Phantome

I am aware of that but I don't understand why it was so hard for either company to give people the option of open or close. The overwing intakes are one of the most distinctive features of a Fulcrum and I'm pretty sure that 90% of people would prefer to build them open even if it was slightly inaccurate. That and the superior surface detail was what made me go for the Trumpeter.

I also like it when it's the same style. You're not the only one who thinks like that. I was slightly disappointed with the lack of any rivets on the Zvezda, and the closed intakes (the top ones). A Fulcrum just doesn't look like a Fulcrum with them closed. Decal cockpit also doesn't give it an edge. For all its faults, the Trumpeter just looks too gorgeous when finished.

I also wonder why the resin community misses such obvious opportunities.

I'm increasingly disappointed that there's no word on new versions of this fabulous kit, possibility the best modern jet kit ever made. Its also obvious that Tamiya likes to keep its 1/72 scale fans wanting (no downscaling of their Fw 190A-8 or P-51B). I was wondering what variants could be built from this kit since it looks like Tamiya at least planned for different versions. I am not a Viper expert but my limited knowledge suggests that it would be possible to build a wide mouth block 30 from the 1990s onwards (AMRAAM wingtip pylons)? I'm just curious about that starboard panel Tamiya asks you to fill on the block 50 as well as that piece next to the fin which is separate from the fuselage piece. And of course find a way to tint the canopy. Is a block 40 possible? Maybe I should stick to the Revell It's just such a nice kit... Curse upon thee Tamiya for torturing us this way.

IIRC early 2017 release, I think there's something in the Rumormonger forum. The Trumpeter release looks quite good though

Academy is a mixed bag. Old kits had awful decals, which didn't stick, didn't conform to panel lines, and silvered. Possibly the worst of any manufacturer. However, their newer ones (mostly from their new style boxings with black edges) are not bad a tall. I built a F/A-18C and the decals, although a bit on the delicate side, went on perfectly and reminded me of the better Eastern European ones. A lot of Academy kits use Cartograf as well. Tamiyawa decals at best go down well but are too thick. At worst they inevitably silver although unfortunately you don't seem to notice until they've been glued firmly. For me the other main problem is how quickly they spoil. Leave a kit in the stash for a few months and the white turns an ivory shade and eventually a "radome yellow". Newer boxings seem to do better in this regard but if you absolutely must use the kit decals because there's no alternative, I recommend 1) buy new and 2 ) build it quickly. Interestingly I have found that really old Hasegawa decals behave better than newer ones as far as silvering is concerned, if you don't mind the yellowing.

I suppose still no drop tanks. I can't believe KP made such an appalling omission. I see some of you seem not to mind but building a Mustang without drop tanks is like eating a hamburger without a bun. I don't see why I should give KP my £££ supporting these kinds of decisions especially since to be frank, they don't look that much better than the Academy ones.

Resin seats are a great way to start, they are better fitting than bigger parts and make a huge difference if the kit seats are bland - especially for modern planes (WW2 is less an issue) Photo etch is another way to juice up a cockpit. Of find most sets to be overkill in terms of small parts that I can't imagine can be glued without falling off by blowing on them. But for instrument panels and side panels they can be cheap and useful

Might as well get both from Academy. I'm also pretty sure you can find masks for the Razorback. The landing gear issue is easily resolved by cutting 2-3mm. They're great kits and have very good detail and fit.

I agree with you Spitfire addict, decal sets are getting ridiculously expensive and you don't always get what you pay for unfortunately. Sadly, it's often trial and error. But rest assured that once you find a decal maker you like, it's practically guaranteed that their sets will be of similar good quality. I think a lot of people would agree that Italian decal makers are probably the best in the world, Cartograf in particular, and also Zannetti being very good. Note that neither make sets themselves, they are simply printers but a lot of big decal makers use them. DACO, Furball, almong others use Cartograf. Revell and Italeri use Zannetti for their kit decals which are fabulous. So as a rule of thumb, if a decal set is printed by Cartograf, it's guaranteed quality (not necessarily accuracy though, as Cartograf only prints them). Here in the UK, Xtradecals are very good. I have never had issue with them. I have also found new Airfix decals to be fantastic, even better than Revell but I have no idea who prints them and if so, whether they print third party decals. In the US, Microscale is probably my second favorite decal printer after Cartograf. They are used by Superscale, Two Bobs, CAM/Milspec and others. Note that Microscale is a very old company and there are old sets from the 80s-early 90s still around on eBay which might be a bit more delicate. You should be ok with anything from the late 90s onward. The only decals I am immediately wary of are those made in Eastern Europe. Detail and register is usually excellent, but they are incredibly thin and are an absolute pain to use since they almost always coil around the tweezer as soon as you lift them. They also settle fast which means you have no margin of error to move them around the kit. I have had many ruined builds because of them, and these include Techmod and Aviprint. I find Authentic and Printscale to be much better though although Printscale does not seem to age well: I had one set in the stash for a few years and when using it, found it almost impossible to stick. Both also tend to yellow with time... and remarkably quickly: I've had Authentic sets yellow more in a year or two than Microscale in two decades. I recommmend that you buy them with the intention of using them ASAP in which case they are as good as anything out there. Although you probably don't find them here in sets, Japanese decals are also horrible. Too thick and often prone to silvering. Avoid like the plague.

IIRC everyone who has done a Razorback has done a Bubbletop but not vice versa. So there's more Bubbletops in the market actually. The kits: Hasegawa - both (D). 80s quality with fine panel lines but not as much detail Academy - both (D). Much better detail, only main fault is too large landing gear Revell - Bubbletop (D and M). Even better than the Academy but no Razorback option Italeri - Bubbletop (N). Only N version that isn't short run but very soft detail. I believe Sword (?) did a short run kit which leaves us wtih... Tamiya - both (D). As close to perfect you can get in 1/72 scale but pricier than the others. Did I miss any? I think Airfix did some but must be really old molds.

As a fellow Marineflieger Tornado builder in that excellent group build, I repeat my praise: absolutely fantastic job. And the Starfighters are even more impressive.

The MiG is fantastic as it is, but what the diorama is jaw dropping. The concrete and grass is supremely realistic. I really like the shading on the bare metal MiG-15. I haven't done a BMF in quite some time and while my skills weren't as good as they are now so just wondering, 1) what did you paint it with? and 2) was it pre- or post-shading?

Every time I see an excellently done twin engined Cobra like this, I lament the fact there's not a decent kit in 1/72. Killer work!

My camera phone is pretty bad for close ups. Also has a rather annoying reddish tint to them. So that's as good as it gets unfortunately

A labor of love that took a while to finish due to numerous mishaps (including have to completely re-paint the C). Here be two lovely Hasegawa Eagles in The One True Scale™. No need to go over the qualities of the Hase F-15 series. Best Eagles on the market despite the molds being nearly 30 years old! It is a testament to the quality of the originals that they are still better than anything built since. The F-15C is from the original 80s boxing while the Strike Eagle is from the newer "updated" set which despite being quite pricey (£25 on eBay from a Japanese seller) is a significant improvement over the highly inaccurate original E version. The new CFTs are beautifully molded, as are the targeting pods which are taken directly from one of their weapons sets. Everything fits like a glove. If you ask me, it is well worth the price and only option for an accurate E in this scale. My only gripe with the kits is that the engine exhausts are a pain to build and that there's hardly any rivets (except in the Strike Eagle CFTs). Some info on the two builds: F-15C This is Cpt. Cesar "Rico" Rodriguez from the legendary Gorillas (58th Fighter Sq), who shot down 2 Iraqi jets during the war and nearly a decade later added another to his tally in Kosovo. The markings were taken from an old Microscale set and the stencils from Two Bobs. Gunze paints were used in the original ghost gray camo and note that this aircraft still featured the old style hi-viz markings. A keen eye will note that I lost the canopy actuator. If anyone has a spare, please drop me a line as I feel that was the only error in the build. Also have not had the time to arm it with missiles so that'll have to wait (will post updated pics later). Weathering was done with Humbrol dark gray wash with some extra streaking in black and burnt umber below. F-15E There's a dearth of Gulf War Strike Eagle decals in 1/72 scale so my only shot at this was the Hi-Decal set which is pretty awful: they are thick, prone to silvering and the pilot names are unreadable. Also take a lot of Microsol to settle in and the yellow squadron band on the fins simply did not conform at all so I removed them. Despite having numerous Two Bobs sets in reserve, I stupidly chose to use the kit's decals for the stencils since the Hi Decals were quite thick already. BIG mistake: lots of silvering throughout which was really disappointing. Oh well. I'll build a nicer replacement one day. Aside from that, no major problems. This airframe (87-183) from the 335th Squadron (Rocketeers) has only a few bomb markings so it was logical to assume it was still early in the conflict when Strike Eagles could only carry dumb bombs. So I used the kit supplied Rockeye cluster bombs for a full load. I added at LITENING pod anyway even though this would be inaccurate. I also accidentally painted the Rockeyes olive drab when they probably were white. Because I used the kit decals, the yellow band is also inaccurate since it is just yellow when during the war it had white stripes. Sue me! Painting as done with Tamiya XF-24 which I think is the most accurate representation of FS36118 in acrylic (Gunze is way too light and does not have a bluish tint). Was given a black wash with similar weathering to the C. Quite happy with how they came out so enjoy the pics

Uggh, I've used that ages ago and it was totally incorrect. Perhaps they've corrected it? Humbrol 78 is the way to go, and is available in acrylic. I just got the Mig Ammo but haven't used it. Looks accurate from the outside and probably easier to spray than Humbrol (which is not great)

Ah, I get what you were saying by that. I assumed we were talking about the bigger companies which I would have assumed do their own moldings? (perhaps I'm wrong on this too!) But in any case, if the customer doesn't care about accuracy doesn't really matter, it's gonna come out sloppy :/

Tamiya paints are not meant for brush painting, only airbrushing (same with Gunze, although they're a wee bit more manageable). Some people have tried with paint retarder in order to avoid buildup but I don't think it's feasible. Among the mainstream paints, I'd say only Vallejo (Model Color) is truly good at brush painting and that also depends on the color (darker ones are ok, but brush painting whites or yellows is a pain).

That's not how making the mold works. Once the mold is done, it's done. If a piece is too wide, how do you shrink a steel mold to correct it? You can't. Some (very few) manufacturers may correct a kit by re-molding a certain piece but that's it. If an easy to replace part is wrong, the aftermarket community steps in and hopefully produces a resin replacement, not the manufacturer. Major dimensional errors are never corrected. Also who is this mystery customer who buys the first kit produced? No company sells just one kit and then sits around expecting feedback...

To answer the original question, I will reply with another set of question? Why are some houses terribly built? Why are some companies terribly run? Why do some people have terrible personalities? Why do some restaurants serve terrible food? Because if they didn't, we wouldn't really know what is truly great and amazing.

Case in point, Revell. Amazingly engineered kits. But terribly produced kits, in particular the canopies which are straight up deplorable.

It does not help that I mispelled Hataka as Hakata US Army Helo Drab was first used (someone correct me if I'm wrong) in the late 70s/early 80s. Before that, helicopters were painted olive drab. Note that olive drab has changed over the years in US usage and the particular shade used around the Vietnam War is somewhat different (to my eyes greener) than the one used in WW2, or used today. Helo Drab is definitely one of those colors that is really hard to capture properly as depending on the lighting or the fading of the aircraft, can look like a dark gray or a dark green. The plus side to this is that there's leeway to get it wrong and nobody will really notice or care.

Yup, that's one of the pics I've seen and it's ghost gray scheme. Looks like it's settled then

Correction, Hataka now produces that color too http://hataka-hobby.com/products/us-army-helicopter-drab/