1/72 Revell F-18F Super Hornet

[Adam Maas]

The second build and something of a contrast to my Hasegawa EA-18G, this is also a 2-hole Rhino, but the F model

Kit comes with the VFA-103 CAG scheme that everybody loves and a grey line bird for VFA-11 Red Rippers. I'm not doing either, but am reaching into my stash of CoNA decals for a VX-9 Vampires bird. They had two in CoNA schemes, the 250 jet with a black tail and and a the 260 with a grey/white tail with green stripes. Not sure which, but I'm leaning towards the more colourful Green tail. Both jets are overall 36320 over 36375

 

It will be interesting to contrast the Hasegawa and Revell kits, and remind myself if my memory that the Revell is a better build is actually correct.

[modelling minion]

Nice choice, I like the look of the aircraft with the green and white tail markings.

[Adam Maas]

Got started by shooting some paint. First the FS36231 for the cockpit, then some black for the top surfaces. Since the plastic is almost dead on FS36231, I didn't bother with those pics, only the topside.



Look at the detail aft of the pit opening. That's absolutely blank on the Hasegawa.

First pass comparison is that the Hasegawa is more accurate, especially the spine shape (Revell does not have the 'squared' spine and looks more like a Legacy Hornet), but the Revell is better detailed in most spots and less fiddly. Bard stacks and exhausts are better on Hasegawa, upper wing, intakes and cockpit are better on the Revell.

[Adam Maas]

Been a while since I updated, but I haven't forgotten this build.

Working on the cockpit right now. It's WAY better detailed than the Hasegawa, but on the other hand, the engineering is a little German, if you know what I mean (ie never use 1 part when 17 will do)

Most 1/72 Hornets seem to use a 2 hole cockpit and simply plate over the back seat area when doing a single-seater. Not Revell's Super Hornet. They have a front pit and a separate rear pit that's supposed to just clip on the back. The problem becomes that the supports underneath the rear pit aren't sized correctly and if you assemble everything on the lower fuselage section as directed, nothing will fit. I eventually figured out that I could attach the rear pit to the upper fuselage in the correct position and then everything would come together (with the front mounted to the bottom section, which is just fine for that bit).

Anyways, here's the decals on the rear pit. Definitely a detail improvement over the Hasegawa (and there is paintable detail under those decals). If Hasegawa struck out, Revell hit a solid single. Still not a patch on the quality of panel decals I've seen elsewhere, like on the Eduard 1/72 Fw190A8/R2 I'm building right now. That kit set my current standard for cockpit decals, as good in 1/72 as any PE I've seen.

 

And assembled and waiting for me to install the two controllers in the rear pit

 

[Vultures1]

The cockpit does look good! And top tip about how to fit the rear pit 👍

[Adam Maas]

The 4-piece nose assembly. Over-engineered, but it fits surprisingly well and it's engineered to allow a drop-in replacement bit for a Growler

 

Main fuselage assembly before the nose is fitted. Note the somewhat sketchy join between the for and aft pits. The seat will mostly hide this, but I still have some work to do.

 

Take it slow and the nose goes on VERY well. Just need to do one side at a time or you might end up with one side slipping outwards

And once that set, I went to address two things underneath the wings. One is sink marks on the lower inner flap section, the second is that I will not be fitting most of the Pylons on this bird. It's a VX-9 ship and I will only be doing tanks on the inner pylons. I know VX-9 often flies with a centre tank and the weapons pylons, but I want this one clean with 2 tanks. I'll do one tank with the special markings and a second bare tank. Might add a Captive AIM-9L/M on the right tip rail if I have one in the spares box, I see lots of images of them on VX-9 birds.

[Adam Maas]

Oops, forgot the last pic

 

[Adam Maas]

Working on the intakes for a moment.

[Adam Maas]

And if you look closely, you'll note I somehow managed to forget to shoot 1 piece.

And that was my last RC004 Flat White. Oh well, a hobby shop visit is in order....

[arfa1983]

On 1/28/2022 at 7:54 PM, Adam Maas said:

And if you look closely, you'll note I somehow managed to forget to shoot 1 piece.

And that was my last RC004 Flat White. Oh well, a hobby shop visit is in order....

I always do stuff like this. As soon as all the airbrush is packed away I realise I missed one piece! 

[Adam Maas]

Got the intakes dealt with and built up



INstalled them, which is a tad fiddly as they don't want to go in at this point, you have to bend the exterior side of the intakes to get them to pop in.

Fit isn't bad. Some gaps, but nothing like the gaping intake seams on the Hasegawa, the side sections have all the same issues as the Hasegawa though, gaps at the tail end.

 

Put the outer wings and vertical stabs on so I can start filling

 

Putty on, looks worse than it actually is in terms of gaps. Bigger gaps than the Hasegawa overall, but better located (no upper wing seam that doesn't exist on the prototype for example)

 

 

 

 

[Wings unlevel]

Looks like the surface detailing is a little less refined than the Hasegawa’s?

[Adam Maas]

1 hour ago, Wings unlevel said:

Looks like the surface detailing is a little less refined than the Hasegawa’s?

It's a bit of a mixed bag. In some places the Revell is better, especially the wing tops and upper nose. In others the Hasegawa is better, especially the aft fuselage.

Overall, where Hasegawa has detail, it's usually better.

there's a lot of room for improvement on both though

 

[Wings unlevel]

On 20/02/2022 at 09:57, Adam Maas said:

It's a bit of a mixed bag. In some places the Revell is better, especially the wing tops and upper nose. In others the Hasegawa is better, especially the aft fuselage.

Overall, where Hasegawa has detail, it's usually better.

there's a lot of room for improvement on both though

 

Definitely sounds an interesting exercise building them side by side.

[Adam Maas]

7 hours ago, Wings unlevel said:

Definitely sounds an interesting exercise building them side by side.

It certainly is. They both have some issues.

Overall, the Hasegawa is the better choice, it's issues are more easily rectified by either basic modelling skills (intake and upper wing joint gaps) or by aftermarket (exhausts, intakes, the cockpit) while the Revell's issues are generally either shape (the spine is just wrong and lacks one of the most characteristic aspects of the Rhino's shape in the oddly squared off spine) or poorly rendered detail on the lower section (less of an issue, but annoying). Where it does well is where aftermarket is available, notably the intakes and cockpit.