Jump to content

New tool F-16AM MLU in 1:48 announced by Kinetic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kurt H. said:

My Kinetic Gold F-16A and F-16C just arrived. I did not know about the Magfire feature before I saw it mentioned on the box lid. It says "MagFire compatible" ... But I  can nt find anything else about MagFire anywhere. Is it going to be available separately?  If so, when? it looks like a great feature I would love to try.

 

I can not add much to the discussion about the kit itself, I have not started building, and I don't know the F-16 well enough to judge accuracy, but it does look lovely in the bags. And it has one thing which I really like ... Decals for the instrument panel and side consoles. 


It’s discussed elsewhere in this thread.  Magfire was intended to be small magnets that could be built into the pylons and weapons so you could swap out weapons after the kit was built, but the magnets were deleted from the kits.  The reason is discussed earlier in this thread.

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


It’s discussed elsewhere in this thread.  Magfire was intended to be small magnets that could be built into the pylons and weapons so you could swap out weapons after the kit was built, but the magnets were deleted from the kits.  The reason is discussed earlier in this thread.

 

Thanks. I had to review the entire thread to find it.  To summarize; for various reasons the magnets had to be left out, but one post says you can use a 1mm dia x 1.2mm length  magnet to fit the space provided. 

Edited by Kurt H.
clarify
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2022 at 10:48 PM, Raymond Chung said:

I think the seat belt with reinforcement plate from eduard cost less than 12? we are teaming up with cross delta to make reinforcement set. 
 

of course if you need 3D printer console, it is more expensive than the kit itself. 
 

as for the magfire weapon, the parts designed for magnet installation. I think also it is too complex for those who don’t need to magnet the missile. But it is designed for such purpose. 
 

I understand there are some customers who demand all-in-one (PE… option) 

 

But F-16 is different from other offering from us (eg F-104, IA-58, Harrier) F-16 has huge number of options where no one can offer all specified features. 
 

however our kit also include some feature not available on the market. 
 

So now the argument will be the customer asking why we don’t provide 100% feature of the box version while we provide 95% feature to cover most variant. 
 

same as most maker we cannot make 100% customer happy. 
 

as for the magfire missile, yes if you don’t like it you can use any from the spare box or aftermarket. 

 

Took some finding...
 

Magfire is the provision of a place to put a magnet should you wish to.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kurt H. said:

I did not know about the Magfire feature before I saw it mentioned on the box lid. It says "MagFire compatible" ... But I  can not find anything else about MagFire anywhere. Is it going to be available separately?  

 

It's a sticky subject ......  🍭

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2022 at 11:37 AM, habu2 said:

If you only want the small tail stabs just cut down the big tail stabs in your (insert manufacturer name here) kit.  Drawings are readily available on the 'net...

 

 

BigTailF-16a.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The leading edge was extended as well - the original stab lines up with a panel line on the upper fuselage - the larger stab extends approximately to the lights.  Then it is just a matter of cropping the span to eliminate the chamfered trailing edge and sand the leading and trailing edges sharp.

 

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

The leading edge was extended as well - the original stab lines up with a panel line on the upper fuselage - the larger stab extends approximately to the lights.  Then it is just a matter of cropping the span to eliminate the chamfered trailing edge and sand the leading and trailing edges sharp.

 

Thank you! That is of course on the premise that the kit ones are accurate 🙂

I already found differences between Tamiya and Kinetic there...slight variation in leading edge sweep angle and a very different anchor/pivot point position...

J

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

Where is this drawing from and is it reliable? I thought only the trailing edge was extended...

J

 

I think it's from the old Detail & Scale book.

 

From an aerodynamic load standpoint you need to keep your area moments roughly equal about the pivot axis.  The outer rear corner was clipped to provide approximately the same ground clearance in a nose-up stab-up configuration.

 

.

 

Edited by habu2
semantics
Link to post
Share on other sites

I received the first of my three copies of the F-16C kit and dug into it immediately.  My goal is to build a block 10 bird from the NY ANG during Desert Storm.  Most of those block 10 mods of the kit parts went fine, but I still have to pick through references to make panel line and smaller detail fixes.

 

There are two aftermarket horizontal stabilizers replacement sets that you could try to start from, Quickboost and Wolfpack.  I happen to have both, and to make a long story short, neither is a quick solution.  Neither appear to have properly reduced the cord length.  And neither of them have trailing edges that align with the speed brakes correctly.  I gave up on those sets and just modified the kit parts. 

 

As for the cuts to make, I used the top view from the Bullseye DS viper decal sheet for the Block 10.  Based on those measurements and estimates from photos, I arrived at ~1.6825" for the root cord length and ~0.5200" for the wingtip cord length.  I squared off the aft edge first, then hacked off the leading edge based on those dimensions.

 

Some impressions of the kit:

- Surface detail is very crisp, on par or better than the Tamiya kit.

- Fit is fair to good. It is a little clumsy in a few places (like the lower engine cover part that's molded separately).

- Kit exhaust nozzle is OK.  I ended up testing every resin PW F-16 set I had.  The Reskit set for the Hasegawa kit fits into the kit shroud with just a slight modification.

- The cockpit is not very detailed.  The tub is OK, but the seat and cockpit sill parts are very poorly detailed.  I would say it's just slightly better than the old Hasegawa F-16 kit in this area.

- Wheel bays are nice, other than a few ejector pin marks on the main gear bay parts.

- Flap down position appears to be fore full flaps.  Most of the time they are parked with ~15 degrees of down flap in reference photos.

- Crazy amount of ordnance, most of which won't be used.

 

I'm probably going to shelve it for now to see what kind of aftermarket sets come out to address the sparsely detailed cockpit situation.

 

Ken 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2022 at 11:37 AM, habu2 said:

If you only want the small tail stabs just cut down the big tail stabs in your (insert manufacturer name here) kit.  Drawings are readily available on the 'net...

 

These should be accurate enough:

 

HStab_01-1c.jpg.6fb408942523189f9390fb2d18d74146.jpg

 

 

 

 

HStab_01-2c.jpg.ad8b5b672701de52a3b8140c461d4395.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, habu2 said:

 

These should be accurate enough:

 

HStab_01-1c.jpg.6fb408942523189f9390fb2d18d74146.jpg

 

 

 

 

HStab_01-2c.jpg.ad8b5b672701de52a3b8140c461d4395.jpg

...the weird thing is that the construction data (root chord, tip chord, span and 40° leading edge sweep) doesn't actually line up geometrically, unless the trailing edge is not totally perpendicular (90°) to the centreline (although all indications point to that being the case...), or the tip chord shorter or the root chord longer...

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

...the weird thing is that the construction data (root chord, tip chord, span and 40° leading edge sweep) doesn't actually line up geometrically, unless the trailing edge is not totally perpendicular (90°) to the centreline (although all indications point to that being the case...), or the tip chord shorter or the root chord longer...

J

 

I'm not sure I understand your concern.  If I use the dimensions provided in the drawing and do the trig, the leading edge sweep comes out to 39.7 degrees, a difference of less than 1%. The difference could be explained if the 40 degree sweep is the projected sweep angle at 10 deg anhedral, although I admit that seems a strange way to dimension the drawing.

 

If I could get to <1% accuracy when modifying a 1/48 kit part I'd be absolutely thrilled.....

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

...the weird thing is that the construction data (root chord, tip chord, span and 40° leading edge sweep) doesn't actually line up geometrically, unless the trailing edge is not totally perpendicular (90°) to the centreline (although all indications point to that being the case...), or the tip chord shorter or the root chord longer...

J

The trailing edges isn't perpendicular to the centerline. There are fuselage stations lines marked off every 12.5 inch in the drawing.  These are aligned with my phone screen when I zoom in. The trailing edges is not and has a slight aft sweep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Full disclosure: this isn't from a scanner, the image was captured by my cellphone camera from a reference book (Aerofax) at a distance of ~40", as close to orthogonal as I could eyeball it, then cleaned up (contrast, monochrome, straightened) on my laptop before uploading. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, habu2 said:

 

I'm not sure I understand your concern.  If I use the dimensions provided in the drawing and do the trig, the leading edge sweep comes out to 39.7 degrees, a difference of less than 1%. The difference could be explained if the 40 degree sweep is the projected sweep angle at 10 deg anhedral, although I admit that seems a strange way to dimension the drawing.

 

If I could get to <1% accuracy when modifying a 1/48 kit part I'd be absolutely thrilled.....

 

My concern is that when I do something I want to do it as best and as accurately as I can  🙂 And if I find a discrepancy I want to find the cause for it.

I would not alter the leading edge sweep - 40° is stated in pretty much every document so I don't think there is +/- wiggle room on that.

Now, surprisingly, the drawing from the Aerofax book lines up nearly perfectly with what the geometry I had produced with the figures (also supported by real-world measurements as well). Most importantly, it lines up with a trailing edge that is very slightly swept!! So not dead-perpendicular.

 

(What is also apparent is that Tamiya's (large) stab is dead on as per measurements and angles (perfect 40° sweep) while Kinteic's is not quite right, the sweep is slightly larger and also the stabilator pivot or anchor point is too far aft on the Kinetic kit. Tamiya has that correct as well.)

J

 

Edited by JeffreyK
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I got bored and did some math. 

 

Red numbers are defined by the drawing @habu2 included. 

 

I used the coordinates for the MAC location to determine the leading edge sweep, then use that to calculate the leading edge Fuselage Station of the tip chord. Using the MAC and Tip chords I calculate the locations of the trailing edge and then calculate the trailing edge sweep at both of these points.  All the numbers worked out consistent with the drawing and gave consistent answers for the trailing edge sweep at both the MAC and tip locations.

 

2127146092_F-16tailmath.png.bda3fab05df74fdd60f944d1091f20fb.png

 

One thing to keep in mind this is all looking down in the plan view for the airplane.  This doesn't account for the anhedral they are mounted with.  This means the horizontal surfaces are about 1.5%  wider that the dimensions given in the image.  67.697/cos(10) = 68.741" This should be what you would get if you measured the tail with a tape measure from root to tip.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steve McArthur said:

So I got bored and did some math. 

 

Red numbers are defined by the drawing @habu2 included. 

 

I used the coordinates for the MAC location to determine the leading edge sweep, then use that to calculate the leading edge Fuselage Station of the tip chord. Using the MAC and Tip chords I calculate the locations of the trailing edge and then calculate the trailing edge sweep at both of these points.  All the numbers worked out consistent with the drawing and gave consistent answers for the trailing edge sweep at both the MAC and tip locations.

 

2127146092_F-16tailmath.png.bda3fab05df74fdd60f944d1091f20fb.png

 

One thing to keep in mind this is all looking down in the plan view for the airplane.  This doesn't account for the anhedral they are mounted with.  This means the horizontal surfaces are about 1.5%  wider that the dimensions given in the image.  67.697/cos(10) = 68.741" This should be what you would get if you measured the tail with a tape measure from root to tip.

 

Thanks for that  🙂

Woking it geometrically in CAD (and at slightly rounded, scale converted figures) I get 0.6° sweep so in accordance with your calculation.

While one drawing I took from a manual is showing the stabs in their downward projection view (i.e. with anhedral, span forshortened), the drawing posted above is an actual size representation, not forshortened. Also, all measurement figures given above (and in other drawings), except for the butt line where the root is located, are the dimensions of the flattened, actual stabilator as if it had no anhedral, not the downward projection.

For the time being I think that's "case closed" for me 🙂

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trailing edge issue.....we're talking about ~0.3 mm of sweep from the root to the tip of the horizontal stabilizer.  When I overlaid a square box over the drawing, sure enough the trailing edge has a slight sweep to it.  Also, the dimensioning line for the span is perpendicular to the root cord line.  But the drawing isn't correctly defining the angle with the proper number of decimal places and doesn't call out the trailing edge angle.  That probably had the manufacturing engineers asking "but, why????"

 

Here's mine cut down and reshaped to fit the Kinetic kit.

 

20230107_231901.jpg

Edited by sigtau
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I calculated the leading edge sweep as something every so slightly different than 40 deg I thought it was odd, and I had assumed the trailing edge had zero sweep in my calculations.  Pixel peeping the drawing does seem to show a slight trailing edge sweep and, after all these years, if you had told me the rear sweep wasn't zero I would have laughed at you.  It may seem nerdy/obsessive/nitpicking but I find it extremely interesting.

 

Now I'm curious about the main wing trailing edge....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi guys. Correct me if I'm wrong. The kit has no decals for the cockpit side consoles/panel, right?

 

I read in a review the kit included them, but I can't find them in the decal sheet/instructions.

 

TIA,

Ricardo

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...