Jump to content

1/48 F-104 best option and opinions sought


Recommended Posts

What would be the best way to build a credible F-104G in 1/48?


Cost isn’t really an issue but if I can get off from spending a small fortune all the better. I think I’m right in saying that one of the options below would be best. So weighing up cost against quality which would you suggest?

 

1/ Hasegawa with  AM cockpit/exhaust etc....,

2/ Hasegawa with full DACO set

3/ Kinetic with or without AM

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Personally and i gave multiples if both Kinetic and Hasegawa.

If your starting from fresh get Kinetic unless cost is prohibitive.

Its the best 104 you can buy.

Daco correction set is expensive and if your not planning multiple 104’s uts a bit of overkill.

Both can do with a resin seat but to get Hasegawa to Kinetic you either need to fill the divets in the wing plus over diveted rear end.
Your choice but Kinetic is a better start point.

Hasegawa it cheaper but needs either replacement wings or elbow grease or replacement.

Replacement will elevate project price probably to exceed Kinetics initial outlay...

 

Edited by dehowie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of all you get in the box (underwing pylons and tanks, AA missiles and rails), I’d recommend the Kinetic kit.  I think the main thing it needs is IP dials or a new IP from Eduard because, although the plastic IP is nice, there is no dial detail, just blank faces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Kinetic kit really that good? I’ve built 4 Kinetic kits, two have been very poor and the other two were nothing to shout about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

36 minutes ago, scotthldr said:

Is the Kinetic kit really that good? I’ve built 4 Kinetic kits, two have been very poor and the other two were nothing to shout about.


The F-104 is one of their recent “gold” kits which have better fit and detail compared to their earlier molds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hmm... and I used to think that the old Monogram kit was a decent starting point with a few extras in the cockpit, nose probe, exhaust and some under wing pylons. Hasegawa was definitely better, but the divets did require addressing.  Haven't seen the new Kinetic kit. 

Edited by Dutch
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kinetic F-104 has a very serious shape issue. The fuselage shape where the air intakes run is completely screwed up.  The intake ducts on the Kinetic kit ends way to early, whereas on the original, the ducts extent to the very rear of the wing.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t heard anything about the fuselage being screwed up, but regarding the intake ducting not going all the way to the engine, the Hasegawa kit is not better in this aspect.  Both kit intakes end at a blank wall, but at least the Kinetic kit has some interior ducting, and with the curvature of the ducting, you really can’t see anything anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Dave,

 

my post is confusing. I mean the outside shape of the fuselage, where the intake ducts run. The pictures, although not the same angle shows the problem with the Kinetic kit.

 

Thomas

 

Edited by Thomas
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas, I’m inclined to agree with you regards the fuselage shape. From the first CADs and sprue shots the shape issue stuck out like a sore thumb, however Raymond from Kinetic said it was a trick of the light whilst photographing the sprues and was done intentionally( why would you do that, and doesn’t explain why the CADs show the same flaw?) I’m waiting to see some actual builds of the kit/s to see if the issue is there, but to date I’ve only seen the one build over on BM and unfortunately I can still see the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond from Kinetic mentioned in the FB thread on the forthcoming release of the TF-104G kit as he was asked by a member if the fuselage shape issue will corrected, that it will happen. Unfortunately it is unclear, if also the single seater parts will be addressed. When you google Kinetic F-104 you will find some builds, where the shape issue pops out, like this one from Kitchecker:

 

255062@2x.jpg

 

When you compare it to the original it is so obvious:

 

N%C3%B6rvenich_Air_Base_Lockheed_F-104G_

 

 

And while researching the issue, I got the impression, that the Revell 1/72 has a similar issue with this, but a little less worse.

 

Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Raymond from Kinetic mentioned in the FB thread on the forthcoming release of the TF-104G kit as he was asked by a member if the fuselage shape issue will corrected, that it will happen. Unfortunately it is unclear, if also the single seater parts will be addressed. When you google Kinetic F-104 you will find some builds, where the shape issue pops out, like this one from Kitchecker:

 

255062@2x.jpg

 

When you compare it to the original it is so obvious:

 

N%C3%B6rvenich_Air_Base_Lockheed_F-104G_

 

 

And while researching the issue, I got the impression, that the Revell 1/72 has a similar issue with this, but a little less worse.

 

Thomas

Dear Thomas,

 

We address this issue in TF-104 and coming F-104A/C when we receive and recheck the issue. For you the shape error is a factor that you would not take this kit as your choice, I respect that. But at the same time, other kits form from other brand has also some sort of issue. In 1/48, Hasegawa one is 1/49.5 not 1/48. So, each kit has it pro and cons and you as a consumer have to choose base on your needs. 

 

As for the TF-104, we take your feedback and luckily we are on time to revise the part before going to tooling, so the TF-104, F-104/AC will have this small issue resolved. As for F-104G, we evaluate that we will not do anything on it as cost to recover it to "your" comment is not worth the fiscal effort. Sorry that we are not running model contest to win the prize, we are running a business to provide consumer product with cost, budget concern. Just like TAMIYA F-4 in 1/32 posses some shape issue on the E/J model, unless you have a better option, as a modeller either you live it that or fix it yourself or find another alternative. 

 

If you want to stay a fair suggestion to the other people, you should also mention the compete pictures of all alternative pros and cons, instead of just putting focus on the one of the difficult to notice (of course not for you), So, the message stated here will provide a more clear and fair comparsion.

 

I see you are very upset on this issue and posting all notes on facebook, forum to stand out the error to anyone who may not notice before you state it out. I am sure some one will provide you a perfect 104 sometimes at your promotion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Raymond I appreciate you coming on and providing your input, something that other manufacturers don’t tend to do, so respect where it’s due. However and in all fairness, Thomas has merely pointed out a major flaw in the ‘G’ that is there, nothing else. 
 

I noticed this problem when I first saw the CADs and noticed it again when the first sprue shots were made public, so Thomas didn’t make me aware of it I already knew the issue was there. How the person/s that looked over your CADs managed to miss it I don’t understand?

 

 This issue is enough for me to consider my other options(the reason for this thread to begin with), does it grind on me enough not to buy this kit, yes it does as it’s a major error which can’t be rectified without major surgery or omitted. The annoying thing is that the rest of the kit looks superb,  I’ll wait and see what the TF looks like before making a final decision on what route to go.

Edited by scotthldr
Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on how passionate you are about the subject at hand. If you are passionate about the F-104, you will see the shape issue. In comparing the two pictures, I had to go back and forth a couple of times before I could even begin to think I was seeing something off. Eventually it looked like there was a bit of a difference, but nothing that for me was even remotely a deal-breaker. I'll take ease of build and good detail all day long over 100% accuracy. As long as it's nothing major, it's all good. I'm passionate about the Tomcat and the AMK kit shape issues didn't turn me off. Of course, the fiddliness of the fit did, but that's another story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scotthldr said:

Raymond I appreciate you coming on and providing your input, something that other manufacturers don’t tend to do, so respect where it’s due. However and in all fairness, Thomas has merely pointed out a major flaw in the ‘G’ that is there, nothing else. 
 

I noticed this problem when I first saw the CADs and noticed it again when the first sprue shots were made public, so Thomas didn’t make me aware of it I already knew the issue was there. How the person/s that looked over your CADs managed to miss it I don’t understand?

 

 This issue is enough for me to consider my other options(the reason for this thread to begin with), does it grind on me enough not to buy this kit, yes it does as it’s a major error which can’t be rectified without major surgery or omitted. The annoying thing is that the rest of the kit looks superb,  I’ll wait and see what the TF looks like before making a final decision on what route to go.

We took the shape validation seriously, we are not 3D scan other brand product and doing take and remove approach. 
 

for F-104 we spend a few months in shape validation checking and on site visit to resolve those undocument or conflict in data collected area to try to make the things as correct as possible. 
 

we also distribute the CAD to our contributors to review. But we are human we made mistakes, and many contributors cannot use the 3D viewer to examine in details. Checking a 3D validation is something a detector going on the crime scene and try to figure out the difference between measurement, photo and loft line. 

But we are human we are not perfect, I have to live up with that. with over 250 sheets of review and comments, we may lose in between. The F-104 review board include 6-7 people who devote time and efforts and that is the best we can did at that time. Of course each mistakes will be another input to improve our validation process. So we always thinks we can do better from projects to projects, thus we never claim we deliver the best F-104 in 1/48 or any scale.
 

We have to accept we no way to achieve Perfection but we need take the balance between time budget and delivery.

 

as for the fix up the shape some Italian modeller try it with a easy putty to reshape the intake duct till the end and redo the panel. 
 

as I stated in fb before, some customer is more concern with the shape of the end (not front of the intake) than the actual scale dimension. Then hasegawa is the way you go. But if you are so demand on the accuracy, in terms of the overall scale error or a bit shape error, both product does not meet you demand until

someone got another new kit meeting all your need. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Raymond,

 

I also really appreciate that you are coming here to defend your kit (your "baby") and I am also happy to hear, that you address the shape issue on the TF-104G and a coming F-104A/C.

The shape issue might also caused a problem with wrong panel lines in the transition between fuselage to the rear wing connection. The rest of the kit looks superb, as some other people already mentioned. I cannot check the dimensions of the Kinetic kit, as I don´t have it.

Generally, I really like you kits and I have some (CF-188, both AMX, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard, Sea Harrier- and eagerly awaiting the Harrier Gr.1/3 and the the Puccara). There are some smaller issues with these kits, that are easily addressed and fixed or I can live with them, but the shape issue in the F-104 is a very serious on for me.

Most probably, I will get the TF-104G kit with the corrected fuselage. How I will get an accurate F-104G from Kinetic, I don´t know yet. Maybe mating an F-104A/C fuselage minus tail section with the F-104G tail section could be a possible way. But getting F-104A/C fuselage halves without buying the whole kit will be ambitious (just don´t like the look of the short A/C tail).

 

 

 

I didn´t mention the issues with the Hasegawa kit, because the kit is nearly 20 years old and the issues with it are very well known, documented and there is the Daco set, to address some of the issues. Where the rumor is coming from, that the Hasegawa kit is actually the wrong scale, I do not know. I just checked again the main parts (fuselage, wings, tail rudder) against the drawings of the Daco and the Verlinden Lock on book. The only discrepancies I found when I tried to match the fuselage halves to the Verlinden drawings in the area of the top of the fin and at the very rear aft below the rudder. So, who is right? Hasegawa and Daco, or is the Verlinden right in this aspect? Or all are wrong and the drawings are not 1/48. To the Daco drawing, the fin is 95% spot on, on the Verlinden drawing, less so.

 

 

20200706_0925540dk0z.jpg

 

20200706_092655y0kf4.jpg

 

Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the mistake in the transistion from the engine ducts to the wings is obvious, but it is not that fundamental making the kit worse or unbuildable. I only have realized it with the direct comparison from the original and model photo. Apart from that, probably I never took notice from it. Anyway, it can be remedied with a bit of sandpaper and putty without too much work.

 

I just realized, that Kinetic will rerelease the F-5A kit in 1:48 soon. It is a pleasant little kit and hopefully, they will improve the quality of the clear parts in the new edition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond, with the imminent release of the TF-104, are you able to share some sprue shots of the new fuselage? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2020 at 3:36 PM, Raymond Chung said:

Dear Thomas,

 

We address this issue in TF-104 and coming F-104A/C when we receive and recheck the issue. For you the shape error is a factor that you would not take this kit as your choice, I respect that. But at the same time, other kits form from other brand has also some sort of issue. In 1/48, Hasegawa one is 1/49.5 not 1/48. So, each kit has it pro and cons and you as a consumer have to choose base on your needs. 

 

As for the TF-104, we take your feedback and luckily we are on time to revise the part before going to tooling, so the TF-104, F-104/AC will have this small issue resolved. As for F-104G, we evaluate that we will not do anything on it as cost to recover it to "your" comment is not worth the fiscal effort. Sorry that we are not running model contest to win the prize, we are running a business to provide consumer product with cost, budget concern. Just like TAMIYA F-4 in 1/32 posses some shape issue on the E/J model, unless you have a better option, as a modeller either you live it that or fix it yourself or find another alternative. 

 

If you want to stay a fair suggestion to the other people, you should also mention the compete pictures of all alternative pros and cons, instead of just putting focus on the one of the difficult to notice (of course not for you), So, the message stated here will provide a more clear and fair comparsion.

 

I see you are very upset on this issue and posting all notes on facebook, forum to stand out the error to anyone who may not notice before you state it out. I am sure some one will provide you a perfect 104 sometimes at your promotion. 

 Nothing is perfect!  Personally, I don't see anything,  never did!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Thomas said:

Dear Raymond,

 

I also really appreciate that you are coming here to defend your kit (your "baby") and I am also happy to hear, that you address the shape issue on the TF-104G and a coming F-104A/C.

The shape issue might also caused a problem with wrong panel lines in the transition between fuselage to the rear wing connection. The rest of the kit looks superb, as some other people already mentioned. I cannot check the dimensions of the Kinetic kit, as I don´t have it.

Generally, I really like you kits and I have some (CF-188, both AMX, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard, Sea Harrier- and eagerly awaiting the Harrier Gr.1/3 and the the Puccara). There are some smaller issues with these kits, that are easily addressed and fixed or I can live with them, but the shape issue in the F-104 is a very serious on for me.

Most probably, I will get the TF-104G kit with the corrected fuselage. How I will get an accurate F-104G from Kinetic, I don´t know yet. Maybe mating an F-104A/C fuselage minus tail section with the F-104G tail section could be a possible way. But getting F-104A/C fuselage halves without buying the whole kit will be ambitious (just don´t like the look of the short A/C tail).

 

 

 

I didn´t mention the issues with the Hasegawa kit, because the kit is nearly 20 years old and the issues with it are very well known, documented and there is the Daco set, to address some of the issues. Where the rumor is coming from, that the Hasegawa kit is actually the wrong scale, I do not know. I just checked again the main parts (fuselage, wings, tail rudder) against the drawings of the Daco and the Verlinden Lock on book. The only discrepancies I found when I tried to match the fuselage halves to the Verlinden drawings in the area of the top of the fin and at the very rear aft below the rudder. So, who is right? Hasegawa and Daco, or is the Verlinden right in this aspect? Or all are wrong and the drawings are not 1/48. To the Daco drawing, the fin is 95% spot on, on the Verlinden drawing, less so.

 

 

20200706_0925540dk0z.jpg

 

20200706_092655y0kf4.jpg

 

Thomas

your violating one of the most important rules of engineering! First your using a drawing, and secondly your relying on someone's ideas and not the engineers that developed the item. The blue prints will be marked government property in the lower right hand corner if the Fed had one dollar invested in it. (Tomcats also) That little block printed on the sheet means you don't own it and never will. Drawings are never meant to be accurate shape wise, bot usually supply you with the numbers to work with. By the way that plastic looks like it met a shotgun!

gary

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...