Tag Archives: hasegawa

Kit Bashing, Technology

Cold War to Ukraine Crisis: F-15 Eagle now 50 years old

Video

50 years of Air Superiority

F-15A number one rolled out of the Saint Louis, Missouri, factory. Notice it does not yet have the DayGlo orange paint applied. McDonnell-Douglas photo, 26JUN1972.

McDonnell-Douglas F-15A number one gets packed aboard a Lockheed C-5A Galaxy, for its trip to Edwards Air Force Base, California.

McDonnell-Douglas photo of the first flight of F-15 number one, 27JUL1972. DayGlo paint not yet applied. Notice the shape of the wings and stabilators.

The first F-15A, #71-280, unveiled publicly after its first flight, July 1972, it now has the DayGlo paint applied. It was never called the YF-15 as several interweb sites say. From the beginning it was F-15 Eagle.

The McDonnell Douglas F-15A Eagle first took flight in 1972,  beginning service in 1974. A total of 20 pre-production test and evaluation (T&E) Eagles were ordered, 12 for contactor (McDonnell-Douglas) development and eight specifically for the U.S. Air Force (USAF).

USAF promotional video, by Airman First Class Moses Taylor:

 

71-280 F-15A number one is now serving museum duty on Lackland AFB, Texas. However, it is painted to represent a different F-15.

This B-52 is carrying a 3/8th-scale F-15A drone, back then called a Remotely Piloted Research Vehicle (RPRV), 23OCT1973. This was done to test the possibility of stall-spins, before the real F-15A Eagles began their test flights.

The 12 contractor F-15As were used in Category I pre-production T&E, the eight USAF F-15As were used in Category II pre-production T&E.  They were never officially designated as prototypes or even called YF-15 (as some online sites say), they were officially called McAir F-1 (for the F-15A single seaters) and McAir F-2 (for the TF-15 two seaters).  The Category I phase was later re-named Contractor Development, Test & Evaluation, the Category II phase was renamed Air Force Development, Test & Evaluation.

Installing a F-15 style intake on a J85 nacelle. NASA photo, 1975.

The wedge shaped F-15 engine air intake was also tested on the highly modified three engined F-106B.

Photo via Edwards AFB photo shop. NASA’s F-15A 71-287 in 1976, testing the FMD version of Pratt & Whitney’s F-100. 287 would go on to test the HIDEC system, in the early 1990s.

I took this photo with a crappy little fixed focus 110 camera, in 1977.

This photo shows a T&E Eagle (possibly number one) with the straight edged stabilators. McDonnell-Douglas photo.

This photo shows the smaller speed/dive brake of pre-production aircraft F-15A number five (71-284). It was apparently the first F-15 to get the 20mm Vulcan gun, obviously not at the time this photo was made (due to lack of gun port). McDonnell-Douglas photo.

The pre-production T&E Eagles can be distinguished from later production Eagles by the shape of the wing tips, the shape of the elevators (officially called ‘snag stabilators’) and the size of the speed/dive brake.  T&E F-15As had squared-off wing tips, stabilators that did not have a ‘dog tooth’, and had a smaller more rectangular speed/dive brake. However, several T&E F-15 Eagles were quickly updated with the snag stabilators, yet retained the original wing tips and small speed brake.

This photo shows one of the T&E Eagles updated with the snaggle toothed stabilators. USAF photo via the Edwards AFB photo shop, I got it in the mid-’70s but exact date it was made is unknown.

One of the T&E F-15s transferred to NASA, with original configuration wing tips and stabilators.

For kit builders, the first issue 1:72 scale Hasegawa, Revell U.S.A. and Monogram kits were based on the Category I McAir F-1 Eagles.

They were quickly revised once the final changes were established for the production F-15s.

The same T&E F-15, with the squared-off wing tips, but it has been updated with the dog-tooth elevators. NASA photo, 24FEB1978.

Development of the F-15A actually started in the late 1960s, it was designed as a pure dog-fighter, intended to replace the F-4 Phantom-2 in that role. The design was based on U.S. air combat experience over Viet Nam, and on incorrect assumptions about Soviet fighter development, especially the MiG-25 Foxbat.

The defected MiG 25P. This is the photo that inspired the artwork on Minicraft/Hasegawa’s black bordered box issue of their MiG 25 kit, in the late-1970s.

Before the defection of a Soviet pilot in a MiG-25P, to Japan in 1976, the ‘experts’ in the U.S. Department of Defense thought the Foxbat was a dog-fighter.  The MiG-25 was actually a straight line Mach 3 bomber interceptor, it carried four long range anti-bomber missiles, and had no guns.  Fortunately, the incorrect assumptions resulted in a still potent modern day dog-fighter (proven by the Israeli Air Force) that has also proved it excels at other forms of aerial combat.

TF-15A #71-290. Photo via the Edwards AFB photo shop. 290’s final mission would be as the NF-15B ACTIVE in the late 1990s.

I got this photo from the Edwards AFB photo shop in the mid-1970s. It is TF-15A/F-15B 71-291, which would go on to become the ‘demonstrator’ (mock-up) of the F-15E concept.

71-291 all gussied-up for the Bicentennial in July 1976, and flying over its birthplace of Saint Louis, Missouri. McDonnell-Douglas photo by Pat McManus.

Also in 1972, a combat capable trainer version was created called the TF-15A, but it was soon re-designated F-15B. The improved F-15C single seater, and the improved F-15D two seater, were created in 1979. Visually they all look the same as the improvements are internal.

Bare metal Streak Eagle, named because it was naked, not fast. In the 1970s there was a fad called streaking, which meant you got naked and ran as fast as you could through a public gathering. The insignia on the vertical tail was removed for the high speed runs.

Between 16JAN1975 and 01FEB1975, a bare metal F-15A nicknamed Streak Eagle, broke eight time-to-climb world records.  It was then donated to the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, in 1980, where it was painted to protect from corrosion:

The F-15 is used by Israel, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea and the United States.

The second F-15A Eagle (71-0281) was turned over to NASA in February 1976. It was used in no less than 25 experiments which not only benefitted the USAF and NASA, but also the civilian airliner industry.

NASA F-15A #281 over the Mojave Desert, California, 03MAR1978.

This NASA F-15A Eagle was used to compare actual in-flight aerodynamic data to data collected from models in wind tunnels, 17MAY1978.

This is a NASA image showing what their proposed F-15-2D/STOL/MTD would look like, using NASA’s F-15B Eagle. The project would morph into the NF-15B ACTIVE program in the late 1990s.

Somewhere over NATO Norway, the Sun is setting on an F-4E Phantom-2, while its replacement, an F-15B Eagle flies in formation. USAF photo by Master Sergeant Edward Condon, 08MAR1982.

Potential satellite killer. An F-15 armed with the ASAT missile, sometime in 1983. USAF photo.

On Bitburg AFB, West Germany, an F-15D Eagle blows off steam, at full throttle in a ‘Baker Sound Suppressor Unit’. USAF photo by Jose Lopez Junior, November 1984.

An F-15A Eagle gets armed with an AIM-9 Sidewinder anti-aircraft missile, while taking part in wargames over Australia, 01OCT1985. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sergeant Marvin D. Lynchard.

An F-15B Eagle taxis past the then new air traffic control tower on Edwards AFB, sometime in the mid 1980s (1987?).

A pole dancing F-15C Eagle? It is mounted upside down on a pedestal at the Rome Air Development Center’s (aka USAF Super Lab) Newport, New York, test site. An external radar warning system pod mounted on the fuselage is being compared to the onboard radar warning system, 06OCT1988.

The ground attack F-15E Strike Eagle began service in 1989, however, the first production F-15E (86-183) came off the assembly line in 1986.

86-183, the first production F-15E.

At first it was just called the F-15E Dual Role Fighter, no Strike Eagle.  They stenciled on the nose F-15E No. 1, to be clear that it is the first F-15E.

F-15E Strike Eagles, and a F-15C Eagle, are flanked by F-16s as they fly over burning oil wells, during Desert Storm in early 1991.

Cold War: Approximately 1947 (due to U.S. President Harry Truman’s Truman Doctrine) to 1991 (Operation Desert Storm, collapse of Soviet Union).

NASA’s HIDEC (Highly Integrated Digital Electronic Control) F-15A (NASA #835, USAF #71-287), Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards AFB, California, February 1993.

A 53rd Fighter Squadron F-15C Eagle returns to Aviano Air Base, Italy, after a No-Fly-Zone mission over Bosnia-Herzegovina. USAF photo by Technical Sergeant David Mcleod, 12APR1993.

A 10% scale wind tunnel model of the F-15E Strike Eagle, used to test the viability of ‘pneumatic forebody controls’, September 1994.

Size comparison between USAF F-15C Eagle & E Strike Eagle, and a Slovak MiG-29 Fulcrum. According to the USAF, this was the first time F-15 Eagles and MiG-29s flew together. Photo by Technical Sergeant Brad Fallin, 25MAY1996.

McDonnell-Douglas was taken over by Boeing, in August 1997, which continues making variants of the F-15.

The NF-15B ACTIVE (NASA #837, USAF #71-290) touches down on the Edwards AFB runway, 14APR1998.

Two Israeli Defense Force F-15I Ra’am over Nellis AFB, Nevada. USAF photo by Technical Sergeant Kevin J. Gruenwald, 25AUG2004.

F-15E Strike Eagles using the Dare County Bomb Range, in North Carolina, July 2012. USAF video by Airman First Class Samantha Ducker:

December 2012:

For first time, JAPAN SCAMBLES F-15Js TO INTERCEPT CHINESE AIRCRAFT

NATO 2013:

F-15 EAGLES OVER NORGE

May 2016:

OREGON KOTKAT LENTÄÄ SUOMEN YLI

USAF video, by Staff Sergeant Esteban Esquivel, of Israeli F-15I Ra’am operations on Uvda Air Base, Israel, May 2017:

A Ukrainian flag behind the windshield of a California Air National Guard (CANG) F-15D Eagle, 26OCT2017. A Ukrainian General is in the front seat while a CANG Lieutenant Colonel is in the back seat, it was a flight promoting the military partnership of California and Ukraine. CANG photo by Senior Master Sergeant Chris Drudge.

Somewhere in the Middle East (South West Asia), September 2017 USAF video report about F-15E Strike Eagle operations against so-called Islamic State:

2018:

USAF photo by Airman First Class Codie Trimble.

MOUNTAIN HOME AFB, IDAHO,  F-15E WALK-AROUND

California Air National Guard (CANG) video, by Staff Sergeant Christian Jadot, of historical moment when for the first time California’s 144th Fighter Wing lands their F-15C & D Eagles on Starokostiantyniv Air Base, Ukraine, 06OCT2018 (it should be noted that it was not the first time for California to send aircraft to Ukraine, in 2011 the CANG sent F-16 Falcons):

CALIFORNIA OREL NAD UKRAINOY ОРЕЛ НАД УКРАИНОЙ

July 2019:

D-DAY F-15E STRIKE EAGLE

2020:

Kadena Eagle celebrates 60 years of U.S.-Japan relations

Royal Saudi Air Force F-15C Eagles, over the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. USAF photo by Technical Sergeant Christopher Ruano, November 2019.

PANDEMIC OVERFLIGHT: THE SANDMAN ENTERS

The F-15 has adjustable air intakes. In this May 2020 video, pay attention to the intake as the turbines ignite:

 

IDAHO’S TIGERS & THUNDERBOLTS BLAST THE SKIES OVER FLORIDA!

USAF video of 493rd Fighter Squadron F-15C Eagles launching NATM-9M training missiles at aerial targets, somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean, 08DEC2020:

USAF video, by Master Sergeant Larry E. Reid Junior, showing Japanese F-15J Eagles landing on Anderson AFB, Guam, 28JAN2021:

March 2021:

The new Boeing F-15EX HAS ARRIVED! COMMANDER SAYS “IT’S AN EX-CITING DAY!”

SINGAPORE’S IDAHO BASED SKY PIRATES BOMB LAS VEGAS?

On 04MAY2021, U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles, based on the United Kingdom, conducted an “Independence Flyover” of the tiny NATO country of Latvia. Short video of F-15E getting refueled enroute to Latvia by Technical Sergeant Emerson Nuñez:

USAF video, by Staff Sergeant Danielle Sukhlall, of Japanese F-15J Eagles operating from Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, 07JUN2021:

A November 2021 USAF promo video, by Staff Sergeant River Bruce, states the F-15 series of aircraft has a long way to go before retirement:

In January 2022, at least six F-15E Strike Eagles (from Seymour Johnson Air Base, North Carolina) were deployed to NATO Belgium, for so-called air policing missions against Russia.  Video via NATO:

February 2022:

Ämari Air Base, Estonia, U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sergeant Megan M. Beatty, 01FEB2022.

F-15E Strike Eagles ‘forward deployed’ to NATO Estonia

Israeli F-15I over Hatzerim Airbase, Israel, 23JUN2022. Photo by Ilan Assayag via Xinhua News.

July 2022:

F-15E GETS NEW COLORS, VIA VINYL DECALS.

Edwards AFB reveals it has the oldest, and fastest, operating F-15 in the world, USAF video by Giancarlo Casem:

USAF promotional video, by Harley Huntington, F-15 First Flight to F-15EX:

 

Kit Bashing, Technology

Oregon Mohawk flies again (sort of) & some other Mohawk news

Video

OV means Operational View, and OV-1 sounds like Obi-Wan.  The OV-1 entered production in October 1959 and served in United States, Europe, Korea, Israel, VietNam, Central and South America, and during Desert Shield/Desert Storm in the Middle East. The Mohawk retired from U.S. service in September 1996. At least 133 OV-1Cs were built (sources vary, as many as 169?), the C designating the model which used an IR (InfaRed) imaging system in the nose.

Oregon National Guard’s Project 926, move the old tail number 926 OV-1C Mohawk ‘gate guard’ to a better location.

23OCT2019 was the culmination of three years of volunteer work by Oregon National Guard retirees who worked and flew the OV-1 Mohawk from 1972 to 1992.  Almost all of that three years was spent restoring the gate guard.

The new home of the 926 Mohawk is at Deibert Flight Facility, Army Aviation Support Facility.

The official dedication ceremony was held 02NOV2019.

Video of relocation operations called Project 926:

See more about Oregon National Guard’s long use of the Mohawk here (OV-1 Mohawks in Oregon).

The 02NOV2019 dedication for the new home of 926 came one day after a pilot was killed flying a Mohawk, while preparing for an air show in Florida.

Doctor Joe Masessa, of Mohawk Airshows, was killed when he lost control of the aircraft during a practice flight.  Updated news reports said the air show was forced to cancel all flights due to bad weather.

Mohawk Airshows flies the POW-MIA ‘flying monument’.

https://youtu.be/P8hAbpHAwj4

Somebody needs to make a decal sheet of the Flying Monument.

In the early 1980s, NASA created an automated stall-speed warning system for OV-1Cs.

From February 1983, a NASA-U.S. Army operated Grumman OV-1C over Edwards AFB.

U.S. Army-NASA OV-1C Mohawk, automated stall warning system tests @ Edwards AFB, July 1983.

Hasegawa’s now ancient 1:72 scale OV-1B (also issued by Frog in the early 1970s) can be easily modified to a C version by scratch-building the IR glass in the nose.

Roden’s 1:48 scale D boxing depicts the IR nosed Mohawk.  The D Mohawk is simply a consolidation of all the best upgrades from previous versions.  Oddly, Roden’s C boxing does not depict the IR nose, and the instructions even tell you not to use the IR nose part (which is included on the clear sprue of every Roden Mohawk kit).

Roden’s C version also does not come with the SLAR, but you still need to get it because it comes with fuselage mounted flare dispensers and ‘classified’ electronic recon under-wing pods.

‘Aftermarket’ companies produce a variety of detailing/correction sets for the Hasegawa and Roden kits: Eduard, Cobra Company and Black Dog.

OV-1 vs MiG-17: How the Mohawk became a MiG killer

MINI AIR TANKERS TAKE OFF IN NORTH CAROLINA

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?

Business/Economics, Kit Bashing

Deutschland Über Alles!: Revell USA is dead, long live Revell Germany!

12MAY2018 /21:37 UTC-07 Tango 06  (23 Ordibehesht 1397/27 Sha’ban 1439/28 Ding-Si 4716)

“It is a sad time for the model building community… I have not seen anything ‘official’ from Revell, but It has been confirmed to me by a reliable source that Revell USA has in fact closed their doors.”-UP Scale Hobbies facebook post

Another victim of the so called recovered economy, the end of a long model building era in the United States, Revell USA (Revell-Monogram) is dead!

Starting out in California in 1943, as a subcontractor for plastics manufacturers, its first job reportedly being parts for washing machines, followed by anything relating to HO (1:87) scale train sets.   It was known as Precision Specialties.

When the company decided to focus on toys the name was changed to Revell (Wikipedia says it’s from the French word reveille, however Revell is a English/French family name that goes back to medieval times).  In the 1950s the focus was originally on model cars, but shifted to U.S. Navy ships, the most infamous being the constantly re-issued and horribly inaccurate USS Missouri.  This is humorous because supposedly the USN kits were considered so accurate that the Soviet Union bought Revell kits to learn about U.S. warship development (maybe that’s why the U.S.S.R. was constantly behind in the naval arms race).

Purportedly this crappy kit is what got the ball rollin' for Revell

Purportedly this crappy kit is what got the ball rollin’ for Revell

The success of Revell’s ship kits led to the company producing kits of almost anything you can think of.  However, this didn’t stop Revell from succumbing to the same economic forces as other industries, as I’ve previously explained in 1:72 SHOCK & AWE LOCKHEED F-104 STARFIGHTER, OR, WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS! PLUS MASSIVE HISTORICAL CONFUSION ABOUT REVELL-MONOGRAM!

Monogram's classic 1974 issue Do 335, Monogram was Revell's biggest competitor at that time

Monogram’s classic 1974 issue Do 335, Monogram was Revell’s biggest U.S. competitor at that time

By 2012, longtime model kit builders thought economic bad times were over for Revell when an employee owned, Illinois based company, called Hobbico bought and merged Revell USA and Revell Germany (GmbH).  Wrong again!  In January 2018, Hobbico went bankrupt busted and began liquidating its divisions.  Immediately, Revell Germany issued a statement saying they were not impacted (“Hobbico’s bankruptcy filing was made in the United States and is strictly limited to the company’s U.S. operations, Revell-Germany is unaffected.”).

For decades (since 1970s) Revell Germany has reissued British Frog kits

For decades (since 1970s) Revell Germany has reissued British Frog kits

Revell USA production was halted in April, even shipments of already packaged kits were stopped. A group of investors called Quantum Capital Partners aus München (for some odd reason many U.S. and British sources are calling the group Blitz GmbH, my source is Revell Germany itself) which bought both Revell Germany and Revell USA.

The month before Revell was sold-off, Revell USA announced the much longed for reissue of the coveted Deal’s Wheels Baja Humbug

According to bankruptcy court documents, on 13APR2018 Quantum Capital Partners of Munich won the rights to Revell with a bid of about $3.9-million USD.  Revell USA ceased to exist, Revell Germany will continue as if nothing had happened.  I should point out that the $3.9-million was the high bid, apparently there was only one other bidder, it’s just more proof the model kit industry is in decline.  Hobbico was hoping for $10-million.

According to a press release by Revell Germany, Deutschland is the new home base for all Revell operations, including ops in North America: “Revell is pleased to partner with Quantum Capital Partners who supports the company in its further international growth.  At this point, I would also like to thank all trading and business partners for the Thank you for your confidence during the transition period in recent weeks.”-Stefan Krings, president of Revell Germany

“Revell is a renowned and well-established company and has been an impressive and internationally established successful toy brand. We will build on this strength and the brand with its unique positioning as a model maker….”-Steffen Görig, Quantum Capital Partners

Since its founding in 2008, Quantum Capital Partners (QCP) has taken over several dozens of companies including BASF, Bosch, Deutsche Bahn and even Airbus (even joining with the Islamic Investment Bank to make sure Airbus aircraft are Shariah compliant)!

Classic Hasegawa Voodoo, one of the first jet kits I built in the 1970s

Classic Hasegawa Voodoo, one of the first jet kits I built in the 1970s

By the way, Hobbico’s demise also affected Japan’s Hasegawa and Italy’s Italeri as Hobbico had become the distributor of those brands in the United States.

Italeri's old M47 (from late 1970s) is so good that recently Korea's Academy issued it

Italeri’s old M47 (first released around late 1970s early 80s) is so good that recently Korea’s Academy issued it

FALLING DOWN: U.S. MODEL KIT/RAILROAD HOBBY DEMISE, 2016-17

BLACKLIGHT REVELL DEAL’S WHEELS

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Heinkel He-51: Hasegawa vs. ICM

Image

Is it time to kill-off the old Hasegawa Heinkel 51 kit?

ICM (aka ICM Holding of Ukraine, I’m not sure what ICM means as even in Cyrillic the company uses ICM as its identifier) has made great advances since its early days of chunky low pressure injection kits, and is producing the most accurate (so far) version of the German biplane in 1:72 scale.

The main improvements are detailing and the upper wing.  Overall the ICM kit has better detailing and a main wing that has the correct dihedral (upward sweep).  The ancient Hasegawa kit (first issued in the 1970s) has no dihedral.  However, it seems the ICM wingtips are questionable as they taper back, they should be more evenly rounded.

Click on the pics to make them bigger:

Rare Plane makes a vac-formed kit, the packaging photo looks to have dihedral in the upper wing but I’ve seen completed kits with no dihedral and oddly shaped horizontal tails.  The problem with comparing vac-formed kits to injected kits is that a lot depends on the skill of the builder in cutting the parts from the plastic sheet and then shaping them to form a good join.

A drawback of the ICM kit is subtle, or no, attachment points.   The old Hasegawa kit is easier to build.  My conclusion in comparing the Hasegawa with the ICM He-51 is that while both can be built to look good the ICM has the better detailing and correct dihedral of the upper wing.

There are no major visual differences in the A, B or C versions of the Heinkel 51 (except with the float-plane version).

WORLD’S LARGEST C-141B STARLIFTER MODEL?

GROCERY STORE USES MODEL PLANES TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS!

ITALERI 1:720 DEUTSCHLAND, LUTZOW, SCHEER & GRAF SPEE

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1:72 Shock & Awe Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, or, Why You Can’t Trust Scale Drawings! Plus massive historical confusion about Revell-Monogram!

I’m an idiot; a nut for the combat ineffective F-104 ‘Missile with a Man in it’ Starfighter so I’ve collect too many, and then I went and spent what precious little money I have on a book of scale plans.  And now those scale plans might actually be wrong!

I checked my collection of 1:72 (1/72) scale F-104s against the Mushroom Modeling Publications (MMPBooks) Scale Plans:  Academy, ESCI (ERTL, Italeri), Hasegawa, Heller, Matchbox and Monogram (not Revell), with interesting results.

Click the pics in the gallery to see more:

Conclusion: I’ve compared only the canopy, fuselages and wings because there is a plethora of aftermarket detailing sets out there, so all you really need are decent canopy, fuselage and wings.

All kits had fuselages longer than the MMPBooks Scale Plans, but both Academy and Heller have the largest fuselages in length and circumference.  Academy is the worst offender due to the obviously oversized cockpit and canopy.

Despite being an old kit (almost as old as the Heller kits) the ESCI kit still looks good.  Matchbox looks toy like but seems to be shaped right.

Everybody likes Hasegawa, so much so that many kit builders find it heresy to even question the accuracy of their kits.  But I remember the days when their kits were junk!  This Hasegawa kit is definitely not from their junk days in the 1970s.  It’s the best two seater F-104 available in 1:72 scale.

The 1990s issue Monogram kit is the winner for straight out of the box appearances.   What’s interesting is that there are some reviews out there about the Monogram F-104C that complain of too many rivets, canopy defects and even that the Monogram kit is the same as the Revell F-104G kit with raised panel lines. My kit has fine recessed panel lines and neither too many rivets or a defective canopy and is hands down the best looking of the bunch.  I believe there is confusion because before Revell and Monogram were forced to merge (by parent company Odyssey Partners of New York, in 1986) they issued their own F-104 which was an old kit with raised panel lines and lots of rivets.  Since the merger many kit bashers think every Monogram kit was originally a Revell kit, or vice versa.  In 1996 Monogram issued a new tooled F-104C, it is not the older Revell kit. Lets confuse you even more by talking about Revell Germany.  Currently it’s known as Revell Germany here in the U.S. and since 2000 they’ve issued a lot of Hasegawa kits under their label.  However, through the 1970s to early 1990s Revell Plastics, or Revell AG (what we now call Revell Germany) issued a lot of junky kits, old Revell kits with raised lines and masses of rivets, crappy old Frog kits, and even Matchbox kits when they bought all the Matchbox molds.  From 1980 to 83 Revell was owned by a French company called CEJI, sometimes kits were issued with the label Revell-CEJI.  In the 1990s Revell Germany (officially Revell KG, or Revell GmbH) was issuing almost anything under the sun regardless of how crappy the quality was (or is, as they are still issuing old Frog and Matchbox kits).  Clue, since the late 1990s Revell Germany has been using blue bordered end opening boxes.  And for even more confusion, in 2006 Revell Germany became officially independent of what we now call Revell USA (or Revell-Monogram), however, between 2007 and 2012 both Revell-Monogram and Revell Germany were taken over by Illinois based Hobbico.  And don’t forget there’s also ‘Revell-Japan’ sometimes Takara sometimes Gunze Sangyo, ‘Revell-Mexico’ Lodela and ‘Revell-Brazil’ Kikoler!  So, the only way to tell the quality of the kit is to open the box and look at the parts, something hard to do when many surviving brick-n-mortar shop owners would shoot you for doing so, and when most kit purchases are now made through the mail or internet.

Another indicator that the MMPBooks 1:72 Scale Plans might be wrong is that all the kits had main wings and elevators (horizontal tails) that were identical to each other dimensionally, and were slightly larger in span and cord than the Scale Plans.  For even more evidence that the Scale Plans are wrong; when you compare the kit fuselages to the overhead view they’re even longer than in the side view! This could put me off buying anymore MMP Scale Plans books.

For those who love math, to find out how long the F-104 fuselage should be in 1:72 scale do it yourself!

1:72 comparison F-86 Saber Fujimi vs Heller, or, Nobody is Perfect!

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

Business/Economics, International, U.S.

Kit Bashing & What Economic Recovery? United States to help Japan’s economy by dropping illegal tariffs, pay back Japan $26 million in illegal tariffs

“We have finally put these burdensome and potentially damaging trade disputes behind us.”-Ron Kirk, U.S. Trade Representative

For decades the U.S. has imposed high tariffs on imports (so much for free trade), claiming the tariffs were “anti-dumping” fines.   The problem is that some of the foreign products affected by those U.S. tariffs were actually cheaper in the country of origin (like plastic model kits from Japan, and some from Europe).

Even after the U.S. created World Trade Organization ruled against the U.S. (five years ago!), regarding the anti-dumping tariffs, the United States continued the unfair trade policy.

Now, in an effort to help Japan’s, and Europe’s, ailing economy, and because Japan was about to levy a similar tariff on U.S. products, the United States will end those tariffs.  The U.S. has also agreed to pay back $26 million in illegal tariffs collected on Japanese products.

The end of the anti-dumping duties also affects European countries.

Unfortunately for us model kit builders, the ending of the tariff might not help our wallets, as the Yen and Euro have gained in value against the U.S. dollar.  The Euro now worth more than the U.S. dollar, but, the Yen is still far cheaper so lets hope those prices come down on Tamiya, Fujimi, Hasegawa and coveted Fine Molds kits.