Jump to content

Kinetic 48033 F/A-18D ATARS kit decal sheet


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Raymond Chung said:

btw you said our hornet has too many flaws ? Name it ! I can ensure you miss that.

 

Hello!

Some pictures from my article

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/11876-Kinetic-1-48-EF-18A-Tigermeet.html

and from https://doogsmodels.com/2016/07/25/review-148-kinetic-fa-18c-hornet/

 

All Kinetic Hornet Kits

Bad fit of nose - mostly because of wrong building directions in the manual.

Bad fit of clear part to nose - frames of windshield are too thick, big seams.

Canopy1.png

 

Bad fit between clear parts - step 1 prevents fit and they are not matches in point 2. Frame is too thick (3)

Canopy2.png

Wrong engine vents meshes - it must be screen with small round holes, not big square mesh. You did very good screens under the nose and belly, on the engine intakes - but on the tail they are different in size, depth and have wrong screen.

Here are corrected with PE

Meshes.jpg

No reinforcement plates - they are present on most Hornets, why not to add them as PE?

Here they are from plastic

Panel.jpg

No hinges for flap covers, no flap rails

Flaps1.png Flaps2.jpg

Wrong holes in drop tank for centerline pylon.

PE parts for nose wheel well does not fit.

One of Pitots is absent

Pitot.jpg

Incorrect target pod - LANTIRN instead of LITENING. You have LITENING in some F-16 kits, WHY you drop here wrong pod???


 

F/A-18C 48031

Wrong tails. Even after releasing of corrected sprue, this kit contains old wrong parts. WHY????

 

F/A-18A+/B/CF-188

It cannot be built OOB because of:

1) There is no correct ejection seat for Spanish, Australian and many of Canadian Hornets

2) There is no enough stencils for Canadian Hornet.

Wrong and very poor instruction manual - wrong parts even in “up-to-date” manual from http://www.kineticmodel.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=59_70&product_id=78 there is no info which part goes to which version (but it is normal for Kinetic manuals, they are real shoot).

All 3 early type aerials must be same size - only 2 is good, 1 undersized.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, motorhead said:

 

Hello!

Some pictures from my article

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/11876-Kinetic-1-48-EF-18A-Tigermeet.html

and from https://doogsmodels.com/2016/07/25/review-148-kinetic-fa-18c-hornet/

 

All Kinetic Hornet Kits

Bad fit of nose - mostly because of wrong building directions in the manual.

Bad fit of clear part to nose - frames of windshield are too thick, big seams.

Canopy1.png

 

Bad fit between clear parts - step 1 prevents fit and they are not matches in point 2. Frame is too thick (3)

Canopy2.png

Wrong engine vents meshes - it must be screen with small round holes, not big square mesh. You did very good screens under the nose and belly, on the engine intakes - but on the tail they are different in size, depth and have wrong screen.

Here are corrected with PE

Meshes.jpg

No reinforcement plates - they are present on most Hornets, why not to add them as PE?

Here they are from plastic

Panel.jpg

No hinges for flap covers, no flap rails

Flaps1.png Flaps2.jpg

Wrong holes in drop tank for centerline pylon.

PE parts for nose wheel well does not fit.

One of Pitots is absent

Pitot.jpg

Incorrect target pod - LANTIRN instead of LITENING. You have LITENING in some F-16 kits, WHY you drop here wrong pod???


 

F/A-18C 48031

Wrong tails. Even after releasing of corrected sprue, this kit contains old wrong parts. WHY????

 

F/A-18A+/B/CF-188

It cannot be built OOB because of:

1) There is no correct ejection seat for Spanish, Australian and many of Canadian Hornets

2) There is no enough stencils for Canadian Hornet.

Wrong and very poor instruction manual - wrong parts even in “up-to-date” manual from http://www.kineticmodel.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=59_70&product_id=78 there is no info which part goes to which version (but it is normal for Kinetic manuals, they are real shoot).

All 3 early type aerials must be same size - only 2 is good, 1 undersized.

 

 

 

Ok guys

 

i see what you means ‘flaws’ if this is your standard of ‘flaws’ in the hornet, then you have make your own tooled Hornet to meet your demand.

 

the nose fitting need some tricks to make it, as we have to take care multiple version (that we provide something better than others on the market). The windshield has some issue it need to be filed, we are working out some fix on this at the moment but not effect on the 48033. 

 

As for the hinge sorry I cannot agree this is a flaw, we do not provide the detail you need. 

 

As for the ejection sheet for different operator we decide to leave to AM company instead of doing everything by maker.

 

 

For reinforecment plate make sure it does not appear on every jet at every stage. So again this is the room for consumer to add on. 

 

As for the 48031 I cannot ensure the part inside within the global stock list still have the 2016 May batch. But all hornet tail as updated since 2017 jan with F-18a/b

 

In summary, our hornet is not for you and I do not see any available option that make you happy. The only way for you to satisfy you is to using aftermarket upgrade or you invest your own hornet and make it 100% perfect. 

 

As for the manual the parts goes to which version require the consumer to do their research of which part applicable to the hornet they want to replicated. As Hornet services life is longer than other USN airframe, we as a maker we provide all the option and let the consumer build their own.

 

in real life even the same airframe may have different setup in different time. Check out your research and build from the part.

 

Hope this answer will show the ‘facts’ to everybody and they determine whether the product fit for themself.

 

from my personal of view if this is the standard required to classific ‘flaws’. No kit in the world is acceptable. 

Edited by Raymond Chung
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, motorhead said:

 

Hello!

Some pictures from my article

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/11876-Kinetic-1-48-EF-18A-Tigermeet.html

and from https://doogsmodels.com/2016/07/25/review-148-kinetic-fa-18c-hornet/

 

1. All Kinetic Hornet Kits

Bad fit of nose - mostly because of wrong building directions in the manual.

Bad fit of clear part to nose - frames of windshield are too thick, big seams.

 

 

2. Bad fit between clear parts - step 1 prevents fit and they are not matches in point 2. Frame is too thick (3)

 

 

3. Wrong engine vents meshes - it must be screen with small round holes, not big square mesh. You did very good screens under the nose and belly, on the engine intakes - but on the tail they are different in size, depth and have wrong screen.

Here are corrected with PE

 

 

4. No reinforcement plates - they are present on most Hornets, why not to add them as PE?

Here they are from plastic

 

 

5. No hinges for flap covers, no flap rails

 

 

6. Wrong holes in drop tank for centerline pylon.

PE parts for nose wheel well does not fit.

One of Pitots is absent

 

 

7. Incorrect target pod - LANTIRN instead of LITENING. You have LITENING in some F-16 kits, WHY you drop here wrong pod???


 

8. F/A-18C 48031 Wrong tails. Even after releasing of corrected sprue, this kit contains old wrong parts. WHY????

 

9. F/A-18A+/B/CF-188

It cannot be built OOB because of:

1) There is no correct ejection seat for Spanish, Australian and many of Canadian Hornets

2) There is no enough stencils for Canadian Hornet.

Wrong and very poor instruction manual - wrong parts even in “up-to-date” manual from http://www.kineticmodel.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=59_70&product_id=78 there is no info which part goes to which version (but it is normal for Kinetic manuals, they are real shoot).

All 3 early type aerials must be same size - only 2 is good, 1 undersized.

 

 

I numbered your concerns and will answer in that order.

 

1. Whether the fit of any kit is good or bad, from my experience is subjective and at times depends on the modelers approach to the kit in question. I've built three Hasegawa Hornets and found the fit improved or got worse based on the sequence I built them in. I recently slapped together a Kinetic Hornet and had almost no fit issues, except the windscreen. However, a little shaving of the part made it sit properly. Would I consider this a 'flaw'? Perhaps the windscreen issue, but not the overall fit of the kit.

 

2. I agree the clear parts could fit better. On my test build, it became apparent the canopy would not fit properly if it was put in the closed position. 

 

3. I wouldn't consider the mesh screens a 'flaw'. Could they have been done a little better? Sure, but they don't distract from the overall look of the model when completed.

 

4. Those plates were added to many airframes late in their lives and not all aircraft have them. Without having knowledge of every airframe modification done to fleet aircraft, I wouldn't blame any kit manufacturer from missing this detail. It is also literally impossible for any kit manufacturer to update their kits molds to keep up with the actual changes made to the real aircraft. This is in no way a 'flaw'.

 

5. Are you kidding? With the exception of the Revell 1/48th Tornado kits, not a SINGLE plastic model with separate control surfaces have ever provided those details. This is not a 'flaw'.

 

6. I don't know what you mean by wrong holes in drop tank for the center line pylon, can you elaborate?

Agree the PE does not fit correctly. However, it can easily be trimmed without compromising the detail it provides.

Which 'pitot' tube are you referring to? 

 

7. Again, I agree the inclusion of the LANTIRN pod is annoying, but I wouldn't consider it a flaw. The omission of the LITENING pod isn't a flaw either. While it has been used extensively by the Marine Corps, it isn't always carried. The inclusion or omission of any ordnance item in any kit shouldn't be considered a flaw.  

 

8. If the original kit is already in distribution, it is impossible for the manufacturer to get the new parts into those kits. This is not a flaw as the parts were corrected. 

 

9. I would not count the lack of country specific ejection seats as a flaw. 

The missing stencils may or may not be a flaw. Did the subject aircraft have all of the stencils applied? It is possible the designer only included what was on the real aircraft. 

Agree completely the instructions could use a complete overhaul. I have asked for an opportunity to address this and hope that it is given.

 

While I was originally very critical of the Kinetic Hornets, the more I looked at them, the more I liked them. All things considered, they are great kits with no more issues than most other kits available. I spent a large portion of my Marine Corps career (15 years) working on or near the F/A-18 and know the aircraft quite well. It is one of the better kits out there.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond, would there happen to be a non-ATARS nose included in the upcoming kit like there was with the Blue Angels release? 

 

Dave, thanks for your write up. That really helps put any concerns of a future build after purchasing this kit at ease. Really looking forward to it even more now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

I numbered your concerns and will answer in that order.

 

1. Whether the fit of any kit is good or bad, from my experience is subjective and at times depends on the modelers approach to the kit in question. I've built three Hasegawa Hornets and found the fit improved or got worse based on the sequence I built them in. I recently slapped together a Kinetic Hornet and had almost no fit issues, except the windscreen. However, a little shaving of the part made it sit properly. Would I consider this a 'flaw'? Perhaps the windscreen issue, but not the overall fit of the kit.

 

2. I agree the clear parts could fit better. On my test build, it became apparent the canopy would not fit properly if it was put in the closed position. 

 

3. I wouldn't consider the mesh screens a 'flaw'. Could they have been done a little better? Sure, but they don't distract from the overall look of the model when completed.

 

4. Those plates were added to many airframes late in their lives and not all aircraft have them. Without having knowledge of every airframe modification done to fleet aircraft, I wouldn't blame any kit manufacturer from missing this detail. It is also literally impossible for any kit manufacturer to update their kits molds to keep up with the actual changes made to the real aircraft. This is in no way a 'flaw'.

 

5. Are you kidding? With the exception of the Revell 1/48th Tornado kits, not a SINGLE plastic model with separate control surfaces have ever provided those details. This is not a 'flaw'.

 

6. I don't know what you mean by wrong holes in drop tank for the center line pylon, can you elaborate?

Agree the PE does not fit correctly. However, it can easily be trimmed without compromising the detail it provides.

Which 'pitot' tube are you referring to? 

 

7. Again, I agree the inclusion of the LANTIRN pod is annoying, but I wouldn't consider it a flaw. The omission of the LITENING pod isn't a flaw either. While it has been used extensively by the Marine Corps, it isn't always carried. The inclusion or omission of any ordnance item in any kit shouldn't be considered a flaw.  

 

8. If the original kit is already in distribution, it is impossible for the manufacturer to get the new parts into those kits. This is not a flaw as the parts were corrected. 

 

9. I would not count the lack of country specific ejection seats as a flaw. 

The missing stencils may or may not be a flaw. Did the subject aircraft have all of the stencils applied? It is possible the designer only included what was on the real aircraft. 

Agree completely the instructions could use a complete overhaul. I have asked for an opportunity to address this and hope that it is given.

 

While I was originally very critical of the Kinetic Hornets, the more I looked at them, the more I liked them. All things considered, they are great kits with no more issues than most other kits available. I spent a large portion of my Marine Corps career (15 years) working on or near the F/A-18 and know the aircraft quite well. It is one of the better kits out there.

 

Dave

First of all - i am very sorry to raise this offtopic, i see that many people has opposite opinion and i want to clarify my point of view.

 

1) 21st century around us, and this bad fit, thick frames - is flaw today.
2) same
3) so what is "flaw"? - totally unbuildable kit?
4) we have box with specific subject - it is inscribed on top and depicted on side - if this part needs to build this particular airframe (not every hornet, only particular!) so this part must be there. Same thing about instruction manual - it is very good too have proper Hornet guide with kit, but i am not about it. I am about instruction manual for this particular subject, to build it! For example - if on box is inscribed and depicted Australian Hornet, please, provide parts (Ejection seat) and CORRECT manual to build it.
5) yes, all details is overkill, but some hinges to help position these flap covers may help...
6) Tank - green arrows. Existing holes are wrong for centerline mount - too forward.

Tank.jpg
PE - again - part does not fit - is it not a flaw? So what is flaw by your opinion?
Pitot

Pitot1-ARC.jpg Pitot2-ARC.jpg Pitot3-ARC.jpg
7) Same as 4 - Australian and Spanish Hornets uses LITENING.
😎 Parts were corrected in OTHER kit, not 48031. I ordered my kit from Luckymodel (not a "local shop") way after correction was made and hoped to get it with this kit. My kit 48031 was shipped to me in August 2017 and still has wrong tails.
9) Same as 4 - if the plane described and depicted on the box, but we cannot build it out of the box - what is this? It is not a flaw, it is fraud.

 

Now i building Tamiya F-14D. Simplified kit, maybe too expensive. But! It builds “itself” - parts connects without any pre-fit, it can be built by following steps in the instruction manual - there is no need to be an expert in this type of airplane and collect hundreds of photos. They add small correction sheet to instruction manual because of incorrect color of some knobs on instrument panel! They gives parts for cockpit instrument panel for different weapon loadout and states it in instruction manual!!! And i feel - this kit costs every buck of its price.

 

Again - please forgive me for offtopic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Whiskey said:

Raymond, would there happen to be a non-ATARS nose included in the upcoming kit like there was with the Blue Angels release? 

 

Dave, thanks for your write up. That really helps put any concerns of a future build after purchasing this kit at ease. Really looking forward to it even more now. 

 

The gun door and ATARS are separate pieces, so a standard D can still be built from the kit. 

 

I'm working from home for the next several months, so I may just sit down and do a full write up on the kit here shortly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one Kinetic kit already and will happily build more. My only complaint about this release is that it's a shame about the -533 option being removed. That's the squadron I'd build. Any other option for those markings?

Edited by Swordsman422
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

I have one Kinetic kit already and will happily build more. My only complaint about this release is that it's a shame about the -533 option being removed. That's the squadron I'd build. Any other option for those markings?

I'll be putting them on a separate Flying Leathernecks release to be released as soon as possible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shion said:

 

Coaming and corresponding instrument panel are available in the Hasegawa Growler kit, more these plastic parts are unused.

 

Completely different instrument panel. The coaming is almost the same though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raymond Chung said:

I am sure some AM company will make one 

 

 

I am working on a master now. Looking at investing in the proper resin casting equipment as well. I'll keep you up to date Raymond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. I think Kinetic did a cool thing with the Hornet and really went out of their way to tool new vertical tails. As for accuracy, it's the only Hornet kit out there to provide C specific details and options. I'd choose it over Hasegawa all the time now. 

 

Hasegawa 'C' never included the correct NACES seat (only ever offered SJU-7 for the A/B), lex vents, mesh screens for the nose, reinforcement strips for the nose, reinforcement plates for the tails, full length intakes. Oh and the C gear door has the details wrong and backwards. For foreign operators they never updated their seat either, though only people intimately knowledgeable would know the difference in seats. They also we're off in dimensions and shape for the spine, tail, fuel tank. I'll give them great landing gear and instrument panel coaming for pilot. Their B RIO coaming was unlike the real thing and their D coaming was actually a B. And only in the very late boxing did they update the expanded flare buckets... so while Kinetic may not be perfect, they really made the effort and thought things out. And provided the modeler to actually build a C, both early and late!

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2018 at 10:34 AM, IAGeezer said:

This is gonna be great! Were any of these birds used in the FAC(A) role, and if so,  what kind of load out was used for that mission? Thanks Dave.

 

LAU-10/A Zuni pod. Four rockets per pod. Usually smoke for marking targets. However, laser guided Zuni based rockets are being evaluated. Now, or least were. Historically the older rockets weren’t that reliable. I think there are five shot pods are in the works. All that said, the former are the same Zunis in one form or another that that were cleared for use any other military aircraft.

 

Semper Fi,

Masterguns 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 10:15 PM, Dave Roof said:

I'll be putting them on a separate Flying Leathernecks release to be released as soon as possible. 

Sorry for this off-topic, but will this be a sheet dedicated to 533? Some impressive score boards were visible on photos found via Google.

 

Thanks for your answer!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gunny said:

 

LAU-10/A Zuni pod. Four rockets per pod. Usually smoke for marking targets. However, laser guided Zuni based rockets are being evaluated. Now, or least were. Historically the older rockets weren’t that reliable. I think there are five shot pods are in the works. All that said, the former are the same Zunis in one form or another that that were cleared for use any other military aircraft.

 

Semper Fi,

Masterguns 

The APKWS have been introduced, basically a laser guided Zuni rocket that fit into the statndard LAU-10 4-shot pod. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2018 at 10:34 AM, IAGeezer said:

This is gonna be great! Were any of these birds used in the FAC(A) role, and if so,  what kind of load out was used for that mission? Thanks Dave.

 

For current operations, not so much.

 

9 hours ago, Gunny said:

 

LAU-10/A Zuni pod. Four rockets per pod. Usually smoke for marking targets. However, laser guided Zuni based rockets are being evaluated. Now, or least were. Historically the older rockets weren’t that reliable. I think there are five shot pods are in the works. All that said, the former are the same Zunis in one form or another that that were cleared for use any other military aircraft.

 

Semper Fi,

Masterguns 

 

LAU-10 has been used sparingly in recent years. The typical configurations for almost all USMC Hornets in recent years has been a mix of GBU-12, GBU-38, GBU-54 and AGM-65. While there have been uses of MK-77, LAU-10, GBU-10/16/31/51, they have been few. 

 

 

2 hours ago, andy_e said:

Sorry for this off-topic, but will this be a sheet dedicated to 533? Some impressive score boards were visible on photos found via Google.

 

Thanks for your answer!

 

No, there will be a mix of F/A-18A, C, D and ATARS D's.

 

55 minutes ago, Niels said:

The APKWS have been introduced, basically a laser guided Zuni rocket that fit into the statndard LAU-10 4-shot pod. 

 

APKWS are 2.75 inch rockets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave Roof said:

 

No, there will be a mix of F/A-18A, C, D and ATARS D's.

 

 

Hi, Dave.

 

Is that about FLD48-009?

I'm aware of "the upcoming one with all the ODS USMC squadrons" and FLD48-009.

But as far as I know there is no VMFA(AW)-533 ATARS bird on FLD48-009.

Is there another new sheet with recent Hornets planned?

 

I was going to wait for the ODS one and pass on FLD48-009. But then I saw what you did with the load-out charts for recent operations and the guide per airframe indicating which seat/antenna/etc configuration. Now I want FLD48-009 too. :thumbsup:

 

Cheers, Stefan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...