Jump to content

1/48 - McDonnell F2H-2/P Banshee by Kitty Hawk - released - correction & F2H-2N sets by Rieth Creations


Homebee

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ka-Efka said:

My solution to this was not to support manufacturers that don't seem to care about getting the basics right. It's a tough decision to make, based on the very interesting kits they release. Fortunately there are plenty of other kits to have a really good time with. Really looking forward to the P40 and Hs123 as well, and, in maybe ten years someone will make a decent Banshee kit. I can wait for that.

 

1 hour ago, JeffreyK said:

 

Yep, as much as I was waiting for both the T-33 and the Banshee... I Do still hope they'll make a better job of the F2H-3....

J

 

Looking at the post by Tommy ( link to his blog) as the most expert person I have heard on this aircraft it seems to be pretty decent effort , with a few minor tweaks needed? Nothing like the glaring errors seen in kits like Trumpeters Vampire.  Have heard the decals are poor which is a shame given the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the intake bulge that's the biggest issue for me. Just throws the whole look. It's the first thing I noticed when I saw the first pictures of plastic appearing a while ago. I immediately thought that something looks wrong there. And it's an issue that extremely difficult to fix. I've seen that KH moulded the fuselage with a cutout so perhaps a replacement inner wing section with flatter intake/engine bulge and a piece of fuselage extending it downwards could be made to work?? Perhaps fixing the intake mouths at the same time... Yes, there are a number of other mistakes, but they all seem fixable without a major effort, But that bulge is quite a big thing.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

It's the intake bulge that's the biggest issue for me. Just throws the whole look. It's the first thing I noticed when I saw the first pictures of plastic appearing a while ago. I immediately thought that something looks wrong there. And it's an issue that extremely difficult to fix. I've seen that KH moulded the fuselage with a cutout so perhaps a replacement inner wing section with flatter intake/engine bulge and a piece of fuselage extending it downwards could be made to work?? Perhaps fixing the intake mouths at the same time... Yes, there are a number of other mistakes, but they all seem fixable without a major effort, But that bulge is quite a big thing.

J

 

What to do mean Jeffrey ? The intake hump isn't spread enough along the fuselage ? Hump too localized at the front ?

bansheeIntakeHump.jpg

 

Edited by Laurent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bulge comes way too high. I don't know if it's ok to re-post pictures from another modelling site so instead please have a look on here: http://www.themodellingnews.com/2016/08/f2h-22p-banshee-from-kittyhawk-in-148th.html

There are a number of pictures in that article of both the original and the kit. Take the lower line of the cockpit and the horizontal panel line as a reference and then compare where the bulge should go to and where it is on the kit.

Note, that this is annoying and a deal breaker for ME  (although I might have a look if fixing was at all possible), but others may not be bothered by it.

 

Jeffrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:unsure:

 

Gaston red lines syndrome... I've just followed the panel lines to avoid photo distorsions. I confess being not a big fan from this method but I think it's the most effective way to highlight the poor KH design work for this model.

And what about the research materials provided by D&S?

This kit shapes are far far below the generated expectations.

 

Kittyhawk_48th_scale_Mc_Donnell_F2_H_3_B

 

f2h_2banshee_usmc_124988_03_flyingleathe

 

F2_H.jpg

 

KH_side_view_photo_cropped_1.jpg

 

14305587914_73c35a202b_b_1_1.jpg

 

V.P.

Edited by Homebee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Laurent said:

 

Intake seems too stretched vertically also.

 

Like has been mentioned the extra height in the has caused the intake to be too high giving it the wrong shape. Looks like the box top artist has got a better shape.

 

Kittyhawk_48th_scale_Mc_Donnell_F2_H_3_B

 

f2hairframe-5.jpg

 

 

 

13559065_1156265784425706_58002550202264

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Homebee said:

:unsure:

 

Gaston red lines syndrome... I've just followed the panel lines to avoid photo distorsions.

Time to sack Song!

 

Kittyhawk_48th_scale_Mc_Donnell_F2_H_3_B

 

f2h_2banshee_usmc_124988_03_flyingleathe

 

KH_side_view_photo_cropped_1.jpg

 

14305587914_73c35a202b_b_1.jpg

V.P.

 

3 minutes ago, Tbolt said:

 

Like has been mentioned the extra height in the has caused the intake to be too high giving it the wrong shape. Looks like the box top artist has got a better shape.

 

Kittyhawk_48th_scale_Mc_Donnell_F2_H_3_B

 

 

I thought I'd visited that other site by mistake when I saw all the red lines, please don't turn Britmodeller the same way :angrysoapbox.sml:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's whats caused the issue, as the kits intake is taller at the root, it has caused the wing to fuselage upper surface to be higher and to appear more bulged.

It's not a game changer for for me, as with a little work and maybe under a coat of paint it might not loo so prominent.

 

Also we are still working off those pre-production shots, have we seen production sprues yet?  I've been looking for reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 71chally said:

I think that's whats caused the issue, as the kits intake is taller at the root, it has caused the wing to fuselage upper surface to be higher and to appear more bulged.

It's not a game changer for for me, as with a little work and maybe under a coat of paint it might not loo so prominent.

 

Also we are still working off those pre-production shots, have we seen production sprues yet?  I've been looking for reviews.

 

Those picture are a couple of months old, so some things maybe have changed, but it seems a bit tight to have fixed this error, but we will wait and see. For me I like the main shapes to be close to correct and here the intakes appear to be very different, if they are really this bad I won't be buying this kit, but I will wait till I see more of the kit.

Edited by Tbolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AntPhillips said:

 

 

I thought I'd visited that other site by mistake when I saw all the red lines, please don't turn Britmodeller the same way :angrysoapbox.sml:

 

 

If you are happy with the kit then that's fine, but I don't see the problem with pointing out error so people can make informed decisions whether to buy the kit or not. But I'm getting a little tired of some manufacturers not doing simple checks on things that can easily be picked up by looking at readily available photos, especially on things that would be very hard to fix.

Edited by Tbolt
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎22‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 17:21, 71chally said:

Also we are still working off those pre-production shots, have we seen production sprues yet?  I've been looking for reviews.

 

Sorry but I've the sprues in front of me and it's frustrating! Just like the pre-production shots.

They went wrong and despite modellers - and most probably specialists (D&S?) - warnings changed nothing.

Canopy shapes, cockpit and inside canopy details, wing to fuselage upper surface shapes, air intakes shape,  exhausts areas shapes, nose wheel etc.

This first review online is IMHO even too lenient: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.be/2016/09/kitty-hawk-148-f2h-22p-banshee.html

Now I can just hope they'll never produce a F2H-3/-4 Big Banjo in the same way.

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life...

 

14333619_1209653042420313_63748110563035

 

 

V.P.

 

 

Edited by Homebee
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Texan76 said:

Despite all these flaws that all of you are noting, it still has to be way better than the ancient and awful Testors/ Hawk kit. 

 

I'm sure it is better, but it will take a quite a bit of work to get it looking right. Some of these people work for these companies need to step away sometimes and look at the real thing and ask themselves does it look right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issues with the intake/engine fairing shape aside, Homebee's photo above of the fuselage parts reveals (to me at least) a rather glaring deformity in the fuselage's top contour: it's way too humpbacked, resulting in the sliding canopy base having much too sharp a downward slope to the front. I for one have had an early Banshee on my wish list for years, and I'm really disappointed that KH hasn't done a better job getting the basic shapes right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah, look on the brghtside, the AM folks will be along with a resin pit, UC Bays, wheels and SAC gear legs, maybe a vac canopy, which will allow a much easier update of the old Hawk kit :whistle:

see http://hyperscale.com/2007/features/f2h2df_1.htm

even splashing out on the forthcing AM will still be cheaper...one link above as a 56 euro price for the KH kit

 

I'm only half joking, the Hawk kit maybe the wrong length for a -2, but looks the intakes and spine are closer....pic from link above of Don Fogal's build

 

F2H-2-7.jpg

 

 

On a less frivolous note, the breakdown of the KH parts means it looks as  if corrections are possible 'with some modelling skill' 

 

Also well worth  a read is Tommy Thomason Banshee modelling notes

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/f2h-banshee-modeling-notes.html

 

cheers

T

Edited by Troy Smith
detail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

Also well worth  a read is Tommy Thomason Banshee modelling notes

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/f2h-banshee-modeling-notes.html

 

cheers

T

You can cut to the chase here: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/09/kitty-hawk-148-f2h-22p-banshee.html

 

A kit is on its way to me to check some of the other discrepancies that have been noted; the post will be updated accordingly.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In-box review in your favourite forum: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235010366-f2h-2-f2h-2p-banshee-148 kittyhawk/

 

But also: http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/message/1484266991/List+of+differences+with+Kitty+Hawk+F2H-2-2P+kit+and+actual+aircraft

 

Quote

List of differences with Kitty Hawk F2H-2/2P Banshee kit and actual aircraft.

January 12 2017 at 7:23 PM
 
 

I wasn't going to post this, but when Brett posted his Reminder - Abuse and Insults, I thought I would try to post information about the Kitty Hawk Banshee that I discovered while doing research and photographing and measuring with a plumb line and tape measure an actual 1:1 Banshee on display.

I read all the build reviews and no one mentioned anything other than a state of the art kit, better than the old Hawk/Testors kit. One guy even suggested to buy 2 to do the gun nose and the photo nose. Some forums, like Britmodeler, had a discussion about the upper wing and intake being wrong. I thought if that is all , than that is an easy fix and maybe I can offer an aftermarket resin correction. I paid the big bucks, at least to me, and discovered that there was way more wrong with the kit. I consulted the Steve Ginter Naval Fighters 73 and the Bert Kinzey Detail and Scale Digital books, both excellent references and highly recommended.

This is what I found.

1. “Hump Back”- KH kit curved and not straight.
2. Upper wing curve too high.
3. Intake shape too tall and too rounded in outer curve. Upper lip not forward of lower lip.
4. Jet engine fairings upper wing does not go far enough forward due to wing thickness. Should end near panel line.
5. Jet engine fairings lower wing does not go far enough forward should end near oval access panels and should have straight sides and a more rounded front and be bulged.
6. Main Landing Gear doors and wells are the wrong shape and dimensions. The LG doors cannot be glued in an in-flight position.
7. There is no access panel line scribing at (Buttock Line) BL 28 and BL 51 on the underside of wing.
8. Inner pylons in the wrong position and should not be staggered.
9. No representation of the Radar Altimeter Panel under each wing.
10. The flaps at the engine are too wide fore and aft and wrong shape.
11. The outer flaps on the center wing are the wrong shape and have the lightening holes of the-3/4.
12. The nose gears doors are the wrong shape on the front and should angle up more when glued on.
13. Nose gear fork length too long and position is wrong.
14. Nose Gear mechanism in wheel well is for the -3/4 nose gear.
15. Fairing of horizontal to vertical stabilizer shape is wrong.
16. The horizontal stabilizers are in the wrong position, too high.
17. There is no representation of the counter weights on the elevators.
18. Bottom of rudder to fuselage has crease, but should be rounded and blend in more. Crease extends to the front of the Stabilizer.
19. Ejection seat bucket not deep enough for parachute.
20. Vertical Stabilizer leading edge and height are wrong.
21. Canopy rail too high at front where it joins windscreen and should be a straight line in the cockpit to allow canopy rail bracket to travel straight back in open position. No rail. No support for front of canopy.
22. There is no canopy arch support, cable retraction reel or rail support for the rear of the canopy.
23. No gun sight for the -2.
24. There should be no boxes on the bulkhead in gun bay.
25. M3 20mm cannons should be further aft but can't because of mystery boxes on bulkhead.
26. There should be an opening in the bulkhead at FS 57 to allow the cannons to go further aft.
27. Ammo boxes should hang from a wedge shaped structure above, be larger and be further aft.
28. There should be a shelf with electronic boxes above gun barrels.
29. There is no Loop antenna or internal framing if you want to leave nose cone off.

 

F2H-2P Differences

If you want to open the camera access doors be advised that the interior equipment is wrong.
The cameras should be mounted in racks or baskets made of pipe. I have found no photograph or drawing that shows perforated panels between the cameras.
The -2P had 2 different nose cones, one had a camera mounted facing forward.
There is so much wrong that I will not document with photos, drawings, CAD or red lines what I have listed above. It would probably take as long as the Korean War, which technically is still going on.
For those interested, check out these links to decide for yourself, look at the photos of the model and the walkaround photos. I have given my findings to Tommy H. Thomason for his Tailhook Topics Blog and created images to show the issues, but be forewarned, there be redlines ahead.
Decide for yourself and do whatever you want to do with the kit, buy it, build it OOB, correct it, or not buy it. It is up to you. I just want to provide some information.

http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/12/kitty-hawk-148-f2h-banshee-kit-redux.html
http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2016-11-18T13:32:00-08:00&max-results=7
http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/search?q=F2H-2+Banshee
https://www.kittyhawkmodel.com/
http://www.philsaeronauticalstuff.com/f2h-2/f2h-2.html

http://www.philsaeronauticalstuff.com/f2h-2p/f2h-2p.html
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle2/f2h_126419/

Michael
www.riethcreations.com
Model Maker

 

V.P.

Edited by Homebee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
1 minute ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

I don't know, but they are clearly incorrect, useful only as an illustration of the major differences between the -2 and the -3/4 Banshees.

Yes. But look at the shape of that wing root profile. Looks like the KH kit doesn't it? Could they have been silly enough to use this as a reference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...