deepdive Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Aires open nozzles for Hasegawa, is about 1mm too small in diameter for Kinetic`s Hornet. Kinetic`s Hornet is about 3-4mm longer than Hasegawa`s Hornet. Another problem with Kinetic Hornet is that the wings are angeled too much down, maybe it is only my model, but i was able to rectify this problem with brute force, if i fixed that, i don`t know before i join upper and lower fuselages, if i have to cut the wings to relive the "stress" to the bottom fuselage and fill the gap, i will do so, maybe some hot water will help that. If Kinetic can afford to fix those problems reported in this thread, i belive they will double their sale. (I dont think they can fix the wing problem, if it is a problem) If they re-release this F/A-18C, i hope they will mark those new boxes clearly so one can easily see that and dont have to open it, as one have to do with GWH`s F-15D Eagle. Bjørn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Aires open nozzles for Hasegawa, is about 1mm too small in diameter for Kinetic`s Hornet. Kinetic`s Hornet is about 3-4mm longer than Hasegawa`s Hornet. Another problem with Kinetic Hornet is that the wings are angeled too much down, maybe it is only my model, but i was able to rectify this problem with brute force, if i fixed that, i don`t know before i join upper and lower fuselages, if i have to cut the wings to relive the "stress" to the bottom fuselage and fill the gap, i will do so, maybe some hot water will help that. If Kinetic can afford to fix those problems reported in this thread, i belive they will double their sale. (I dont think they can fix the wing problem, if it is a problem) If they re-release this F/A-18C, i hope they will mark those new boxes clearly so one can easily see that and dont have to open it, as one have to do with GWH`s F-15D Eagle. Bjørn The angle of the wing, we have not reference any other model kit. In fact, with the help of Rick and CAF, we measure the direct distance from the ground up to the wingtip during the on-site checking. This area is one of the puzzle for us during the development time as if the spine on the back. But sometimes, the angle looks better if it is not in accurate scale. (A lot of Tamiya kits look nice when some detail are not in scale) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepdive Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) The spine just aft of the canopy on Tamiya 1/48 F-16`s looks too fat in my opinion and i just don`t like that at all, but i will probably buy several of those in the future, because it is impressive in detail and low cost. I regard a kit for its shape, detail and cost in that order. I highly regard this Hornet by its detail and low cost, but i am too early in my build to judge it`s shape, but it looks good so far. Bjørn Edited June 21, 2016 by deepdive Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grindcore Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Just sprayed my cockpit the other night, the only aftermarket I plan on adding is a seat, some Brassin weapons/pods and VMFA-122 Werewolves markings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.Sin Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Raymond, what about the vertical fins, someone pointed out they were three millimeters shorter than the Hasegawa ones. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepdive Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Wow! 3mm! height difference, i have missed that completely!...... a quick measure here shows nearly 5mm!!!! Hmm Kinetic knows wery well wich tail is right and if they have screwed it up here they should fix that, or i would not, ever by their Hornet again. Bjørn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dave Roof Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Well, I have measurements of the F/A-18's vertical tails.......surprised? Here is an image showing the actual measurements (on the drawing), and the scaled measurements of the Hasegawa and Monogram kit tails. Here are the measurements of the Kinetic vertical tail (same areas shown in red on the drawing): The forward leading edge is 126" The top, from front to rear is 48" The bottom, from front to the leading edge of the rudder is 88" The leading edge of the rudder attachment is 67" From the upper trailing edge tip to the corner where the top of the rudder would be is 30.5" The Hasegawa tail is too tall by roughly 3 scale inches. The biggest issue with the Kinetic tail is width at the top......5 scale inches (1/8th actual inch) too long. Proportionately, it looks ok though, as do the other kits tails. While the measurements of both the Kinetic and Monogram tails are off in different areas, they're relatively close to the actual tail. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Wow! 3mm! height difference, i have missed that completely!...... a quick measure here shows nearly 5mm!!!! Hmm Kinetic knows wery well wich tail is right and if they have screwed it up here they should fix that, or i would not, ever by their Hornet again. Bjørn You can send your Hornets to me! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.Sin Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Better to tall, then to short. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepdive Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 He, he i`ll keep it for now. Soo hasegawa got it wrong? or they all got it wrong? I have to admit that i trust Hasegawa, maybe too much. Bjørn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.Sin Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Well, I have measurements of the F/A-18's vertical tails.......surprised? Here is an image showing the actual measurements (on the drawing), and the scaled measurements of the Hasegawa and Monogram kit tails. Here are the measurements of the Kinetic vertical tail (same areas shown in red on the drawing): The forward leading edge is 126" The top, from front to rear is 48" The bottom, from front to the leading edge of the rudder is 88" The leading edge of the rudder attachment is 67" From the upper trailing edge tip to the corner where the top of the rudder would be is 30.5" The Hasegawa tail is too tall by roughly 3 scale inches. The biggest issue with the Kinetic tail is width at the top......5 scale inches (1/8th actual inch) too long. Proportionately, it looks ok though, as do the other kits tails. While the measurements of both the Kinetic and Monogram tails are off in different areas, they're relatively close to the actual tail. Thank you for your effort's Dave. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Space Tiger Hobbes Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Mr. Roof, Thanks for bothering to get real data and apply it to several kits, not just the victim du jour. It won't end the carping, but at least everyone knows what they're carping about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
longmc Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 So, a good number of members have the kit now - Where are the build reviews?! (with pictures of course!!) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 So, a good number of members have the kit now - Where are the build reviews?! (with pictures of course!!) I'm about ready for paint. I got sidetracked a bit so I could make intake and exhaust covers for it. I'm actually going to pull the first test cast once I'm done browsing ARC. I'll let you know how it went, and maybe even get some pictures of where I'm at in the build. It really has gone together quite well. I like it more than the Hasegawa kit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jgrease Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Mr. Roof, Thanks for bothering to get real data and apply it to several kits, not just the victim du jour. It won't end the carping, but at least everyone knows what they're carping about. So completely agree. Thanks Dave for the factual info! John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 The angle of the wing, we have not reference any other model kit. In fact, with the help of Rick and CAF, we measure the direct distance from the ground up to the wingtip during the on-site checking. This area is one of the puzzle for us during the development time as if the spine on the back. But sometimes, the angle looks better if it is not in accurate scale. (A lot of Tamiya kits look nice when some detail are not in scale) That wouldn't have been a good way to measure at Cold Lake. There were spots on the Tarmac I thought were level, but I could walk under one wing without ducking and I'd have to duck to get under the other side. I'd check the oleos and they'd be equal. I think some of our jets were bent too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raymond Chung Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 That wouldn't have been a good way to measure at Cold Lake. There were spots on the Tarmac I thought were level, but I could walk under one wing without ducking and I'd have to duck to get under the other side. I'd check the oleos and they'd be equal. I think some of our jets were bent too. So any suggestion on more accurate measurement ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepdive Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Thank you so much, Dave Roof, i can`t do anything like that, as i am too stupid with the computer. I have studied a lot of photo`s and i feel that Kinetic`s tail is close enough when i plan to add a millimetre on the top of it and round it off a little, Hasegawa`s top of the tail is too much rounded at the top. It also seems to me that Kinetic has got the spine much better than Hasegawa. Bjørn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AlienFrogModeller Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) So any suggestion on more accurate measurement ? Measuring from the ground has two flaws...the servicing level of the MLG Oleo (dependent on the temp that day - the MLG Oleo displacement will vary)and how level the ground is from the wing. Other factors can affect this measurement as well, such as servicing the MLG Oleo prior to a config change, early in the morning in a warm hangar, then taking it outside in -20 C weather, etc etc... albeit some have a negligible effect at the MLG Oleo measurement but will have a "modellers" significant change at the wing tip (maybe by a few millimeters - there is a math related equation here...if the measurement at the ref point of the MLG is x how much would it be at ref point y at the wing tip...go ahead discuss) There is a drawing from the wing tip showing the "curve" of the wing tip relative to the chord (I'm assuming you meant station 1 and 9 angle down wards vs. the wing root). As for them "bent", if this was actual, there would be allot of communication between the pilot and ground with respect to a/c handing characteristics. Asymmetry checks will diffuse that conversation real quick. Most a/c that I have done assy checks on are well within limits. As for an accurate measurement, I believe a measurement of the angle of the root vs. the angle of the wing tip angle. I do not have those numbers. But if you truly need them due to one person pointing this out, I could try and find you those "numbers". There are a number of references showing the angle avail on the interwebz. Draw a line as your reference point at the wing root and then draw a second line of the wing tip angle...compare the two lines...that should give you the proper angle. I will be unable to provide any info regarding this as I am about to get posted from my beloved Hornets Nest in the next few days. I won't get settled in for a few weeks. Edited June 23, 2016 by AlienFrogModeller Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Neo Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 So any suggestion on more accurate measurement ? Boeing blue print? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tosouthern66 Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 someone any one give us a pic or two of WIP. Our mouths are watering here! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tosouthern66 Posted June 25, 2016 Share Posted June 25, 2016 That wouldn't have been a good way to measure at Cold Lake. There were spots on the Tarmac I thought were level, but I could walk under one wing without ducking and I'd have to duck to get under the other side. I'd check the oleos and they'd be equal. I think some of our jets were bent too. Scooby There is one good thing about the way they measured it! It will give us a line bird, line birds are not perfect and we love them just the same! Go buggy or go home! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewPerren Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 If anyone is interested I offered up the resin burner cans from Aires to the kit. The Aires cans for the Hasegawa kit might work I think and the Aires cans for the Hobbyboss kit are about 0.5 mm too narrow. I measured the diameter at the base of the can where it meets the fuselage. Kit cans - 18.5mm diameter Aires ( Hasegawa) closed - 18.5mm diameter Aires (Hobbyboss) open - 18.0mm diameter Note the kit openings are too narrow too take the Aires exhaust tubes, and the kits exhausts are partially structural or the horizontal stabs mounting. The kit tubes and Aires are nothing like each other. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedHeadKevin Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Scooby It will give us a line bird, line birds are not perfect and we love them just the same! Go buggy or go home! Tell that to IPMS judges. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tosouthern66 Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Tell that to IPMS judges. Well I have an issue with the way they judge any contest. There is no such thing as a perfect kit or airplane! They should be judging on what the modeler did to the kit at hand, not whether the kit represented is in proper scale and every thing looks right. I can under stand if someone enters a contest and says that their model is an Hornet, but it only one intake and engine. Then I can see there being an issue with judging it for accuracy. 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.