flanker27 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Sorry to hijack thread, but Raymond are you planning to release a two seater F-16XL? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
godfrey1775 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Agreed. But maybe it's a brand thing. I wonder if this same reaction will be seen if it was Tamiya that announced a new Hornet vis-a-vis Kinetic. Mark And if Tamiya released a new tool legacy Hornet in 1/48, I would buy the S&!t out of it. I welcome the Kinetic offering. Their new SU-33 looks awesome. Interested to see what they can do. Remember, a lot of people said that there was no reason for Academy to release a 48 Phantom, because the Hasegawa was the end all be all. Now, all of those people are eating those words... Edited January 27, 2016 by godfrey1775 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Hmmm... I don't love that nose breakdown. http://data3.primeportal.net/models/thomas_voigt10/kinetic/images/kinetic_10_of_10.jpg Looks like it will require some careful assembly, too. http://data3.primeportal.net/models/thomas_voigt10/kinetic/images/kinetic_02_of_10.jpg It's worth it if they release an ATARS version, though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 That area is being revised to provide lego type fit Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChippyWho Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Hmmm... I don't love that nose breakdown. http://data3.primeportal.net/models/thomas_voigt10/kinetic/images/kinetic_10_of_10.jpg Looks like it will require some careful assembly, too. http://data3.primeportal.net/models/thomas_voigt10/kinetic/images/kinetic_02_of_10.jpg Ouch! Also, I dunno if it's me, the photos or what but the sides and top of the nose look sort of flat, like it has a square-ish section...shurely shome mishtake? :blink: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 That area is being revised to provide lego type fit Not sure if that's a good thing or not. :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 That area is being revised to provide lego type fit Yeah, the nose fit looks awkward, good to know. I don't know if it is the pictures, but I think the slime lights look like they are not positioned properly on the nose. They look angled. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Colin K Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Raymond, will the CF-18 release come with parts to do an early CF-18, before they were upgraded? Also, will you have the Sniper pod and the "fat pylon" that CF-18s have carried? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Cf188 include different nose, MLG and tail. Sniper of course there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flybywire Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Much less care is needed in cutting so it is much easier. You can ruin the outboard wing parts, focusing just on clean inboard cut. Then you add separately provided outboard and hinge parts to it. Two separate parts would suck for those who want their wings straight. And including two complete wings - one folded in pieces, and one unfolded in one piece, would raise the price of the kit unnecessarily. Kinetic solution is best compromise in my opinion. Hi Vodnik! I completely understood your explanation. Thank you for explaining it to me in the simplest possible way! :) That could indeed possibly the way they plan it to be executed. I just might try one of those coz I've always wanted to build a folded-wing hornet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CF104 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 There's definitely something wrong with the nose shape. Without better photos it's hard to nail down but these are a few quick observations. 1. Formation light looks angled too high in the front. Should be parallel with the fuselage bottom. 2. Raised formation light border. The formation lights on the nose of the Hornet are completely flush. 3. Pitot probe angled out too much. Should be relatively parallel with the fuselage. 4. RHAW antenna above formation light looks too big and is glued in wrong location. 5. Gun port and vents look out of proportion. 6. Lower line of the radome looks like it slopes up too soon. 7. Refueling probe has the wrong geometry/shape. 8. Nose wheel... Tires too bulbous and wheel rim too small. 9. Nose gear actuator too small in diameter. For a kit that is, in Raymond's words: "Learning from the F16 project, the F18 is the item no room for mistake.", there are a few mistakes that should be fixed before this kit hits the market. Cheers, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gunfighter 124 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Having bought some Kinetic kits in the past, this one does not seem to look like they have improved. I'll wait until Tamiya comes out with one so they can knock it out of the park like usual. Just buy one of their 1/48th scale F-16's. That's my two cents from seeing this built-up. Images from Primeportal by Thomas Voight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Show me the supporting photo to stand your point Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Having bought some Kinetic kits in the past, this one does not seem to look like they have improved. I'll wait until Tamiya comes out with one so they can knock it out of the park like usual. Just buy one of their 1/48th scale F-16's. That's my two cents from seeing this built-up. So you're going to wait until Tamiya does an FA-18C in 1/48? You could very well be (and very likely are) waiting until the next lifetime for that to happen. And you do understand this is an assembled TEST SHOT, and that as such, it is only meant to be representative of approximately what the kit will look like when it reaches the hobby shop shelves, right? Do you think every kit comes out of the mold the first time 100% perfect? If so, someone has been feeding you gross misinformation. For crying out loud... Edited January 28, 2016 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Just like harrier frs1 nose, many people claim it is wrong with just few photo. At last, it proved we did our homework. The f18 follow the cross section map from MDD. And i think you can not judege it is wrong from few built up pictures. Maybe some parts are glued into wrong position. For those who want to wait tamiya to make the f18, wait it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Red14 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 i think it looks better than the lego one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 There's definitely something wrong with the nose shape. Without better photos it's hard to nail down but these are a few quick observations. 1. Formation light looks angled too high in the front. Should be parallel with the fuselage bottom. ** check the photo the formation is parallel with the fueslage lower bottom ** The picture in the show with "broken" MLG so the model actually sit on one side making the panel look too top 2. Raised formation light border. The formation lights on the nose of the Hornet are completely flush. ** sorry we need to create raise panel, with the limitation of plastic, we cannot do it in scale ** 3. Pitot probe angled out too much. Should be relatively parallel with the fuselage. ** maybe putting the probe not in the right angle ** 4. RHAW antenna above formation light looks too big and is glued in wrong location. ** I glue into the wrong place hurry for the show ** 5. Gun port and vents look out of proportion. ** show me ** 6. Lower line of the radome looks like it slopes up too soon. 7. Refueling probe has the wrong geometry/shape. Maybe the affect of the unbalance position on the MLG 8. Nose wheel... Tires too bulbous and wheel rim too small. ** how do you know. we measure the real one in CF-188, unless the CF-188 different from F/A-18 ** 9. Nose gear actuator too small in diameter. ** How can you know diameter ** ? For a kit that is, in Raymond's words: "Learning from the F16 project, the F18 is the item no room for mistake.", there are a few mistakes that should be fixed before this kit hits the market. Cheers, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RiderFan Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) This is a close up of the slime light on an F-18. It's quite flush with the nose. You can only tell they're separate parts by the seam, but there's no raised border around it. I'm not sure what the difficulty would be in not having a detail that isn't there. There's nothing to mold save for a couple of panel lines. Looking at the various scales of Academy and Hasegawa kits, they get this detail correct. So clearly it can be done. I have a couple of hundred other photos of CF-18's as well. And interestingly enough, one sitting on the ground about 20 minutes away from me. Edited January 28, 2016 by RiderFan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) If by nose gear actuator you mean the drag brace, it's about 5 to 6 inches in diameter, I know that from handling a few hundred of them. I haven't seen the size of the Kinetic part, but I could easily get an exact size, if it really matters that much. Edited January 28, 2016 by rightwinger26 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Roof Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 There's definitely something wrong with the nose shape. Without better photos it's hard to nail down but these are a few quick observations. 3. Pitot probe angled out too much. Should be relatively parallel with the fuselage. 4. RHAW antenna above formation light looks too big and is glued in wrong location. Cheers, John To be fair, these two items are simply due to what appears to be a quick build of the test shot. The RHAW antenna appears too large because of where it is placed incorrectly on the fuselage. There are a few other issues, but as it's been mentioned before, this is a test shot and I've been informed that changes are being, or have been made. Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Laurent Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 You can only tell they're separate parts by the seam, but there's no raised border around it. Little raised but blended to the surface (putty to avoid water infiltration ?) so no panel lines. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Roof Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Little raised but blended to the surface (putty to avoid water infiltration ?) so no panel lines. I have just under 4,000 photos of the F/A-18 and quite honestly, very few airframes are the same. The formation lights on the nose vary quite a bit from aircraft to aircraft, so there really isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' in this detail. Now, while what Kinetic currently has depicted is a bit over emphasized, it isn't too far off from what I have seen on a few aircraft over the course of 15 years working on and around them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rightwinger26 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Little raised but blended to the surface (putty to avoid water infiltration ?) so no panel lines. Yes, the form lights get sealed in when they are installed, usually with -8802, which is not necessarily right, but it works just as good as anything else and is the go to because of availability and ease of use. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I have just under 4,000 photos of the F/A-18 and quite honestly, very few airframes are the same. The formation lights on the nose vary quite a bit from aircraft to aircraft, so there really isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' in this detail. Now, while what Kinetic currently has depicted is a bit over emphasized, it isn't too far off from what I have seen on a few aircraft over the course of 15 years working on and around them. I worked around them too, just something doesn't look right about it. Especially the nose, but that may be due to the misplaced parts and the formation light. There is definitely panel detail missing on the belly between the engines. Detail that the Hasegawa kit has. Maybe I was expecting too much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Roof Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I worked around them too, just something doesn't look right about it. Especially the nose, but that may be due to the misplaced parts and the formation light. There is definitely panel detail missing on the belly between the engines. Detail that the Hasegawa kit has. Maybe I was expecting too much. I think it's a mix of the misplaced parts and really piss poor construction of the test shot. 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.