Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Gary F said:

Sigtau,  what nozzle do you have on the back end … seems to fit well?

The Reskit nozzle for the Hasegawa kit, part number RSU48-0119.  I managed to rework it to fit into the kit shroud, but it also includes a resin shroud that comes pretty close to fitting the Kinetic kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sigtau said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sigtau,

 

Can you share some pictures of what you mention "very mediocre fit with nearly every part"? And how is the 1mm gap happen ? I am interested to learn from you.

I guess it may be the result of the plastic warped during transportation as I run hundreds of assembly test in house before going production. 

 

 

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

Dear Sigtau,

 

Can you share some pictures of what you mention "very mediocre fit with nearly every part"? And how is the 1mm gap happen ? I am interested to learn from you.

I guess it may be the result of the plastic warped during transportation as I run hundreds of assembly test in house before going production. 

 

 

I didn't capture photos for all of the issues before corrections.

 

a) Right forward insert part D67 must be shaved down to avoid sitting proud of the surface.  Not really an issue if you are filling it smooth, but it takes work to clean it up and not obliterate all the panel detail that are supposed to remain.

 

b) Gun port insert D3 (I used the early version) also doesn't sit flush.  I had to carve away part of the aft edge to get it to seat right.  Came out OK in the end.

 

c) Intake lip part E10 flares outward along the mating joint to the main intake assembly. This created a step all around the joint that needed lots of filler and blending all the way around. The inside of the intake joint was actually quite good, very little filler need to blend it into the inside of the intake trunk.

 

d) The issue I mentioned with the gaps at the trailing edge of the wing.  I think this is a part warping issue with the front top fuselage and wing part C1.  It also caused an issue with the wings having dihedral (angled upward), when they should be level.  This forced the wings outward at the root, causing a gap on both sides of the wing root where C1 meets the aft fuselage panel B3. The butt joint running laterally had a significant step on only the left side.  I chose to reshape part B3 by force (note stress marks in the photo below) to match C1, which resulted in an excellent joint.  The reshaping partially close the gaps, but not completely.  I chose to shim it with white sheet polystyrene.  In hindsight, I probably should have spend more time forcing the C1 into shape so the gaps would completely close without shimming.

20230127_063910.thumb.jpg.efef840a8e724d585d9e2d21950761e4.jpg20230127_205641.thumb.jpg.d6304e173216e363c50cbc3b12945093.jpg

 

 

e) The aft lower fuselage section D74 is shaped like it's for a different kit.  It doesn't match up well with the main section of the lower fuselage.

20230127_064026.thumb.jpg.37d58fc36849e87e16c337d6975bbdd1.jpg

f) Part numbers D7, D37, and D6 do not want to play nice together.  D37 and D6 fit into the landing gear bay fine, but D37 causes D7 to not fit the lower part of the intake.  I had to completely shave down D37 to get D7 to not have a step where it meets the intake and the rear edge of the main landing gear bay.

 

g) Small intakes D28 and D35.  Part numbers are reversed in the instructions and the locator tabs are too tall, causing the intakes to sit above the surface with a ~0.3mm gap.

 

i) The vertical fin issues have already been explained in other posts.  All of the various parts were designed to match the F-16C cross section at the joint between the forward and after tail parts.  This causes a "diamond" profile to the base when viewed from above.  There are also steps on either side where the early tail base meets the aft portion.

 

20230107_231901.thumb.jpg.f72178a9288eecb605e86f0fb3fd7e09.jpg

 

j) The AIM-9M body is split in three sections.  Fit is not great and will require filling to clean up the joints.

 

 

 

Edited by sigtau
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same issue with D74 on my kit.  Why was this piece moulded separately in the first place?  I also had to file off a little on the rear of the gun panel, the front right hand panel insert I decided to glue in place and sand level afterwards.  The upper front/rear fuselage join was no worse than the equivalent join on the Tamiya kit - pretty decent, but still needing some focus and attention while the glue sets to make it level and only require a little work afterwards.  I too experienced the gaps at the wing root, but will deal with those later.  As for the AIM-9s, I will use ResKit items.

 

Edited by jenshb
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jenshb said:

I had the same issue with D74 on my kit.  Why was this piece moulded separately in the first place?  I also had to file off a little on the rear of the gun panel, the front right hand panel insert I decided to glue in place and sand level afterwards.  The upper front/rear fuselage join was no worse than the equivalent join on the Tamiya kit - pretty decent, but still needing some focus and attention while the glue sets to make it level and only require a little work afterwards.  I too experienced the gaps at the wing root, but will deal with those later.  As for the AIM-9s, I will use ResKit items.

 

The D74 parts possible suffered from injection expansion, thus the a 3 seconds filing to reduce some plastic due from injection expansion. And it will fit on the same curve as the bottom fuselage. 
 

as for the D37,D7, I try 3-4 times and everything fits well. And I try this morning again and incomplete install the D73 will make the gap between the lower fuselage and then create your issue of installing the D37,D7. 
 

the D28,D35 maybe incorrect position in the manual (swapped) the location pin exactly match the lower hull. 
 

as for the main fuselage parts I will take some photo using the plastic I have and maybe a wrapped issue to create the gap. But I cannot find the same gap as your build. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sigtau said:

i) The vertical fin issues have already been explained in other posts.  All of the various parts were designed to match the F-16C cross section at the joint between the forward and after tail parts.  This causes a "diamond" profile to the base when viewed from above.  There are also steps on either side where the early tail base meets the aft portion.

If you modify the A tail base by reducing plastic then of course some step will happen.

 

The A and ADF tail base share the same housing for C on the parachute housing, so you can claim this is not correct. Otherwise full sets of option for A and C will need to be added and no space left on the tooling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jenshb said:

Could corrected tailfin bases and ends for the A not be added to the upper fuselage sprue?  There seems to be some free space there...

The past on the fuselage space need some “space” to hold the pressure of the injection, we have added everything we can. 
 

and I can ensure that when we have the correct tail base some people will ask for corrected A Intake panel part, that would make it endlessly demand. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right - appreciate mould design limitations.  When I checked the Early Viper Guide, there is a difference in panel lines on the small mouth intake between Block 15 and Block 15 OCU (Operational Capability Upgrade?), and to my eyes the panel lines are fairly correct.  The OCU has an additional panel on the LH side which the kit has, there are two panels that can be scribed for the RH side, but I wouldn't lose much sleep over that.  Panel lines can be filled if not needed.  However, I do think the too fat shape of the tailfin base and end pieces (parabrake and non-parabrake) are rather obvious errors that should not be present in a £70 kit - making it the most expensive F-16 kit in this market.

 

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

Right - appreciate mould design limitations.  When I checked the Early Viper Guide, there is a difference in panel lines on the small mouth intake between Block 15 and Block 15 OCU (Operational Capability Upgrade?), and to my eyes the panel lines are fairly correct.  The OCU has an additional panel on the LH side which the kit has, there are two panels that can be scribed for the RH side, but I wouldn't lose much sleep over that.  Panel lines can be filled if not needed.  However, I do think the too fat shape of the tailfin base and end pieces (parabrake and non-parabrake) are rather obvious errors that should not be present in a £70 kit - making it the most expensive F-16 kit in this market.

 

The price different from each region. U.K. need to pay 20% VAT while the kit in Asia selling USD 39. So if you want to complain the price, it should be the local tax issue. Nothing to be done from the maker. 
 

one of point when the F-16 started to surface in U.K. the pound is the lowest point in history. 
 

the price is US also 49.99 for F-16C 

Edited by Raymond Chung
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the F-104 and F-16 are both $40(ish) from your store in Hong Kong.  If I order from Lucky Model, shipping and possibly VAT and the handling fee unless it slips through HMRC's net, that will obviously go up.  Adding 20% VAT to $40 would make  it $48 or around £38, so you can't use the addition of VAT as an excuse for the £70 price tag.  For some reason, the F-104s are selling for £40 at Hannants, so I am sure retailer markups have a part to play, but as Kinetic has set up a European agent, will that reduce the price?  Will it be different within the EU compared to the UK?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jenshb said:

I see the F-104 and F-16 are both $40(ish) from your store in Hong Kong.  If I order from Lucky Model, shipping and possibly VAT and the handling fee unless it slips through HMRC's net, that will obviously go up.  Adding 20% VAT to $40 would make  it $48 or around £38, so you can't use the addition of VAT as an excuse for the £70 price tag.  For some reason, the F-104s are selling for £40 at Hannants, so I am sure retailer markups have a part to play, but as Kinetic has set up a European agent, will that reduce the price?  Will it be different within the EU compared to the UK?

The changes of U.K. distribution happens in nov 2022 where F-16 started. 
 

The price from Hannants will be adjusted to new price when stock sold out. 
 

as for the VAT commercial import to U.K. would sure pay it unlike the small packet. 
 

the price in U.K. is cater for the sales and distribution margin required for the business inside U.K. 

 

the price between EU and U.K. almost the same when you add back the tax and shipping factor 

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


According to @sigtauthere is a lot of fitting issues.

Well I think this is a building experience, I show the same assemble part and I don’t find it, except few parts like D74 with a 3 second sanding. 
 

if you take Tamiya F-16 as the compare benmark those fitting issue also happen. 
 

but no one say “a lot of fitting issue” 

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

The A and ADF tail base share the same housing for C on the parachute housing, so you can claim this is not correct. 

 

Semantically you may be correct, but the problem is the transition area from the tail base to the parabrake extension.  These kit parts show the flared transition required for a parabrake tail.  When you attempt to use this flared cross section tail base for a non-parabrake tail extension you get the error seen in the kit parts where the base is too wide at/near the rudder hinge.  It's all about what happens between FS 475 and FS 500 (roughly)

 

 

PXL_20230128_152423709d.jpg

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

If you modify the A tail base by reducing plastic then of course some step will happen.

 

The A and ADF tail base share the same housing for C on the parachute housing, so you can claim this is not correct. Otherwise full sets of option for A and C will need to be added and no space left on the tooling. 

The photo I posted in my last reply was BEFORE I modified the tail base to have the correct profile.  But the step is a minor issue compared to the shape of the tail base parts.

 

The cross sections of all three vertical tail base types (A, C, ADF) have the EXACT same rectangular profile in the kit.  I took the leftover C and ADF front bases and the rear C and parabrake housing and lined them up in this photo.  They will completely interchange with each other in the kit, which is not the case on the real plane.  The A and ADF tail bases form an isosceles trapezoid cross section at that seam on the real plane. 

 

Several other posts pointed out this issue and I borrowed some of the photos to illustrate the problem.

 

20230128_084226.thumb.jpg.0de9f778a3824c1280ccbd55ef53ed28.jpg

 

The A and ADF tails should have a profile of roughly what is shown below

375225320_2023-01-2809_07_36-Document1-Word.png.6514f5e4377db328e9870c8062255623.png

 

848555557_2023-01-2809_18_07-Document1-Word.png.b216a49f18f6830627fa6d4a28c5632e.png

 

2088731254_2023-01-2809_10_37-NewtoolF-16AMMLUin1_48announcedbyKinetic-Page17-JetModeling-ARC.png.b4256729dcc153725b327a35dbd3d6d8.png

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...