Pappy

Well I disagree with that assessment. I feel that the Academy MiG-29 meets the criteria set by Vapouriser in that it is a well produced kit that goes together well and has a reasonable parts count at a modest cost. I have built it and that was my experience. If I were to build another 1/48 MiG-29, I would opt for the AMK kit, but that is because I have built a lot of jet kits and feel comfortable building a more complex kit and want the additional detail level. Hornets and other cold war jets were not mentioned so I did not include these. All these new kits are quite expensive and although they are quite detailed, and they can go together reasonably well, they also have a very high parts count. Some also feature photoetch (PE) so adding an additional complex aspect to the build. PE is great for replicating fine details but it perhaps may not be what Vapouriser wanted vis a simple build. The Tamiya F-4 and F-14 already mentioned have a good reputation for easy buildability (as you stated you have not actually built these kits) and this comes at a price. Personally, I feel this is justified as it makes for a painless build experience but expensive does not always equate to an easy build. I think it is very easy to start adding our personal bias when someone asks for advice, especially so when someone asks what is the 'best' kit without supplying any criteria that defines 'best' to them. In this case, Vapouriser has been very clear in that he is not an experienced jet builder and that his criteria were for quality, and ease of build at a reasonable price and reasonable parts count. Absolute accuracy was not the guiding factor. The current state of the art kits may be the most accurate ('best') but they do not necessarily meet the criteria set by the original poster which we should be keeping in mind. Kit reviews are handy to let you know what comes in the box and what the details look like but unless they are build reviews, they won't tell you how well (or otherwise) the kit fits together. I don't know if this has already been mentioned but have a look on scalemates (www etc.) as not only will this tell you about the kit genealogy i.e is it a new mould or a re-box from another manufacturer. Typically they also include a scan of the kit instructions and also any available aftermarket as well as links to a review and some builds. You can also search by subject i.e. "Typhoon" to see what is available in kit form. That would be the first place that I would look For the other kits on your list: The Revell Tornado is the most accurate, but it does have some complex assembly sequences, certainly not as easy as the Tamiya kit. The other option would be the Italeri kit. Old, inaccurate by comparison but with a lower parts count. A much simpler build. I would still opt for the Revell kit as they are comparable on price Same goes for the Typhoon, Revell over the Italeri option as the Italeri represents an early prototype Rafale, the Revell kit again but the Hobby Boss kit is also okay. If they are the same price, Revell has nicer engraving Growler, Meng or Hasegawa, whichever is cheaper, they are both good. The Italeri kit is much cheaper but has a lot of errors. Italeri was first to market with a Growler and it shows as their product is less accurate and although cheaper, it does not fit great and is best avoided. Viggen, Italeri or Tarangus. The Italeri kit is cheap and cheerful has raised panel details and lacks cockpit and undercarriage detail but goes together very well and looks like a VIggen. The Tarangus kit is expensive by comparison and has a reputation for fit issues, but is more accurate. There is also a bunch of aftermarket available to suit the Tarangus kit to correct the more 'accurate' kit Gripen, the KittyHawk kit is better detailed than the Italeri kit in the box but KH ave a reputation for confusing instructions and a somewhat difficult assembly. They are also out of business. My experience has been hit and miss. Their helicopter kits are not too bad but their Jaguar is not good at all. Italeri make a nice kit, again cheaper with a lower parts count that goes together easily cheers, Pappy

Has anyone mentioned the 1/48 Acaemy Mig-29 kits yet as am option? Certainly not as detailed as their more modern rivals (GWK etc) equivalent but they (single/dual) go together very well and bear more than a passing resemblance to the subject. If you must have absolute accuracy then these kits would suffer by comparison, but the are about half the cost and would get to the painting stage without too much of an issue. For someone starting out these would be a great stepping stone to mastering the painting schemes without spending too much to get into the game, cheers, Pappy

Sorry, I meant to say aileron! cheers Pappy

As an experiment can you try spraying clear red over the white markings? I think that it might make the black darker but not necessarily red. The white markings may look pink at first but after several light passes may appear red, just a thought Pappy

G'day Tea Weasel, Based upon UK and NATO common practice: Orange is normally used to denote a test or experimental round, so an operational "All up round" would not likely have an orange stripe The inert example in the later green wraparound scheme would still need a blue stripe as this was common practice with inert rounds You could also have a third option of a 'drill' round (not for flight) painted in all over Oxford Blue with white stencils and the words "DRILL" and "NOT FOR FLIGHT" The single stripe would likely have been 4" in width Also, the two parallel lines on the lower half of the bomb would indicate trestle points for the bomb loading equipment. It seems strange to have two of these close together on the tail aerofoil section. Since most of the bomb mass would be in the cylindrical bomb body, it follows that the Centre of Gravity (CofG) would be forward of the tail so the aft trestle point would also be be forward and there would only be two (fwd and aft) unless there was a lifting adapter specifically designed for use with the WE177. I would suggest the aft trestle point should align with the aft "X" marking. Incidentally these markings look made up as they more closely resemble ejection seat warning triangles than anything painted onto a bomb. The CofG would likely be between the bomb lugs which would have a standard NATO spacing of 30" for bombs over 1000lb. cheers, Pappy

NP, otherwise looking schmicko! Pappy

G'day CC, Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but early Harriers like the FRS.1 did not have drooped flaps, just the standard 'one goes up when the other goes down' type, despite what the instructions say! cheers, Pappy

Ref the seat, I think the same as well or perhaps a medium sea grey. Only the headbox will be seen in nay case You had me worried with the wingtip lights for a sec! cheers, Pappy

G'day Dave, Canopy interior is same as cockpit i.e Dark Admiralty Grey (DAG) so whatever you used for the cockpit tub should suffice. I like Tamiya XF-54 myself. One thing I noticed with my stabs is that they had a weird 'swirl' pattern to the upper surfaces. I noticed in the unpainted parts but thought it was just the way that the plastic had cooled or something but after painting I noticed a faint pattern peeking through the primer. It only need a light rub back with a sanding stick and a re-prime but may be worth noting when you have primed yours? Also, dunno if I missed something but why are both the wingtip lights green? I think the port one should be red? cheers, Pappy

G'day Dave, FWIW, the Kinetic GR.3 fuselage was re-tooled and the wing fits much better, though it still has a few little pitfalls to trap the unwary Pappy

Great stuff. I will definitely steal - err be 'inspired' by your build improvements along the way! Still waiting for my boat, delivery won't be for several weeks yet Pappy

Bugger! Oh well I doubt too many people will notice or care, Onwards.

Great progress Dave. Good to see that the soft intake covers can be 'persuaded' to fit. One thing your friend either forgot to mention (or was ignorant of) is that part E25, the tail RCV panel is moulded incorrectly. The two circular vents should be forward of the rectangular opening. Kinetic stuffed this up and got the details reversed (but thankfully they have corrected it on their GR.3 kits!) and it is not quite as simple as reversing the part and gluing in place as the tail boom tapers in two planes. I mentioned this and many other gotchas during my WIP. I did glue the part in backwards and ended up drilling two new vents. you will end up with an overhang of plastic on the aft side which is simply sanded back to profile and a step at the front end which I built up with putty. cheers, Pappy

Yeah I know what you mean. I built one of these aaaages ago and it was huge fun. The seat harness arrangement is somewhat 'simpified' but the bigger issue is the weird brown colour, they should be more of a khaki colour with light blue adjustment straps. Looking forward to how this one comes out, Pappy

Yessss! This is the best bit, you don't need the rest.... Pappy

Not just black, wasn't it also a 'crinkle' finnish ( but still black) as well? Pappy

G'day Duncan, If you are expecting to find the same engineering finesse that you have been accustomed to in the Harrier/Torndo kits currently available, prepare to be dissappointed. This is not to say that there are not good kits avilable, the advice you have been given is very sound. The Kinetic Harrier kit family is the best for early generation Harriers but the instructions need close study and you will need to test fit and adjust (i.e. 'faff') some parts carefully. They do feature superior detail over the Airfix kits which also have poor fit in places in addition to lacking detail. The Kinetic kits also have excellent decals being printed by Cartograph which are as good as it gets. You will also have a plethora of weapons included, some of them may even be appropriate! For later variant Harriers the Hasegawa (and their Revell/Edxuard reboxings) are the best choice. For the most part the fit and detail is excellent however as Hasegawa tried to get the most out of its moulds, the kits comprise a common fuselage and include different sprues for the wing LEX and forward fuselage for the GR.7/9 and AV-8A versions. As already mentioned, research some other people's builds before tackling this as the forward/aft fuselage joint is not great and the area where the wing LEX meets is also poorly executed. Also, typical for Hasegawa, you will not get much in the way of stores included. so be prepared to buy aftermarket weapons and pods if you want a fully tooled up jet. Again, as suggested, for the Tonka, Revell is your guy. The detail is nice but the fuselage assembly is somethiong of a jigsaw puzzle. The construction sequence outlined in the instructions can work but there are several on-line vids where some builders suggest alternate sequences which may work better. The bottom line is that the fuselage assembly is not your dad's Tamiya kit. There are other alternatives in 1/48, some are cheaper but the options discussed would seem to fit your requirements best. Although I have stated that these kits have problematic areas, they also have excellent fit overall and feature nice detail. You will just need to work harder and face a few frustrating areas. Or you could wait for Tamiya to tool these kits instead... p.s. Tamiya did tool an FRS.1 which is still available but I would not reccommend it Pappy

Awesome, thanks Dave Pappy

Yeah some bits need work, but I will still opt to build a Kinetic Harrier over the Airfix kit every time, cheers, Pappy

I asked exactly the same question about the wing during my WIP! As for the intake blanks, I did not mean to suggest that they are incorrect, I would like to source a set of the softer type for my own builds and was not sure if these were included in the FP set. I think yours are the hard type which are correct. I found that the intakes also had a step where they met the fuselage, though not as pronounced as yours look ( which may just look exaggerated in the pic) which was not as big a problem as you would think as these could be sanded down to match the fuselage proper. It would have worse if the step went the other way. If found I had worse gaps at thre inside corners of the intakes where they met the fuselage. Luckily you will avoid that pitfall. The remaining area you will need to deal with is the wing join. The upper area is not too bad (although it can be a little untidy at thw wing root LE) as you will probably wind up with a gap and step on the underside. I am not sure if the step is some sort of design feature but it looks wrong. Luckily the sharp anhedral of the wings makes observation of the gap very difficult , especially if the jugs are installed. Kinetic retooled the wing and fuselage completely for ther GR.3/T4 variants and the wing is a joy to install by comparison on these versions cheers, Pappy

Nice progress Dave, Reference the wing differences, the FRS.1 wing also has a second dogtooth at the LE, the FA.2 faird this in. As for the size differences, if you were to compare the two seat variant with the Tomcat it would be acloser comparison. Regarding the intake blanks, are the the hard type or the soft type? cheers, Pappy

G'day Dave, I am not sure if this has been mentioned already or perhaps I have missed something but the wing in your pic is for the later FA.2 variant (introduced much later) not the FRS.1. Both wings are supplied in the kit. boxing as there are some common parts on the sprue. The FA.2 was the first of the Kinetic Harrier family to be released. Regarding the cockpit colour I believe that Dark Admiralty Grey (DAG) is the correct colour and you are correct in stating that FS35231 is much closer than the FS36375 suggested by the instructions but personally I like Tamiya XF-54 (Dark Sea Grey) as a close match for DAG. Everyone will have their own personal go to for DAG. and that is mine. The prepainted PE colour is just awful and not within a bull's roar of being close. cheers, Pappy

G'day Stuart, I also want to build one of these and have one on order. Watching with great interest and I also was not aware of the message printed on the box and very much like the idea of retaining and displaying the box lid in some form cheers, Pappy

Great build Dan, a very neat and crisp build. I have one of these so watching on with interest, cheers, Pappy

G'day Roland, I agree with all the comments above and will add that PVA (wood glue) can also be used and is much more benign to work with but has the drawback that it has not strength while curing and can easily move if not kept in place while curing. Unlike CA ('Superglue') it will not fog clear parts as it dries clear and is extremely easy to clean up. PVA is also surprisingly strong when cured. It is also great for attaching clear parts like the windscreens on the conning tower/sail to avoid fogging. 2 Part epoxy will be very strong but like PVA has almost no strength while it cures and must be supported of held stationary until it is cured. The 5 min stuff obviously sets up quicker but for very small parts with small attaching surface area CA is still the best bet In general, add any PE parts before painting if they will not be at risk of getting knocked off or damaged. Attaching unpainted PE to bare plastic will give you the best chance for a strong bond. Mostly I would use thin CA (for speed) but for larger items thick CA to give a little time (3-10 sec depending on ambient temp and humidity) to adjust if required. If I can get away with PVA I will as you can just wipe off the excess with a damp cotton bud, although the same can be done with acetone for CA but be very careful as acetone may mar the plastic depending on the concentration of the acetone (nail polish remover vice the pure stuff) and reactivity of the styrene, although resin should be okay regardless cheers, Pappy