Is there any really accurate F-86F kit in 1/72 scale ?

[Giorgio N]

Thanks to the good number of recent posts on the Sabre I went back searching all the comments on the Airfix kit.

Then while building a Sabre myself for the '50s NATO/WarPac GB I realised how the Academy/Hobbycraft kit also has its errors, some quite annoying. I know that this kit is said to be "inspired" by the Fujimi kits and some of the errors are common to both (airbrakes for example).

The Heller kit is of course well known for its wrong wing sweep and while I don't know what the old Hasegawa kit is in terms of accuracy, it's so crude that I wouldn't consider it today

So I really wonder, is there any accurate F-86 day fighter kit in 1/72 scale ??? I'm starting to believe that the answer is no and I'm really puzzled by the many errors in the reproduction of what is afterall one of the most famous aircraft of all times. Now who's going to be the next to give the Sabre a try ?

[Dave Fleming]

I think you answer your own question! It might be useful to list the various issues with each kit. There are a couple of comparisons on the web, but they are pre-Airfix

 

http://www.blindbatnews.com/2011/10/kit-bashing-heller-fujimi-hobbycraft-f-86-sabre-kits-compared/8203

 

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/184207-sabre-fuselages-in-172/

 

Personally, I don’t think the sweep error on the Heller one is that noticeable, but it does seem to be a mishmash I.e. it’s meant to be a Sabre 6 with slatted 6-3 wing, but some say the chord is too narrow for a 6-3 one.

[Giorgio N]

I was aware of the top link but not of the second, interesting information there as well.

Something I never saw mentioned but noticed when building the Academy kit is that the machine gun openings and the panel lines above seem to be located too far down on the fuselage. I only noticed this when I masked the model to paint a RAF style antiglare panel and realised that this ended being too deep compared to pictures.

 

[RidgeRunner]

Hi Giorgio, 

 

For me, understanding they all have their issues, the Fujimi 1/72 series tops the list. The speed brake issue can be overcome if you are of a mind to. Otherwise it is a fine, detailed and nicely moulding kit, whether in long or short wing forms.

 

M

[RidgeRunner]

3 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

I think you answer your own question! It might be useful to list the various issues with each kit. There are a couple of comparisons on the web, but they are pre-Airfix

 

http://www.blindbatnews.com/2011/10/kit-bashing-heller-fujimi-hobbycraft-f-86-sabre-kits-compared/8203

 

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/184207-sabre-fuselages-in-172/

 

Personally, I don’t think the sweep error on the Heller one is that noticeable, but it does seem to be a mishmash I.e. it’s meant to be a Sabre 6 with slatted 6-3 wing, but some say the chord is too narrow for a 6-3 one.

Very intersting

[Giorgio N]

1 hour ago, RidgeRunner said:

Hi Giorgio, 

 

For me, understanding they all have their issues, the Fujimi 1/72 series tops the list. The speed brake issue can be overcome if you are of a mind to. Otherwise it is a fine, detailed and nicely moulding kit, whether in long or short wing forms.

 

M

 

The square speed brake is not a deal-breaker, the shape can be corrected easily enough. Do you know if the machine guns are at the correct level ? IIRC Fujiimi moulded them on a separate panel, that would make correcting the issue easier if it's there.

What do you think of the shape of the machine guns throughs ? On the Academy kit these are kind of teardrop shaped, should be more elliptic.

Italeri has a 1/72 Sabre listed for release in 2019 and rumours are that it's the Fujimi kit, should this be true we'd have an easy source for this kit in Europe

Edited March 25, 2019 by Giorgio N

[Tony Edmundson]

all things considered, I would think the Fujimi kits as the leader with the HobbyCraft/Academy a close second.  True, all the kits have their 'clangers', but its up to ones own eye as to what to ignore or fix.   Airfix, for all that I love them, really missed a golden opportunity to give us a better product than Fujimi.    Heller kits for me are a source of spare parts for others(wheels, canopies,tanks)  while the old Hasegawa, PM, and HobbyBoss relish at the back of the pack.

 

Cheers, Tony   (Model On !!!)

[tempestfan]

I didn’t bother to check, and it’s the oldest of the bunch (and no F for that matter), but how does the Frog scrub up (and I don’t mean their Hase rebox)? Their 1956/7 range is simplistic, sometimes outright crude, but the Sea Hawk at least quite accurate in shape, as is the Gannet and I believe the Hunter and  Meteor 8 as well. And if the PM has some Frog pedigree as reputedly some others have, it may well become a contender (shapewise...) ?

[Scott Hemsley]

One also has to ask the question, are we just talking OOTB or something that can easily be corrected by x-kitting or aftermarket … combined with some basic modelling skills, a little research and an application of some TLC? 

 

At one time, I looked to the Heller kit for all 4 RCAF Sabres I planned (Sabre 2/4/5 and 6) and then when the Airfix came out, my 4 Heller kits were regulated to 'parts status' for Airfix Sabres. While I admit that it has issues OOTB (like every other 72nd Sabre), I feel that with good references (like Larry Milberry's book on the Canadair Sabre - to name one) and a few parts taken from the Heller Sabre and/or Pavla to replace the more questionable kit parts., the vast majority of issues can be corrected.  The TLC and some research comes in dealing with the remaining issues - like correcting the location of the drop tanks, or in the case of the hard-edge 6-3 wing, relocation of the wing fences and drilling out the 3 fuselage vents  their locations only hinted at by scribed lines..

 

Of course, the final kit choice and/or the amount of accuracy one desires (along with the amount of effort one is willing to put into the construction of the model), is always up to the individual.

 

Scott

 

 

[Tony Edmundson]

3 hours ago, tempestfan said:

I didn’t bother to check, and it’s the oldest of the bunch (and no F for that matter), but how does the Frog scrub up (and I don’t mean their Hase rebox)? Their 1956/7 range is simplistic, sometimes outright crude, but the Sea Hawk at least quite accurate in shape, as is the Gannet and I believe the Hunter and  Meteor 8 as well. And if the PM has some Frog pedigree as reputedly some others have, it may well become a contender (shapewise...) ?

THIS ;https://modelingmadness.com/review/korean/us/attardsabre.htm or this; https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/gregersfr/frog-1-72-f-86-sabre-finished-t9063.html

Edited March 25, 2019 by Tony Edmundson

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, Tony Edmundson said:

Airfix, for all that I love them, really missed a golden opportunity to give us a better product than Fujimi. 

What's wrong with the Airfix kit?   

 

One other general point,  a summary of a good /bad points for the mentioned kits would be handy, given the thread title.  It's not very informative as to what the problems, as noted by Scott

2 hours ago, Scott Hemsley said:

One also has to ask the question, are we just talking OOTB or something that can easily be corrected by x-kitting or aftermarket … combined with some basic modelling skills, a little research and an application of some TLC? 

 

Very curious that there seems to be no decent A/early E in any major scale...

 

thanks

T

[airjiml2]

A long time ago I wrote up a post on the Sabres for my blog.  I should revisit it.  I'm kinda taken aback for the Fujimi love.  Sure it is a nice kit, but the fuselage seems really fat.  Maybe that is just my perception, but the Airfix and Heller Sabres look right to me, while the HC/Academy and Fujimi look half way between a F-86F and F-86H in the nose area.

 

Jim

 

 

[airjiml2]

My knocks against the Airfix kit are misplaced wing pylons, terrible main wheels, crude cockpit, heavy scribing, and soft detail.  Plus the canopy ain't the best.

 

Jim

[Tony Edmundson]

2 hours ago, airjiml2 said:

My knocks against the Airfix kit are misplaced wing pylons, terrible main wheels, crude cockpit, heavy scribing, and soft detail.  Plus the canopy ain't the best.

 

Jim

Agree with those points and I find the speedbrake arrangement a bit 'pants', bad nose wheel along with the mains. and a bit of a bloated belly.   But really, isn't that enough?   I've still built a couple, just fixing what I thought important and ignoring certain other factors.

 

Tony

[Jackman]

For me, it's because of Airfix's deep panel lines.  It makes the kit look like a die-cast kit.  

 

While on the subject, which 1/72 kit has the most accurate looking airbrakes / speedbrakes? Not talking about the inside details but the overall shape.  To me, it looks like Heller and the old Hasegawa kit got it right in terms of shape (slightly canted and not squarish like the Fujimi & Academy ones).

[Giorgio N]

15 hours ago, Scott Hemsley said:

One also has to ask the question, are we just talking OOTB or something that can easily be corrected by x-kitting or aftermarket … combined with some basic modelling skills, a little research and an application of some TLC? 

 

 

 

 

Very good point, I should have made clear from the start that my concern is about shape accuracy, not details. Details like the wheels can be replaced with aftermarket items. Certain other details can be improved with some scratchbuilding or simply some work. What worries me are things like wrong fuselage shapes, tailplanes that are too short and so on. Things that are very difficult to improve without resorting to major surgery.

 

[Julien]

With the Airfix kit what really bothers me is the line of the canopy sill after the front section and the way it does not dip down. The rest of the isses with it are fixable and TBH when built it does look good.

 

Agree with @Tony Edmundson fujimi lead for me with HC/Academy second. I did build a Heller kit once for the correct block it represents and turned out OK, they are readily available tho for a good source of cheap spare parts.

 

We do tho as @Troy Smith points out need a new A/Early E. Im hoping Sword might do this?

 

Julien

[Sabrejet]

I'm in the Fujimi camp: the Airfix kit has shape issues throughout (nose, canopy, drop tanks) plus it lacks the finesse of the Fujimi kit.

[Julien]

3 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

I'm in the Fujimi camp: the Airfix kit has shape issues throughout (nose, canopy, drop tanks) plus it lacks the finesse of the Fujimi kit.

A shame as they had the chance to make a decent effort of it.

[Giorgio N]

With Italeri rumoured to be reboxing the Fujimi kit this year, if this is indeed the best option for an F it's good news.

I know that this kit suffers from the "square airbrakes syndrome", that is an annoying error but at the same time one that can be corrected quite easily (I did it in 15 minutes on the Academy kit so anybody can do it).

In one of the links above the elevators of 3 kits are compared and all are different, has anybody checked the Fujimi parts against reliable drawings or dimensions ?

Then there's the machine gun throughs... what are these like in the Fujimi kit ? I found this problem in the Academy kit:

 

 

On the left is a picture of a real aircraft taken from the Doyusha kit box art, on the right the Academy kit I'm building.

I used red lines to show the position of the MGs relative to the intake, and in the kit the top MG is roughly aligned with the farthest part of the intake. On the real aircraft however the top MG is aligned with the top of the ranging radar fairing, further up the nose. The two pictures are not to the same scale, so better don't compare the two but focus on the relative position of the parts within each picture.

Now this problem is not a major one, in my case it is noticeable as the antiglare panel should run along the top of the MG panel, but as this is also too low I'd end up with an excessively deep panel. The location of the MG ports is hard to correct but rescribing the panel higher up is easy enough (and there's another panel line missing right in front of the ports). If building a natural metal finished aircraft with no antiglare panel, I guess that nobody would notice (and probably I wouldn't have noticed it myself).

With the fujimi kit I see that the MGs ports are on a separate panel, so it's possible to lift the MGs in the right place if they aren't already.

The shape of the machine gun ports is also wrong, and this is a bit more annoying as yes can be corrected with a sharp blade but at the same time making all the holes of the correct size requires a steady hand that I don't always have 😁

 

[Plumbum]

I am in the Fujimi camp, Hobbycraft next then Heller. I built and scrapped the new

Airfix, It just didn't look right, had an odd look and the canopy is incorrect. ALL

1/72 kits have the wing tanks at the wrong dimensions. So far every kit I have built

in 1/72 scale I have had to relocate. The pylons for the wing tanks should be 99 inches

from the center of the fuselage to the center of the pylon, in 1/72 scale that's 34.9mm

or 1.375" in inches. So from tank to tank it's 70mm approx, and 2.75" in inches in 1/72 scale.---John

[Sabrejet]

35 minutes ago, Johnv said:

The pylons for the wing tanks should be 99 inches

from the center of the fuselage to the center of the pylon, in 1/72 scale that's 34.9mm

or 1.375" in inches. So from tank to tank it's 70mm approx, and 2.75" in inches in 1/72 scale.---John

BP 99.5 is only applicable for single-store wings; the tank pylons on dual store wings are at BP 72.25 and BP 118. I posted this with a diagram a while back.

[Plumbum]

I only do single store wings, hence I don't bother with those other dimensions.

Nice to know though, good to know if you're going to do bombs and tanks.---John

[Sabrejet]

42 minutes ago, Johnv said:

I only do single store wings, hence I don't bother with those other dimensions.

Nice to know though, good to know if you're going to do bombs and tanks.---John

Or two sets of tanks

[RidgeRunner]

Like this, mate:

 

one of my earlier builds... Be gentle

 

Martin