K and the F-15I kits are they worth the purchase and build? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alex.B Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Matt, I have built more 48th Academy F-15s than any other brand. The engine bulges have too much of a sharp edge where they join the fuselage. They should be smoothly fared in. Very nice Mod Eagle scheme! What colors did you use? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gb_madcat_sl Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 So taking this all into account, what is the concensus of the new Academy F-15E, F-15K and the F-15I kits are they worth the purchase and build? There is no consensus. Some people like the kit because it gives you a decent updated Strike Eagle without the need for any aftermarket parts as well as a whole lot of weapons. Others simply hate it because the shape of the engine bulges are off and the JFS chimneys are wrong. In the end, it is up to you. Would you like to have a kit with everything that is included to get a decent Strike Eagle without shelling a whole lot of money for aftermarket update/correction/conversion parts? Can you live with the shape and accuracy issues? If the answer to the above 2 questions is yes, then go get it. If not, then don't. Simple right? Remember that it is the skill of the modeler that determines if a build comes out looking like a show-winner. Take for example John Vojtech's brilliant F-15 from the IPMS Nationals 2009. Everyone was absolutely wowed by his awesome paint work and finishing but no one (at least in the thread) pointed out that the JFS chimney was not corrected to the one found on the light grey Eagles. The choice is yours. You do not need a consensus. Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedHeadKevin Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) So taking this all into account, what is the concensus of the new Academy F-15E, F-15K and the F-15I kits are they worth the purchase and build? For my dime, the Revell kit is still the way to go if I want a Strike Eagle, and I want to get it inexpensively, and not have to do much extra work to it. ( Plus, I have an unbuilt one in the stash) HOWEVER, the new Academy Beagles are changing my view on that, for 2 main reasons: missiles and bombs. The Revell kit (as available cheaply at Michael's, etc.) comes with pretty much nothing in the way of weapons, 4 Sidewinders, tanks and that's it. The new Academy ones come with a whole bunch of bombs, including GBU-38's, which are always a wecome addition to the spares box. I still like the Revell's detail parts, construction, and accuracy over Academy's, but the extra stuff that Academy includes puts it over the top in terms of value. (I wish you could just get the new Academy sprues...) Edited April 1, 2010 by RedHeadKevin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Thanks Ken, It seems now if you pont out a flaw in a kit nowadays you get slammed!! even if you say "it will still look good put together, but this that and the other are incorrect" Matt, I am sorry you feel that way, I dont see it as complaining, but I see it as realistic criticism. you're welcome, and thanks Craig Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Very nice Mod Eagle scheme!What colors did you use? thanks a lot - I used Tamiya medium sea grey for the lighter color, and haze grey for the darker Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rick in Maine Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Whew! That was close. Plenty of good info, but I was afraid there for a few minutes that this thread was going to go down in flames. Nice save! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alex.B Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 thanks a lot - I used Tamiya medium sea grey for the lighter color, and haze grey for the darker Spraycans? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ken Middleton Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Spraycans? yes, forgot to mention that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.