Hobbyboss Tornado critique.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Hi gang - having just got one of these for Xmas, my interest has just gone up several notches!!

From what I can see the kit does include the single Aim-9 launchers.

It also has the LRMT fairing and the recon fairing ( linescan?) for under the nose. So , with apols to all tou Tonka-boffins out there, can someone tell me what the config should be for a GR4 or 4A.

Will it help if I say Im thinking of doing a 617 squadron machine in the overall grey scheme?

Looking at the tapered in nose - I think I can see a way to correct that, and the tail planes are not a hard fix.

Guess Im going to have to get up to speed with Tornadoes now!!

cheers

Jonners

[spike7451]

Hi gang - having just got one of these for Xmas, my interest has just gone up several notches!!

From what I can see the kit does include the single Aim-9 launchers.

It also has the LRMT fairing and the recon fairing ( linescan?) for under the nose. So , with apols to all tou Tonka-boffins out there, can someone tell me what the config should be for a GR4 or 4A.

Will it help if I say Im thinking of doing a 617 squadron machine in the overall grey scheme?

Looking at the tapered in nose - I think I can see a way to correct that, and the tail planes are not a hard fix.

Guess Im going to have to get up to speed with Tornadoes now!!

cheers

Jonners

GR1(a/b)-LRMTS chin pod

GR4(a)-LRMTS & FLIR chin pods

GR1/a-only front & rear weapon stations on outer belly pylons used,the center of the three used for Nuclear Weapons or ferry tanks.No centerline pylon fitted prior to Op Granby. (1991)

9 & 31sqn's had their's wired for ALARM as well as the inner wing pylons.

GR4/a- with the removal of nuclear weapons from the Tornado inventory (but not the capability) the center station on the outer belly pylons was re-fitted with normal weapons ERU's.

[Matt Roberts]

For shits and giggles here is a tidbit from Cybermodeler this morning from the Trumpeter factory with which kits we can expect to see.

Tornado series IDS, ECR, ADV, GR.4 Three are as of now known in the release schedule (or at least box art exists) the only one still 'out there' is the GR.4

Take a look to Pauls Harrisons post in the HB/Trumpy thread this morning in Rumour Central for a link to Cybermodeler article.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...1270&st=300

It's post #320......

Edited December 26, 2009 by Matt Roberts

[Shaun]

and the recon fairing ( linescan?) for under the nose.

Will it help if I say Im thinking of doing a 617 squadron machine in the overall grey scheme?

cheers

Jonners

The recon fairing is the wrong shape, it should be a half circle shape were the kits part forms a keel line along its centreline in a "V" shape.

To build an acurate RAF Tornado the Paragon Pylon set is a must!, this set has the correct under fuselage pylons with the ERU fairings and a correct set of outer wing pylons(the kit comes with the German outer pylon with a diferent style of release unit).

Not sure if 617 has any GR4A's at the moment but these airframes are now spread around the Squadrons not just assigned to 2 and 13 Squadrons.

Shaun.

Edited December 26, 2009 by Shaun

[spike7451]

For shits and giggles here is a tidbit from Cybermodeler this morning from the Trumpeter factory with which kits we can expect to see.

Tornado series IDS, ECR, ADV, GR.4 Three are as of now known in the release schedule (or at least box art exists) the only one still 'out there' is the GR.4

Take a look to Pauls Harrisons post in the HB/Trumpy thread this morning in Rumour Central for a link to Cybermodeler article.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...1270&st=300

It's post #320......

Remember I posted in the thread I sent the reviews author, Fotious Rouch, about certain innacuracies with regards to his review on the HB Tornado?Well he's ammended the review;

http://www.cybermodeler.com

Conclusions

We finally have a new-tool Tornado to update the Italeri and Airfix kits, which have been around for a long time. Both kits were simple kits of the aircraft and we AMS modelers had to invest in a fortune of aftermarket details and corrections to get the features that HobbyBoss is providing in this box.

[spike7451]

The recon fairing is the wrong shape, it should be a half circle shape were the kits part forms a keel line along its centreline in a "V" shape.

To build an acurate RAF Tornado the Paragon Pylon set is a must!, this set has the correct under fuselage pylons with the ERU fairings and a correct set of outer wing pylons(the kit comes with the German outer pylon with a diferent style of release unit).

Not sure if 617 has any GR4A's at the moment but these airframes are now spread around the Squadrons not just assigned to 2 and 13 Squadrons.

Shaun.

They do.

The RAF & RSAF use an ERU/HDERU specifically designed for their versions called 'MACE' (Minimum Area Crutchless Ejector) whereas other nations use standard NATO suspension.

Edited December 26, 2009 by spike7451

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

They do.

The RAF & RSAF use an ERU/HDERU specifically designed for their versions called 'MACE' (Minimum Area Crutchless Ejector) whereas other nations use standard NATO suspension.

Thats the pic I found that confirmed my 617 sqn desire!!

Now I been looking at the canopy shape, and i think I can see a possible fix. First up, apart from the missing flaired out lower framing, the whole canopy looks too low and flat to me.

However if you raise the main canopy by about 1mm (or perhaps a bit less) at the back end ( ie where its hinges are - which will also bring the top rear of canopy to up just proud/flush of the spine) and by about just over 2 mm at the front edge of the canopy, the when you add the windscreen you angle it to meet this new raised profile you do two interesting things:

First you make space for the flaired out lower canopy fairing;

secondly - to my eyes at any rate you make the profile of the canopy look a bit better too.

Im doing all this at my dads using a blunt pair of nail scissors and a nail file to trim parts, so I think I'll need to show this in some pics mocked up when I get home! I hope what ive described aboe makes sense to those able to hold the kit in their hands.

Also - again going form comparing pics of real thing to kit, but does the cross section of the forward top fuselage where it blends from circular into square look to be a bit too square still?

getting curiouser...

Jonners

PS apols for the lack of apostrophies, the keyboard is a bit knackered and the apostrophy key sticks, so ive given up using it!! Bloody PCs - would never happen with my Mac at home

[sartois66]

Well, have made a start on mine. I see what you mean Jonners, about the front fuselage being a bit too square, it looks a bit better when the intakes are in place. The worst part of the kit for me is the lack of intake trunking past the intakes themselves. Although it may be impossible to see down that far unless you have a torch! Will make up something just in case tho. Don't think I'll do anything about the canopy or nose, I think they will look fine when painted etc.

Just as an aside, have now got the Paragon seats and wheels to replace the kit ones. They look much better and are an easy to fit improvement.

Boxing Day Cheers

Kirk

[dahut]

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

Hmm... must be me. I dont think it looks all that bad.

[hatchet]

The recon fairing is the wrong shape, it should be a half circle shape were the kits part forms a keel line along its centreline in a "V" shape.

Which is correct for a German ECR.

[AnonymousAA72]

Hmm... must be me. I dont think it looks all that bad.

You may change that thought David if/when you try to add the FLIR and the LRMTS!!!

You could always keep it simple - go German!!

[dahut]

You may change that thought David if/when you try to add the FLIR and the LRMTS!!!

You could always keep it simple - go German!!

Well Im a rascally Yank, of course. The many subtleties of the 'Tonka' are hidden mysteries to me - thats why I'm here. Well, that and the stimulatin' conversation.

[Shaun]

Which is correct for a German ECR.

That would explain the shape, I was comparing the fairing to the RAF type of blister.

You can also find the larger/wider fin top fitting for the ECR on the same sprue allthough I can't see the small ECR sensor that fits beside the nose wheel doors on any parts trees. I presume this will be on the ECR sprue in the next ECR release of the kit.

Even the box art and intructions show the canopy with the incorrect framing, a big oversight I think.

Why don't kit designers study photo's of the real aircraft when making the molds?

I hope Hobby Boss reads these forums and if they release a true GR4 version, they will replace the Pylons and supply a set of RAF weapons.

Shaun.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Shaun

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Hiya again - right - got home and done a bit of work toillustrate my idea about the canopy.

Heres the canopy in place as is:

here it is in its "raised" position:

And here it is with a bit of photoshop fill in to show it more clearly, with a "real" GR4 above for comparison:

Oh - here are views of the tailplanes and fin too

tailplanes are wrong of course - but you can see they are fixable with some sanding to get the kink back into the leading edge. There was some talk about the top of the fin going uphill too much - so I post this pic for you to secide.

regards

Jonners

[Gary C]

Had the kit for a few days now (It got hijacked and I was made to wait until Christmas day for it ) and a few things are now starting to make sense.

is it me or does the HB cockpit & main gear well's look identical to the Italari one?

Errr...it's you. The cockpit, seats, wheel wells (nose and main), exhaust pipes, gear legs, airbrakes (not the wells) and a whole load of other bits are all absolutely identical to those in the 1/32 Revell kit and are all very nicely done. In fact it seems that almost all of the detail components have been scaled down from the Revell kit.... even the lousy intake interior with the blanking plate that contains the compressor faces in the 1/32 kit has been reproduced.

I've trawled through numerous sets of plans and kits trying to figure out how they got the tailplanes wrong...wanna know where they got that curve at the tip??? Below is the tailplane from the 1/32 Revell kit....

Whilst the curve at the tip is not quite as severe as that in the HB kit it's pretty clear where they got their 'inspiration' from.

Ironically the one bit of the Italeri kit that they've copied is the one bit that's wrong. From all the pictures I've seen the rear cockpit back wall slopes from top to bottom, Revell got this right but Italeri introduced a kink in it so that only the top 1/4 was sloped and the remaining lower 3/4 runs vertically to the floor. HB have copied the Revell tub with the sloping wall but have copied the incorrect shape of the Italeri fuselage at that point. The end result is that when you insert the tub, you get a couple of honking great gaps where the rear wall slopes out of the pit but the surround wall finishes short. Pretty easy fix with placcycard...see the areas ringed in blue.

The flaps are accurate in that they correctly model the fowler style flap but they are woefully short on detail. There are no retraction screws or arms, the guide tracks are about 1/4 of the chord when they should run the full chord of the flap, the fingers that cover the guide tracks when the flaps are retracted are missing and the flap itself should be an aerofoil shape and not have the leading edge cut out of it. On the plus side they fit perfectly in the retacted position although the slats may need a little fiddling.

The FLIR pod, as Bill suggests, is gonna be fun to fit...they've moulded the mating surface flat where it should curve up to meet the outer edge of the fuselage.

The thrust reverser buckets fit pretty well though, you just need to trim the flash around the inside edges and in the corners where they sit. The gearing will need cutting up and modifying to fit in the closed position.

It might sound like a lot of griping and there are quite a few silly mistakes... but... unlike the F-111 there is nothing that's terminal. All the problems are fixable...

- canopy just needs some shims adding underneath the rails

- the Skyshadow pods come in pairs in the Italeri kit

- the tailplanes can be sanded back as it seems that they added extra material on to make the curve

-the curve under the nose can be sanded out easily, theres enough material there

-the coaming/glareshield is thick enough to be sanded down to make it a more appropriate size

- the nose whilst not perfect is pretty close. If you were to tip the radome forward and shim it at the top edge it looks a hell of a lot better...it extends the distance between the windscreen and radome line and angles the radome down a bit more as it should be.

It is a pricey kit but outside of the Skyshadow pod and crutching pads (assuming you want to do an RAF bird) pretty much all required is there and the detail levels are very good. I shall be buying more

[spike7451]

Had the kit for a few days now (It got hijacked and I was made to wait until Christmas day for it ) and a few things are now starting to make sense.

Errr...it's you. The cockpit, seats, wheel wells (nose and main), exhaust pipes, gear legs, airbrakes (not the wells) and a whole load of other bits are all absolutely identical to those in the 1/32 Revell kit and are all very nicely done. In fact it seems that almost all of the detail components have been scaled down from the Revell kit.... even the lousy intake interior with the blanking plate that contains the compressor faces in the 1/32 kit has been reproduced.

I've trawled through numerous sets of plans and kits trying to figure out how they got the tailplanes wrong...wanna know where they got that curve at the tip??? Below is the tailplane from the 1/32 Revell kit....

EEK! I meant Revell!...

[Shaun]

Nice review/update, I can see you are finding and planning ways of fixing the faults.

Good idea for the canopy problem, I've tried the canopy from the Italeri kit on the HB tub and the Italeri canopy is too wide and too short to use as a replacement.

Another part that appears to be copied from the Revell kit is the lack of an arrestor hook and the kit lacks the cut outs in the thrust buckets for the hook.

Shaun.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Shaun

[Muzz]

Gary

A great positive post about this kit, showing how to fix the problems that are there with it. I got my kit last week and like you had to wait til Xmas Day for it. I'm building the Italeri kit just now and the detail on the HB kit looks way better. Think I'll hold off on building it though to see if anyone brings out any resin correction/improvement sets.

[Tornadofairy]

Not long joined the site and having a love/hate with the real thing (Zone 19, dummy crate, duff CAS may bring back memories to some...lol), I thought I'd add a couple of minor details.

Usual fit on a TWCU/45 Sqn Tornado (when at Honington) was from port to starboard, Skyshadow, Standard Tank with Sidewinder rail on inside of pylon, 1 or 2 CBLS (Carrier Bomb Light Store) on left and right under fuselage pylons, Standard tank + Sidwinder pylon as before, BOZ 107 Chaff and Flare.

Centre under fuselage pylon was never fitted.

CBLS was fitted with either 3 kg or 28 lb practice bombs. (Nice challenge if modelling in 1:72!)

Sidewinders if fitted were practice rounds, no fins, blue body, real seeker head. On the ground they were fitted with a yellow cap

Tornados never had/have tailplanes or stabilisers, they have tailerons.. (they are the primary flight controls, together = pitch, opposite = roll), augmented by spoilers on the top of the wings.

And it was pointed out to me when I joined TWCU that the lights on the wingtips were obstruction lights, not navigation lights....it seems the rules laid down back in the mists of time says that nav lights have to be on fixed parts of the airframe!

Best of luck to all who model her....

MRCA = 'Mother Riley's Cardboard Aeroplane', or 'Must Refurbish Canberras Again'

[Alan P]

Some very old names on this thread!

[AnonymousAA72]

Some very old names on this thread!

Yes indeed, and a couple sadly no longer with us......

[Alan P]

Yes indeed, and a couple sadly no longer with us......

Yes, Matt and Merv it's easy to forget with the passage of time. At least they get to live on by their words.