Confused about this Italeri f-16 kit

[Ramtin]

Hello,

 

I was planning on building this kit next https://www.scalemates.com/nl/kits/italeri-188-f-16c-d-night-falcon--640264

 

I am a bit confused though. The kit says f-16C or D. But it has decals for Dutch and belgium versions as well. And inside it looks like you have to create the A or B version. But the box says it's C/D.

 

Because if it's C or D, it wouldn't work as Dutch or Belgian vipers since they had the A and B now the MLU's.

 

Can someone clarify my confusion?

[PhantomBigStu]

NATO A’s were upgraded with the spine and horizontal stabilisers so the can be done out of the box, and I’ve checked both options to confirm they were upgraded 

[exdraken]

Only significant difference is the fin base, both styles are included

https://www.super-hobby.com/products/F-16-C-D-Night-Falcon.html

 

The smaller, slimmer one on the main sprue is for the A/B

 

Only one engine type included, should therefore  be a PW type, which is your only choice for A/B

[CT7567]

For the earliest C/D models, the widened base of the vertical fin was the only major visual difference from the late A/B models.  The easiest way to spot a C/D (if you're not sure of the tail base is bulged or not) is the blade antenna at the front end of the base of the tail.

 

Later on in C/D production various production blocks (referred to by numbers) introduced different engines (GE F110 or updates of the original Pratt & Whitney F100), intakes ("big mouth" or standard), heavy-weight gear with bulged main doors, and other miscellaneous detail changes in varying combinations. 

 

It can get bewildering in a hurry to figure out which features go with which airframes (and which kits do or don't include those features). The best way to tell what block your subject is - for US aircraft - is to check the serial number.  You can look up the block number from there on F-16.net

[Boman]

20 hours ago, Ramtin said:

Hello,

 

I was planning on building this kit next https://www.scalemates.com/nl/kits/italeri-188-f-16c-d-night-falcon--640264

 

I am a bit confused though. The kit says f-16C or D. But it has decals for Dutch and belgium versions as well. And inside it looks like you have to create the A or B version. But the box says it's C/D.

 

Because if it's C or D, it wouldn't work as Dutch or Belgian vipers since they had the A and B now the MLU's.

 

Can someone clarify my confusion?

 

When you look at the parts breakdown ExDraken provided link to, you will see that you can actualy make either A-B-C or D from the parts available. So if you target is  C or D, you're good with the restrictions on only the PW engine being provided in the kit. The box top shows 85-1572, which is a block 30 with the GE engine. The A/B only used the PW, while early C/D's also used the PW like 84-1315 which is one of the marking options in the kit.
Depending on how picky you are on your models in 1/72, the PW vs GE should be possible to overcome, alternatively there are aftermarket available if you want a true GE engine. 

 

FYI
- Any F-16A/B block 5/10/15/ADF/OCU/MLU uses PW engines.

- Any F-16C/D block 25/32/42/52/72 also use the PW engine (there is no block 62's btw).
- Any F-16C/D Block 30/40/50/60/70 uses GE engine.  

[exdraken]

2 hours ago, Boman said:

 

FYI
- Any F-16C/D block 25/32/42/52/72 also use the PW engine (there is no block 62's btw).

block 60 anyways is more an F-16E/F, rather different beast altogether only operated by UAE with a AESA radar, and lots of bits and pieces dangling from the jet....

designation wise it definitely the odd one out , as block 70/72 reverts back in many cases the original C/D models (maybe in order not to pay lincences to UAE?, or becuase it was a dead end? )... lets see if they end up being G/H models in the long run ....

 

[Hook]

One thing to look out for with this kit - Italeri made a booboo with the horizontal stabs.

 

As molded these are too much forward. The Block 15 extension should protrude beyond the trailing edge of the airbrakes, not be level with them. The trailing edge of the airbrakes should be level with the "corner" of the tailplanes. 

 

A simple fix is shortening the tabs on the stab parts, so you can fit them further back.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Boman]

2 hours ago, exdraken said:

lets see if they end up being G/H models in the long run ....

 

Nah, G died with the block 40/42 becoming CG/DG's while J/K died with the block 50/52's becoming CJ/DJ remember 😋. (Following CCIP they are now all CM/DM) 

[Vingtor]

The Italeri 1/72 F-16C/D is regarded as the best 1/72 F-16AM/BM kits, as they contain the necessary parts. You might need some aftermarket decals though.

 

Nils

[CT7567]

25 minutes ago, Vingtor said:

The Italeri 1/72 F-16C/D is regarded as the best 1/72 F-16AM/BM kits, as they contain the necessary parts. You might need some aftermarket decals though.

 

Nils

Sorry, but which parts are you referring to? My understanding (and recollection from kits in my stash) is that the Revell AG tooling is far superior to Italeri's and provides all of the MLU-specific updates - in fact as I recall a single-seat MLU was the first variant issued from that tooling family.

[Hook]

40 minutes ago, CT7567 said:

Sorry, but which parts are you referring to? My understanding (and recollection from kits in my stash) is that the Revell AG tooling is far superior to Italeri's and provides all of the MLU-specific updates - in fact as I recall a single-seat MLU was the first variant issued from that tooling family.

This. I'd rate the Italeri far from the best choice these days.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[ElectroSoldier]

I would say it was as good as the Revell kit for a European F-16.

The LANTIRN pods were ok, but the weapons provided were its weak point, some unusable cluster bombs I think it was.

It was very cheap back then, and it still is, its just under £11 retail.

[Hook]

36 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:

I would say it was as good as the Revell kit for a European F-16.

Which 1/72nd Revell F-16 kit? 

 

The Italeri (which first appeared in 1980) improves upon the 1976 kit, but the new mold released in 2000 is a vastly superior kit. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

 

[CT7567]

1 hour ago, ElectroSoldier said:

I would say it was as good as the Revell kit for a European F-16.

The LANTIRN pods were ok, but the weapons provided were its weak point, some unusable cluster bombs I think it was.

It was very cheap back then, and it still is, its just under £11 retail.

Italeri has the virtues of being inexpensive, widely available, and generally good overall shape (notwithstanding the horizontal stab issue noted above), and most boxings include a range of decals for several operators (though frequently deviating to a greater or lesser degree from the variant that can be accurately built OOB).  When it was the only readily available 1/72 F-16 in my youth - in the vintage Testors boxings - I built a couple, and still have 3-4 in the stash.

 

All that said, Revell AG's kit is far better by almost any standard I can imagine using to measure: detailed cockpit (embossed panel details and a 3-part ACES II vs. decals only and an approximation of a Stencel); accurate/modern/more complete stores array; Accurate accommodation for multiple variants (A/C/MLU, plus the parabrake and ECM mods for various subvariants); and other than some reportedly heavy flash suggesting tired molds and potential fit issues with later boxings, overall a joy to build with few, if any negatives.

Edited June 9, 2022 by CT7567
Clarified reference

[ElectroSoldier]

Must confess Ive not built one for a very long time. I remember when it was released and it was better than the Revell kit at the time.

Is the retooled Revell kit a A/B/C/D/AM/MLU too?

[Hook]

40 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:

Is the retooled Revell kit a A/B/C/D/AM/MLU too?

The 2000 Revell kit is not a retool but a totally new tool, unrelated to the 70s Revell kit.

 

Even though the engine with dolly, tow bar and tractor of the old kit were pretty groovy.  😎

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[ElectroSoldier]

1 hour ago, Hook said:

The 2000 Revell kit is not a retool but a totally new tool, unrelated to the 70s Revell kit.

 

Even though the engine with dolly, tow bar and tractor of the old kit were pretty groovy.  😎

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

So the one with the yellow and grey stripe down the spine isnt the same kit, it doesnt have the dolly?

I cant remember the kit number off hand. I think its a F-16 MLU

[Hook]

38 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:

So the one with the yellow and grey stripe down the spine isnt the same kit, it doesnt have the dolly?

I cant remember the kit number off hand. I think its a F-16 MLU

If by "the one with the yellow and grey stripe down the spine" you mean this kit:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-03905-f-16mlu-100th-anniversary--1115616

 

Then yes, that is the vastly-superior-but-dollyless new tool.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[ElectroSoldier]

7 hours ago, Hook said:

If by "the one with the yellow and grey stripe down the spine" you mean this kit:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-03905-f-16mlu-100th-anniversary--1115616

 

Then yes, that is the vastly-superior-but-dollyless new tool.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

Thats the one.
I didnt realise it was a new tooling.

 

In what was is it better than the Italeri kit?

I found the Italeri kit to be ok apart from the little problems already mentioned in this thread.

 

Is there an option to build it as a single and double seat? 

Edited June 10, 2022 by ElectroSoldier

[CT7567]

15 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:

Thats the one.
I didnt realise it was a new tooling.

 

In what was is it better than the Italeri kit?

 

Literally every way. See above.

 

16 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:

 

Is there an option to build it as a single and double seat? 

 

Revell only boxes the two-seaters separately, so the B and D are somewhat rare by comparison to other versions.  Canopies and forward upper fuelage parts are on a separate sprue.

 

The D is probably easier to find currently as a more recent release.  Unless they've started cutting out sprues, any C or D boxing also has all the parts for an A or B, respectively - i.e. you can build any single-seat variant from the C kit or any 2-seater from the D, but not the reverse.

[ElectroSoldier]

48 minutes ago, CT7567 said:

 

Literally every way. See above.

 

 

Revell only boxes the two-seaters separately, so the B and D are somewhat rare by comparison to other versions.  Canopies and forward upper fuelage parts are on a separate sprue.

 

The D is probably easier to find currently as a more recent release.  Unless they've started cutting out sprues, any C or D boxing also has all the parts for an A or B, respectively - i.e. you can build any single-seat variant from the C kit or any 2-seater from the D, but not the reverse.

You mention more complete stores above, I assume the stores in each boxing are different as the one I just looked at online shows only AIM-120 and AIM-9 in the F-16 MLU

[CT7567]

2 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

You mention more complete stores above, I assume the stores in each boxing are different as the one I just looked at online shows only AIM-120 and AIM-9 in the F-16 MLU

I don't have every boxing and as noted above Revell may no longer include everything the original issues did, but from what I can recall the C/D kits have the MLU parts (AIM-120, AIM-9L, and accurate wing and centerline tanks & pylons) plus Paveway II (GBU-10), AGM-88 HARM, ASQ-213 HTS pod, ALQ-131 ECM, and IIRC some additional AMRAAMs (possibly a different subtype, cropped vs uncropped wings?). I wouldn't call the MLU's selection vast, but it covers the most frequently seen A2A loads and more importantly everything provided is very accurate and finely detailed.

[Hook]

4 hours ago, CT7567 said:

more importantly everything provided is very accurate and finely detailed.

While the Italeri stores are so-so. The Sidewinders look more like AIM-9D's than L's, the AIM-120's in some boxings are featureless and you already mentioned the lacklustre Rockeyes. The AN/ALQ-131 in some boxings is decent, though. 

 

Furthermore, most Italeri boxings may have several decal options (with this being the best), but the colours and segmentation of the Dutch roundels (and the Norwegian ones as well, I recall) are off. 

 

One thing RoG forgot with the C/D kits is the bulged MLG doors, though. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Hook]

4 hours ago, CT7567 said:

ASQ-213 HTS

And unlike Hasegawa's undernourished Pave Penny-sized one, the RoG HTS is correctly sized.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

 

[ElectroSoldier]

7 hours ago, Hook said:

While the Italeri stores are so-so. The Sidewinders look more like AIM-9D's than L's, the AIM-120's in some boxings are featureless and you already mentioned the lacklustre Rockeyes. The AN/ALQ-131 in some boxings is decent, though. 

 

Furthermore, most Italeri boxings may have several decal options (with this being the best), but the colours and segmentation of the Dutch roundels (and the Norwegian ones as well, I recall) are off. 

 

One thing RoG forgot with the C/D kits is the bulged MLG doors, though. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

But if you build it as one of the European versions that should matter though right?

Ive been looking at the boxings, they all seem to be for some rather nice and colourful European versions which were A and B versions right?