Tag Archives: amt

Kit Bashing

Model Gift Build: Finally, the Final Xmas build!

Video

Finally, the final (late) Christmas car gift build, for 2023, is done!  And it is a fine example of why, back-in-the-day, some kit builders did not like AMT.

Video-1, a little late, but finally!:

Video-2, stories of Subaru hell!:

Video-3, it’s a Brat!:

Video-4, Subaru hell never ends!:

Video-5, updates? What updates, where’s the spare?:

Video-6, a rushed job:

Video-7, finagle-y:

Video-8, if play with it you break it, you bought it:

Video-9, recommendations?:

Model Gift Build: LATE #4 IS DONE, BAD REVELL, BAD!

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1:72 F-100 Super Saber kit klash, or more reasons why you can’t trust scale drawings

Image

As far as I’m aware I’ve collected every North American F-100 Super Saber (I prefer the U.S. English spelling versus the Queen’s English spelling Sabre [for some unknown reason preferred by North American]) kit in 1/72 scale, I feel confident I can honestly direct you as to which F-100 kit to spend your hard earned cash on (please don’t make the Too Big to Jail banks rich by using credit).

DSC_0063 (1)

I also have several books with scale drawings, and once again the ‘authoritative’ drawings themselves don’t match-up.

DSC_0065

Detail & Scale Number 4 (1980) uses drawings by Rockwell/Ed Moore/Terry Smith.  Detail & Scale Volume 33 (1989) uses drawings by Dana Bell and Terry Smith. Bunrin Do’s Famous Airplanes of the World Number 22 (May 1990) uses drawings that look like 1:72 but no scale is given.

Revell: According to Detail & Scale, this kit first came out in the 1950s and is a piece-o-crap (photos confirm this), it’s much larger than 1:72 scale.  It’s supposed to represent a ‘A/C’ version of the F-100.  According to Detail & Scale-33 it was last issued in 1987.

Detail & Scale-33 also talks about other ‘1:72’ scale F-100 kits issued by different companies in the 1960s-70s, apparently all actually being scales that are not 1:72.

IMC/Lindberg:  According to Scalemates, the IMC kit was the first 1:72 scale Super Saber, out in 1965. Lindberg currently issues it.  IMC marketed it as a ‘D’ version yet it has the wing of a ‘A/C’ version (Lindberg wisely dropped the reference to the ‘D’ version). The surface detailing is spurious.  Detail & Scale-4 doesn’t mention it, and Detail & Scale-33 simply calls the kit a “gimmick with battle damaged parts”.   I was surprised to find the wing, elevators and canopy matched dimension and shape of the Ed Moore and Terry Smith drawings! The vertical tail is too skinny, tall, and set too far back on the fuselage.  The fuselage is a little long at the ass-end.  The extra long external fuel tanks are too fat and the fins are grossly over-sized.  You get separately molded air intake mouth and exhaust/afterburner butt-hole (this is the part that makes the fuselage too long).  No weapons come with the kit. Compared to the Dana Bell drawings the fuselage and wing measures out the same as the previous drawings, but the elevators are narrower in span.  The same can be said about the Bunrin Do drawings.

Hasegawa/Frog:  According to Scalemates, the Hasegawa kit was issued first by Frog in 1970, then Hasegawa in 1971.  According to the reviewers in Detail & Scale, it’s accurate shape-wise, but represents the F-100D before all the field mods were applied by the USAF, so it can’t accurately represent a service aircraft.  Never-the-less Hasegawa continues to re-issue the thing, and people continue paying too much for it.  Compared to the Ed Moore/Terry Smith drawings the fuselage, wing and elevators are a close match.  The one piece canopy/windshield is smaller than in the drawings.  Compared to the Dana Bell drawings the wing/elevators have too great a sweep-back. You get separately molded air intake mouth and exhaust/afterburner butt-hole, but the fuselage is too long at the air intake and afterburner. The canopy is even smaller compared to Dana Bell drawings.  According to the Bunrin Do drawings the wing is very slightly narrower in chord, but good in span. The elevators have too great a sweep-back. The fuselage is too short and too skinny, the canopy is still small. The old kit comes with two styles of external fuel tanks, but not the extra long ones, plus what looks like napalm bombs and Bullpup missiles.

ESCI/AMT-Ertl:  Scalemates says this kit first came out in 1982.  Reviewers in Detail & Scale-33 praise the kit for being the most accurate F-100D at that time (yes, better than Hasegawa).  ESCI was also the first to release a two seat ‘F’ version.   It has detailed landing gear, extra long external fuel tanks, separately molded intake mouth, two styles of IFR probes and two styles of after burners.  The only weapons are Bullpup and Sidewinder missiles. The wing is a close match to the Moore/Smith drawings, but the elevators are too narrow in span. The fuselage is slightly long at the mouth, the vertical tail is too tall. The canopy/windshield (molded as one) is the closest to matching these drawings.  The wing is also a close match to the Bell drawings, but the elevator is not only too short in span, the sweep-back is too great.  The fuselage is even longer, yet the tail is only slightly taller.  The canopy looks good, but the windshield area looks small.  Going by the Bunrin Do drawings the wing is just slightly narrower in span, the elevators match the shape and sweep but are slightly undersized in overall dimension. The fuselage is shorter and narrower, yet the tail matches the height of the drawing.  The canopy/windshield looks like a good match.

Click the pics to make bigger:

Pioneer-PM:  This monstrosity was unleashed in the early 1990s by British empire company Pioneer.  It’s made by a company called PM, based in the NATO country of Turkey.  The air intake mouth is molded as part of the fuselage halves.  It’s marketed as a ‘C’ version but has the wing of the ‘D’ version.  It comes with extra long fuel tanks, Bullpup missiles, blobs with fins that’re supposed to be bombs and an IFR probe that’s missing the receptacle end. Oddly the wing and elevators are a close match with the Detail & Scale drawings, yet the fuselage is too small in overall size (as is the canopy/windshield).  Bunrin Do drawings show the wing to be slightly smaller in overall dimension, the elevators having too great a sweep-back, and the fuselage is even smaller, so small you’d think it was a different scale.

Italeri/Revell Germany/Tamiya/Academy:  Time to set things straight.  This kit is not a re-box of the ESCI kit, it is a re-tooled/so-called improved version of the ESCI kit, first coming out in 1998. The surface details, and the wheel well/air brake well details, are exactly the same. The sprue layout is different.  The external fuel tanks are much shorter than the ESCI tanks. You get optional IFR probes and afterburners. For weapons you get two ‘dumb’ iron bombs and two rocket pods. For some odd reason Italeri added a spurious frame to the canopy, about two thirds of the way back on the canopy, rendering it useless.  The most noticeable change (besides the canopy guffaw) Italeri made was to the length of the fuselage, which now matches the Moore/Smith drawings. The tail is still too tall. The wing is slightly shorter in span to the Moore/Smith drawings, but the elevators are a close match (the opposite of the ESCI kit).  Compared to the Bell drawings the wing is a better match, still slightly short in span. The elevators match the shape but are also slightly short in span.  Interestingly the fuselage is too long for the Bell drawings, at the mouth, and the tail is still slightly too tall.   For the Bunrin Do drawings the wing is too short in span, slightly narrow in chord. The elevators match.  The fuselage is too short, yet the tail matches the height of the drawing.  Revell AG (Germany) re-boxed the kit at the same time Italeri first issued it.  Beware, Tamiya re-boxed the kit starting in 2001, and I’ve seen it command prices over $20 U.S. (just because it has Tamiya’s name on the box), Academy re-boxed the kit in 2017 also commanding a high price for it, don’t do it!

Trumpeter:  And the winner is! Starting in 2009 Trumpeter issued what every Super Saber builder wanted; super detailed kits in the ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘F’ variants. The kit comes with separate flaps and slats for the wing. Optional IFR probes. Detailed exhaust/afterburner section (only the early non-f-102 style of afterburner). Air intake trunking (but the mouth is molded as part of the fuselage halves and is narrower than the other kits).  Optional factory air brake or field modified air brake. Optional extended or folded nose pitot.  Boarding ladder.  Highly detailed interior parts.  The instructions make it look like the canopy suffers from the now ubiquitous ‘parting line’ syndrome that most Asian kits are infected with, but the canopies that came with my kits (the ‘C’ and ‘F’ versions) were free of this parting line.  For the ‘C’ version the instructions want you to attach the tail hook which, according to my references, the ‘C’ version did not have a tail hook. The weapons load is extremely limited (as is with all the kits reviewed); Sidewinders and ECM pods depending on the kit version.  The external tanks are about the size of the Italeri kit’s. Detail & Scale-4’s drawings show the wing to be much too short in span, the elevators are a match.  The fuselage is almost a direct hit with the tail being slightly too tall.  The canopy and separately molded windshield both look slightly small.  Compared to the Bell drawings, in Detail & Scale-33, the fuselage is almost a direct hit with the nose being too long.  The canopy looks good, but the windshield still looks small.  The wing is too short in span and slightly narrow in chord.  The elevators look like a match.  With the Bunrin Do drawings the wing is good span-wise but way too narrow in chord.  The elevators are too long in span. The fuselage and tail are too short.  The canopy is slightly small, but the windshield looks good.

Conclusion: Avoid the odd Pioneer F-100, with its 1:72 scale wings and 1:80(?) scale fuselage.   If you want something cheap that you can assemble and paint in less than a day, then hang from the ceiling, then Lindberg’s re-issue of the ancient IMC kit is for you (sometimes you can find the Hasegawa kit for less cost than the IMC/Lindberg kit so go for that then).  The old ESCI kit is still good-to-go for building something you want to proudly display on the shelf, but don’t waste your time and money on aftermarket detailing sets.  If you want the most detailed F-100 kit available (and you were thinking of buying an ESCI kit plus detailing sets) then it’s the Trumpeter kit hands down, no need to buy aftermarket detail sets (but you can if you’re obsessive and rich ).  Even with its flaws the Trumpeter kit is still better than all the other older kits available.

P.S. The most needed aftermarket item for these kits is a good variety weapons set.

Gate Guards:  F-100 Super Sabre

1/600 MOSKVA: AURORA VS AIRFIX

BLACKLIGHT REVELL DEAL’S WHEELS

HEINKEL HE-51: HASEGAWA VS. ICM

GEORGIA’S MUSEUM OF AVIATION MODEL SHOW, 2017

RED DEVIL AWARDS 2017, ARE THEY REAL OR ARE THEY MODELS?

GROCERY STORE USES MODEL PLANES TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS!

IDAHO CAT CAUGHT INSTRUCTING HUMAN HOW TO BUILD CORVETTE!

1:48 F-105G WILD WEASEL SHOWDOWN, HOBBYBOSS VS MONOGRAM

1:72 SHOCK & AWE LOCKHEED F-104 STARFIGHTER, OR, WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS! 

FUJIMI, ESCI, AIRFIX, HASEGAWA, MATCHBOX, REVELL & HOBBY BOSS. MORE REASON NOT TO TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS?

Kit Bashing, Reviews

More proof instructions are wrong: AMT Willys Van retro issue

Image

Click (or tap) pics to make bigger:

REVELL 1937 FORD PICKUP OR WHY MODEL ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE WRONG!

MULTI-MAVERICK OR WHY MODEL ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE WRONG!

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss.

Image

I ‘built’ a collection of 1:48 scale Ling Temco Vought A-7 Corsair 2s.  Time to compare them, as a lot of kit bashers always want to know which is the best, or at least which looks the best out of the box.

The first 1:48 A-7 was the old 1969 issue Aurora kit.  It was marketed as a D version, but is actually an A/B/C version.  The main difference is that the A/B/C versions had two single barrel Colt Mark 12 20mm guns firing through troughs on either side of the air intake.  D and E versions had a single six barreled M61 20mm Vulcan gun on the left (port) side.  The Aurora kit has two gun troughs on either side of the air intake, making it an A, B or C version.

Click the pics to make bigger

The old kit is interesting in that it has recessed panel lines (Matchbox ‘trench’ style), something unique for a 1960s kit.  Other than the recessed surface details the kit is basically a toy.  There are very little details anywhere else and the landing gear and ordinance are pathetic.  I do not have 1:48 scale drawings of the A-7, so the best I can do is compare the kits and make judgments based on the 1:72 scale drawings I have.  The Aurora kit is mentioned because the next 1:48 scale A-7 kit to be issued came from Monogram, and supposedly evolved from the Aurora kit.

In 1976-77 Aurora went out of business and sold-off its kit molds.  Monogram bought most of the molds.  Reports say Monogram re-tooled the Aurora A-7, if this is true they did a crappy job (compared to the ground breaking kits they issued in the mid 1970s-early 80s).  It is currently issued by Revell U.S.A. (do not confuse it with the recent A-7 issued by Revell Germany, which is a re-boxing of Hasegawa’s A-7).

Monogram made some major changes, which resulted in raised panel lines and a longer fuselage. The wing span is also longer.  The most ugly change was the widening of the cockpit area, the canopy is not only bigger than the original Aurora canopy, it’s the biggest of all the kits I compare.  The ordinance is no better than Aurora’s but at least you get big external fuel tanks.  At least Monogram made the tailpipe more oval, as Aurora’s is round.

Monogram did market it as an A-7A.  So far Hobby Boss is the only other kit maker to issue an A-7A Corsair 2.  The Monogram-Revell kit is a crappy kit, and I’m surprised by how much the original Monogram issue kit sells for on the internet.   I’m also surprised Revell U.S.A. re-issued the thing, especially when Revell Germany sells the Hasegawa kit (unfortunately, I’ve discovered that sometimes Revell-Germany also issued the old Monogram kit).

Close on the heels of the Monogram issue came Italy’s ESCI A-7D/E versions.  I read many posts saying how bad the ESCI kit is, but in my opinion it’s still better (in some ways) than the Monogram/Aurora kits.

AMT has re-issued the kit after ESCI went bust.  AMT’s instructions call the U.S. Navy refueling probe a “missile launch rail”.  Also, the kit I have is supposed to be a USN A-7E yet the instructions have you mount the USAF A-7D refueling receptacle on top of the fuselage anyway.

The kit has some good points like a long intake trunk, the onboard boarding ladder, a separately molded radome, separately molded folding wing tips and some okay looking ECM pods, Snakeye bombs and Maverick missiles.

Some of the bad points are lack of cockpit/wheel well details, the fuselage is molded in four parts with the forward parts being slightly larger in diameter from the rear parts, and incredibly bad ordnance ‘ejector racks’ which look like sticks of plastic.

Compared to the Revell-Monogram kit the ESCI fuselage seems the same length, but the ESCI intake lip is further back from the Revell-Monogram kit (I line up the fuselages at the tailpipe end).  The ESCI intake is too round.  From the rear, the tailpipes are similar in shape, but the ESCI elevator location is higher up on the fuselage. The Revell-Monogram main wing and elevators are slightly larger than the ESCI kit, with the ESCI elevators too narrow at the tips.

Finally, in the 1990s Japan’s Hasegawa issued a 1:48 A-7D and E Corsair 2.  Out of the box it’s the best yet, with good looking shapes, recessed panel lines, exposed avionics bays, boarding ladder, intake trunk, some cockpit and wheel well details, separately molded wing tips, flaps and slats, nice looking Sidewinder missiles and even a separately molded air (speed) brake (which can only be posed in the extended position if you model the plane in-flight with wheels up).

I compared it to the Revell-Monogram kit, which has a slightly longer fuselage. From the rear the tail pipes are similar in shape, but the Hasegawa’s is larger and, like the ESCI kit, the position of the elevators are higher up on the fuselage.  The main wing span is longer than Revell-Monogram’s, but the folding wing area is smaller than Revell-Monogram’s.  The elevators are similar.  The Hasegawa external fuel tank is the same length but skinnier.  The downside is Hasegawa does not provide bombs or other ground attack ordinance and, as usual, Hasegawa’s decal color register is off (the only time they get it right is when they subcontract with aftermarket decal printers).

In 2009 China’s Hobby Boss issued a new series of A-7 Corsair 2s, including an A-7A.  Out of the box it looks great, until you spend more time looking it over.

The fuselage is the longest, with a skinny nose/radome, and the most oval shaped (and skinny) tailpipe of all the kits. The main wing does not have a folding section, is shorter in span than the Hasegawa kit yet much wider.  This is interesting because the Hobby Boss 1:72 scale A-7 wing matches the scale drawings I compared it to.

The external fuel tank is longer and skinnier than the Hasegawa kit.  The canopy size lies in between the Hasegawa and Revell-Monogram kits.  The Hobby Boss kit does have nice looking ordinance including FLIR pods, but the Mark 82s are too skinny.

As far as surface details (panel lines) all the kits are different.  I’ve read that some of the Hobby Boss surface details for the A-7A are in the wrong location and are more accurate for later versions of the Corsair 2.  Apparently the two gun troughs are the only surface detail that matches an A-7A.

It looks like the Hasegawa kit is still the overall best 1:48 scale A-7 Corsair kit available.

USAF A-7 CORSAIRS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO?

1/72 scale A-7 Corsair 2 comparison: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix & Hobby Boss

1:72 F-100 SUPER SABER KIT KLASH, OR MORE REASONS WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS

 

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1/72 REVISED comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix, Hasegawa, Matchbox, Revell & Hobby Boss. More reason not to trust scale drawings?

Image

I’ve collected a few LTV A-7 Corsair 2 kits in 1/72 scale, and noticed a lot of difference in shape.  I’ve also learned that the latest and greatest kit issue from Asia isn’t so great.

Update: I recently got the ancient 1979 The A-7 Corsair II in Detail & Scale and immediately noticed a difference in the Ed Moore scale drawings and the Bunrin-Do (1989 #18 Famous Airplanes of the World: LTV A-7 Corsair II Navy Version) drawings I originally used for this review.  The Bunrin-Do drawings look much better than the Ed Moore drawings but does that mean they’re more accurate?

Click the pics to make bigger and read results

The Hobby Boss kit (it needs to die or be completely re-tooled) is disappointing dimensionally, even the Mark 82 bombs are incredibly anorexic!  The Hobby Boss main wing is almost right on with the Bunrin-Do drawings. The elevators are accurate close to the fuselage, but start to slightly narrow at the tip (but nothing like the narrowness of the other kits).   Despite the fuselage being too narrow, the canopy is slightly too fat.  If you think the Hobby Boss kit fuselage is too long and skinny, wait until you compare it to the Ed Moore drawings; it’s anorexic!  Amazingly the wing is almost spot-on in shape, span and chord! The elevators are ever-so slightly short in span. The canopy is still fat.

The 'mold parting' line on this Hobby Boss canopy is not in the right place to be the result of mold halves, but matches the center line used by drafters of scale drawings!

The ‘mold parting’ line on this Hobby Boss canopy matches the center line used by drafters of scale drawings!

And I think I’ve discovered why many Chinese made kits have ‘mold parting’ lines down the center of their canopies: Perhaps they’re not mold parting lines, but the lines from scale drawings?  However the Chinese companies are transcribing scale plans of aircraft to the mold making process, they’re including the line drafters use to indicate the center-line of the fuselage?

(Note: I didn’t check windshields, just canopies.)

The ancient Hasegawa kit (still being issued) fuselage has good shape but is slightly short when compared to the Ed Moore drawings.  The antennae on the spine are in the wrong place.  The old issue kit is missing the ECM antenna on the vertical tail, but supposedly later issues were revised. The elevators are too small.  The wings are slightly short in span but match the shape of the drawings. The canopy profile matches the drawings but is slightly fat in cross-section.  Compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the Hasegawa fuselage is too short.  Here’s where it gets weird, the elevators and canopy match the Bunrin-Do drawings, but the wings are even shorter in span when compared to the Ed Moore drawings!

When compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the Airfix (also issued by MPC) kit fuselage is the most accurate shape wise, but the main wings are too short in span, narrow in chord, and the wing tips are cut straight instead of being curved.  The elevators are too short with incorrect shaped tips.  The canopy looks the right width, but the rear portion of the frame is missing as it is part of the kit fuselage, so no way to pose it open.  Compared to the Ed Moore drawings the Airfix main wings have the same problem; too short, wrong shape. The elevators are not only short in span but in chord as well.  The canopy is slightly fat.  The fuselage length matches the Ed Moore drawings, but the vertical tail is further back on the spine and the antennae are in the wrong place.  Interestingly the 1979 edition of the Detail & Scale book praises the Airfix kit as being “the best kit available”.

The Matchbox kit fuselage matches the shape of the Ed Moore drawings almost perfectly (the kit was issued after the Detail & Scale book was first published) but is slightly long.  The canopy is slightly flat in profile, but matches in cross section, it is molded as a one piece canopy-windshield, and like the Airfix kit, the framing for the canopy is molded as part of the fuselage. The wing matches the span and wing tip shape of the Ed Moore drawings, but is narrow in chord.  The elevators match the drawings.  Compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the elevators are the correct size, but the tips are the wrong shape. The wing is too short and too narrow. The canopy matches the profile and cross-section.  The fuselage is too short, and too narrow at the ass-end.

Revell’s ancient kit (repeatedly re-issued, somebody put it out of our misery!) matches the shape of the Ed Moore fuselage, but is slightly long.  The ECM antenna on the tail (apparently added to later issues of the kit) is too small.  The canopy-windshield matches the drawings, but like the Airfix and Matchbox kits, the framing for the canopy is molded as part of the fuselage.  Revell’s wing is the best as far as how it mounts to the fuselage; it is molded as part of the spine which greatly reduces the need for filling in join lines (debatable), however, the wing is the wrong shape and long in span.  The elevators have too great a sweep.  According to the Bunrin-Do drawings the wing is too short in span and too narrow. The elevators have the same sweep-back problem.  The canopy-windshield seem slightly small compared to the drawings.   Like the Matchbox kit, the fuselage is too short, and too narrow, at the ass-end.

Comparing the ESCI (re-boxed by AMT-ERTL/Italeri) main wing to the Bunrin-Do drawings it is way too short in span, and the elevators are too narrow.  The canopy seems the right width, but the rear portion of the frame is not correct.  The Ed Moore drawings say the same thing about the main wing, the elevators fair better by barely matching the drawings.  The canopy looks good.  The fuselage matches the profile of the drawing but is slightly short. The tip of the vertical tail does not match Ed Moore’s drawing, but none of the kits do as the drawing shows the tail tip being rounded, which is wrong (oh my, you mean an authoritative scale drawing is wrong?)! ESCI kits usually come with good decals.

The Fujimi main wing is barely short going by the Bunrin-Do drawings.  The elevators are way too narrow, and the canopy slightly fat with incorrect rear frame.  The fuselage matches the Ed Moore drawings.  Spine antennae are in the wrong location.  The canopy matches.  The elevators are narrow in chord and have incorrectly shaped tips.  The wing is slightly short in span due to incorrectly shaped tips.  Nice decals came with my kit.

Ordinance:  The only kits in this review with decent weapons load are the ESCI and Fujimi kits, not great, but better than the lumps of plastic you kit with the other brands.  The skinny Hobby Boss Mark 82s come with optional fuse extenders.

IFR (In-Flight Refueling):  The Matchbox kit provides IFR for USAF aircraft only.  The Airfix kit provides IFR for USN aircraft only.  Hasegawa provides IFR for USN only, which is interesting because the AMT re-box (A-693:130) comes with markings for a USAF version.  Revell’s kit has IFR for USN only, despite numerous re-issues with USAF decals.  Fujimi, ESCI and Hobby Boss provide IFRs for both USAF and USN (depending on which issue of the kit you buy).

Out of the kit manufactures I compared none are accurate overall (and none got the main wing tip shape correct).  I read from other kit builders that the only way to get an accurate 1/72 scale A-7 is to kit-bash several kits from different makers.  From my perspective, it might be done by combining the Fujimi or Airfix fuselage with the Hobby Boss wing, for a start.  If you’re planing on building a kit to enter into a highly competitive model contest then kit-bashing is your only choice, but most of us don’t have the time (or money).

The A-7 has such a unique look and all the kits capture that look despite having shape issues, so, if you’re building one just for the heck of it then save some money and buy the cheapest one you can find, and go for it.

Notes: Before re-boxing the ESCI kit, AMT also re-boxed the Matchbox kit (late 1970s) and the super-ancient Hasegawa kit (early 1970s). The AMT/Matchbox issue uses the original Matchbox artwork and the phrase “Molded in 3 Colors” (using the U.S. English spelling of the word colors).

The website ScaleMates reports the Ace Hobby Kit A-7 is a copy of the Hasegawa kit, wrong!  The Ace A-7 is a re-tooled terrible copy of the ESCI kit.  Ace offers it in A, B, D, E versions, but all are wrong, like not having the correct parts, or decals, for the version offered!  Stay away from the Ace kit.

Heller re-boxed the Airfix A-7 in the 1990s when Airfix and Heller were owned by a single parent company (Humbrol).

USAF A-7 CORSAIRS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO?

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss 

Cold War Aggressor:  EA-7L THE ‘ELECTRIC’ TA-7C CORSAIR-2

Cold War Maintenance Walk Around: A-7D CORSAIR-2

1:72 F-100 SUPER SABER KIT KLASH, OR MORE REASONS WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Multi-Maverick or Why model assembly instructions can be wrong!

Image

14 September 2013 (22:11 UTC-07 Tango 13 September 2013)/09 Dhu ‘l-Qa’da 1434/23 Shahrivar 1391/10 Xin-You (8th month) 4711

Click pics to make bigger and read why the instructions are wrong:

Kit Bashing: 2006 MUSTANG FUNNY CAR DRAGSTER

Kit Bashing

Salvaging two different junk kits into one unique Corvette

Image
An old MPC custom Corvette and an AMT 1995 Corvette, missing parts, broken or unusable parts, combined to make a unique kit.

An old MPC custom Corvette and an AMT 1995 Corvette, missing parts, broken or unusable parts, combined to make a unique kit.

The body & interior of the MPC kit was used. Missing or unusable side windows and removable top.

The body & interior of the MPC kit was used. Missing or unusable side windows and removable top.

Fuel cap came from Revell 2006 Ford Mustang kit.

Fuel cap came from Revell 2006 Ford Mustang kit.

MPC interior.

MPC interior.

Wheels from AMT 1995 Corvette, tires from my spares. Rear wheels were 'made to fit' the fat meats.

Wheels from AMT 1995 Corvette, tires from my spares. Rear wheels were ‘made to fit’ the fat meats.

Hood had to be drastically sanded as it was hit with a glue bomb. Looked like previous builder painted glue on it.

Hood had to be drastically sanded as it was hit with a glue bomb. Looked like previous builder painted glue on it.

Front spoiler is from old Opel GT kit. It's being used to keep the hood from sliding off, I couldn't build a functioning hinge system in the time I gave myself to build the kit.

Front spoiler is from old Opel GT kit. It’s being used to keep the hood from sliding off, I couldn’t build a functioning hinge system in the time I gave myself to build the kit.

1995 Corvette engine with impromptu battery & brake cylinder locations.

1995 Corvette engine with impromptu battery & brake cylinder locations.

'95 Corvette chassis had to narrowed, and drastically shortened (one of the reasons why I didn't have a working hood hinge system).

’95 Corvette chassis had to be narrowed, and drastically shortened (one of the reasons why I didn’t have a working hood hinge system).

Taillights are paint with lots-o-clear (too much on a couple).

Taillights are paint with lots-o-clear (too much on a couple).

From a couple of cheapo junkyard kits bought on the internet, I was able to make a decent and unique looking custom Corvette.

From a couple of cheapo junkyard kits bought on the internet, I was able to make a decent and unique looking custom Corvette.

Kit Bashing: REVELL’S CHEVY COPO NOVA

Kit Bashing

Supercharging the old AMT Opel GT kit

Image

Click the pics to see more

KIT BASHING: HOBBY BOSS F-5E TIGER II, NOT AN “EASY ASSEMBLY” KIT, BUT WELL WORTH THE LITTLE BIT-O-MONEY IT COSTS!