Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Speaking of cockpit decals, I can confirm that the Quinta decals originally designed for the old Kinetic kits will fit this kit with very little modification.  The cockpit is more or less the same size and shape as the original tooling. 

 

That being said, if you are trying to build this kit as an non-MLU F-16A, you are going to have to modify the instrument panel if you want it to be accurate.  There is what appears to be an A model panel in the kit.  It's really just another C/MLU model instrument panel that has a partial attempt at replicating A model details.  The problem is it lacks the part to represent the center mounted radar display.  Also, the radio control panel and HUD are the later version.  The original A model had the HUD positioned slightly more forward, with a HUD camera mounted behind it on a small control box (I think that's what it is, correct me if I'm wrong). 

 

I've got most of the changes made to my panel so that the Kinetic F-16A Quinta decals will fit and look like an actual A model.  I still need to do the instrument hood and HUD modifications.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll have to paint the panel and side consoles by hand. I don't understand why they provide decals for the C but not for the A. Was it on purpose, did they forget?

 

Also, has anyone built the ADF tail? I need to check more photos, but the base of the ADF tail seems a little bit too wide, but I'm not sure. Here's a photo of the tail without the rudder. I couldn't find any good photos of this area so this could be right.

 

image.thumb.png.9ef60367ec20162fd542270deae9cc9d.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the ADF tail on the kit seems to be too fat to me. I managed to get this photo from Facebook. Since some parts of the tail are shared, I'm wondering if the "non-dragchute" tails will be ok.

 

image.thumb.png.821a2be8e4673e20eb4977134d77aad5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult for me to determine the issue with the ADF tail based on the information provided. The photo you've shared does not provide enough detail for me to make an assessment. It's possible that the tail is too fat, but it could also be an issue with the angle of the photo or the lighting. Without more information or context, it's difficult for me to provide an accurate answer. It would be best to reach out to the manufacturer or a model building expert for further clarification

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

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll have to paint the panel and side consoles by hand. I don't understand why they provide decals for the C but not for the A. Was it on purpose, did they forget?

 

Also, has anyone built the ADF tail? I need to check more photos, but the base of the ADF tail seems a little bit too wide, but I'm not sure. Here's a photo of the tail without the rudder. I couldn't find any good photos of this area so this could be right.

 

image.thumb.png.9ef60367ec20162fd542270deae9cc9d.png

I built my tail up as a pure A model tail and it's not nearly that thick.  Did you use the correct parts for the rear portion of the base?  It almost looks like you used the C tail parts, which are thicker than the A parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sigtau said:

I built my tail up as a pure A model tail and it's not nearly that thick.  Did you use the correct parts for the rear portion of the base?  It almost looks like you used the C tail parts, which are thicker than the A parts.

 

I used the ADF tail parts found on the B Sprue and parts D82 and D83 for the rear of the tail base.

 

image.png.9b6e26d68c120abbd44f2d47edd48080.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, madcow said:

 

I used the ADF tail parts found on the B Sprue and parts D82 and D83 for the rear of the tail base.

 

image.png.9b6e26d68c120abbd44f2d47edd48080.png

20230107_231901.thumb.jpg.f72178a9288eecb605e86f0fb3fd7e09.jpg

 

Here's mine mocked up with the plain A tail.  It does look a little wide where the tail section attaches to the front.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sigtau said:

Here's mine mocked up with the plain A tail.  It does look a little wide where the tail section attaches to the front.

 

My guess is they molded the front tail base (parts D29, D36, B2 and B4) with the correct (?) width for the Belgian and Norwegian F-16 tail (parts D10 and D11), not checking the width of the plain A and ADF tail bases. I could be wrong, but this is what it looks like to me right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, madcow said:

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll have to paint the panel and side consoles by hand. I don't understand why they provide decals for the C but not for the A. Was it on purpose, did they forget?

 

Also, has anyone built the ADF tail? I need to check more photos, but the base of the ADF tail seems a little bit too wide, but I'm not sure. Here's a photo of the tail without the rudder. I couldn't find any good photos of this area so this could be right.

 

image.thumb.png.9ef60367ec20162fd542270deae9cc9d.png

 

You should use parts 82+83 for the A and ADF tailbase. Parts 17+18 which it appears you have used is for the F-16C tailbase. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Niels said:

 

You should use parts 82+83 for the A and ADF tailbase. Parts 17+18 which it appears you have used is for the F-16C tailbase. 

 

 

I just checked the sprue. I used parts D82 and D83. Parts 17 and 18 are still on the sprue.

 

image.thumb.png.72ca7c7535210bfd2e74c399d2348b94.png

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

OK, then I can't answer what the issue is, sorry 

 

I'm guessing they got the width of the base of the tail wrong. Another photo I got from Facebook even though this is the plain tail, not the ADF one. The ADF tail base should be the approx. the same width, I guess.

 

image.thumb.png.edeae1b9892a78e4a6d1955c518e9c1a.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a stab at fixing that vertical tail base.  I sawed/carved a trough from the main fin slot all the way aft to nearly the trailing edge.  I forced back together with a heavy duty clamp and lots of CA and kicker.  I mostly succeeded in my end goal, but it's still too wide at the thickest point.  I also rounded over the shelf formed by the base since it had very sharp corners.  It could use some more blending, but I didn't feel like having to re-scribe all the detail. 

 

20230118_163438.jpg

20230118_163423.jpg

20230118_154021.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the simple fix will be to wait for aftermarket or a lot more carving. Yay!! more aftermarket needed for a "Gold" kit.

 

To me it looks like Kinetic plans to reuse tail extensions parts for the A & C models and to make it work screwed with the cross sections.  It may work for the C but compromises the shape of the A tails. The basic A and ADF tail bases should have a more trapezoid cross section all the way to the aft end and Kinetic made the rear too square to line up with the tail extension. The A tail extensions should have more taper at the forward end where the C is more of a rectangular box with parallel sides. The A model should have it's own distinct shapes.  This is where I would have preferred a little more plastic for full length tail bases for each configuration instead of mix and match among compromised parts.  

 

From a MLU plane on a pole, the tail extension tapers under the rudder to meet the narrow A tail.  To me it looks like the widest cross section is at the paneline about 2/3rds to the trailing edge of the rudder and not at the panel line that is used as the joint in the kit.   Compare this with the kit and you can see that the kinetic base flares wide way too far forward, but it's not as obvious with the parachute housing unless you know what you are looking at.

yQNnhlw.jpg

 

From a primeportal walkaround with a little cropping and zooming.  Same here, widest cross section looks to be aft of the rudder hinge line and not a the kit joint line.

zRVrfid.jpg

 

nFiRNsi.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC there were ADF tail bases and extended tail base housings in the v1.0 kits, and with a similar if not identical parts breakdown - has anyone compared the v1.0 and v2.0 tail base shapes? 

 

.

 

Edited by habu2
Tpyo 🙂
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked the ADF tail bases in the v1 and v2 kits and the size/shape is the same. Locator pins are slightly off between the two versions but I knocked them off the v1 part and then the v1 will join a v2 part and look the same. 
The panel line and fastener detail is much finer on v2 and will disappear under some paint. 
I recall when the v1 kits came out there were a lot of F-16 maintainers around here and the consensus was the adf tail base was way too thick.  They came up with a way to sand the top area and force it together (similar to Sigtau) to get something that looked better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, the new Kinetic is more of an F-16C than a F-16A or F-16AM. The tailbase for the parapack seems to have the same issues as the "old" F-16A kit. Far from what the 1/1 bird look like. But like this tread says, it is possible to work your way around this somehow. For us who`s looking for the "perfect kit" the search goes on - but most likely will never be made. Like I`ve stated before - the F-16 MLU is perhaps the most challenging version to get correct. This is due to the fact that the aircraft have been upgraded many times and different nations have some mods specific to their F-16s. Some not.

 

I have not seen a kit of the F-16A Block 1/5/10 with the correct intake (very different panel lines and position of different antennas +).  I do not know any aftermarket intakes that has this correct. Anyone?

 

I am also waiting for the model kit producers to replicate the RAM (Radar Absorbing Material)  found on all F-16 MLU and some F-16C blocks. DACO makes a nice set, but I would claim that this is up to the kit producers, so we who buy them don`t have to buy aftermarket sets.

 

No matter what kit we`re building, I would guess that modellers don`t enjoy filling, sanding, rescribing or trying to find a metode for coloring the canopy. A choice of canopies is one of the things that make me enjoy the Tamiya F-16C, despite all the sink marks in all the "wrong" places. But after all - the fun is in the building, and that`s up to you - the builder!

 

I am waiting for more info on the new Minibase 1/48 F-16AM. Anyone?

 

Check six and build something!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2023 at 1:28 AM, WouldbeIceman said:

I am waiting for more info on the new Minibase 1/48 F-16AM. Anyone?

 

The Minibase kit was announced as a Taiwanese Block 20 A/B and Minibase has not yet announced any other variants AFAIK.  So, it will still probably need some aftermarket to match the different US & European configurations. But the CAD for their tail looks better, if anything, maybe too narrow. 

 

305768689_858231641808141_32747666679010

Edited by Crash Test Dummy
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2023 at 5:29 AM, Niels said:

Let's keep this on topic. The Minicraft kit can be discussed in a separate thread. Tired of threads derailing 😉

I agree,  this kit is perfectly buildable and I've seen several builds where they didn't worry about very minor issues and just built it. This kit is not perfect but no kit is but it's a thoroughly enjoyable build and close enough to an AM for me without rivet counting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stephen said:

I agree,  this kit is perfectly buildable and I've seen several builds where they didn't worry about very minor issues and just built it. This kit is not perfect but no kit is but it's a thoroughly enjoyable build and close enough to an AM for me without rivet counting. 

Calling it thoroughly enjoyable is stretching the truth.  It looks great in the box with the sprues still wrapped in their bags.  Open those bags and you are treated with very mediocre fit with nearly every part.  The fuselage and wing components were badly warped in my kit, requiring a fair bit of bending, checking fit, repeat.  I had to shim up the rear fuselage joint just behind the wings.  The upper fuselage was ~1mm narrower than the bottom in that area.  I enjoy a little bit of a challenge, but I wouldn't expect it with a retooled kit that's supposed to be new and improved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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...