Recommendation for F-84F Thunderstreak in 1/72

[MarkoZG]

Hi all.

I know there are Italeri (Testors) and Airfix (MPC) kits of this plane on the market, with rare PJ Productions resin kit as well.

Choosing between the two injection molded candidates, so far I learned that Italeri allegedly has broader fuselage, but less detail than Airfix.

I would like to hear your recommendations about which one is better starting point for accurate F-84F.

My priority would be on shape and dimensional accuracy, since I could always detail any kit on my own, as much as I like it.

Also, are there any reliable scale plans for recommendation?

Looking forward to your suggestions.

Thanks!

Edited May 8, 2016 by MarkoZG

[DMC]

Hi,

The Thunderstreak, arguably the best looking jet of that era (IMHO). This might be of some help to you:

http://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/thunders/thunder-1.htm

Cheers

[tempestfan]

Both those kits are fairly old now - I remember a review in a German modelling mag from the mid 70s (IIRC by someone who had actually flown them in the Luftwaffe) who stated that the Italeri kit was lacking concave fillets on the wing joints, but I can't comment on if that statement is correct.

Scale drawings I know of are by George Cox (Aeromodeller/MAP, also reprinted in one of the Aircraft Archive Jets books), Ian Huntley in the original Warpaint booklet (mid 70s, ca.), and (possibly by Siegfried Wache) in the German F40 booklet on the Hog (there are several editions, I do not know whether the drawings changed over the years). The Cox drawings are the most visually pleasing to me, but that is completely subjective. Anyway, the Aircr. Arch. book in which the Cox set was reprinted featured a pic of him sitting next to a Hog mainwheel in the introduction, so he at least got close to one.

Edited May 9, 2016 by tempestfan

[Julien]

We really do need a new tool one in 1.72!

[KRK4m]

At the very moment I don't remember which one of the duo concerned has totally wrong canopy width. It looks horrible when you compare head-on view of the finished model with the real bird. Otherwise both have several pros and cons, but frankly speaking both represent the "streak" very poorly.

IIRC I have both in the stash, but this week I'm unable to find and compare them for you

Cheers

Michael

[MarkoZG]

Thanks guys.

I don't have that particular issue of Aircraft archives, but from the WW2 volumes I could say that Cox' plans are not among the best, to put it politely.

The building article of F-84F and RF-84F from the link claims narrow Airfix canopy to be of more accurate shape, while another source claims vice versa.

Now I am really confused.

Does anyone have PJ productions kit to compare and probably contribute to the verdict?

[Ptmvarsityfan]

Agree with Julien, a decent new tool kit is long overdue. Maybe from Sword or Special Hobby, cant see Airfix doing a remake as not really there market. Cheers, paul

[Wez]

It's a long, long time since I made either the Airfix or Italeri kits and I didn't look at them with such a critical eye back then. I don't have the PJ kit either so I can't answer those particular questions.

I do agree that new tool F and RF-84F's are long overdue, I always hoped Revell would do a Bundesluftwaffe range which would include these jets.

[e8n2]

I built both decades ago, and still have a couple of the Airfix kits in the stash. What I do remember though was that the Italeri kit did not have the prominent fairing behind the ejection seat and visible through the rear side windows. I'm not sure what it was for, but it is very visible in all photos of the F/RF-84F from the sides.

Later,

Dave

[tempestfan]

It may say something about what Revell thinks about the Italeri kit that, to my knowledge, they never reboxed it after they stopped distribution of the full Italeri range in 1980 or so, even though they continued cooperation for some 20 years more, and the Hog would have lent itself to a Luftwaffe themed boxing. Thinking about it, I don't recall any Revell boxing of the 1/48 Mono kit either after the shortlived Mono Europe boxing, so possibly someone at Revell simply doesn't like the F.

[Giorgio N]

It may say something about what Revell thinks about the Italeri kit that, to my knowledge, they never reboxed it after they stopped distribution of the full Italeri range in 1980 or so, even though they continued cooperation for some 20 years more, and the Hog would have lent itself to a Luftwaffe themed boxing. Thinking about it, I don't recall any Revell boxing of the 1/48 Mono kit either after the shortlived Mono Europe boxing, so possibly someone at Revell simply doesn't like the F.

Revell sure issued this box that I've seen often in European shops

http://www.modellversium.de/kit/artikel.php?id=1376

I would have to look for some old articles in local Italian magazines, I have vague memories that the Airfix one was considered overall slightly better than the Italeri one but I should check to confirm (and my magazines are at the moment far from where I am)

[Panoz]

It may say something about what Revell thinks about the Italeri kit that, to my knowledge, they never reboxed it after they stopped distribution of the full Italeri range in 1980 or so, even though they continued cooperation for some 20 years more, and the Hog would have lent itself to a Luftwaffe themed boxing.

Never? Not quite...

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/138503-revell-04372-f-84f-thunderstreak

At the very moment I don't remember which one of the duo concerned has totally wrong canopy width. It looks horrible when you compare head-on view of the finished model with the real bird.

That would be Italeri, which BTW since nobody has mentioned it yet is noticeably larger than the Airfix one...

Edit: That would be the canopy of course.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Panoz

[tempestfan]

Damn...two Revell boxings that went unnoticed by me

[RidgeRunner]

Either are okay but the Airfix kits edges ahead. If you go for the Italeri then use a Airfix canopy and reduce the width of the cockpit area to fit. Your difficulty will be if you want the canopy closed. I went for the open option. It is actually quite obvious - look at photos and compare the two against them. The only saving grace that the Italeri kit has is the thinner gear doors etc, but you can simply sand the Airfix ones

Here is the Italeri:

and here is the Airfix:

M

Edited May 10, 2016 by RidgeRunner

[Rob de Bie]

The building article of F-84F and RF-84F from the link claims narrow Airfix canopy to be of more accurate shape, while another source claims vice versa.

Now I am really confused.

Does anyone have PJ productions kit to compare and probably contribute to the verdict?

The PJ canopy is around 11.0 mm wide (measured just above the bottom canopy frame), Italeri is 11.5 mm, Airfix is 9.0 mm. The latter looks very narrow!

What complicates things further is that both Italeri and Airfix have fuselages that are far too wide, 20 mm and 20.5 mm measured at the fuselage break where the tail section detaches for engine removal. PJ is 16.5 mm, and the real number is 17.5 mm (a friend measured a Streak under restoration). My PJ RF-84F needed a shim at the lower fuselage joint, to make the nose fit without a step, and that increased the width to 17.1 mm. Close enough for me.

If you care most about shapes and dimensions, forget Italeri and Airfix, and save up for a PJ kit. I'm just like that, I cannot stand wrong overall shapes, and I will cut up any kit to correct it. The PJ kit is not faultless in that respect, the rear fuselage top contour lacks a subtle S-curve (top photo), that I added by inserting shims in sawcuts made from the bottom side (bottom photo). If you look closely, you will also see two superglue joints, where I cut the right fuselage half to reduce its length to that of the left fuselage half. It's not a shake and bake model, but still I think it is very nice!

Rob

Edited May 12, 2016 by Rob de Bie

[Rob de Bie]

Here is the Italeri:

RidgeRunner, which tanks did you use on your RF-84F? I've been puzzled by specifically these tanks for a long time.

The regular F-84F tanks are finned, and come in two sizes (can't look them up right now, a friend has all my F-84 references). And then there's this short but large diameter tank. The Voodoo had similar-looking tanks, but I never compared the actual sizes.

Recently someone told me that these were 'war tanks', that lacked fuel senders among others, and would simply be dumped when empty on a wartime mission. The RNLAF used them quite a lot, but I rarely see them on F-84Fs of other air forces. Recently I found a photo of a Belgian Streak with these tanks.

Do you know more?

Rob

[RidgeRunner]

Hi Rob,

These were used extensively in NATO, particularly the KLu, EA and THK. I got mine from a Revell Voodoo. They were flown with and with out fins. I chose to model without. It just added a bit more of a difference. Does that help?

See http://www.thunderstreaks.com/f-84f/other-thunderstreaks-aircraft-in-active-service/

Regards,

Martin

[Rob de Bie]

These were used extensively in NATO, particularly the KLu, EA and THK. I got mine from a Revell Voodoo. They were flown with and with out fins. I chose to model without. It just added a bit more of a difference. Does that help?

Martin, thanks for the additional data! I'm happy to hear that the Revell Voodoo tanks are suitable, and indeed it makes your model stand out a bit. I love it!

Rob

[RidgeRunner]

You are very welcome, Rob. It was a great machine but sadly ignored by model manufacturers. Thanks for your comments too. I went for Greek machines for my models as a memory of past sightings. In fact 37682 was the last F-84F that I saw fly - at Hellenikon in 1982.

M

[Rob de Bie]

You are very welcome, Rob. It was a great machine but sadly ignored by model manufacturers. Thanks for your comments too. I went for Greek machines for my models as a memory of past sightings. In fact 37682 was the last F-84F that I saw fly - at Hellenikon in 1982.

Martin, a somewhat similar story here! I saw RF-84F 11253 landing at Volkel in 1988. It was the former P-5 of the RNLAF, and in 1988 the HAF returned it to the Netherlands. It was 35 years old at that point. My PJ RF-84F will of course have markings of that specific aircraft.

Rob

[RidgeRunner]

That sounds like the perfect plan!!!! . I love Volkel. I was there for a few Spotters Days in the 1978-83 period. Very friendly people and completely accommodating!

Good luck!!!!!

[Rob de Bie]

That sounds like the perfect plan!!!! . I love Volkel. I was there for a few Spotters Days in the 1978-83 period. Very friendly people and completely accommodating!

Good luck!!!!!

In that case we may have met each other! My first Volkel spotters day was in 1981, when some extremely low and close-by passes were made with 104s:

https://theaviationist.com/2015/08/13/rnlaf-f-104-low-pass-1980s/

I was very impressed! And 35 years later I'm still a huge fan of the 104 :-)

Rob

[RidgeRunner]

You sound like my kind of chap, Rob!!! ... '104s every time for me!!

[KRK4m]

(...) I have both in the stash, but this week I'm unable to find and compare them for you

Cheers

Michael

As the last week is over I found both kits in my stash and made the thoroughtful comparison. Both had their debut in the early 1970s (Italeri in 1972 and Airfix two years later), both have raised lines and no u/c bay details at all. Surprisingly both are almost spot-on dimensionally and the outline shape differences between two kits are negligible. If you try you can even glue port fuselage half of Airfix kit to the s/board half of Italeri one and in no place the outline shape would differ more than 0.5 mm. The overall length of 184 mm and 142 mm wingspan of both kits follow the original, being 183.8 and 142.2 mm when scaled down into the gentlemen's size. There are only two areas though where the shape differs - one is the width of canopy and dorsal spine (max. 11.0 mm in Airfix, 13.7 mm in Italeri and 11.4 mm on real craft) and also the width of main engine intake (7.7 mm in Airfix, 8.6 mm in Italeri and 7.3 mm in the real bird). These width differences do imply a little on the fuselage maximum width (at the wing leading edge), which is 20.2 mm for the Italeri kit, 19.0 mm for the Airfix one and 18.0 mm for the original scaled down.

Both kits do feature the "long tail" that was introduced in F-84F-45RE and -40GK. You'll have to cut off 3.9 mm off and reshape the vertical tail a bit when modelling earlier "short tail" variant. Looking at the fuselage tail Italeri has too large tailpipe dia and also the brake chute container underneath is much too deep. Airfix has better dorsal fuselage intakes above the wing trailing edge, while Italeri has better replicated two bigger ones under the cockpit. However I don't mean the location of fuselage (and wing) panel lines, as most modellers will sand them down and trace the recessed ones. For those who won't I must admit that Airfix panelling lines are more delicate than Italeri ones. Cockpit interior is the area where these two differ most - almost nothing in Italeri and whole "bathtub" with front and rear walls in the Airfix box.

The wings are very similar - both taper too much. They should be 30.0 mm at the aileron end and both are 29.0 mm short there. At the root they should measure 47.0 mm (at the fairing end), while Airfix gives us 48.5 mm and Italeri still more at 49.5 mm. The problem with shape is that the leading edge sweep in both kits (especially the Italian one) is too big, while that of trailing edge is a dash too small. Nevertheless they follow the drawings with differences rarely exceeding 1 mm. Underwing weapon pylons are located in exactly the same place. The tailplanes look almost identical, although Italeri sweep angle is a bit too small - the difference is less than a milimetre at the tip.

Both kits feature too big (and totally plain) main u/c bays and covers, although the resulting wheel track of 84.0 mm (in both) is acceptable - should be 85.0 mm. Front u/c leg and wheel are better in Airfix kit, while mainwheels in both are severely oversized. My drawings show 10.5 mm diameter, while Italeri gives us 11.9 mm and Airfix even more - 12.1 mm. The Italeri wheels are more finely detailed, but it's Airfix who follows the original rim perforation layout more precisely.

The smaller (230 US gal) drop tanks should measure 73.5 mm length (without fins) and 7.3 mm dia. Airfix offers us 72.5 and 7.8, while Italeri - 69.0 and 7.4 mm. Almost good, but Airfix looks better. The large (450 US gal) drop tanks are totally underestimated by both moulds, measuring just 85.0 mm in length (both) and 9.3 (Italeri) or 9.7 mm (Airfix) diameter. According to the drawings I have they should be 95.7 mm long and 8.9 mm wide. On the other hand the fins (or should I rather say "tail wings") are exaggerated - they span 22.0 mm in both kits, while some 16.8 mm would be quite enough. So either there were two so totally different versions of the 450 US gal tank or both kit makers made the same mistake.

Finally I'd better go for the Airfix kit, as the more detailed one (65 parts vs. 54) and the fuselage side intake doors (under the wing leading edge) being the only one item better replicated by the Italer/Revell kit. Yes, I remember about the main u/c wheels, but here both kits are unacceptable and you'll have to make new wheels from the outset or find something in the spare bin.

So IMHO the new F-84F kit in 72nd scale would be warmly welcome

Cheers

Michael

Edited May 12, 2016 by KRK4m

[tempestfan]

Thanks for your thorough examination, Michael! On which drawings did you base your assessment? Anyway, the close proximity of the kits in their shape suggesta both were based on the same drawings - possibly supplied by Fairchild Republic?