Jacarre

There are two late chilean Mirages. One is the M5M "Elkan" based in belgian Mirsip proyect, with laser designator, canards, new tailfin base, and only few of these planes used IFR probe. The other is M50 Pantera: a Mirage 50C/FC modernized with new nose with range finder radar, IFR probe, canards, "a - la - Kfir". There are no chilean M50 Elkan

In 1/72 AMK and Hasegawa are - in shape and dimensions - the best Kfirs IMHO. There are some slighty error in shape in the AMK one: Wing profile are a little too shallow in roots and the canopy profile is not the best. I have some doubts of the heigth of the tail fin, too: its smaller than the others (i dont have dimensions). Hasegawa kit have a very good shape and dimensions, but the panel lines are wrong and raised and the detail is not of the level of the AMK kit. The wing chord, span and fuselage dimensions are very good. I have some doubts about the width of the rear fuselage (afterburner area), it's sightly greater than AMK (could be in the rear plane due to the J-79 engine, more short and width. Italeri Kfir and F-21 are the worst of the bunch. Wing chord too short, main landing gear idem, poor main wheels, canopy too "buried" in the fuselage, windscreen too long and shallow (due to the canopy height). Here with my friends of IPMS Chile we measured a disassembled Cheetah E in National Aeronautic Museum, and, despite the differences with the american engined Mirage derivatives, there are great similarities. We determined with this data that the best - in shape and dimensions - 1/72 Atar engined Mirages are the High Planes and PJ ones. Regards., Javier

Sadly the Special Hobby/ Revell one has some fuselage and wing shape problems. The exhaust pipe is oval and not round, the wing chord at the root is too big, and dimensionally there are some differences with the real deal, but no Vampire model is perfect. For the measurements, this is the link:

Do you have any measurements of a Harrier II? Would be very useful! Forward nozzles are different in shape to the ones found in firts generacion harriers, but dimensionally? I don't know

Interesting pics Serge, i don't have the Hasegawa one but i measured the wingspan in both the old tool 1/72 Airfix Harrier GR.5 and the new tool GR7/9, and here are the results: Real wingspan: 9.25 meters Downsized to 1/72: 128.47 mm Old tool wingspan: 127.5 mm New tool wingspan: 129.2 mm The old tool one is 1 mm short and the new tool one is less of a mm long. We dont have a real Harrier II in the National Aeronautics Museum in Chile but we have an ex RAF Harrier GR.3... The nozzles and fairings could be the same ones? Regards, Javier

I have some numbers measuring one of our examples here in Museo Nacional Aeronáutico in Santiago, Chile, and compared to Heller and Airfix kits: Wing chord on the outer sides of the boom fairings: Real Deal: 270 cm 1/72: 37.5 mm Heller FB.5: 36 mm Airfix T.11: 36.5 Wing chord at the wing tips: Real deal: 99 cm 1/72: 13.75 mm Heller FB.5: 13 mm Airfix T.11: 13.8 mm Horizontal tail surfaces chord: Real deal: 120 cm 1/72: 16.67 mm Heller FB.5: 16.5 mm Airfix T.11 16 mm Anyone has the measurement of wings, tail and intakes of the MPM/Xtrakit one? Regards., Javier

Thanks a lot Michael! The vertical stabilizer's and wing chords are ok the same that fuselage width/heigth and rear fuselage lenght? Regards., Javier

Ohhh i suspect it haha.... Could you show me with a pic the canopy tail and split frames points in AZ kit please? I would like to take again the measurements in my examples, and to add vertical surfaces chord. In a preliminary basis, we could say that the Dragon fuselaje is too narrow, and AZ fuselaje is too long... But i'm unsure about vertical surfaces. Here is some measures from the MIG-17's flight manual... are ok with your drawings? Regards., Javier

Michael, i have taked some measurents of my Dragon and AZ Kits. I hope i hadn't commit any mistake: Distance between the canopy tail and the split frame: AZ 20mm Dragon 18 Distance between the split frame and fin leading edge: AZ 12mm Dragon 13 mm And this is very interesting: Fuselage height at canopy tail: AZ 20mm Dragon 18 Nose intake ring width at the base: AZ 14 mm Dragon 14mm Nose intake ring internal width: AZ 10mm Dragon 10mm Regards., Javier

Very interesting Michael. With my friend Fernando of my club - IPMS Chile - we do the exercise of comparing the front fuselaje areas of a Eduard MIG-15 with AZ and Dragon MIG-17 renditions. I dont have the measures here, but the most alarming thing is the fuselage width... it has more than a millimeter of difference between AZ and Dragon. In regard to Eduard, the Dragon fuselage is 0.5 mm more narrower than Eduard one, and AZ fuselage has a width 0.5 more bigger than the Eduard one! I will send you the exact measures in the next post. Regards., Javier

Hi all, for an F.3 is the old Airfix 1/72 kit accurate? Or unusable? Better the Italeri one? Regards., Javier

Sorry for bring of the tomb this old topic... But i want to know if Heller Vampire's flaw is fixable or not? How short is the fuselage? Where, in which section? Thanks a lot in advance. Javier

Sorry for the little OT, but any of you knows about shape and dimensions flaws of the Italeri 1/72 kit? I know that Revell is the best, bur i think that the italian offering is not too bad... Regards, Javier

It's difficult to me to see the problem in the Italeri radome... Do you know of a picture to put in a ore graphic fashion to see the difference? Regards., Javier

I have the Airfix one... not wanting to spend more money in a new kit, anyone knows if has accuracy issues (i dont my the lack of details)? Thanks in advance Regards., Javier

More items to analyse... We measured the nose height in the radome of different kits. Hasegawa newer tool has in this point 17 mm, Hobbyboss 17.2, Academy 16 mm...The nose of the Academy offering appears to be a llitle too much slim... Regards., Javier

Interesting, i would like to see that WIP! With my friends we analyzed the Hasegawa and Heller offerings, and the former has the canopy shape a little off, apart of the width of the vertical tail surfaces (too narrow) and wrong scribing of the ailerons. Heller one appears to be ok, only the lower rear fuselaje has too much "curve", should be a more straight line from the wing trailing edge to the tailpipe (Hasegawa is ok in that point). Regards, Javier

Thanks Serge, in regards of this dimensions, which one is more accurate? Dragon or AZ? Regards., Javier

Thanks a lot! i had some doubts of the upper forward fuselage line... What fo you think of the Hawk- Testors one? Apart of the no- wheel wells and one piece wing, is overscaled? Regards, Javier

Very interesting... is there a possibility to work on the cabin area of the airfix to fix this problem? I want to clone the clar parts of an sword F-80, because the two main problems of the airfix kit - i think - are the windscreen and canopy and the intake width. Here my friends of IPMS Chile measured an example of our Museum (FACh F-80C) and the intakes of the airfix kit are a little too big (in height, 1mm bigger than the real deal in scale). Regards., Javier

Thanks to all for the answers! I have another question... The nose and forward fuselage of the Academy offering is critiziced, but i think that the width and is ok.. I think that the problem of the Academy one is in the wing glove...Anyone has compared the different kits against a good set of drawings? Regards., Javier

Hi all, we have several 1/72 F-14A kits with good look. But, which one is more accurate in shape and dimensions? I have the Academy one and the Hobbyboss offering. Measuring the nose, the Hobbyboss one has more width in the radome area than the Academy one, and the wing glove area is more ticker in Academy than Hobbyboss. I haven't seen the Fujimi and new tool Hasegawa ones. What's your opinion? Regards., Javier

A little off topic but... The Italeri one it's ok in shape and dimensions? Or it's hasegawa offering better? I read in Thunder and Lightnings blog that the upper spine in Italeri one is a little too big. Regards., Javier

I have the Italeri 1/72 one, i know it not have recessed panel lines, etc... but, anyone knows shape and accuracy issues about this one?. Regards., Javier

I have a little question... It's ok in shape and dimensions the Airfix offering? Thanks a lot in advance. Regards, Javier