EF-111 or F-111 or FB-111 anyone make one that's accurate

[SR10user]

I removed the top piece of tape so you can see the joint (my fault) lines up better in the hybrid than a straight academy build.

Only a little mismatch on the bottom of the strakes where it won't be too visible and easily dealt with using a little putty and sanding.

The mods to the lower fuselage are little more involved, but still only involves measuring and cutting. Here is a modified HB kit compared to a unmodified kit.

All the cuts were made simply using the Academy kit as a guide. Measure twice/ cut once.

Next up wings:

I have the Scale Down wing set (retails about $90) so that alone may make this doable cost wise. The Scale Down wings are solid resin and weigh a ton. I was worried about the plastic holding up to the weight long term. The HB ones are considerably lighter and have a more solid mounting IMHO.

Here is the Scale down wing compared to the HB wing. Note the back flap panel thingies are molded straight on the HB version. You could simply scribe and bend them into position. A pretty easy but annoying fix. Also not everything lines up between the two. Which one is right? I don't know. But for ease of assembly and weight, my opinion is the HB wings beat the Scale Down wings plus you get spoilers with the Hobby Boss wing!

Of course Scale Down doesn't include the wing sweep seal. Hobby Boss provides a pretty nice representation in the box.

Other bits:

Hobby Boss doesn't provide the EF-111 specific sponson(?) fronts. You'll have to scratch build them or rob them from the Academy kit. Looks like they should match up with a little putty and elbow grease. HB also gives you some crude representations of the chaff/flare dispensers that were fitted later on in the life of the F-111's.

Continued............

Edited October 8, 2014 by SR10user

[SR10user]

Other bits:

Exhaust nozzles in the HB kit are atrocious. They only have five supports where as the real thing has six. At the very least use the Academy ones. I have the Scale Down and Oz Mods versions and they fit flawlessly. The Oz Mods are gray resin and the Scale Down are tan.

The HB nose gear well fits very well in the Academy Fuselage.

Well that's about all I have so far. I started tinkering with this last night and it only represents about 2-3 hours of work. Most of the fitting is loose and I think it will tighten down once glue is applied (or go Tango Uniform). Using a Black Box cockpit or the Verlinden cockpit in a HB kit left some filling to do around the edges. By using the Academy Forward fuselage all now fit like a glove. The Squadron Vacu-form windscreen will fit as it should too. Overall I'm pretty happy. One way I measured the cuts was using the HB closed bomb bay door. That should mean by cutting the doors out of Academy's forward fuselage you could use the HB bomb bay (dressed up using Eduard's set) and have the bay open as it should be when the F-111 is shut down (not on the EF-111 though). If you want anymore comparison shots or pics let me know. I'm pretty happy so far and I think this addresses both kits major shortcomings (in my mind). One mans opinion and as always YMMV.

Dave

[Joel_W]

Dave,

I really like how your making comparison of parts from both kits, and kit bashing as needed. Will be following along your most interesting build.

Joel

Edited October 8, 2014 by Joel_W

[Aigore]

Actually the fit of the academy forward fuselage to the main fuselage is quite good, the problem is more in the lines of it needing internal support.

Making a hybrid of a academy and a hobby boss kit sounds like a very expensive option. Not that adding am stuff i cheap either but...I still think the academy vark + relevant am stuff is the best option.

[mrvark]

Not sure exactly how you're planning on doing the upper fuselage, but one of the main complaints about the Academy kit has always been the upper seam, that just keeps cracking. Here is something that might be useful to avoid this issue.

Here is a corrected dorsal strake:

Also, here are some comparison photos of various AM nozzles (remember, when parked one nozzle was open, the other closed, similar to the F-14):

Finally, make sure you use the correct boat tail, it looks from the above like you may have grabbed the FB-111 one.

[DarkJester]

This is completely awesome.

Thanks very much for taking the time to photograph and compare.

Don't stop now!

Jester

[dragonlance]

Thank you mrvark for the nozzles comparison.

Vedran

[DET1460]

The short answer is, "No."

In 1:72 scale the Hasegawa kits are pretty nice, and the Monogram EF-111A is not bad either. The worst errors are:

• There is no difference in the fuselages between the original Triple Plow I (A, C & EF) and later Triple Plow II (D, E, F, FB/G). All the kits depict the former, while the inlets of the latter were located several inches outboard.
  
• The bulge in the fuselage for the weapoon bay hinge mechanism is missing.
  
• There is no weapon bay. This may seem like a minor thing, except that the weapon bay was always open when the aircraft was parked (except at air shows).
  
• The PAVE Tack pod depiction is a complete fiction. Too much trouble to go into here, but suffice to say it's inaccurate.
  
• The aft main landing gear door is only depicted in the original configuration, which extended parallel to the bottom of the fuselage. In the mid 1970s (after Vietnam) the doors had 6" trimmed from the rear and bolted to the trunion making it extend perpenduclar to the fuselage. This also affected a couple of panels on the bottom of the fuselage.
  

The 1:48th kits are all horrible, not to put to fine a point on it. In my opinion, the old Academy kits are still the best of this lot, but they still have numerous problems. In short, I can find a mistake in almost every part of all the 1:48 F-111 kits. In addition to all the above errors:

• The Hobby Boss kit has a weapons bay, but it is about 6" too short, inaccurate, and the doors are a complete abortion (either open or closed).
  
• No attempt at all is made to depict the intakes, and the inlet spikes for the TP II inlets are 18" too short and too small to boot.
  
• Wheel bays are problematic. The nose bay is underneath the cockpit and can cause challenges when fitting aftermarket cockpits. Academy essentially doesn't have a main landing gear bay; the Hobby Boss bay is a box that conflicts with the intakes. In the real airplane the intakes formed the outside walls of the bay (so were curved, not straight).
  
• The very poor exhaust nozzles only depict (kind of) the original nozzles, ignoring the different nozzle of the F-111F. In addition, the Academy kit has no afterburner interior.
  
• The dorsal strake should be sharply angled at the front and 6" high. In the kits, they're just kind of there, and only 3" high.
  
• The cockpits are a mess. both companies got the basic geometry wrong and the mistakes cascaded from there.
  
• I won't go into details about air-water heat exchangers, boat tails, speed bumps, weapon pylons or other relatively minor details.
  

I could go on, but you get the idea. Unfortunately, many of the aftermarket parts available fall short in one way or another. My poor ole jet is truly snakebit. If a company put out a Spitfire or Bf 109 model of the same quality as the available F-111 kits, they would be burned at the stake. :(/>/>

MRVARK

I have to say, MRVARK, that you're not correct about the different fuselages in the Hasegawa kits.

The A/C kits have sprue "D", while all the Triple Plow II kits have sprue "C". I've compared the lower fuselages from both sprues and there IS a distinct difference in the width of the intakes. And the different sprues have all the necessary intake components to build the correct fuselage. (To be sure, I just compared them again, and they really are different. The early style IS more narrow than the later fuselage. Just about a 1/16th inch on each side. Looks VERY close to 4 scale inches.)

My problem with those kits is no weapons bay and no open cockpit.

But for a late 80's kit series they are still the best 111's on the market, if you can find them!

And the "G" kit was a big misrepresentation. It was a kit of the farewell F-111F at Cannon. (Nice decals, though!)

I thought I'd correct that info so no one would be put off those kits.

Hope this helps out.

DET1460

[mrvark]

MRVARK

I have to say, MRVARK, that you're not correct about the different fuselages in the Hasegawa kits.

Hope this helps out.

DET1460

Cool, happy to be corrected!

[DET1460]

Cool, happy to be corrected!

No problem, Bud!

DET1460

[DET1460]

Ok. Which of you guys was a Crew Chief on a 111?

Y'all know way too much just to be casual observers.

Jester

(and yes, I'm allowed to use "Y'all". I live in the South).

I was. Plattsburgh, '71/'72.

DET1460

[DarkJester]

DET1460,

That's most excellent, sir.

I looked Plattsburg up on Wiki-mostlylies-pedia.

529th Bomb Wing FB-111's.

Plus there were B-52's and KC-135's?

Good to see another Airman/Prophead/wingnut.

I was a specialist on F-16's 81-85.

Hung around some awesome airplanes back then.

Jester.

[DET1460]

DET1460,

That's most excellent, sir.

I looked Plattsburg up on Wiki-mostlylies-pedia.

529th Bomb Wing FB-111's.

Plus there were B-52's and KC-135's?

Good to see another Airman/Prophead/wingnut.

I was a specialist on F-16's 81-85.

Hung around some awesome airplanes back then.

Jester.

Jester

I got to P-Burgh in Jan of '71. The FB's didn't arrive until summer. Still had a year on them, once they arrived. In Jan there were 3 B-52G's which were gone days after I arrived. Everyone became CC's on the 135's. (I also crewed T-38's, trained on RF-4C's at Bergstrom before going overseas, ended up on RB-57E's at Tan Son Nhut and returned to end up at P-Burgh to CC the 111.)

Saw lotsa cool stuff, too! And, Yes. Good to connect with a fellow CC!

And I reiterate, the Hasegawa 72nd kits were and are the best 111's kitted!

I was gifted an HBooBoo 111A and the Academy FB. I'm using the parts (wings, weapons bay, etc) to put into the Academy kit and make a "D" out of the whole mess. And before anyone quotes all the incorrect books out there, the FB was not longer than the tactical versions. Only the wings and "boat-tail" differed. The FB also had a small pitot tube on the lower right side of the nose.

Sorry to ramble... JMHO.

DET1460

[ElectroSoldier]

Jester

I got to P-Burgh in Jan of '71. The FB's didn't arrive until summer. Still had a year on them, once they arrived. In Jan there were 3 B-52G's which were gone days after I arrived. Everyone became CC's on the 135's. (I also crewed T-38's, trained on RF-4C's at Bergstrom before going overseas, ended up on RB-57E's at Tan Son Nhut and returned to end up at P-Burgh to CC the 111.)

Saw lotsa cool stuff, too! And, Yes. Good to connect with a fellow CC!

And I reiterate, the Hasegawa 72nd kits were and are the best 111's kitted!

I was gifted an HBooBoo 111A and the Academy FB. I'm using the parts (wings, weapons bay, etc) to put into the Academy kit and make a "D" out of the whole mess. And before anyone quotes all the incorrect books out there, the FB was not longer than the tactical versions. Only the wings and "boat-tail" differed. The FB also had a small pitot tube on the lower right side of the nose.

Sorry to ramble... JMHO.

DET1460

Posting problems :(

There are a few more modelling differences that that between the one and the other though.

Some quite noticeable... the ATR infront of the canopy for instance.

But can you tell me apart from the Hobby Boss canopy glass, what is wrong with the kit, I mean Ive never seen one built up, Ive never built one either so Im not sure why you guys hate it so much when it seems to me there Hobby Boss kit is just as wrong as the Academy kit but in different ways.

Both are only 70% accurate at best

Edited October 12, 2014 by ElectroSoldier

[DET1460]

Posting problems :(/>

There are a few more modelling differences that that between the one and the other though.

Some quite noticeable... the ATR infront of the canopy for instance.

But can you tell me apart from the Hobby Boss canopy glass, what is wrong with the kit, I mean Ive never seen one built up, Ive never built one either so Im not sure why you guys hate it so much when it seems to me there Hobby Boss kit is just as wrong as the Academy kit but in different ways.

Both are only 70% accurate at best

Where do I start! As you mentioned, the canopy is useless. The windscreen should be a straight line in side profile and have no curvature to it.

There are scribed lines where there shouldn't be... The circular line on the nose in front of the windscreen is notable... Should be a solid panel.

The weapons bay doors are wrong. They actually went out of their way at HB and added a totally unnecessary part to make it wrong. If you look at the doors as they would be if closed, there are two of them. To show them open you need to separate each door right down the scribed line and glue them together at the appropriate angle (The 'inner' piece is mounted level with the ground.) You also need to loose the mounting system they provide as the door hinges were more of a 'piano hinge' looking setup. There was very little light coming through between the fuselage and doors. The extra doors they'd have you use don't exist.

The wheels suck, the exhaust nozzles suck...

It just isn't very accurate. The wings are passable along with the weapons bay, and I intend to use those parts in the Academy FB fuselage and make a 'D' out of it. I have the HB 'A', short wings.

I'm a 111 fanatic. Crewed FB's at Plattsburgh. Amazing airplane! It could do things other a/c couldn't dream of. Ask the Aussies!

I'm waiting for Hasegawa to do this in 48th. Even if they don't, I won't have to look at a very inaccurate kit in the case for the rest of my life! Yup! I REALLY think it's that bad!

IMHO...

DET1460

[mrvark]

...To show them open you need to separate each door right down the scribed line...

DET1460

It's actually even worse than that. This isn't a very good picture. but if you look carefully, you can see where I've filled the kit panel lines and re-scribed based on the Hasegawa bay doors. Even what I did isn't completely correct as there is another panel line parallel to and a couple of inches behind the nose wheel doors. In short, they totally cocked up the weapon bay doors.

[DET1460]

It's actually even worse than that. This isn't a very good picture. but if you look carefully, you can see where I've filled the kit panel lines and re-scribed based on the Hasegawa bay doors. Even what I did isn't completely correct as there is another panel line parallel to and a couple of inches behind the nose wheel doors. In short, they totally cocked up the weapon bay doors.

I agree completely! I just got tired of typing! And your pylon for the ECM pod shouldn't go beyond the rear edge of the bay doors. It was actually partly on the rear of the gun fairing. Looks good so far, though!

DET1460

Edited October 18, 2014 by DET1460

[guillaume320]

Hi Everybody,

I would like to model a 1/48 F-111E based at Upper Heyford. I'm leaning towards the Academy kit. I am aware Academy updated their F-111C kit with new, more detailed parts in some areas. I would like to take advantage of this, but the wings on the C and the E are different... I need the shorter wings.

My question is: Is is possible to shorten the wings? I mean, were the long wings basically the same with a small extention, or were they completely different design?? And if the conversion is possible, how far back do I need to cut?

I guess this could be an easy conversion, no?

Thanks in advance for the feedback...

Guillaume

[DarkJester]

Guillaume,

At great personal risk I'm going to say, that from looking at photos, and doing much research that the difference in the wings is not just that they are shorter/longer, but the entire wing area is smaller.

So in other words, it would take more than just shortening the wing, you would have to change it's overall shape, like reduce the entire wing in size. Plus I think the boat tails are also different as well.

Now I'm just going on what I can see on the internet, and what I have read.

DET1460 and MrVark are the real deal, and I'm sure they will be able to tell you for sure.

Jester

[ElectroSoldier]

DarkJester is right, the whole wing is different, not only longer at the tip.

You can just cut down the long wings to short wings in a dirty hack but it wouldnt look right.

[guillaume320]

Thanks for the replies guys!!! Well... that means I'm off to look for alternatives... maybe find a cheap second hand Academy E to use as a donor...

[DarkJester]

Electro,

Totally didn't mean to Omit you from the Real Deal List.

Jester.

[ElectroSoldier]

DarkJester Im not, I never worked on em in my life!

I lived very close to Lakenheath from 79-80 almost all through until they left in 92, I spent a few years away here and there but all the rest of the time I was there... as a kid (cant do any harm to let him look kinda deal) I got closer than most but that was it.

Ive spent a lot of time studying them, to the point of obsession.

[DET1460]

Guillaume,

At great personal risk I'm going to say, that from looking at photos, and doing much research that the difference in the wings is not just that they are shorter/longer, but the entire wing area is smaller.

So in other words, it would take more than just shortening the wing, you would have to change it's overall shape, like reduce the entire wing in size. Plus I think the boat tails are also different as well.

Now I'm just going on what I can see on the internet, and what I have read.

DET1460 and MrVark are the real deal, and I'm sure they will be able to tell you for sure.

Jester

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jester. I think MRVARK would feel the same way.

As far as the different wings are concerned, I'm of the belief that the only difference in the two wings is the 3 1/2 foot addition to the FB and C wings, with an additional slat and flap section. They actually made 'bolt-on' wingtips for the tactical versions for ferry flights, but it's my understanding they were never used. They added the same 3 1/2 feet to them. But the mounting to the wing box and the cavity the wings retracted into were the same on all 111's. The cord all along the wings were the same, short or long.

Pylon plumbing was different for almost all the Varks.

As for Guillaume, the wingtips have a distinct shape both from above and from the side. If you can get another short winged bird, a D,E or F I'd go with that for the whole project. An E,F or D cannot be made from a C. The C has the same lower fuselage as the A. It's different. So, if you shorten the wings of your C you can make an A out of it.

Hope this helps you out.

DET1460

[mrvark]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jester. I think MRVARK would feel the same way.

As far as the different wings are concerned, I'm of the belief that the only difference in the two wings is the 3 1/2 foot addition to the FB and C wings, with an additional slat and flap section. They actually made 'bolt-on' wingtips for the tactical versions for ferry flights, but it's my understanding they were never used. They added the same 3 1/2 feet to them. But the mounting to the wing box and the cavity the wings retracted into were the same on all 111's. The cord all along the wings were the same, short or long.

Pylon plumbing was different for almost all the Varks.

As for Guillaume, the wingtips have a distinct shape both from above and from the side. If you can get another short winged bird, a D,E or F I'd go with that for the whole project. An E,F or D cannot be made from a C. The C has the same lower fuselage as the A. It's different. So, if you shorten the wings of your C you can make an A out of it.

Hope this helps you out.

DET1460

Agreed.

There was brief talk at one time about using the ferry tips on the EF-111As. However, once it was realized that severe g restrictions would be involved the idea was quickly dropped.