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. :)

RAGATIGER

Regarding the Super Hornet F-18E/F

Recommended Posts

Hi there

Well to start the discussion what is the best Super Hornet in 1/72 scale???

Then what is needed to make it accurate???

and to put more wood to the fire

Let´s made the assumption you already have the Italeri aircraft carrier steam launcher kit what do you need to do in the Super Hornet to made the complete display

Kits options Hasegawa, Revell and Italeri

My guess is to use the Hasegawa kit, look for the PP Aeropart or White Ensign Tie Downs, look for the Fujimi aircraft carrier tractors plus figures, Verlinden tractors and US NAvy aircraft details,

I wonder about Wolfpack details sets

Best day

Armando

PS I´m still in Buccaneer Midlife Crisis and Personal Harrier Madness so Super Hornet only at planning stage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hasegawa offerings are where the safe money is; Revell's are usually a bit cheaper, well detailed OOB and carry the same shape and intake-depth issues as their 1/48 counterparts. IMO, they are still worth considering if you are only mildly obsessive!

Generally, any aftermarket detailing is probably worth going the extra mile for; Eduard's etched items are particularly good for this scale. Also, Northstar Models make a nice set of wheels for your Rhino and you may wish to consider aftermarket payload (Eduard are starting to produce some fine 1/72 modern ordnance) Otherwise, the stuff you mentioned is all very good.

If you are contemplating a steam catapult scenario, would you need tie-downs...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are contemplating a steam catapult scenario, would you need tie-downs...?

After you see the steam catapult and the tied downs, yes you need them also there are enought to do another scenario with parking aircraft, to be more simple they pretty nice

Best day

Armando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS I´m still in Buccaneer Midlife Crisis and Personal Harrier Madness so Super Hornet only at planning stage

I've hit a snag with my Bucc, was masking up to spray the steel on wing leading edges and snapped the resin refuelling probe. I cannot find it anywhere and I don't know at what point it happened, I'll have to use the plastic part :crying:

Edited by steeli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armando, I was wondering which kit you went for in the end? I'm thinking about adding a 1/72 Super Hornet to my stash and have my eye on Revel's offering.

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, all,

I bought the Revell F and it looks pretty good in the box. Probably it lacks the aura of "high quality" that oozes from a modern Hasegawa kit (Revell kits do look a bit cheap). Armament choice is a bit weird (Mk 83 dumb bombs?) but hey, there is some. Not aware of any shape issue (nor capable of noticing one at this stage). Let's see how it performs under stress (building it)

Fernando

Edited by Fernando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just started the Revell kit, my first foray into 1:72 in about 25 years. Some of the fit is Interesting, but got it up to a stage where I can rescribe it fairly quickly and it looks quite nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 72nd ROG Super Hornet is a scaled down clone of the 48th scale kit. Unfortunately that means it also has all the major shape and accuracy errors. The Hasegawa F/A-18E/F kit is much more accurate shape wise, but is less detailed.

I have a ROG SH kit I picked up for cheap and was disappointed Revell failed to correct any of the major shape errors. One thing I did notice was that the fit, though rough in some areas, seemed to be better overall compared to its 48th scale brother.

Mike V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Mike,

Would you please summarize those shape errors?

Thanks,

Fernando

Edited by Fernando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a recent response to the Revell 48th Super Hornet I made. From my examinations and research; the 72nd Super is a scaled down clone and carries over all the same major shape and detail inaccuracies as the 48th scale kit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revell's F/A-18E/F has some major shape and accuracy errors. Compared to the Hasegawa SH, it doesn't come Close. Even the lowly Italeri Super Hornet is more accurate shape wise. The most significant shape errors are the too narrow spine, aft fuselage side & stab contour profile, vertical tail bases, and too shallow lower engine bay center channel. Overall fit is not that good either. For more details, see John Chung's Revell F/A-18E Box and build review. These are by far the best reviews on this kit.

http://kits.kitreview.com/fa18ereviewjc_1.htm

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/fa18ejc_1.htm

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/fa18ejc_2.htm

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/fa18ejc_3.htm

Mike V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many people it's evidently "close enough", although one would hope that Revell would correct these deficiencies in any future releases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, thank you. You always being "the Realist"...

My hope lies in your observation about the smaller size makes the error less noticeable in 1/72nd. I am also building the two seater, so I hope all the business about the spine being too tall, round and thin at the base does not apply entirely (I guess it is still too thin at the base, but the rest is occupied by the second seat). What do you think?

Fernando

Edited by Fernando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct in that the shape errors, though just as bad in degree as the 48th scale kit, are less noticeable in 72nd. Such a shame Revell repeated the same mistakes, but all you can do is corrected, live with it, or get the much more accurate Hasegawa kit. I'd even suggest the Italeri kit, as even as crude as it is, shape wise it';s till alot more accurate than the ROG Super Hornet; which is quite a rare occurrence!

I say just build it, though if you plan to correct anything, attempt correcting the spine. it's not too difficult. I've done one version of this in 48th. If you're in the "Close enough crowd, then just build it as is, but then again why not just build the Italeri kit on that approach.

No one is going to knock you for building an inaccurate kit; just have fun and build to "your specs".

Cheers

Mike V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, thank you. You always being "the Realist"...

My hope lies in your observation about the smaller size makes the error less noticeable in 1/72nd. I am also building the two seater, so I hope all the business about the spine being too tall, round and thin at the base does not apply entirely (I guess it is still too thin at the base, but the rest is occupied by the second seat). What do you think?

Fernando

Why not just try to find a Hasegawa F/A-18F online? Their price has dropped significantly over the years: you can probably find one for under 20.00 USD without much effort at all. There is one on ebay for $10 right now.

I've been building one lately, and its pretty good. It shares the general complexity with most other Hornets, especially around the forward fuselage and the rear fuselage.

8X05_zpsc560b0c6.jpg

However, with a bit of care it can come out pretty well.

9E7_zps46853eb8.jpg

Also Modern Hobbies is planning to release an new cockpit set for the F version, which I would wait for. Actually the pilots above are from their line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't heard much feedback on the Italeri 1/48 Super Hornet. Is it truly that bad?

First a disclaimer that I am far from an expert, but this is what I've found in my build.

I would not say it's unbuildable but it is a challenge.I think the Italeri captures the overall shape and proportions of a Super Hornet a bit better than Hasegawa, specifically the spine of the fuselage. That said, there is a lot of work and old fashioned modelling that will need to be done to create an accurate EA-18G. Many of the small details and changes from the E or F, to the G will need to be fabricated. Not impossible but it is time consuming. Perhaps the most glaring deficiency I found is poor fit. Be prepared to do a lot of shimming and filling which in turn means some rescribing work. The kit also contains a very basic cockpit which may or may not be a big deal for you, each of us has our own idea of what is important. I was able to easily fit the superlative AIRES cockpit to resolve that issue.

To me the overall shape was the deciding factor along with price and availability, though I did set myself up for a lot of modelling, but that is just part of the hobby isn't it?

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234926990-intruders-and-prowlers-and-growlers-13-december-an-update-at-last/?hl=yankymodeler

Eric aka The Yankymodeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't heard much feedback on the Italeri 1/48 Super Hornet. Is it truly that bad?

It's not that bad. Just like the Revell kit, the LEFs and TEFs are fixed up; so that was a disappointment right from the get-go.

This 48th Italeri F/A-18F I built shortly after it came out using the Black Box cockpit. Shape wise it's more accurate than the Revell kit, but does not compare detail wise. The Revell cockpit and wheel wells are far superior, though it's a wash for the Exhaust as both have significant issues. Revell attempted full run intakes, but "literally" ran short; by about half the length. Also, Revell's intake mouth side angles are too steep. The Italeri intake mouth profiles are a little more accurate in this respect, but they have no depth at all; other than about 1.5" intake trunk that tapers to a 1/4" round engine fan. I guess they were going for a "depth" perspective, though kind of failed.

The other area I was not happy with on the Italeri F/A-18F, was the canopy as it was "Non-Blown". It's a real peeve of mine to have "flat sided" canopies when they are supposed to have that bubble cross section. I guess that comes from my time working on real US Fighter Aircraft. Overall though, I was happy with the build. I had Italeri F/A-18E started when the Revell kit came out. After figuring out how inaccurate the Revell kit was I began to graft the canopy and Intake to the Italeri E, along with the weapons. 2 things killed that project; A move to a new house and the release of the Hasegawa kit; go figure.

5F-18F.jpg

7F-18F.jpg

F18F.jpg

4F-18F.jpg

12F-18F48.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To stray a bit, Italeri's 1/48 EA-18G Growler has gone through a couple iterations thus far and I hear they still haven't got it quite right. Sound accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that bad. Just like the Revell kit, the LEFs and TEFs are fixed up; so that was a disappointment right from the get-go.

This 48th Italeri F/A-18F I built shortly after it came out using the Black Box cockpit. Shape wise it's more accurate than the Revell kit, but does not compare detail wise. The Revell cockpit and wheel wells are far superior, though it's a wash for the Exhaust as both have significant issues. Revell attempted full run intakes, but "literally" ran short; by about half the length. Also, Revell's intake mouth side angles are too steep. The Italeri intake mouth profiles are a little more accurate in this respect, but they have no depth at all; other than about 1.5" intake trunk that tapers to a 1/4" round engine fan. I guess they were going for a "depth" perspective, though kind of failed.

The other area I was not happy with on the Italeri F/A-18F, was the canopy as it was "Non-Blown". It's a real peeve of mine to have "flat sided" canopies when they are supposed to have that bubble cross section. I guess that comes from my time working on real US Fighter Aircraft. Overall though, I was happy with the build. I had Italeri F/A-18E started when the Revell kit came out. After figuring out how inaccurate the Revell kit was I began to graft the canopy and Intake to the Italeri E, along with the weapons. 2 things killed that project; A move to a new house and the release of the Hasegawa kit; go figure.

Mike, may I ask if the same applies to the Italeri 1/72 kit ? I have seen a guide to improving the accuracy of this, IIRC on Hyperscale, as I have one of the Italeri kits in the stash I'm wondering if it's worth improving it or ditch it in favour of Hasegawa's offering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armando, I was wondering which kit you went for in the end? I'm thinking about adding a 1/72 Super Hornet to my stash and have my eye on Revel's offering.

David

Well David

I have 2 different issues from Hasegawa and one Revell both are reall nice in wonderfull 1/72 scale of course

Best modeling

Armando

Edited by RAGATIGER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both kits are nice from a tooling aspect, though Hasegawa is more refined. However, it's the gross shape inaccuracies that plague the Revell Super Hornet kits.

To stray a bit, Italeri's 1/48 EA-18G Growler has gone through a couple iterations thus far and I hear they still haven't got it quite right. Sound accurate?

The baseline 48th Italeri Super Hornet kit has gone through about 4 tooling upgrades, and the Growler itself; 2.

Overall in accuracy the Italeri kit ranks second to Hasegawa. Amazing as it may seem, Italeri's 48th Super Hornet soundly trumps the Revell kit in overall shape accuracy. Hasegawa is by far the most accurate and best 48th Super Hornet, to include the Growler. As far as the Italeri Growler goes, Hasegawa is again more accurate. Components like the AIFF antenna box, BARD Stack Exhaust, ALQ-99 and ALQ-218 pods are not that well executed or as accurate as the same Hasegawa Growler Parts.

As is the case with nearly every 48th Italeri home tooled jet kit; the cockpit and intakes are pathetically detailed. The cockpit consoles and IPs have no raised detail as they're represented by cheesy decals. Italeri provides the rear cockpit ACS glare shield in the late Growler and F kits, but again fails with the decal IP.

I strongly suggest sourcing the Black Box cockpit if going this route.

Mike, may I ask if the same applies to the Italeri 1/72 kit ? I have seen a guide to improving the accuracy of this, IIRC on Hyperscale, as I have one of the Italeri kits in the stash I'm wondering if it's worth improving it or ditch it in favour of Hasegawa's offering...

I haven't followed Italeri's 72nd Super Hornet tooling updates as much as the 48th scale kit, but I do know the current 72nd F/A-18E/F kits have been upgraded to the current standard; the same as the 48th scale kits. Note that the 72nd scale Italeri SH kits still share all the same deficiencies as the 48th scale ones. You can still build a nice 72nd SH out of the Italeri kit, as per that Hyperscale article and using resin upgrades. like those from Wolfpack.

Edited by Mike V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, thanks for the info on the Italeri kit. I'm not sure myself of the development (or lack of...) of this kit. I've seen however that at least there are resin sets for the later ECS pipes, these are sure missing in the kit. Overall it sounds like it's one worth trying building

Share this post


Link to post
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

×