Academy F-4B details... Or where they keep going wrong!

[Spilloneforever]

Yes, I did and it's a pain.

First, the shape is totally wrong. Academy intakes are too narrow and not "bulbous" enough.

I cut the intakes in the middle and added a strip of 1mm. exactly in the center . This solves the problem of the width of the intake but not the shape.

Next, I glued the intake in the correct position and then used elbow grease and a LOT of putty to shape the contour to an acceptable result.

By the way, I think this is just a walkaround cause' the intakes must be replaced by something built from scratch. Academy's part is almost useless...

The pic shows the insert in the middle, as soon as I can I will post a shot of the part in place and reworked as described above.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Spilloneforever

[RockRiver]

Yes, I did and it's a pain.

First, the shape is totally wrong. Academy intakes are too narrow and not "bulbous" enough.

I cut the intakes in the middle and added a strip of 1mm. excatly in the center . This solves the problem of the width of the intake but not the shape.

Next, I glued the intake in the correct position and then used elbow grease and a LOT of putty to shape the contour to an acceptable result.

By the way, I think this is just a walkaround cause' the intakes must be replaced by something built from scratch. Academy's part is almost useless...

The pic shows the insert in the middle, as soon as I can I will post a shot of the part in place and reworked as described above.

I think this will be the way I am going to do it. Possible later builds of this kit may be equipped with a resin replacement that will probably be offered by some company.

[TXCajun]

I'm not nearly the rivet counter that some are, but the stab slot support issue, etc. really was a stupid mistake on Academy's part. The refueling probe door is less so, because it is easier to correct. The burner cans..well that's just sad.

With the mountains of documentation as well as real subjects available, these issues (and now the market opening for after-market corrections) is frustrating for modelers who are into the details and pay big money for these kits. I understand that from the perspective of folks who just like to build the kits, it may be insignificant, but for those who care, it's a big deal. Note that a lot of these kits are made in China now and simply put, I don't think they give a hoot whether it is accurate or not. It kind of makes me wonder if many/any in their companies are modelers.

This is an honest rundown of the kit issues. That is all it is. The author would be remiss if he didn't point these things out for the purpose for which this post was made. There is no room for bashing one modeler for the way he likes to build, be that into rivet counting at one end of the spectrum or slapping a kit together at the other extreme.

It's a hobby, folks, and it takes all kinds to keep it a viable one. Relax and go build something and count yourself blessed if you have both the time and resources to do so. Not everyone who WANTS to model has both or either.

Cheers

[Jennings]

The refueling probe door is less so, because it is easier to correct.

I don't agree that ease of fixability reflects how dumb the original error was. A dumb, avoidable error is a dumb, avoidable error.

[wardog]

I'm not nearly the rivet counter that some are, but the stab slot support issue, etc. really was a stupid mistake on Academy's part. The refueling probe door is less so, because it is easier to correct. The burner cans..well that's just sad.

With the mountains of documentation as well as real subjects available, these issues (and now the market opening for after-market corrections) is frustrating for modelers who are into the details and pay big money for these kits. I understand that from the perspective of folks who just like to build the kits, it may be insignificant, but for those who care, it's a big deal. Note that a lot of these kits are made in China now and simply put, I don't think they give a hoot whether it is accurate or not. It kind of makes me wonder if many/any in their companies are modelers.

This is an honest rundown of the kit issues. That is all it is. The author would be remiss if he didn't point these things out for the purpose for which this post was made. There is no room for bashing one modeler for the way he likes to build, be that into rivet counting at one end of the spectrum or slapping a kit together at the other extreme.

It's a hobby, folks, and it takes all kinds to keep it a viable one. Relax and go build something and count yourself blessed if you have both the time and resources to do so. Not everyone who WANTS to model has both or either.

Cheers :cheers:/>/>

Edited January 4, 2013 by wardog

[wardog]

I completely agree with you. In this hobby, regardless of ARC, you're gonna find mainly two types of modelers. There are those who just want to build for the fun of it and could care less if a panel line is misplaced and those like myself and a bunch of others who expect a high level of accuracy, especially for the price they're asking for these kits these days. Unfortunately, I think the "Rivet Counters" make up the minority in this hobby and consequently, these kit manufacturers are really catering to the "other" group.

We must remember (not that it should be an excuse) that producing these kits is still a business and generating profit is the number one goal just like in any other business. The faster a manufacturer can go from idea to product release, the faster they can fund and release other products and of course.....MAKE MORE MONEY. I'm sure that in their eyes, worrying about the minority of modelers who expect perfection does not rank very high on their list and ultimately those modelers who wish will fix the errors just like they have been all along. I will say that I am a bit disappointed that with all the advances in computer programs and the tons of available information found on sites like this and others, the best they're really doing these days in comparison to say 20 year old Monogram kits is giving us recessed lines.

I also don't want to lump all kit manufacturers into the same bucket regarding lack of quality or attention to detail. There are some companies out there who genuinely do their homework and put out a really good product. Without mentioning names I think we all know who they are.

[phasephantomphixer]

Now that you point it out I see it.. I think they also put 3 too many rivets on one of the panels.

Good catch! Glad you got on board with pointing out these issues.

[phasephantomphixer]

Here are three photo's that show how the burners go in as Academy states. There is a notch on the bottom of the wing panel that the burner slips into.

Hope that helps with what you are looking for.

Cheers

Larry McCarley

21045

Thank you very much Larry, that second shot shows the issue well.

[Grand Toad]

Yes, I did and it's a pain.

First, the shape is totally wrong. Academy intakes are too narrow and not "bulbous" enough.

I cut the intakes in the middle and added a strip of 1mm. exactly in the center . This solves the problem of the width of the intake but not the shape.

Next, I glued the intake in the correct position and then used elbow grease and a LOT of putty to shape the contour to an acceptable result.

By the way, I think this is just a walkaround cause' the intakes must be replaced by something built from scratch. Academy's part is almost useless...

The pic shows the insert in the middle, as soon as I can I will post a shot of the part in place and reworked as described above.

Thanks.

That gives me a good idea about what I'm going to have to do to fix the issue. Those intakes just look way too wrong to leave alone. Back in the old days when I had a bunch of Hasegawa F-4s, I would have just chopped them out of one of the scrape kits and worked them into the other.

Now, I keep running through my mind, how am I going to fix the slotted stabilator. I'm going to talk to my neighbor, who is an expert at small toy repair, and miniature work.

This won't be the first time I've tried come up with some hair brain scheme to fix an issue like this.

For the cockpit, I'm just going to make the Aires resin kit fit. That's nothing new.

It's all good, I'm waiting patiently for Furball to release the "Bravo Mig Killers" decals. I've wanted to do a "Supersonic Chicken" for decades, and now's my chance.

[RockRiver]

For the cockpit, I'm just going to make the Aires resin kit fit. That's nothing new.

It's all good, I'm waiting patiently for Furball to release the "Bravo Mig Killers" decals. I've wanted to do a "Supersonic Chicken" for decades, and now's my chance.

Hope you'll have more luck with the Aires cockpit than me with the Black Box one - impossible to get into. Part of the problem was the roof of the wheel well which is molded onto the cockpit bottom. I thinned all parts as much as possible but to no avail. I eventually confined myself with the use of the side walls.

Ingo

ps: I am waiting for 'Bravo MiG Killers' too

[Grand Toad]

Hope you'll have more luck with the Aires cockpit than me with the Black Box one - impossible to get into. Part of the problem was the roof of the wheel well which is molded onto the cockpit bottom. I thinned all parts as much as possible but to no avail. I eventually confined myself with the use of the side walls.

Ingo

ps: I am waiting for 'Bravo MiG Killers' too :woot.gif:/>

There's a guy on Zone Five that made the Aires resin fit. If it doesn't work out I'll use the side panels and the front instruments. This is actually the fun part of building a model - for me, anyway. As Francois Verliden once said, "If it looks like an F-104, and not a vacuum cleaner, then it's an F-104."

It's funny, The seats in this kit are the part that are unbearably bad, to me. What was Academy thinking. At least there are a bunch of resin seats to replace them.

[sweier]

All

Man, I love this type of thread. I'm not a dedicated Phantom enthusiast, but very nearly got caught up in the general enthusiasm and spent my limited funds on one of these.

Given the range of errors, I'd never be satisfied just building it, and Phantoms don't enthuse me enough to make the changes.

Good work! Waste on money avoided.

Shane

[RockRiver]

All

Man, I love this type of thread. I'm not a dedicated Phantom enthusiast, but very nearly got caught up in the general enthusiasm and spent my limited funds on one of these.

Given the range of errors, I'd never be satisfied just building it, and Phantoms don't enthuse me enough to make the changes.

Good work! Waste on money avoided.

Shane

If it was not for the recessed surface detail (contrary to the Hasegawa F-4B) I am not sure if I will go for Academy again should I wish to build another Phantom (and of course given they'll bring forth more variants)

[RockRiver]

There's a guy on Zone Five that made the Aires resin fit. If it doesn't work out I'll use the side panels and the front instruments. This is actually the fun part of building a model - for me, anyway. As Francois Verliden once said, "If it looks like an F-104, and not a vacuum cleaner, then it's an F-104."

It's funny, The seats in this kit are the part that are unbearably bad, to me. What was Academy thinking. At least there are a bunch of resin seats to replace them.

Right - the seats are not that good...Fortunately the BlackBox seats fit in without any changes. As I build two Academy kits simultaneously, I might swap the Academy seats with the Hasegawa ones, robbed from their F-4B (this kit is now in the 'never build' stash - since the day the Academy kit arrived here). They should do for the one I plan to do 'canopy closed').

At least I found out today the wing/fuselage joint might need no further attention, just glueing - I spread the fuselage a little with an inserted thin piece of plastic and so it's pressed against the wings - perfect fit, no gap.

[Darren Roberts]

All

Man, I love this type of thread. I'm not a dedicated Phantom enthusiast, but very nearly got caught up in the general enthusiasm and spent my limited funds on one of these.

Given the range of errors, I'd never be satisfied just building it, and Phantoms don't enthuse me enough to make the changes.

Good work! Waste on money avoided.

Shane

This is interesting to me. First off, I'm not trying to knock what you said. I'm really curious and would like some clarification. You said you weren't a dedicated Phantom enthusiast, but that since reading this thread, you won't spend the money on the kit because you wouldn't be satisfied just building it. You also said that Phantoms don't enthuse you enough to make the changes. If Phantoms aren't your passion, than why would the errors bother you so much that you wouldn't build this kit? It's an absolutely beautiful model that turns into a fine representation of a Phantom. Also, not being a Phantom enthusiast, if you hadn't read this thread, would you have even known the mistakes in the kit? And not knowing, would you have purchased it and enjoyed the build? Again, I'm not trying to call you out or be contrary. I'm trying to understand a seeming contradiction. I could fully understand if you were passionate about the Phantom, but it seems that you're not. Thanks for any clarification you can give.

[Jennings]

And even if you're not a Phantom fanatic, objectively the Academy kit is still light years better than any other 1/48 F-4 kit, including Hasegawa's.

[louie]

This is interesting to me. First off, I'm not trying to knock what you said. I'm really curious and would like some clarification. You said you weren't a dedicated Phantom enthusiast, but that since reading this thread, you won't spend the money on the kit because you wouldn't be satisfied just building it. You also said that Phantoms don't enthuse you enough to make the changes. If Phantoms aren't your passion, than why would the errors bother you so much that you wouldn't build this kit? It's an absolutely beautiful model that turns into a fine representation of a Phantom. Also, not being a Phantom enthusiast, if you hadn't read this thread, would you have even known the mistakes in the kit? And not knowing, would you have purchased it and enjoyed the build? Again, I'm not trying to call you out or be contrary. I'm trying to understand a seeming contradiction. I could fully understand if you were passionate about the Phantom, but it seems that you're not. Thanks for any clarification you can give.

I'll be more than happy to trade or buy this junk kit from anyone who doesn't want it. i will even trade the fabulous hasegawa f-4B for it.

Cheers :cheers:/>

[DonSS3]

Nicely stated, Darren.

[redcorvette]

It's funny, The seats in this kit are the part that are unbearably bad, to me. What was Academy thinking. At least there are a bunch of resin seats to replace them.

If I was a kit manufacturer I don't know that I'd go overboard tooling ejection seats since most modelers seem to just pitch them in favor of AM resin seats anyway.

Mark

[11bee]

If I was a kit manufacturer I don't know that I'd go overboard tooling ejection seats since most modelers seem to just pitch them in favor of AM resin seats anyway.

Mark

I think it is pretty much impossible to make a convincing ejection seat from styrene so most, if not all manufacturers tend to not even make the attempt.

IMO, resin is the only way to go. Even PE over plastic just doesn't look realistic.

[dehowie]

And there in lays the problem of a thread with the title...Academy F-4B details..Where they keep going wrong!

Before you even start reading its apparant the kit has a huge raft of issues from the title alone.

Great to see Academy being punished with some lost sales because the refuelling probe is out by 5 degrees and the stab which isnt even fitted to the B is incorrect.

With luck they will can the Phantom series and we can return to our Hasegawa F-4's which are so much more accurate and completely free of issues...particularly the burners,cockpit,nose and weopons.and raised panel lines.

[Grand Toad]

And even if you're not a Phantom fanatic, objectively the Academy kit is still light years better than any other 1/48 F-4 kit, including Hasegawa's.

Yes. It's a fine kit. Every kit has some bugs. I can see the Academy F-4B building into a glorious miniature of the real thing. The deal for me is that I've always wanted to add things and make it my own.

I've seen a couple in the build stages on another sight. And, those builds look fantastic.

I'm just excited to have a F-4B in my hands. I'm a huge fan of Navy and Marine F-4s.

The thread may have a harsh title, but it does point out errors that some might want to fix, and some might not.

[Darren Roberts]

And there in lays the problem of a thread with the title...Academy F-4B details..Where they keep going wrong!

Before you even start reading its apparant the kit has a huge raft of issues from the title alone.

Great to see Academy being punished with some lost sales because the refuelling probe is out by 5 degrees and the stab which isnt even fitted to the B is incorrect.

With luck they will can the Phantom series and we can return to our Hasegawa F-4's which are so much more accurate and completely free of issues...particularly the burners,cockpit,nose and weopons.and raised panel lines.

I'm not quite sure that putting it like this is productive. The person who started the thread is very passionate about the Phantom, and that came out in the title. I understand your point, but the last part of your post really doesn't lend much to the discussion. I don't think the original poster stated that the Hasegawa kit is better. I think most of us can agree that the Academy kit is probably the best overall Phantom in 1/48 scale. Those who enjoy building kits regardless of accuracy issues don't enjoy when those who count accuracy a premium make off the wall statements about unbuildable kits. Be careful not to make the same error when writing things like the last line of your post. It's counter productive to good discussion and breeds defensive feelings.

[louie]

I'm not quite sure that putting it like this is productive. The person who started the thread is very passionate about the Phantom, and that came out in the title. I understand your point, but the last part of your post really doesn't lend much to the discussion. I don't think the original poster stated that the Hasegawa kit is better. I think most of us can agree that the Academy kit is probably the best overall Phantom in 1/48 scale. Those who enjoy building kits regardless of accuracy issues don't enjoy when those who count accuracy a premium make off the wall statements about unbuildable kits. Be careful not to make the same error when writing things like the last line of your post. It's counter productive to good discussion and breeds defensive feelings.

Same B.S that was started on Z-5. Every kit that comes out is a piece of crap, according to the experts. As some one said above. it makes into a fine representation of an f-4. it is not an identical 1:1. stuff happens. most modellers are not going to worry about the stabs, or the 5 degree off refueling probe. If that is the case, don't buy it! a model is a representation, it's pretty darn close or it's not even close. Everything has flaws.

If you don't want it or can't live with it, send it to me. I think the academy f-4 is the best kit out there as is the AFV with it's "strange" shape someone complained about. I read these forums to see what problems were encountered with the building and the fit. i could give a rats backside if the refuleing probe is slightly in the wrong place. If it's not in a contest, who's going to know? Oh , the one building it. Fine, if your that much a purest, then i don't think modeling is a good hobby for you.

Just MY opinion!

[phasephantomphixer]

And there in lays the problem of a thread with the title...Academy F-4B details..Where they keep going wrong!

Before you even start reading its apparant the kit has a huge raft of issues from the title alone.

Great to see Academy being punished with some lost sales because the refuelling probe is out by 5 degrees and the stab which isnt even fitted to the B is incorrect.

With luck they will can the Phantom series and we can return to our Hasegawa F-4's which are so much more accurate and completely free of issues...particularly the burners,cockpit,nose and weopons.and raised panel lines.

Slotted stabs were retrofitted to the B so you have to check the year of the markings you will use whether you use them or not. And you didn't mention the big gaps around the exhaust which is very difficult to fix if they are the same diameter as aftermarket (meaning the fault lies in the fuselage) to me is a Major issue. Nor did you mention the environmental air intake issue. What year did the Hasegawa B kit hit the market? Even though it has old tool technology details, at least it still holds with correct shape. Hasegawa has retooled their J with recessed panel lines, too bad they didn't also redo their B. I would consider rescribing their B wings and use the J fuselage before I got rid of them. At least it wouldn't have these typical Academy shape and detail issues. Believe me, I wish it had no issues like these discussed in this thread. Edited January 5, 2013 by phasephantomphixer