Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I'm looking for a kit to model a USAF block 10 Desert Storm plane from the NY ANG 79-0403.  After scouring the photos of the sprues, it appears to be a really good starting point. 

 

I'm no F-16 expert, but here's the rough list of big ticket items I know I'll need to mod if using the Kinetic kit:

 

- Remove beer cans, IFF bird slicers, and GPS antenna from upper fuselage

- Rework horizontal stabs to be shorter early versions

- Use early A instrument panel (part #D33 in kit)

- Early vertical tail base w/o parabrake housing appears to be included

- Use lightweight main gear/doors

- Delete nose gear door landing light, source/scratch build landing lights for main gear.

- Use early gun vent (part #D49 in kit)

- Fill extra chaff/flare dispensers

- Use top rear fuselage part number 7?

- Use early main wheels

- Relocate blade antenna #D53 to inlet from lower aft fuselage

- Back date outer wing pylons to early version (delete aero fairings on sway braces)

- Use early wingtip AIM-9 rail (part K10?)

 

I'm sure there's other panel line reworks and such.  What have I missed or got wrong?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jenshb said:

Hannants (and others) sold both kits for £50 at Scale Modelworld in November, but now Hannants are charging £71 for the MLU kit (the C is not in stock as far as I can see).  The Dutch F-104G is still £40 at Hannants, yet they both sell for $40 in lucky model.  Why the difference?  IMO that is far too much for that kit...

The price 71 is VAT included 

 

and Kinetic price in U.K. will soon to increase as changing of the distribution model. 

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

 

There isn't a single kit of the A-10 where the instructions point out variant differences. There isn't a single kit of the F/A-18 where the instructions point out the variant differences. The Tamiya F-16 kits don't have much of this information in their instructions. Most F-14 kits don't either, and the list goes on and on. 

 

A whole lot of manufacturers DO provide some info on variants in their instructions. 'Use part 6 for decal version 1', 'Fill hole for version B' etc etc. Kinetic does the same in their F-16AM kit. However; the info Kinetic provides is partially incorrect and incomplete.

To give you an example of variant differences in the Kinetic instructions: the small hole in the panel on the right hand side of the cockpit (externally) is noted in the instructions as something like 'fill hole except for Belgian F-16'. It would be very easy to overlook that small vent hole (I believe it's for Carapace system) so big kudos to Kinetic for noting it and including how to deal with it in the instructions. But what puzzles me is that larger differences between the specific aircraft they provide decals for go unnoted. 

 

Quote

Why should Kinetic be expected to provide this information? If you and others know all of the differences, then make the changes based on your knowledge and references.

Why would they not if they have the info? See my comment above about the small vent hole in the Belgian jets. They clearly did research.

 

If Tamiya were to rerelease their F-16C Block 50 with Block 25 decals would everybody be fine with it and 'make the changes based on their knowledge and references' or would a lot of people go: "hey, wait a minute"? 

 

Besides; I am sure there are modellers that want to build an accurate F-16AM but just donot have the knowledge: this is where instructions could help and bring a kit to a higher level IMHO. 

 

Quote

One thing many here seem to forget is the fact the modelers that care about such details make up a very, very, very small percentage of the modeling community as a whole.

 

Correct, and a percentage of that percentage can be found here, on this forum. I put some info in this thread for those people that want to build a more accurate F-16AM. If Kinetic uses that info; fine. If they don't: fine too.

 

When it comes to the F-16AM, I am part of the percentage that cares about such details. Others are not. What strikes me is that in all threads on this and other forums where people point out inaccuracies in model kits some find it necessary to immediately try to downplay by saying the usual things; "use your own references", "did you expect a shake-and-bake kit?", "close enough is good enough", "why are you such a rivet counter", "yeah, but my favourite modelkitmaker don't make mistakes" etc etc etc. Thereby making it necessary for people that are looking for detailed info to wade through tons of posts that add completely nothing to the thread. But that's the downside of a forum we'll have to live with.

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

 

A whole lot of manufacturers DO provide some info on variants in their instructions. 'Use part 6 for decal version 1', 'Fill hole for version B' etc etc. Kinetic does the same in their F-16AM kit. However; the info Kinetic provides is partially incorrect and incomplete.

 

My fault as I should have been more clear on this. Yes, they do. My point was more to the extent that you covered in your photos. I just don't think it's realistic for us as modelers to expect manufacturers to point out every single panel line/panel/stiffener difference for every variant that could be built from their base kit. 

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

One thing many here seem to forget is the fact the modelers that care about such details make up a very, very, very small percentage of the modeling community as a whole.

 

Amen.

 

But it is impressive that the small percentage has such extremely detailed knowledge, and more so that they can keep it all straight between/among  models.

 

Gene K

Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone builds this (or any) kit OOB then they probably don't know or care about any version-specific differences or errors. (see: TLAR)

 

If someone builds this (or any) kit with the intention of building an "accurate" specific version they probably will also consult reliable reference material.  (see: AMS)

 

My point is: if you as a buyer/builder expect "everything" and "perfection" OOB then your kit choices will be few and far between....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one, have enjoyed the info Pollie has given us in this thread. There is room enough in this hobby for everyone, those who like accuracy, and those who like OOB builds. I do hope Pollie keeps posting these details on the F-16AM.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Brad-M said:

There is room enough in this hobby for everyone, those who like accuracy, and those who like OOB builds.

Cheers

 

This type of comment always gives me a chuckle as it implies they are two separate groups of modelers. I've learned over the years that a lot of modelers are both and it usually depends on the subject matter. Then again, there are several of us that like accuracy for certain subjects, but build them out of the box anyway.  

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

 

This type of comment always gives me a chuckle as it implies they are two separate groups of modelers. I've learned over the years that a lot of modelers are both and it usually depends on the subject matter. Then again, there are several of us that like accuracy for certain subjects, but build them out of the box anyway.  

This is exactly why I started building 1/35 vehicles. I don't know much about the different versions/variants, and don't really care. They typically go together easily and I can get right to painting and weathering. 

When I build aircraft, sometimes I will research my subjects to a specific airframe and try to make it as detailed as I can, and other times I'll just go with what's in the box and try to build it as cleanly as possible. I've spent many years around F-16s, so I'm compelled to make it as accurate as I can. I'm looking for a good starting point from Kinetic. If it says MLU/F-16AM on the box, then I'm expecting all the basic parts I need to build that. I can add stiffeners, adjust panel lines, etc. 

Point being, it's not an either/or hobby, and I don't know of any modelers that are.

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

Ok guys, do you know if anybody made some kind of comparison that new F-16C kit with Tamiya's one?
That is the most important question - what is the better kit to make model of F-16C in 1/48?

While I haven't made a direct comparison, I do have some Tamiya kits built as well as in the stash.  Can't comment on fit of the Kinetic kit because all the parts are still in the bag.  However, there are a couple of observations I can make.  Kinetic's main wheel well appear well detailed - better than Tamiyas, which is also riddled with ejector pin marks on all undercarriage components.  However, the compressor face and the afterburner and exhaust in the Tamiya kit look far better and less of a need for replacement than Kinetic's offering.  Although the tooling may be new, the 3D surfaces for these definitely appear to be reused from the initial iteration.  The main difference is you don't get the four ejector pins on the visible face of the compressor this time, but it still looks lame.  You get a lot of weapons in the Kinetic kit, far more restrictive in the Tamiya kit.  Using Hannants as a price datum, the Tamiya kit sells for £50-ish, the Kinetic will be £70-ish when supplies resume.  For me, the Tamiya kit will build into a better looking models out of the box, and with a price difference of £20 or so, it's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All!

Having flown the 1/1 MLU and having a good look at the Kintetic kit - my judgement is to stick to the Tamiya. Yes, there are all these ejector pin holes to fill in the Tamiya, but to make a correct MLU, the Kinetic kit would need just as much aftermarket as a Tamiya would. The MLU is perhaps the most challeneging version of the F-16 to build, due to the long service life and all the different upgrade programs. Throw in differences between nations, and it soon becomes messy. I like the fact that Kinetic keeps on improving their kits and keep bringing us new subjects that haven`t been available in 1/48 before. I also like to take a step back and just follow the discussion here (and elewhere) - but guys - it`s just a hobby. Build what you want, how you see it and have fun! A few of us let the frustration and anger get to us - that also shows how passionate some people are to the hobby!

 

I am looking forward to the Minibase 1/48 F-16 Block 20. Anyone has any news of this kit? Could be a beauty.......

 

However I would like to see some nice PIDS/ PIDSU (PIDS+) in 1/48 resin before my eyesight is gone....

 

Happy modelling - and keep that RF-5A coming Raymond!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will need a A or B tailfin base (the Tamiya tailfin can be used, but the fairing on the fin top needs modifying), fill the recess for the wider footprint of the C, then scribe the correct panel lines on the fuselage spine.  Those are the main things.  I used a tailfin base from a Hasegawa kit.  Some of the A boxings come with both the original short base as well as the extended version for either the brake chute or the Belgian ECM-equipped version, so the kit can still be finished.

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

You will need a A or B tailfin base (the Tamiya tailfin can be used, but the fairing on the fin top needs modifying), fill the recess for the wider footprint of the C, then scribe the correct panel lines on the fuselage spine.  Those are the main things.  I used a tailfin base from a Hasegawa kit.  Some of the A boxings come with both the original short base as well as the extended version for either the brake chute or the Belgian ECM-equipped version, so the kit can still be finished.

Well would be easy to use the F-16a kit ? N

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would also be possible Raymond, but the question I replied to was asking what it would take to make an MLU from the Tamiya F-16C, which is what I did a few years ago.

 

DSC_0582.JPG

F-16AM671finished(16).jpg

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

That would also be possible Raymond, but the question I replied to was asking what it would take to make an MLU from the Tamiya F-16C, which is what I did a few years ago.

 

DSC_0582.JPG

F-16AM671finished(16).jpg

A very nice model ! 

 

Let me try myself to see how is build on on this Norway Viper. Is this with PIDS ? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Raymond.  This model represents 671 when sent to Kyrgyszstan in 2002/2003 to support NATO operations in Afghanistan.  You will notice it carries a LANTIRN (or was it Litening?) pod borrowed from the RNethAF as we didn't have our own night vision/designator pods at the time.  Eventually the RNorAF selected the SNiper/Pantera XR.  At that time it did not carry the PIDS and ECIPS, so the pylons for station 3 and 7 as they come in both kits are fine.  The reinforcement plates below the canopy hinge and on top of the wing roots would be present, but the plates on the spine were added later when it went through Falcon STAR.  Norwegian F-16s tended to carry the PIDS on station 3 and the ECIPS (not difficult to make from a PIDS) on station 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2022 at 4:48 PM, Raymond Chung said:

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. 

 

For those who would like to use - or at least try - the magnet installation, can you provide specifications and/or a source for builders to procure their own magnets?

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...