Question for resident F-16 experts - ESCI kit v. Revell

[Wm Blecky]

A question for those more familiar with the various F-16 kits out there, specifically ESCI's F-16A as compared against the Revell kit.

 

I wanted to get a Revell F-16A kit and as the only ones currently available are the MLU versions, I picked up an ESCI F-16A kit.  It is very well done with respect to surface details.  There are a few areas that I will tweak with some aftermarket bits, but overall a well done kit, especially when you consider how long ago it was when the kit was issued.

 

That brings me to my question.  Does the ESCI kit represent a very, very early A?  Particularly when it comes to the area that is directly behind the cockpit and including the rear portion of the canopy?  I ask as when compared to the Revell kit, ESCI in this area is flat and there is no "step", while Revell (and other kits) has a "step":

 

ESCI

 

Revell

 

If someone could clear this up for me that would be most helpful.

 

[falcon]

The Revell kit is pretty acurate. I would say it is probably the best 1/72 F-16 kit on the market.

 

The old ESCI kit suffers from a couple of shape issues, namely the nose being a little too short and the cockpit area being very basic.

[Giorgio N]

I believe it's simply an inaccurate representation of the area on the Esci kit. This was a very good kit when first issued but the Revell one is sure more accurate.

Another inaccuracy in the Esci kit is the shape of the airbrakes at the rear fuselage end, they are represented as following the shape of the exhaust on their inner side while in reality they are straight.

IIRC the Revell MLU kits include most if not all the parts required for a standard A, apart from decals. If so, I'd probably use the Esci decals on the Revell kit. This if the Esci decals are still useable ! I've had several problems with old Esci decals, most times they disintegrate when touching water. It's just a matter of not aging well, they worked fine when I used them on then new kits in the late '80s.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Giorgio N

[CT7567]

The ESCI F-16A represents an early production model (Block 1/5/10 with the small stabilators, Block 15 for later tooling with the enlarged stabs). Aside from the general lack of detail in the cockpit, the kit seat is a Stencel (only used in FSD airframes) rather than the ACES II of production Vipers. As others have already noted, the shape of the decking aft of the seat is more accurate in Revell's kit but this did not vary significantly beteren versions in the actual aircraft.

[Wm Blecky]

Thanks all.

 

Any thoughts on Academy's F-16C ANG kit?  I've been looking into that kit as well.  Perhaps I've misread some of what I've come across, but it seems they offer 2 versions of this kit, the first release with some "errors" (the F-16CG/CJ) and then an improved (corrected?) F-16C which came out as an ANG and Thunderbirds kit.

[Giorgio N]

1 hour ago, Wm Blecky said:

Thanks all.

 

Any thoughts on Academy's F-16C ANG kit?  I've been looking into that kit as well.  Perhaps I've misread some of what I've come across, but it seems they offer 2 versions of this kit, the first release with some "errors" (the F-16CG/CJ) and then an improved (corrected?) F-16C which came out as an ANG and Thunderbirds kit.

 

I haven't heard of any correction or improvement in the later Academy reboxes. I have a Thunderbird kit that I bought already started and to me looks the same as other Academy kits I have (built a KF-16 and have another in the stash).

IMHO the shape errors are still there in the Thunderbird kit but said that it's not a bad kit from other points of view. Surface detail is pretty good, although the plastic is a bit rough in places, Detail overall is very nice but the fit of some parts can be tricky, in particular the air intake and the gun fairing panel (this maybe the worst part of the kit). It's not a bad kit After the very good job done with the F-8 and the F-18 I would had hoped for something much better from Academy. For a number of reasons I ended up with a few of these kits, but then they were all bought very cheap. For the subjects I'm more interested in I tend to use the Revell kit

In any case keep in mind that the Academy can represent a Block 42 or 52, not really an early aircraft. And really for a late F-16 nothing beats the Tamiya kit

[Silverkite]

On 9/13/2019 at 7:32 AM, Wm Blecky said:

Thanks all.

 

Any thoughts on Academy's F-16C ANG kit?  I've been looking into that kit as well.  Perhaps I've misread some of what I've come across, but it seems they offer 2 versions of this kit, the first release with some "errors" (the F-16CG/CJ) and then an improved (corrected?) F-16C which came out as an ANG and Thunderbirds kit.

all the errors in their 1/48 kit so nose, rear fuselage tapering. intake splitter were ported to the 1/72 kit

 

Luigi

[meindert]

Hi

 

I would use the Revell kit and adapt as needed.

You can check out many many 1/72 F-16 kits on my web pages at:

 

https://designer.home.xs4all.nl/models/f16/f16-1.htm

 

Over 30 models made of various brands. (also various 1/32 F-16 kits in fact).

 

Enjoy Plastic Scale Modelling!

Meindert

 

 

[Aardvark]

Not all good with "new" Revell:

Picture from old good (and live!):

https://72nd.webs.com/aircraft/GD/F-16.htm

So, probably best F-16 in 72nd scale it's Tamiya (?)!

 

B.R.

Serge

[Wm Blecky]

1 hour ago, Aardvark said:

Not all good with "new" Revell:

Picture from old good (and live!):

https://72nd.webs.com/aircraft/GD/F-16.htm

So, probably best F-16 in 72nd scale it's Tamiya (?)!

 

B.R.

Serge

I am not sure that I follow the diagram.  Could you elaborate please?

[Aardvark]

2 hours ago, Wm Blecky said:

I am not sure that I follow the diagram.  Could you elaborate please?

Not many can go on link:

5 hours ago, Aardvark said:

https://72nd.webs.com/aircraft/GD/F-16.htm

....and read this:

"Kit Reviews

 

Hasegawa F-16A+/B+

This brand was by the far the most accurate kit of the F-16 until the advent of the new Revell toolling. It is still good, but the Revell tooling surpasses it in some areas. The Hasegawa kits have the most accurate canopy of any brand, and overal shape of the kit is very close to a real F-16. Parts are moulded very crisply, with sharp trailing edges. The most serious flaw is the contours of the fuselage aft of FS 375. There should be a gentle taper sloping downwards along the spine under the base of the fin, but on the kit the spine is dead horizontal. Also, the air intake mouth is too 'smiley', and should have a more oval cross section. There is only basic detail in the cockpit & wheel wells, and the front wheel well is too shallow. The kit comes with AIM-9J & AIM-9L Sidewinders, BL755 Cluster bombs, early production wing tanks (tank fins are delta 'dart' type), a centreline tank, 2 TER's, & a crew entry ladder. Compared to drawings in the Detail & Scale and Lock On books, the kit is dimensionally accurate, but the main wheel bay is too short by 1mm, wingspan 0.5mm too narrow. The canopy is the most accurate of any tooling.

 

Hasegawa F-16C/D/N

As above, however these kits do not include the big mouth intake necessary to make a GE engined version, there is no provision for the correct gun muzzle for an F-16C/D, and the F-16C fin base does not have the slight 'flick up' of the real thing.

 

Hasegawa F-16C/D Block 50

As above, but this release includes a big mouth intake, new main wheels, bulged main undercarriage doors, AN/ASQ-213 HTS pod, AIM-120B AMRAAM's with new wingtip launchers, and AGM-88 HARM's; but it still does not include the correct gun muzzle for an F-16C/D.

 

Revell F-16A/MLU, F-16C Block 50/52

Be careful not to confuse these kits with the old Revell America tooling from the early eighties of an FSD F-16A. This completely new tooling from Revell Germany is very finely molded, with beautifully detailed well defined small parts. The new kit is fully optioned, allowing for the making of virtually any single-seat variant except the ADF or E, and is broken down in such a way that a two-seater could be released later. The kit features the later production wing tanks with clipped delta fins, a centreline tank, a parachute housing in the fin base, the most accurate arrestor hook and air intake mouth of any kit, and a separate nose cone. The wheel well and cockpit details are the best of any kit; the wheel hub detail is exceptional. The F-16C fin base has correct upward 'flick', but is a little too exaggerated. The kit includes Block 10 & current tailplanes, and optional gun muzzles for A & C variants (the only kit to do so). It also includes the Rapport III antennae used by Belgium & Israel, the best ACES II of any kit, GBU-8 LGB's, and a very good rendition of the AIM-9L Sidewinder. The Block 50/52 release includes correct parts for the GE engined version, AIM-120 AMRAAM's and launch rails, AGM-88 HARM's and associated AN/ASQ-213 HTS pod. Even though the tooling is more refined than the Hasegawa kit, it suffers from a number of flaws. Again, the fuselage aft of FS375 is incorrectly contoured. The yellow tinted plastic used for the canopy is the incorrect colour and looks toy-like. The wings have a slight dihedral due to overly tight fit when assembled and they have sink marks. The P&W nozzle is incorrectly tapered, the AIM-120's are the incorrect clipped fin version, and there are no bulged main gear doors for the F-16C variant. Compared to the drawings, the overall length of the kit is 3mm too long. The error is spread throughout the length of the fuselage and would be very difficult to correct. The wingspan is 1mm too wide, the main wheel bay is 0.5mm too long. The canopy is 1.5mm too long, and results in a taper at the rear which is too gradual, and therefore at the same slope as the fuselage at that point.

 

Italeri F-16A/B

Although considerably older than the others, this kit does have some redeeming virtues. It is the only kit with a correctly contoured rear fuselage, and the only one to offer the choice of a jet nozzle fully closed. It offers single & twin seat versions in one box, and the oleo legs are well detailed. The kit includes early production wing tanks with delta fins, parachute fin housing, TER's, CBU-59 Rockeyes, and AIM-9L Sidewinders. The tooling does show its age: it has Stencel ejection seats (incorrect for a production version F-16), no area rule 'waisting' on the rear fuselage tailplane booms, and the air intake mouth has an incorrect cross section (straight top lip instead of curved). The panel lines are crude and overscale by today's standards, but not too obtrusive. The tailplane mounting tabs must be repositioned as they are a carry-over from the Block 10 version- if mounted with no trimming, the tailplanes will sit flush with the airbrakes (too far foward) instead of sitting behind. The one-piece canopy component does not include the canopy rail, so if a model with an open canopy is required the rail will have to be carefully separated from the fuselage, as well as the transparency being cut at the hinge line. The gap between the jet nozzle and the base of of the fin is too small and not pronounced enough, the gun muzzle is crudely moulded, and the kit has rudimentary cockpit & wheel well detail. Compared to the drawings, overall length is accurate, but the canopy is too short by 1.5mm, the main wheel bay is 1.5mm too short, the wingtip launch rails are undersize, and the wingspan is 1mm undersize.

Italeri F-16C/D
As above, but also offers LANTIRN IR/laser pods, ALQ-133 ECM pod, & GE nozzle. No big mouth GE intake or C/D gun muzzle, though.

 

Hasegawa Mitsubishi F-2

 

For those with too much money, the F-2 offers a couple of components which can be pilfered for use on F-16's: good large size wing tanks as seen on Israeli and Lockheed demonstrator versions, and a very good GE nozzle.

Smer F-16B
Intech tooling, Very poor copy of Italeri kit, offers extra sprue containing 6 AIM-9B's and 2 Mavericks. Only mentioned here because it is good for the Pakistani decals. (Now no longer the case with the release of Zotz's sheet).

 

Fujimi F-16B+

 

For those curious about the Fujimi tooling, it suffers the same inaccuracies around the rear fuselage as the others; in addition, the area ruling on the rear under-fuselage is too pronounced. Wing tanks are too wide and short, although they could be used as a basis for larger tanks seen on Israeli and Lockheed demonstrator versions. Detailing on the wheels is good, and the kit comes with 2 GBU-10 LGB's & ADF nose aerials but not the fin to match. The ejection seats are completely ficticious. Smoke coloured plastic is used for the canopy.

 

Esci F-16A/B

 

We mention this kit here due to the fact that it was recommmended as the best F-16 kit by Verlinden at the time of publication of the F-16 Lock On. The tooling is very similar to the Italeri kit, but we cannot vouch for its accuracy as we have not been able to inspect one closely, although that will occur soon.

 

The Holy Grail

 

In summary, it is impossible to make a truly accurate F-16 model without using a combination of parts from several brands or commiting to major surgery. None of the kits include a canopy with an undercut bubble cross section. For the most accurate model, the following is recommended: Hasegawa rear canopy, top rear fuselage side, Italeri fuselage rear of FS375, Revell front canopy, nose, intake mouth, undercarriage, weapons, pylons, cockpit and all other small components. Either the Hasegawa or Revell kits could be used as a basis, but the Hasegawa kit does not suffer from the join kink halfway down the fuselage as the Revell kit does."

 

...more questions about diagram?

 

B.R.

Serge

 

[Silverkite]

Hasegawa is smaller, if the central section of both F-2 and F-16 is the same the error will probably go through to the upper fuselage section, comparing Tamiya and Revell sections with Hasegawa's F-2 the MLG and tail hook kinda lay at the same place.

 

Problem with Tamiya kit is that AS PER USUAL they freaking pulled another bait & switch, they released the P&W kit only in the wrong scale and I doubt they will ever care enough to ever release an A version.

 

Luigi

 

 

[Wm Blecky]

Do you think it possible to cross kit the Tamiya kit with the Revell offering?

[CT7567]

13 hours ago, Wm Blecky said:

Do you think it possible to cross kit the Tamiya kit with the Revell offering?

The question would be *why*?

The Tamiya kit represents a Block 50, thus difficult to alter into anything  other than another GE engined, "largemouth" C-model.

 

Other than some minor details (e.g. bulged doors for havyweight gear), the Revell kits provide an excellent basis for virtually all versions of the baseline A/B/C/D without needing any corrections or additions.

 

The "Frankenviper" diagram above seems to givevtge false impression the Revell and Tamiya kits have some sort of fatal flaws (they don't). What's really outrageous is the suggestion to splice in parts from the Italeri kit as a "correction."  If you've ever seen, much less built, the Italeri kit compared to Revell or Tamiya you should realize this is laughable.

[Shane]

2 hours ago, CT7567 said:

The "Frankenviper" diagram above seems to givevtge false impression the Revell and Tamiya kits have some sort of fatal flaws (they don't). What's really outrageous is the suggestion to splice in parts from the Italeri kit as a "correction."  If you've ever seen, much less built, the Italeri kit compared to Revell or Tamiya you should realize this is laughable.

Having almost completed an Italeri kit purely to use the garish green and black scheme provided, I couldn't agree more strongly. You can get a result, but only with an enormous amount of work.

 

Shane

[Giorgio N]

On 10/12/2019 at 5:15 PM, Aardvark said:

 

Hasegawa F-16C/D/N

As above, however these kits do not include the big mouth intake necessary to make a GE engined version, there is no provision for the correct gun muzzle for an F-16C/D, and the F-16C fin base does not have the slight 'flick up' of the real thing.

 

 

The lack of the big mouth intake was actually correct in these kits as when issued they represented variants that retained the original intake, All F-16C built before and including 86-0261 had the "small" intake even if GE powered. All F-16Ns also retained the original intake

 

19 at 5:15 PM, Aardvark said:

 

Esci F-16A/B

 

We mention this kit here due to the fact that it was recommmended as the best F-16 kit by Verlinden at the time of publication of the F-16 Lock On. The tooling is very similar to the Italeri kit, but we cannot vouch for its accuracy as we have not been able to inspect one closely, although that will occur soon.

The Esci tooling is IMHO not similat at all to the Italeri kit. When the Esci kit first appeared it was much finer than the older Italeri one.

[Aardvark]

8 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

The Esci tooling is IMHO not similat at all to the Italeri kit. When the Esci kit first appeared it was much finer than the older Italeri one.

Giorgio, don't tell my about this. I had an ESCI F-16B. I know that 

ESCI and Italeri are different models. I'm just quote article about F-16 models 72nd scale from https://72nd.webs.com/menu.htm .

So, don't argue with me, argue with https://72nd.webs.com/

😉🤗

B.R.

Serge

[Silverkite]

16 hours ago, CT7567 said:

The question would be *why*?

The Tamiya kit represents a Block 50, thus difficult to alter into anything  other than another GE engined, "largemouth" C-model.

 

Other than some minor details (e.g. bulged doors for havyweight gear), the Revell kits provide an excellent basis for virtually all versions of the baseline A/B/C/D without needing any corrections or additions.

 

The "Frankenviper" diagram above seems to givevtge false impression the Revell and Tamiya kits have some sort of fatal flaws (they don't). What's really outrageous is the suggestion to splice in parts from the Italeri kit as a "correction."  If you've ever seen, much less built, the Italeri kit compared to Revell or Tamiya you should realize this is laughable.

 

Revell base fuselage is for the A version, if you don't care you can dress it up as C/D and other variants, if not rescribing and other touch ups are required.

Tamiya offers you a C fuselage straight from the box

15 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

Giorgio, don't tell my about this. I had an ESCI F-16B. I know that 

ESCI and Italeri are different models. I'm just quote article about F-16 models 72nd scale from https://72nd.webs.com/menu.htm .

So, don't argue with me, argue with https://72nd.webs.com/

😉🤗

B.R.

Serge

Fujimi, Italeri and Esci have common fuselage and sprue breakouts, a couple of things need to be added anyway

 

Fujimi: pylons, drop tanks and weapons are a joke, you can probably save Penguin missiles and its launchers (need some fixes anyway) but everything it's off, Sidewinders are too skinny and small, drop tanks seems to be inspired by F-2A ones 'cept they are still skinny and shorter, wing pylons do look something good for Ace Combat series F-5, F-20 and X-29 airplanes, aligning the cockpit part it's not as messy as doing that on AMT/ERTL and Italeri kits but still on some boxes and I had around 20 spanning from early ones to later ones not only cover sometimes was shorter, it was also asymmetrical in both width and height 

 

Italeri made different revisions of their kits...the first batch aka #130 box with green or orange stripe contained longer drop tanks as per prototype and F-16XL variants, GBUs and Sparrow missiles, second revision aka #130 box with sometimes a dark orange striple or no band at all replaced the sprue with longer drop tanks and weapons with a simple A option sprue, 2,5ndish revision that happened when they released the #188 box added some extra sprue for lantirn pods etc, 3rdish revision was when they added ADF parts on #1271 box. Italeri kit comes with its own set of faults, yet is a good source of decals cause Hasegawa is way too lazy to change markings on catalogue boxes let alone doing anything that it's not another overpriced special limited edition variant and Revell is sadly too focused on releasing markings for flying beer cans with no stencils or with plan B markings

 

Esci detail is more finer than Italeri and Fujimi kits, aligning the cockpit cover it's not an hard task, you glue it without worrying about asymmetry, seal the gaps with putty, rescribe and you are gold, yet AMT/ERTL boxes which are basically Esci kits with softer plastic, extra weapons and nozzle sprue shenanigans  are mostly to be avoided

 

Luigi

[Aardvark]

My tricky plan 😁 is to use F-16 from Revell as a donor for the F-16XL Monogram ..... and use the F-16C from Tamiya to build.... F-16C!

😉😁

 

B.R.

Serge 

 

[CT7567]

3 hours ago, Silverkite said:

 

Revell base fuselage is for the A version, if you don't care you can dress it up as C/D and other variants, if not rescribing and other touch ups are required.

Tamiya offers you a C fuselage straight from the box

As I said above:

Other than some minor details (e.g. bulged doors for havyweight gear), the Revell kits provide an excellent basis for virtually all versions of the baseline A/B/C/D without needing any corrections or additions.

 

The difference between the panel lines on an A/B airframe vs a C/D version is pretty trivial, especially in 1/72 scale. If you feel only the Tamiya is acceptable, or that you must rescribe, go ahead, but my point is this is not the standard of accuracy looked for by 99% of modellers, for whom the Revell kit can build a perfectly acceptable C/D.

[Giorgio N]

14 hours ago, Aardvark said:

Giorgio, don't tell my about this. I had an ESCI F-16B. I know that 

ESCI and Italeri are different models. I'm just quote article about F-16 models 72nd scale from https://72nd.webs.com/menu.htm .

So, don't argue with me, argue with https://72nd.webs.com/

😉🤗

B.R.

Serge

 

Of course, my comments were toward the original text that you quoted and I should approach the author with my comments. unfortunately the website seems to have disappeared a long time ago. I used to check that website for a few things.

Personally I prefer the Esci F-16 to the Italeri one for a number of features, although some aspects are not too accurate. Not that the Italeri kit is too accurate anyway...

 

13 hours ago, Aardvark said:

My tricky plan 😁 is to use F-16 from Revell as a donor for the F-16XL Monogram ..... and use the F-16C from Tamiya to build.... F-16C!

😉😁

 

B.R.

Serge 

 

 

Using parts from the Revell kit could be a good idea to improve the Monogram XL... however I feel that the kind of work involved is such that at that point using the Monogram parts alone may make more sense. The fuselage has to be lengthened in both cases, with cuts made in different sections on the upper and lower half. The Monogram wing then needs some alteration as the American company based their kit on the original proposal and not on the actual F-16Xl as built. I did start modifying the Monogram kit following an article in a US magazine, I'm at a good point but recently I found the 1/48 Skunk Works kit for sale at IIRC Hobbyeasy... bought that one and now I'll see if I can modify the Monogram kit into the two-seater

[mirageiv]

On 10/13/2019 at 1:17 PM, Wm Blecky said:

Do you think it possible to cross kit the Tamiya kit with the Revell offering?

 

Yes! Here is my WIP thread so far to prove, more to follow eventually: 

 

I have an F-16A in progress and completed also an F-16B in the linked thread. Both use the Tamiya Block 50 as the base kit with Revell donor parts, the F-16A backdated to Block 5/10 standard and the F-16B to Block 15. The F-16B was in the end considerable work and in hindsight I would just use the Revell kit in the future.

 

Imho the best kits by a very good margin are Tamiya and Revell for their shape above anything else, they simply look the most Viper like of any 1/72 offering to my eyes. The Hasegawa kit to me has always looked slightly off forward of the intake in the nose and how the LERX blends with the forward fuselage, it is all too rounded IMO. When I compare to photos the Revell kit captures the front end look of the Viper better than Hasegawa, yet Tamiya is the best and a big part of that is due to it having a proper bubble shaped canopy. 

 

Also the Hasegawa F-16B canopy and cockpit length is noticeably shorter than the Revell F-16B. If we take the Tamiya kit as pretty much as accurate as we need to be, the Revell F-16B parts fitted almost perfectly to the Tamiya kit suggesting that the Revell kit is very close to the Tamiya and therefore accurate. Plus again imho the Revell F-16B captures 'the look' better than Hasegawa. 

 

I think the Hasegawa kits are still ok kits, just not as good as Revell.

 

If you are prepared to add some refinement to the surface details on the Revell kit you will get something very close to the Tamiya standard, but the Tamiya is the number one in most respects bar variants. 

 

Cheers,

 

David 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by mirageiv

[Phantome]

There's really only 3 kits to consider right now for F-16: Academy, Revell, and Tamiya. The Hasegawa is moot because for any version you want to build, there is a better option.

 

Here's a breakdown of the variants and which kit is best and why:

 

F-16A (All blocks) - Revell. You have a choice of vertical stabilizers including the older type with the straight trailing edge. ALL Revell boxings can be made into an F-16A and gives you Dutch and Belgian options for the fins.

F-16AM MLu - Revell. Same as above, it is essentially the A kit with AMRAAMs and pylons, different cockpit, and a just a few other MLu tidbits. All new pieces are in an extension to one of the existing sprues.

F-16C Blocks 25/30/32 - Revell. All C boxings will allow you to build any of the early C blocks. They also allow you to build all A and AM versions too (all C-specific bits are in a new sprue).

F-16C Block 40/42 - Academy. It's the only kit which has holographic HUDs. However, the nose and intakes are very inaccurate and the wheel covers aren't bulged.

F-16C Block 50 - Tamiya. No brainer. One of the best 1/72 kits ever made, just make sure you get the one with weapons.

F-16C Block 52 - Academy or Revell. Neither has the bulged wheel covers but Revell doesn't include the new landing gear, only the new wheels.

 

If you have an extra HUD from the Academy kit, you could also turn the Tamiya into a Block 40. It's the only major difference aside from the reinforcement plates which neither kit comes with but you can get as aftermarket. If you got the Academy KF-16 kit you'd also get early LANTIRN pods so you could make an 1990s-era aircraft with it (these are not included in the USAF kits) and also easily surgically replace the wingtip pylons for the older type. I'm planning to do this at some point to make a Gulf War Block 40.

 

I have built all three kits at least twice and I would rank them as follows:

Accuracy:
1) Tamiya

2) Revell

3) Academy (the nose issue IS very noticeable at some angles, the wide intake is awful and the narrow one slightly more bearable but still off)

 

Surface detail

1) Tamiya

2) Academy

3 ) Revell (no rivets, very far behind the other two but still decent)

 

Cockpit detail

1) Revell (one of the best cockpits in 1/72 scale and seat is superb)

2) Tamiya (awful seat! but otherwise is excellent)

3) Academy (arguably better than Tamiya but one major problem... canopy is not designed to be open! You can still manage to do so, but annoying that they didn't offer this option from the start)

* All three have excellent wheel well detail and not worth ranking them

 

Fit

1) Tamiya (Unbelievable)

2) Academy (Exceptional too)

3) Revell (mostly good but some parts are a pain, and like many Revell kits has molding quality issues)

 

Things under wings:

1) Academy (ALQ-184, JDAMs, HARMs... LANTIRNs in KF-16 boxing)

2) Revell (ALQ-131, Paveways, HARMs... but no air-to-ground stuff at all on their A or AM boxings)

3) Tamiya (ALQ-184, HARMs)

*All have the standard set of Sidewinders and AMRAAMs

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Phantome

[Phantome]

As for aftermarket, I think there has been a missed opportunity to expand the possibilities from the Tamiya kit which is limited to the Block 50 by design: the beer cans are fixed to the wings, the wing pylons are also fixed which means you can't add an older style AIM-9-only pylon. I do not think Tamiya is going to bother with a Block 40/42/42 or early C blocks anytime soon as they would have done so already.

 

And so you would have expected the aftermarket community to step in to the rescue at an opportunity like this... and as usual, they haven't. Nobody has bothered to make narrow intakes, or holographic HUDs, or older style wheel covers and landing lights to be able to do earlier versions. But hooray, we have 3 different resin wheels! That'll surely bring in the £££ millions...

 

Honestly, a lot of these aftermarket companies couldn't see a business opportunity if it bit them... you get the picture.

[Winnie]

So why no mention of Kinetic's F-16s in 2nd? they seem OK to me, not being a professional fighter pilot OR model builder, but I have built  the Tamiya 72nd C, and will build an Israeli C as well from it, and I do have the Israeli I boxing from Kinetic that I also intend to build.

 

Cheers

H.