Hobbyboss Tornado critique.

[AnonymousAA72]

NOT TO MENTION...

1-The weapons & stores provided are wrong,ALARM missiles are not used by Germany & cannot be used on the RAF version as they were not in service then.The RAF Sqn is No.45® Sqn which was the TWCU. (Tornado Weapons Conversion Unit)

2-No Skyshadow ECM pod is included for the RAF Machine

3-IDS/GR1 Tornado's do not have double Sidewinder rails on the inner wing pylon.(never have)

4-BOZ 100 Flare cartridge (the bit at the back) is canted inwards when it should face out.

5-Horizontal stabilisers are the wrong shape.

6-Weapon load given in instructions is'nt possible (ALARM's on each outer belly pylon with a German Reconnasaince pod,Not ECM as in instructions..) as Germany do not use ALARM & we,the RAF dont use their recon pod!

7-The only weapons ect of use with the RAF varient is-

a-Boz 100

b-ALARM Missiles

c-Sidewinder Missiles

d-Drop tanks

Excellent! So you can actually build a TWCU GR1 OOB........A good choice by HB then!

(Of course you may also want to correct the tail planes, canopy and add the serials - and sort the reverse thruster buckets out as well - I certainly will!! Put me down for a couple!)

[spike7451]

Excellent! So you can actually build a TWCU GR1 OOB........A good choice by HB then!

(Of course you may also want to correct the tail planes, canopy and add the serials - and sort the reverse thruster buckets out as well - I certainly will!! Put me down for a couple!)

Just make sure it's not a Trainer!

[AnonymousAA72]

Just an additional point or two I've noted. The canopy is very shallow! Will look daft if posed closed! Just seen somnething else, which may be due to the photo - but the canopy sill seems very curved - that should surely be straight?

And looking at the photo's from Julien, the shallow frame could be built up to provide accurate depth, and the sill's curves reduced in height, by sanding down? Hopefully the plastic is thick enough.

The deep coaming may need to be removed and replaced.....

Shouldn't be too difficult to sort out....

[AnonymousAA72]

Just make sure it's not a Trainer!

Which '404 wasn't - as I say a good choice by HB!

Though don't get me wrong......I hope that later models DO have correct/suitable RAF stores(luckily for me - I do have plenty of stores from Italeri/Airfix and Flightpath!!)

[thx6667]

But isn't that how Japanese made products were viewed a few years back. Trumpeter, Hobby Boss etc. on the whole continue to improve little by little with each new kit, you do get the odd backward step, but they are generally improving (some of the armour kits being produced are a match for anyone).

Part of the problem is in many instances they are trying to run before they can walk, they are taking on subjects that they know will appeal to the modeller, but as Jonathan says they need to increase the depth of their research, to be honest in todays world there are no shortage of images available top work from, so it should be better.

Think of the very earliest Hasegawa kits, and compare them to their latest offering and just think what is to come, at least we do know that Trumpeter have taken modeller's feedback very seriously and made subsequent adjustments to moulds, remember the 1/32 Wildcat? Likewise Bronco have done the same, perhaps HobbyBoss could look at the tailplane and canopy issue and correct them, in future releases.

That's spot on Ant. Go go back through some of the reviews in Airfix magazine or Scale Models from the late 60s/early 70s and how Japanese kits were "almost up to western standards" and yet within a few years Japan was (still is) setting the pace.

I think "running before they can walk" is an excellent analogy, I can only liken its to a band not quite learning the cover song they are playing, but still going at it with some enthusiasm, duff notes and all.

[John the Yank]

That's spot on Ant. Go go back through some of the reviews in Airfix magazine or Scale Models from the late 60s/early 70s and how Japanese kits were "almost up to western standards" and yet within a few years Japan was (still is) setting the pace.

I think "running before they can walk" is an excellent analogy, I can only liken its to a band not quite learning the cover song they are playing, but still going at it with some enthusiasm, duff notes and all.

This is all true, but if you remember the Hasegawa kits were the in same price range as the competion and affordable to most. If the F-111 and Tornado were priced at $50 and $45 USD in the USA there would be less moaning.

Would you pay for a ticket to see a band that asks a Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd price at Wembley, or The Royal Albert Hall, that was learning to play Sympathy for the Devil or Comfortably Numb?

John

[thx6667]

This is all true, but if you remember the Hasegawa kits were the in same price range as the competion and affordable to most. If the F-111 and Tornado were priced at $50 and $45 USD in the USA there would be less moaning.

Would you pay for a ticket to see a band that asks a Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd price at Wembley, or The Royal Albert Hall, that was learning to play Sympathy for the Devil or Comfortably Numb?

John

True, but I'm only talking for me - I am prepared to work with what comes in the box, others may not, that's just down to personal preference.

[AnonymousAA72]

...if you remember the Hasegawa kits were the in same price range as the competion and affordable to most.

They weren't actually.....certainly not this side of the Atlantic John! I seem to recall Hasegawa kits being far more expensive than Airfix ("Affordable" is a bit subjective) for example...granted there's a billion and one economic trade reasons that would have an effect.......I'll have to dig out some old magazines and compare prices in the adverts.

[John the Yank]

They weren't actually.....certainly not this side of the Atlantic John! I seem to recall Hasegawa kits being far more expensive than Airfix ("Affordable" is a bit subjective) for example...granted there's a billion and one economic trade reasons that would have an effect.......I'll have to dig out some old magazines and compare prices in the adverts.

The model that got me hooked firmly into aircraft was the Hasegawa 1/32 F-86F Sabre with the 51st & Flying Cheetah squadrons microscale decals. I used to deliver newspapers and earned about $20 USD/week, 1973 dollars. I bought three and remember those being expensive at $10 USD back then. 1/4 scale Monogram was about $2.50, 1/32 Revell was about $2.99, and Airfix went for between $ 1 and $4 from memory. 1/72 Hasagawa about $1 to $2 more than their competition. I will not pay the MSRP for any more HB or Trump kits, I'm just a sucker when it comes to the F-111.

I am glad I have a 1/32 Revell GR.1 with all the extra bits, that is the Tonka for me. I am going to wait until you chaps disect and compare to Italeri. I'm already dreading doing the Frankenvark.

Cheers

John

[LopEaredGaloot]

Hi Sergey,

Thanks for the pics.

Hate to say this (because I have one too and have simply been too busy glomming my 111 to notice) but the entire nose looks misproportioned. It's hard to say for sure because of the great honking IFR probe on the starboard side but these-

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Pa...27b6d9472ce45ba

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Germany---A...27b6d9472ce45ba

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Pa...27b6d9472ce45ba

Indicate to me that the entire sill line slopes too much and indeed curves downwards under the windscreen, burying the latter entirely too deeply in the fuselage rather than letting it rest atop it.

I'm not but about half convinced that his makes the nose too shallow and/or puts off the radome waterline but even with the mass of tape, it looks to me like the radome is too stretched for it's size and that the taper begins too early on the top and too shallow on the bottom.

Probably the biggest cue that something is off somewhere is looking at the amount of space between the windscreen fairing (in the fuselage) and the canted panelline for the radar set which connects with the BK27 muzzle cutout. There is way too little space between that line and the windscreen on the upper fuselage-

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Pa...27b6d9472ce45ba

Probably the key to sheep-gutting this interpretation is the line of the inlets and how they 'lay' against the fuselage but using these two examples-

http://picasaweb.google.com/sergey.archako...327402827106850

http://picasaweb.google.com/sergey.archako...327435873401090

It also appears like the entire front end is too wide through the inlet shoulders in comparison with these shots-

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Pa...-GR4/1429975/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Pa...do-GR4/1619293/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Pa...-GR4/1483639/L/

http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/xuanfeng_5.jpg

Just looking at the profil ruling curve and the shape of the sharp edged part of the fuselage as well as the width and curves of the intakes themselves, something looks awfully chunky in there.

Could be wrong, hope I am, this aircraft isn't as much my thang. But the obvious question for me, to any who have a spare Italeri kit lurking in their closet, is how much lays up nicely together and if there is something totally wretched going on here, is it a function of bringing a canopy and a windscreen and some stabs over. Or sending the wings with all those LES/TEF bits back across to the Italian kit?

I guess what I'm really asking is if someone can do a side by hip photo comparison.

Also, is it just me or does the MW-1 look a little shallow?

http://www.sirviper.com/fighters/tornado/luftwaffe.jpg

http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/tornado_ids_1.jpg

http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb_02_10.jpg

Given the ECM fit (and the fact that I love the German Lizard scheme) I'm thinking this kit will end up being an MW-1 platform while the ALARMs and FLIR will be ported to my Italeri kit, just as soon as I unpack the box which it's hiding in... ;-]

Kinda reminds me of the old Monogram 72nd kit. Neither a fox nor a rabbit.

LEG

[Yury Tepsurkaev]

The kit also suffers from totally wrong tapered shape of nose underside:

[Modelling Mushi]

So, for my own info as I am looking to do a Tonka in this scale and have only worked in 72nd before, san you tell me:

1. What else in this scale is out there and how it stacks up to this one; and

2. Given the issues you have raised, are there any after-market fixes out there or expected?

Ciao

Mass

[Barrovian]

I keep seeing that the BOZ-100 can be used on RAF Jets

It is actually a BOZ-107 ( Bang & Olufsson Z-107 to be precise)

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tornado.cfm

Edited December 19, 2009 by Barrovian

[LopEaredGaloot]

Hi Barrovian,

Thanks for that. I think the original Swedish version, as applied to their recce Viggens etc. was 'BOX-100'. I have seen references to the German version being called out as 'BOZ-101'. And so it would make sense (particularly if the size/shape of the EXCM were unique as they are between USAF and USN period jets) that these are export model series enumerators, to differentiate national EW suites.

Either way, it would behoove potential HB builders to really look at this buildup-

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal6..._Tarran/00.shtm

And this kit review-

http://kits.kitreview.com/images/italeri2648reviewme_7.jpg

Because it really looks to me like even a gear down, lid up, jet is going to benefit from a 20-30 dollar Italeri kit donating at least the doubled up Skyshadow pod if not the canopy as well and some weapons.

Kind've a shame really for us Americans (Italeri Tornados are both scarce and expensive here) but I understand you can't swing a dead cat without hitting Italeri product in Europe so perhaps there is an EBay market for built up spare Skyshadows...eh? ;-]

I really wish that HB had included the French (?) VER-2 racks and some BL.755 or Mk.13/18 stores as the early RAF Tornados used this loadout in a lot of publicity shots and it looks really good with 8 bombs underneath. I believe it was also a valid warload as late as Granby when it was used (with radar fuses) to toss bomb Iraqi Air Defenses while the roadrunners went in with JP.233.

Unfortunately, the only kit that I believe has this option out of the box is the original Airfix release (the one with the ALARMs) and it's exceedingly hard to come up with here.

LEG

[Shaun]

Going by the instruction's,the jet can (without surgery) only be made in a landing configuration.(reverse bucket's deployed & wing thing's out)

It seems strange that they don't provide a part to replace the open bucket area with a closed part to show them stowed. I'm sure it would not have been hard to design parts for both open and closed buckets and then inclued both parts in the kit.

[AnonymousAA72]

The kit also suffers from totally wrong tapered shape of nose underside:

Hmmmm, thats not so good!! It may be fixable - but an avoidable error!!

[Dave Fleming]

Hi Barrovian,

Thanks for that. I think the original Swedish version, as applied to their recce Viggens etc. was 'BOX-100'. I have seen references to the German version being called out as 'BOZ-101'. And so it would make sense (particularly if the size/shape of the EXCM were unique as they are between USAF and USN period jets) that these are export model series enumerators, to differentiate national EW suites.

The Italian version was the BOZ-102, and is/was carried on the port wing, as opposed to the starboard wing on the RAF BOZ-107.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Dave Fleming

[Shaun]

Somebody is build one on ARC

HB 1/48th Tornado Build

I like the look of the wing bag seals and panel detail, a lot more detailed than the Italeri panel lines.

By looking over the fit of certain areas, it's not going to be a shake and bake project.

Shaun.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Shaun

[AnonymousAA72]

Somebody is build one on ARC

HB 1/48th Tornado Build

I like the look of the wing bag seals and panel detail, a lot more detailed than the Italeri panel lines.

By looking over the fit of certain areas, it's not going to be a shake and bake project.

Shaun.

Interesting.....Nice to see the reverse thrust buckets closed! Though the intake top looks very straight - that should surely slant downwards..

hope to get mine soon!!

[Shaun]

Though the intake top looks very straight - that should surely slant downwards..

hope to get mine soon!!

I not too sure that he is being that carefull researching the build, there are a few areas with small mistakes(like the suction door is the wrong direction on intakes).

There should be no excuse with the intake top, this is a seperate piece to the wing glove nib part.

I got this kit yesterday and having studied the intructions myself, I would not be surprised if quite a few modelers will make mistakes putting this kit togeather.

I for one will not be following the construction steps, the way they are drawn.

I've also notised there are small errors in painting guide, be carefull and work from another sourse or photo's is my tip.

Shaun.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Shaun

[spike7451]

Looks like the are quite a few issues with the kit apart from what's been noticed already.

[Yury Tepsurkaev]

Looks like the are quite a few issues with the kit apart from what's been noticed already.

Can I ask you to specify them please?

I've already noticed some problems with the kit (namely wrong nose shape, extremely simplified flaps, wrong stabilizers shape), but I'm not an expert. I'd really like to know your opinion before I make my choice between HB and Italery.

Regards,

Yury

[spike7451]

Can I ask you to specify them please?

I've already noticed some problems with the kit (namely wrong nose shape, extremely simplified flaps, wrong stabilizers shape), but I'm not an expert. I'd really like to know your opinion before I make my choice between HB and Italery.

Regards,

Yury

1-The weapons & stores provided are wrong,ALARM missiles are not used by Germany & cannot be used on the RAF version as they were not in service then.The RAF Sqn is No.45® Sqn which was the TWCU. (Tornado Weapons Conversion Unit)

2-No Skyshadow ECM pod is included for the RAF Machine

3-IDS/GR1 Tornado's do not have double Sidewinder rails on the inner wing pylon.(never have)

4-BOZ 100 Flare cartridge (the bit at the back) is canted inwards when it should face out.

5-Horizontal stabilisers are the wrong shape.

6-Weapon load given in instructions is'nt possible (ALARM's on each outer belly pylon with a German Reconnasaince pod,Not ECM as in instructions..) as Germany do not use ALARM & we,the RAF dont use their recon pod!

7-The only weapons ect of use with the RAF varient is-

a-Boz 100

b-ALARM Missiles

c-Sidewinder Missiles

d-Drop tanks

8-Canopy shape & size

9-Incorrect sweep of lower fusalage

The Italaria kit may have one or two issues but at least it's accurate.Besides,is it me or does the HB cockpit & main gear well's look identical to the Italari one?

My money would go on an Italeri fin & update set.

[Matt Roberts]

Aka it is a Luftwaffe IDS and not an RAF Tornado GR-1 per say.

For me other than NO JP-233s! the only bit which may eventually get me to buy aftermarket as a replacement are the tailplanes. When Quickboost eventually does them I might splurge when I eventually get one.

Funny the basic Luftwaffe IDS has never been a favorite, Marinefleigger with Kormorans yes....Luftwaffe with whatever they carried like the bathtub that is the MW-1 never really was my 1st or even 5th choice, couple that with an airshow scheme and I'll wait even longer before grabbing one.

Many of the other critiques, however valid strike me like the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' arguments over the F-16 from Kinetic, except in this case there is no Tamiya uber-alternate for those who have all of the photoshop skills on display over the last couple of weeks.

I don't think any of the 'faults' are deal killers for me - except the price (and no JP-233s). After it has been mangled by my hands and sat on the shelf to collect dust none of the errors will ever be seen (or noticed) again...including the tailplanes.

Edited December 25, 2009 by Matt Roberts

[AnonymousAA72]

Aka it is a Luftwaffe IDS and not an RAF Tornado GR-1 per say.

At the risk of repeating myself...You CAN however actually build a legitimate 45 Sqn/TWCU GR1 out of the kit . And HB have chosen their subject well. ZA404 was a GR1 with the unit in the early 'eighties. The aircraft was converted to a GR1A and is now a GR4A. Just leave the weapons off.......