1/72 Tomcats - the best of the best ?

[charlie_c67]

Where do Hobbyboss ones fall in this list?

[roys]

Blast from the past  (2007)!

[Hook]

13 hours ago, vtecjack said:

Any thoughts on the old Monogram kit ?

 

 

It's a snap tite kit:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/979245-monogram-f-14-tomcat

 

HTH,

 

Andre

[Giorgio N]

13 hours ago, vtecjack said:

Any thoughts on the old Monogram kit ?

 

 

The original Monogram kit depicted the wooden mock-up, not even a prototype. For this reason it builds into an aircraft quite different from the Tomcat we know. It was also very simplified, with solid intakes, no wheel wells and so on.

I have one in the stash and I'll build it as the mock-up, but I'm a bit of a Tomcat fanatic and I quite like the idea of having this in my collection. Anyone who wants a Tomcat model would better look elsewhere

[Giorgio N]

21 hours ago, Tony Oliver said:

 

Which bits do you reckon? 

 

(In case I fancy a kit bash one day - have 3 finemolds D's in the stash so could sacrifice one perhaps in the interest of science?) 

 

One area where I like the Hase kit more is the surface detail. The panel lines in the FM kit are a bit softer than on the Hasegawa one, rivets are also IMHO more realistic in the latter, that also looks in my eyes to be moulded in a sharper yet more delicate way. As the Hasegawa Tomcat has been in production for over two decades, later pressings do show some sign of mould wear and may not be as nice as the earliest unfortunately.

Speaking of individual parts, I prefer the Hasegawa wheel wells doors, the tails (that have clear lights) and then there are the wings... modellers may or not like the inclusion of flaps and slats in the Hasegawa (and Fujimi) Tomcat kits. Personally I like them and I'd have expected a kit as expensive as the FM one to feature them. Again, the Hasegawa wings also have clear navigation lights and clear parts are also used for other lights on the fuselage, while FM does not provide these.

Last bit, to my eyes the Hasegawa landing gear legs look better.

Of course I'm not saying that the FM kit is a bad kit, it's actually a fantastic kit ! Only I was expecting something so definitive to leave all other Tomcat kits in the shade. IMHO this didn't happen.

 

P.S. forgot one of the main problem with the FM kit: it's a D ! Nothing bad with the D, but the number of schemes that can be applied to the old A is way wider...

[fewr9fkr9595]

Ok cool nice one. 

 

Yeah the slats and flaps were a given, but all depends on how you want to display your cat. 

 

Clear nav lights ain't a deal breaker for me in 1/72nd...

 

Interesting about the gear and bay doors. Will have a closer look at the parts and compare. 

 

Was thinking about doing one of mine as a B, (if I live long enough) more markings available then. I'll need to do the obvious changes like swap seats and chinpod and add ecm bumps under the glove vanes etc. 

 

[Giorgio N]

2 minutes ago, Tony Oliver said:

 

Was thinking about doing one of mine as a B, (if I live long enough) more markings available then. I'll need to do the obvious changes like swap seats and chinpod and add ecm bumps under the glove vanes etc. 

 

 

Cool idea ! Would expand the possible schemes quite a lot.

 

While reading my reply I realised that I'm really nitpicking here... I talked of being disappointed at not having seen a "definitive" kit of the Tomcat while the truth is that we have 2 fantastic kits, with the Fujimi one a very close third (A only, the B and D don't depict the engine area accurately... but the Fujimi D exhausts are probably the best of all).

Now comparing the situation with some other types I can't really complain at all !

[fewr9fkr9595]

7 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

Fujimi D exhausts are probably the best of all).

 

True that. Best one in plastic i've seen so far. Used one to upgrade my GE engined F-16N. 

[tempestfan]

While likely being on the wrong end of the scale, following the Scalemates link provided by André Shows a kit by Alanger - I assume this is the ex-Matchbox mould "lost" in the infamous deal which cost Revell quite a few moulds ? And another one - is it known on which kit the Hobbycraft is probably "based" ?

[Radleigh]

I found the old Monogram kit recently, looks a bit odd... but I did only look in the box, I was in a rush.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Radleigh

[Giorgio N]

11 minutes ago, tempestfan said:

While likely being on the wrong end of the scale, following the Scalemates link provided by André Shows a kit by Alanger - I assume this is the ex-Matchbox mould "lost" in the infamous deal which cost Revell quite a few moulds ? And another one - is it known on which kit the Hobbycraft is probably "based" ?

 

I've been sold what was described as an Alanger Tomcat and this was the Matchbox mould... however it came with no box and no decals, so I don't know if it actually originally was in an Alanger box. In any case all the scarce information I've found points to the Alanger kit actually being from the Matchbox mould. Even if this was lost, it may have been a financial loss for Revell but is sure not a big loss for the modelling community...

The Hobbycraft kit is based on the old mould Hasegawa kit in its very first form. It should be one of those then common unauthorised Korean copies of Japanese kits

[tempestfan]

Thanks Giorgio, I had a quick look myself and found this,which made me strongly suspect the HC being a clone of the Hase. That Idea is also mentioned there makes sense, as apparently Idea "made" the tools and did the actual moulding for HC. In effect this means the HC and Esci are something like binovular twins...

 

I doubt the loss of the MB mould was a financial loss to Revell, I am not sure if the tool was ever run after Revell bought the library, and even if so, it surely would have been written down to 1 €. Not running a mould means it essentially has no value...

[Giorgio N]

The Esci kit IMHO has nothing to do with the Hasegawa kit. The shapes are different with the Esci kit having an awfully deep front fuselage and canopy, the parts are not the same, some details have completely different shapes (the Esci landing gear legs are nothing like the Tomcat ones for example). I have both the old mould Hase and a couple of Esci kits in the stash, I'll see if I can dig them out and take some pictures to show what I mean.

Personally I would still buy the old mould Hasegawa kit if I find it cheap, I would however advice other modellers to stay well away from the Esci kit...

[Hook]

1 hour ago, tempestfan said:

I doubt the loss of the MB mould was a financial loss to Revell, I am not sure if the tool was ever run after Revell bought the library, and even if so, it surely would have been written down to 1 €. Not running a mould means it essentially has no value...

 

Well, the Matchbox is still a good base for a prototype.

 

RoG did repop the Matchbox mold, albeit under the Matchbox label when they owned it. The markings are identical (VF-2, VF-32 and VF-142, all inappropiate for the actual kit), but printed by RoG in their then-current "quality".

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[tempestfan]

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

The Esci kit IMHO has nothing to do with the Hasegawa kit. The shapes are different with the Esci kit having an awfully deep front fuselage and canopy, the parts are not the same, some details have completely different shapes (the Esci landing gear legs are nothing like the Tomcat ones for example). I have both the old mould Hase and a couple of Esci kits in the stash, I'll see if I can dig them out and take some pictures to show what I mean.

Personally I would still buy the old mould Hasegawa kit if I find it cheap, I would however advice other modellers to stay well away from the Esci kit...

I do not have the Hase, but the SMI reviewer left no doubt that he considered the Esci a (bad) copy of a Japanese kit (Hase was not named, but it has been mentioned here occasionally), way back when (1988 ?). Esci's Crusaders also have "interesting" similarities with the Hase kit, for that matter, though not quite as many as the Kangnam/Ace/Revell one.

[David H]

I too got a 72nd scale HobbyBoss kit. If i ever get the time, i'll build it, as well as the Hasegawa one (which i have started) just so i can compare and contrast the three, both from the aspects of accuracy/ aesthetics, and buildability.

 

Now.... if Tamiya got into the 72nd scale market... There would be much dancing of Happy Feet.

 

-d-

[Giorgio N]

20 hours ago, tempestfan said:

I do not have the Hase, but the SMI reviewer left no doubt that he considered the Esci a (bad) copy of a Japanese kit (Hase was not named, but it has been mentioned here occasionally), way back when (1988 ?). Esci's Crusaders also have "interesting" similarities with the Hase kit, for that matter, though not quite as many as the Kangnam/Ace/Revell one.

 

I have not read the SMI review, however I disagree with the reviewer... if the Hasegawa kit was used as a basis for this copy, then whoever did the job introduced so many variations that the relationship is very vague at best

Here are some sprue shots of the Esci kit:

 

 

 

 

The Haseagwa kit was reviewed on this website a while ago:

 

 

Comparing the two kits we have:

- Different wing connection system

- Different arrangement of the wing parts

- Different seats

- Those landing gear legs.... how did the mould maker came with that cranked retraction strut ? Hasegawa parts are correct

- Different tailplanes attachment

- Different shape of the instrument panels

- Different shape of the Sidewinder missiles

- Different choice of pylons (Hasegawa has both the Phoenix and the Sparrow type, the Esci kit only the Sparrow type)

- No extendeable glove vanes in the Esci kit (they are in the Hasegawa kit)

- Different panel lines

 

And then there's something that can't be seen easily in the sprue shots: when built, the two kits look quite different, with the Hasegawa kit way more correct in terms of shape.

Is the Esci kit really a copy of the old Hasegawa one ?

-

[tempestfan]

Thanks for taking the trouble to take the pics - I am not familiar enough with either kit to make the judgement. I recall that the SMI reviewer noted that the curvature on some parts (tailerons ?) didn't match the fuselage, resulting in terrible fit. Possibly a myth that may be led to rest. OTOH, Esci's F-8 is not a "Korean style" copy, having slightly different parts breakdown etc., so they may have been "clever" enough to make it less obvious.

[vtecjack]

On 2/7/2017 at 8:45 AM, Giorgio N said:

 

The original Monogram kit depicted the wooden mock-up, not even a prototype. For this reason it builds into an aircraft quite different from the Tomcat we know. It was also very simplified, with solid intakes, no wheel wells and so on.

I have one in the stash and I'll build it as the mock-up, but I'm a bit of a Tomcat fanatic and I quite like the idea of having this in my collection. Anyone who wants a Tomcat model would better look elsewhere

Interesting ,the one I built (many years ago) seemed more accurate than the Airfix kit ,the tyres for example ,had the correct tread on them .