Thoughts on 1/48 F-22 kits?

[GooglyDoogly]

I've been looking at reviews of various 1/48 F-22 kits out there, and admittedly, there's not a whole lot of options. I've looked at Academy's, Italeri's, Hasegawa's, and I just saw that Testors has a new 1/48 F-22 kit, which I am assuming is a scaled-down copy of their 1/32 kit?

My question is, Has anyone here built the Testors 1/48 F-22 yet? I've googled for reviews of this kit, but most I've found were reviews of the Hasegawa and Italeri kits. As of now, I'm leaning towards the Academy kit, with Hasegawa coming in close second.

[VADM Fangschleister]

and I just saw that Testors has a new 1/48 F-22 kit, which I am assuming is a scaled-down copy of their 1/32 kit?

My guess would be that the Testors kit is a re-pop of the Italeri, ne' Revell kit.

The "best" one so far seems to be the Academy kit but the "best" for detail is the Hasegawa kit...though it has a bad case of "dragon skin". I have the Academy kit and it's very nice. I was hoping the Hasegawa kit would've been a home run but seems to have actually been a pop fly. Not that it's bad. Many people really love it. The overdone surface detail just really disappointed me. I've seen it in the box and it really turned me off.

However, your tastes may vary.

The Testors F-22 in 1/32 is actually a YF-22 prototype. The cockpit is in a completely different place and the nose is shaped very differently from the real bird. Much has been said about it all as you know.

Not really helpful...but at least 2c worth.

Fang

[not2p]

I am pretty sure the Testors raptor is a plain re-boxing of Italeri raptor after reading review here. For the Academy kit, try to purchase the one manufactured since May 2010 because the nosecone of the kit was corrected as you see in the link here.

[GooglyDoogly]

Thanks guys for the replies. I think you just saved me $50. And yes, the major reason I am leaning towards Academy F-22 more than Hasegawa is because of the Hasegawa kit's over-done surface details.

[VADM Fangschleister]

Wow, not2p, that's really excellent info! I had no idea. Now my pre-2010 kit is obsolete. Phagh!

Wonder how I go about getting the later kit...any clues as to production number/box number or anything?

I don't read "squiggly line".

[cbear]

I hadn't heard about this either. Unfortunately, I can't drop another $60+ on a new kit. However, the pics do a good job in showing what needs to be done to fix the original issue. Thanks for posting them!

Chuck

[Inquisitor]

They corrected the nose problem, but there's still the undersized tail.

[C-130CrewChief]

My hats of to Acad. for fixing this! How often do model companies fix things like this? I don't recall to many. Round 2 has fixed many errors in the Star Trek kits. That is the only example I can think of.

I built the Acad kit and have to warn you about the intake fit, it's tricky! Other than that... Great kit!

Curt

[Jay Chladek]

The nose problem to me isn't really a problem. A blob of Milliput, some sanding, shaping and polishing for about 15 minutes will help fix that as the nose to me only looks to be about maybe 2 or 3mms a little too short. No need to spend another hefty amount to get a corrected kit just for THAT. That being said, it is nice for Academy to fix it. It shows that they pay attention to things like that and try to make corrections if they can. The tails would require more funding to fix, so that is probably why they didn't do any correction there.

And yes, all indications are the "Testors" F-22 is simply an Italeri rebox. So it is best to stay away from that one as it needs a fair amount of work to whip into shape. The Italeri boxing is cheap, while the Testors one isn't. So if you really want an Italeri F-22, get either that one or the Revell of Germany boxing (which has some nice decals for a couple of the pre-production FSD jets).

Edited September 19, 2010 by Jay Chladek

[VADM Fangschleister]

I e-mailed Gordon at Sprue Bros and asked him if he can "pre-determine" if his new stock will be the new molds or the old.

He said there is no way, unless it's a different box art or kit number.

However, he is out of them and the re-stock that's coming may very well be the new moldings.

I agree that some milliput and some sanding will correct the gaff..and I may do just that rather than drop 60 bucks on another kit. After all, I'm getting used to fixing shape outline problems. I'm almost into the "Jetstar working-on-season" again since it's football season and that's what I do when sitting in front of a football game. Fill/sand/fill/sand/fill/sand/fill/sand------measure----compare with drawing------fill/sand/fill/sand/fill/sand.

I may just change my name to "Phil N. Sand" Har har.

But the Jetstar is going to hop back onto the bench here shortly. Much to do...much to do.

Fang

[RedHeadKevin]

Could you just get a new upper and lower fuselage as "replacement parts" from Academy?

[not2p]

Wow, not2p, that's really excellent info! I had no idea. Now my pre-2010 kit is obsolete. Phagh!

Wonder how I go about getting the later kit...any clues as to production number/box number or anything?

I don't read "squiggly line".

I heard that for an Academy kit, there is a sticker at the bottom of the box indicating the date of production. For the example of the kit manufactured in May 2010, the number on the sticker would be "10 05".

[thegoodsgt]

Sierra Hotel Models is due to release corrected stabilizers in Q1 of next year.

[dedalus]

double post

Edited September 19, 2010 by dedalus

[dedalus]

My hats of to Acad. for fixing this! How often do model companies fix things like this? I don't recall to many. Round 2 has fixed many errors in the Star Trek kits. That is the only example I can think of.

I built the Acad kit and have to warn you about the intake fit, it's tricky! Other than that... Great kit!

Curt

It's happened, but not nearly enough. (Kinetic "changed" the shape of the Viper, though this was not a fix. Academy "changed" the upper surface of the 48th scale F-15, though again this did not really correct the problem. Hasegawa changed the mold of the 48th scale Tomcat at some point in the intake area.) Seems like in the Internet age, manufacturers should be more willing to share their info as the process of designing a kit comes along so modelers can critique them and point out mistakes before they do the expensive tooling. The tails on the Raptor are a perfect example. They bother me much more than the nose does and Academy should have fixed those, too. I was told it looks as if they looked directly at the side of the Raptor and measure the change in elevation from the base to the top as you would see it directly from the side and made them that long never accounting for the diagonal angle. That is middle school math. If they will not share the process with modelers, than they should be more willing to re-tool. Pick one, and go with it. And don't "re-tool" the way Academy did with the F-15. It looks like what I might get if tried to fill in the kink on the engine bulges with putty, sand it, and do some half-butt scribing. This makes me think they went after the original tooling with a file, sandpaper, etc. rather than actually make a new tool.

As for Raptors, I'm building an Academy one now (not a newer, "fixed" one) and I'll unload the other Academy kit. Once I got a Hasegawa kit, I could definitely see how much better it is so I got two more and will build them from now on, unless Tamiya surprises me with one. The Hasegawa kit is not quite a home run, no, but it is in no way a pop fly. You have to see it in person, then see one built up and ask the guy how easy it was to tone down the details--really one small extra step--and you can tell this kit is easily a stand-up triple. Oh, then ask the other guy what he did to fix the nose on the Academy (if it looks good enough to ask, as I've not seen it done right, yet). Then ask him what he did to correct the tails. I'm gonna stick with Hasegawa.

Edited September 19, 2010 by dedalus

[strikeeagle801]

Sounds to me like Academy likes doing things half-way. They missed a golden opportunity with the 1/32 Sufa to correct a lot of the problems that they had with the Charlie, and they fixed some of them (the glare shield and wheels for instance) but left a lot of others...the shape of the intake, the too-reclined seats, the mis-shaped cockpit, etc. If you are going to do something, you might as well do it right. I traded for the Sufa on account that it is the only two-holer on the market right now, and I have to admit that for what it is, it is a decent kit...but it could've been a GREAT kit if they had only put a little more effort into it.

Aaron

[AlCZ]

My opinion from F-22 is: Hasegawa have a little bit overdone sufrace details but is most accurate in shape. Academy have smooth surface but tail is undersized. Academy have big decal sheet from Cartograph, and JDAM and underwings tanks, Hasegawa have only AA weapons. In first time i admit Hasegawa kit, but when i it seen "in natura" i must a bought one.

[Aggressor Supporter]

Whoa, Academy changed the nose on later released Raptor kits? Man, still got the old one. It is still good though and I am glad I got the Hasegawa one too because it is the better kit.

[B sin]

Whoa, Academy changed the nose on later released Raptor kits? Man, still got the old one. It is still good though and I am glad I got the Hasegawa one too because it is the better kit.

Maybe they will go back and retool their MiG-29.

Brad