Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Mike V

Members
  • Content Count

    981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Good

About Mike V

  • Rank
    Scale Parts Incorporated
  • Birthday 02/16/1969

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://sierrahotelmodels.webs.com/
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    High Desert CA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,276 profile views
  1. I can pull up my refs when I get home later this evening. Meanwhile, here is my FB post. I have my F-16XL II kits in hand. I was supposed to have a sample a month ago.
  2. I was considering the same 2 seat conversion then I heard they were actually going to release the 2 seat version, so that ended my attempt. Nice work you've done this far and do finish it. One of the key differences between standard 2 seat F-16 and the 2 seat XL canopy, is the aft hinge frame is thicker for XL II. I had already extended this on my attempt. Mike V
  3. February- March, along with some details for the Ship 1 XL. Could be sooner if we can get a couple of other projects done early. Mike V
  4. Probably a case of the jet sticking its nose where the radome is. Should have my Parts in hand in a couple weeks. Been waiting for this version for a while. Mike V
  5. I have 2 Hasegawa F-16A kits (w/parabrake) I intend to sell soon, but I'm in the US, so probably not a great option for you considering shipping over the pond. However, if interested, drop me a line. Mike
  6. I would strongly suggest the Hasegawa F-16A/AM kit; the one with the parabrake, if your Dutch F-16A is configured as such. The Hasegawa F-16 is not without its significant shape inaccuracies (too short MLG wheel well/doors comes to mind; same with Italeri and Academy BTW), but the Hasegawa F-16s are more accurate than the Italeri or Academy Viper kits and it has a "blown canopy", plus they fit a lot better too. In regards to AMD F-16A; you sure you are not referring to the AFV Block 20 F-16A kit? If so, it's the Academy kit unfortunately. Nice job on that Academy F-16C; though yea, you got that HUD way too far down the glare shield.. I've built a couple of these years ago, and they have some significant fit issues about the wings. They may look like a copy of the Hasegawa kits, but they are poorly executed copies. The 3 major errors that set apart the Academy F-16s from Hasegawa are: the absolute lack of wingtip/launcher "angle of Incidence" (essentially the downward angle when viewed from the side) and the aft strakes completely missing the 10 degree dihedral. Instead, Academy quite inaccurately just added a 10 degree bevel to the stab mating surface. The 3rd major issue is the poorly shaped NSI (small moth) Intake. Instead of providing the intake mouth as a separate 1 piece like Hasegawa, Academy molded the mouth as part of the left and right intake halves. The result is that the overall intake mouth profile has a squashed appearance; in addition to one side (left side if memory serves) that's slightly smaller, which also gives it lopsided look when viewed head on. Being a "somewhat copy" of the Hasegawa F-16, it does carry over the same inaccuracies that the Hasegawa F-16s; wheel wells, tail dorsal, gear, wheels, etc... Mike V
  7. Dangerous kit; first time I've heard that; lol It looks like the resin nose has some added/exaggerated detail, though they inaccurately scribed in the AOA probe cover smudge outline. That will need to be carefully filled in. The probe is wrong and it doesn't come with the AOA vanes. This is a pitot that would be much better represented in turned brass. For my purposes; this set is not practical or worth it. Mike V
  8. The Zone-5 link is is regards to the "original" Kinetic F-16 releases, which had the inaccurate forward fuselage profile; otherwise known as the Kinetic F-16 "nose droop". Kinetic later corrected this to include the radome, but overall it was still (and sill is) a little bit off; though you have to know what to look for to see it. The Kinetic/Skunkworks F-16XL not only has an accurate forward fuselage, but a more accurate "radome" than their F-16 kits. The Kin/SWs F-16XL was developed with the approach to use the existing Kinetic F-16 detail or "gut parts", as in real scale they was a 80% cross over. Kinetic had to provide an accurate XL Fuselage, Wings, and radome tooling wise as the rest was essentially already made. Also note they tooled new exterior NSI Intake halves (not as heavy recessed detail as original), the cockpit tube, and the pylons as well. Mike V
  9. For reference and proper nomenclature; it's not a nose it's a Radome and there's nothing wrong shape wise with the F-16XL radome. This resin replacement radome comes in one piece and does offer the High AOA extended Pitot, but it's not all that accurate. Mike V
  10. Italeri looks to be the choice 48th Hawk between the two (discussed a few years ago here), though not without its problems like the nose and poor detailing. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234967185-148-bae-hawk-italeri-or-airfix/ I have both and while Italeri is a little better overall, they both need a some AM help and the Airfix canopy is terrible with that heavy DET chord molded in. Both cockpits are poorly done. I've yet to find accurate AM wheels either. I used the Neomega cockpit in an Airfix Hawk which was better than the CMK at the time and still better than WP's; in addition to an unknown VAC canopy. I had started the Italeri kit and shelved it (when I moved) only after I got a Neomega cockpit installed, which took some work. Not sure about the seat changes, so you'll have to do some research.
  11. There are some 48th GBU-38s; though Shawn Hull's were the best by far, but are currently OOP. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/228038-shull24-20-gbu-38-jdam-usaf Mike
  12. The main issues with the Hasegawa kit are the cockpit and Intakes. While the IP and consoles are well detailed, the same can't be said for the rest of the cockpit. The ACES Seats are not all that well done. The cockpit also rides too high, rendering practically no sidewalls. While the kit comes with full run intakes, fairing the intake ducts (once built up) to the forward integrated intake walls is a major PITA! The secondary and diffuser ramps are partially extended, when they should be fully up. You should be able to see the entire Engine Fan when looking directly down the intake. The area around the speed brake is slightly raised, though not to the extent as the Academy kit. The wheels are quite inaccurate and the main gear generic in detail. Note that in the Hasegawa High Grade F-15 kits, they come with super detailed metal gear which is the best in this scale. Early kits came with feathered Exhaust Nozzles, but these were void of internal Divergent/Convergent segment detail and the turkey feather count is too much. The Exhaust ducting is also too short. Later and all current Hasegawa kit have detailed featherless Exhaust nozzles, but still retains the short Exhaust ducting. The Exhaust, cockpit, and soon the wheels and intakes can be replaced with AM. That covers the major issues. Mike V
  13. Understand that the major shape errors with the forward fuselage and radome/nose cross sections have been fixed, so all current releases should be fine. However, the over scaled Ejection Seats, too narrow intakes, inaccurate Engine Fan/IGVs, and too long Exhaust Nozzles still remain. Despite that, yes overall the GW kit is now better than Hasegawa F-15; taking into account the Hasegawa F-15 kit shortcomings.
  14. Great story behind this. Ironic though; a Typhoon with Hurricane colors
×
×
  • Create New...