Italeri F-35 test shot.

[Shalako]

Not to mention that the belts and inst. panels are those of Esci 30 years ago.....

ESCI F/RF-5A ejection seat belts!!

Edited November 11, 2013 by Shalako

[charley420]

Well i couldn't resist starting this one,

I found that the raised details on the kit are incomplete around the nose and also rather prominent.

so i sanded them off and added my own Mrhobby masking strips.

ok mine aren't 100% accurate but i feel they blend into the model quite well

[Procopius]

Holy cow, nice work!

[ruudster]

I like the looks of it better than the F-22 and certainly miles ahead of the X-32...

I'm looking forward to hearing/seeing more about this kit.

[Nacnud64]

When I've built my seven 1/48th TSR 2's, I might have a go at the Kittyhawk F35A and B

[Hit Or Miss]

According to threads which began on F-16.net, far from being 'baked in', the F-35 has RAM panels which are appliqued to the jet on the basis of improving RFLO performance as operating bands and waveforms change (think modular tank armor). This may also be a result of the LOCLOEXCOM 600 million dollar effort to 'secure' stealth by dual keying the essential GTW kit under U.S. control except when a combat deployment requires it.

Shrug.

As though 20-60 jets in someone else' air force supporting us is going to make that big a difference compared to the 500+ the USAF is likely going to dump as unaffordable under Sequestration. Looked at pragmatically, the number of threat states that have even a handful of SA-2x series threats worth worrying about are countable on one hand and of those, more than half are inconvenient to the reach of landbased tacair in the SWAPR region.

WRT: RAM. As with the Hasegawa F-22, what looks fine in 1:1 is dreadfully out of scale in 1/48 and almost toylike in 1/72. I'll go with what another poster suggested as PE or vinyl selfadhesives with a placement guide template since that would greatly ease painting of the separate pieces.

An alternative would be masks which would also be appropriate for the clear parts, bypassing AM and allowing the model companies to apply a presprayed metallic tint to the canopy interior while leaving the frames free to be painted even by junior modelers. I mention this specifically with regard to the EOTS fairing which is a veritable greenhouse of micropanels.

MSRP (according to FSM video review) of the kit is an unbelievable $39.99 here in the U.S.

http://www2.finescale.com/en/Videos/New%20Product%20Rundown/2013/11/NPRD%2027.aspx

The Fujimi, whose plastic is noticeably higher standard of finish, even in the bag-

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10127650n2/40/2

Makes the Italeri continue to look crude.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/it/pages/it_1331_parts2p.shtml

While only costing 21-25 dollars.

The Kittyhawk 48th jets are only 52 dollars.

Admittedly both out of HLJ.

An F-135 engine without the masses of plumbing, accessories and a well framed upper fuselage support ringframe insert is pointless (though it is the best proof there is that there will 'be a B' model, sometime).

And since NONE of the manufacturers seem to have it in them to provide adequately proportionately shaped and detail accurate (avionics conduits, non-trench section joints, control surface profile shapes appropriate to variant, and decent backends) it would be just as well not to include ordnance that forces us to go AM anyway. I know this is not supposed to matter to junior modelers but at half a C, Italeri are no longer talking to that market demographic anyway.

The shape of the external pylons is well known. As are those of the BRU-61 SMER, GBU-39/53/B and AIM-9X while 'general inferences' can be made about the bubble nose, area-ruled, tank that the F-35 may yet get and the Brimstone triple launcher which would be appropriate for the RAF/RN and perhaps foreign users even if it is not adopted here (though we will likely pick up the triple rail launcher for JAGM's followon).

Honestly Italeri, if you want to sell low end models at primo prices, you could do worse than to follow the standard of the old Revell YF-16 kit with it's spread of ordnance, tow tractor and engine dolly to spruce the kit up a bit. But don't do it if you aren't willing to invest the time as tech (slide molds) in getting it right. Better to go to someone like Skunk and take a sprue or two out of their weapons sets, like you did for the Mirage 2000D.

Hmmmmm, F-35s don't seem to droop-tail like the F-22 does but at the same time, when they do move their surfaces, it's in coordinated pairs which means it looks funny-like-toy to have the TE surfaces drooped but leave the LEFs up. It's also not an easy fix because these surfaces have RAM cover fairings at the hingeline.

I really don't like a lot of faux button and knob cockpit detail in 72nd. Drastically out of scale, it never looks real and particularly on MFD jets, it's just laughable (consider the surround buttons on the screens) they are laughable. Instead, give us blank faces and throttle+stick parts. Then put Eduard on permanent retainer to supply a mini-detail PE set of sticky-colored cockpit stuff to include side consoles, belts, main panel and etch mesh for inserts like the ECS intakes and vents. Italeri has actually done this before, with the RAH-66 plastic mesh for the intakes, and it does a lot to improve the final look as finish. I myself would also like a template for appropriate U.S. star and bars (with wing or fuselage 'spacers') as it's a lot easier to paint these than decal them and often that's all the markings I will put on a model.

Italeri needs to really work on their instructions. I would prefer to see subassemblies grouped by paint color (white landing gear wells and bomb bays and struts) than glue-this-to-that and having these colors in large script with appropriate names and bottle numbers in the new Vallejo Model Air and similar acryllics would be a real improvement as they have gained considerably in popularity here. Such that we can pick up all needed colors just at a glance, at the counter.

Speaking of which _accurate FS Numbered_ airframe painting three views are essential, especially as the Lightning II seems to vary between gunmetal and multitonal silver-bronzed metallic, depending on how you look at it. It may be necessary to 'go exotic' here and either do a hand mix with translucent colors out of the wargamer's range or opt for the Hawkeye Models metallic undercoat and it would be _nice_ if Italeri actually did some product research with a group of pro modelers who could experiment with various approaches to a best-finish as the new stealths _do not_ follow existing Compass Ghost, Hill Grey or Mod Eagle colors. They are not even close.

I'm sure that, for the European crowd, a range of Humbrol/Revell/Testors colors would be appreciated too while, for Japan, I would imagine Tamiya/Gunze/Mr. Color would be better.

Nice build, upthread. I hope you finish it and show us all what it looks like.

[charley420]

OK so a bit of progress has been made on this one, an F-16 esque paint scheme was decided upon, to be honest the uninspiring decals got the beter of me so i bunged the spare hi viz roundels from an airfix harrier on.... in hindsight i may go back and replace them with a Belgian tail art scheme.

the canopy was tinted with clear coloured with enamel wash, its perhaps a little too dark but hey ho its all a learning curve ready for when academy/fujimi releases make my stash.

comments welcome.

[Hit Or Miss]

Looks like the nose has issues related to both plan taper and total height.

While there may be some scalloping in play-

http://www.worldtribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/v31882_f35-joint-strike-fighter.jpg

I think the majority of this is optical illusion related to the blended effect of the diverterless intake.

As the photos of the 35C above suggest, the upper/lower breakline on the real jet is both very sharp and almost slab sided in it's slope which the kit utterly fails to capture, likely because Italeri chose to integrate the rear fuselage and nose into a single pancake rather than give the latter a separate, vertically split (ala Tomcat or F-111 kits), design with which to maintain integrity of the hemisphere divider. That this has posed difficulties with the interpretation of the RAM strips is obvious and unfortunate.

In side elevation, the fuselage looks shallow atop and too deep through the inlets-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/F-35_side-view_next_to_its_F-16_predecessor.jpg

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/f-35.jpg?w=620&h=465

Which leaves the aircraft chubby forward and too tapered, aft as though it's fat man standing on tippy toes, sucking in a gut. Could be an optical effect of the non orthogonal perspective but one of the last changes made to the F-35 before final moldline hardening was to raise the spineline and provide more volume in the blended saddle tanks under the upper fuselage skins which subtlely altered the look of the upper fuselage contours. I wonder if Italeri caught that...

The stabs are definitely in need of a fix-

http://someinterestingfacts.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/F-35-Lightning-II.jpg

http://files.air-attack.com/MIL/jsf/f35top_20090320.jpg

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/f35_schem_01.jpg

Being short in span and massively overchorded

As I feared, from the initial primer pics, depth of relief in the RAM panel boundary strips is excessive. This is going to be a jet which definitely benefits from a general rubdown and rescribe as the extant detail is simply not well represented in 72nd, being too heavy for the lack of other panel outlines on the model to break up the zigzag effect. Eduard has the potential to make a killing here with some replacement, self-adhesive, PE tile borders for those who want a GTW ready aircraft. Still, the extant kit is doable, as several of the above photos suggest, as a very nice SDD aircraft within a realistic clean-skin configuration which could also be appropriate to service models if the prior applique-RAM system I mentioned turns out to be standard on production/export jets (it would certainly save massive amounts of MMH:FH if the VLO did not have to be maintained in-situ during peacetime training).

Here's hoping that someone does a C variant soon as this is the last and most interesting looking of the JSFs which has yet to be represented in any scale other than the 1/144 Platz/PitRoad cartoon jet.

Very interesting camouflage scheme, reminds me a bit of South African and Pakistani counter shade patterns (which is a good thing, F-16 HGII being so incredibly dull). I have to wonder if the death of the GE/RR F136, the massive cost rise and the increasing lack of followon sales opportunities for a FACO 'franchise' option in Europe will put Britain off of a full 138 airframe purchase (60 for the QE/POW sounds about right) or if they will stick with their original FJCA ideal and use the F-35A as a door kicker for 2-seat Typhoon DRFs, rather like the idea of F-117s opening routes for F-15Es in the final coldwar equivalent USAF doctrine.

Given all the lolo mission diversity which the RAF has lost in the past decade, this could be an interesting approach to maintaining penetration ability in the new high-level mode. Something which the F-35B, with fully 5,000lbs of it's fuel gone and weight limited weapons bays, will be hard pressed to achieve in company with a T3a Typhoon carrying CFTs. Of course, 120+ Storm Shadow for every F-35A you don't buy is also a very convincing argument...

In any case. Very Well Done and Thank You for sharing.

[-Neu-]

According to threads which began on F-16.net, far from being 'baked in', the F-35 has RAM panels which are appliqued to the jet on the basis of improving RFLO performance as operating bands and waveforms change (think modular tank armor). This may also be a result of the LOCLOEXCOM 600 million dollar effort to 'secure' stealth by dual keying the essential GTW kit under U.S. control except when a combat deployment requires it.

Uhh, no. the skin itself IS cured onto the aircraft. This requires a first baking panels and piles onto an autoclave in plant 4, then machining them to the correct depth. ITs not "removable" as you suggest, anymore than other contemporary aircraft skins are removable. Most repairs will require a special glue.

Moreover there is no such thing as "dual key" arrangements for the F-35A. The Partners receive basically the same version, which has been reiterated umpteen times by several national governments including the United States.

Still waiting for my kit. Looks like another week, although I'm a bit disheartened by the shape of the aircraft. IT could be the nose proportions. You're doing a great job of it charlie... love the scheme too!

[charley420]

Some interesting reading, just noticed a big gouge under the canopy... I hadn't noticed that it doesn't show up to the naked eye.

[sroubos]

Like another poster before me I had a chance to finger the sprues at Telford and that effectively dropped the kit of my list. The raised panelling, while perhaps technically accurate, is represented in such a heavy-handed way it makes the kit look like a short-run kit from 20 years back. My modelling skills nor time allocation to the hobby are not able to rhyme this with building a decent representation of the aircraft

Shame, because after 15 years debating the Dutch government finally decided to buy the damn thing. I even have some decals for it, courtesy of FlevoDecals! Needless to say, as on all Italeri decal sheets, the Dutch roundels are hopeleslly out of register.

Seems like I'll have to wait for another manufacturer to do a decent job on this, but I'm sure that won't take too long.

By the way, it was selling for 20gbp which I find an enormous amount of money from a mainstream manufacturer for a relatively simple kit of this size. It is no more complex than most of their other jets which go for slightly more than half that amount.

Edited November 22, 2013 by sroubos

[Procopius]

I suspect a fair portion of it is licencing fees. If your government is buying the F-35, pay those inflated kit prices gladly! It may cut down on the per-unit cost.

[Madoc]

Okay, so which one is better? The Academy or the Italeri?

[GreenDragon]

Not a great fan of the F-35 but if I do get one I'm leaning towards the Academy, panel detail seems a lot more restrained and I love a ton of crap under the wings of my builds!

Paul Harrison

[Homebee]

New boxing expected in 2023 - ref. 1464 - Lockheed-Martin F-35A Lightning II - Beast Mode

Source: https://www.italeri.com/uploads/news/3E8SwHPWIALErYw2OPS4do00rqm0jsoh6yUiZWND.pdf

 

 

V.P.