F-104 kits

[RidgeRunner]

9 hours ago, alt-92 said:

There are a few sellers on that well-known auction site that have plenty of Hasegawa kits including the D-17 F-104G/S boxing.

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hasegawa-d17-f-104s-f-104g-starfighter--132248

 

 

Thanks mate. It was the C that I was meaning. I’ve just had an offer accepted on an Esci :). The Italeri kit (the same) seems very rare now.

 

Martin

[Giorgio N]

So, the Hasegawa kit... here's a list of small things that IMHO can be improved on. I'll mention both features of the model that are not exactly like on the real aircraft and also issues that I've found building the kit.. I've built 4 of them so there are a few things that I found constantly bothering me...

I'll focus on the G variant here, other variants may differ in some details.

 

Fuselage, starting from the tip... left or right is always looking from the tail to the front from above.

- Pitot tube: the Hasegawa part is not bad but of course the Master brass item is much better. One problem that can happen is that when gluing the front fuselage halves together the location for the tube gets damaged. Best option is to insert a metal tube of the right size before gluing the two halves, to protect the area.

- on the right side, the location of the canopy release controls scribed on the side may not be 100% correct. On the lest side there's no scribed location for the (different) control but decals usually sort this

- the shape of the inspection hatch under the fuselage is wrong: this is depicted as a square but in reality it's a rectangle with rounded edges. Filling and rescribing sort the matter. This is very visible as it's generally left in unpainted fibreglass, so contrasting with the finish of the lower fuselage

- between the hatch and the front wheel well there should be a light and then a vent, none is present. This detail can change in some variants, so check pictures if possible.

- there are no vents beside the front wheel well, while on the real F-104 there are on both sides. On the right side they go as long as the well, on th eleft side they extend farther aft. Ideally they should be scribed in, on a couple of my models I represented them with home-made decals

- again there's no representations of the vents immediately behind the wheel wells

- on top of the fuselage, the antenna behind the cockpit is defined by a scribed line on the left side but not on the right one... can be rescribed or as it's generally left in unpainted fibreglass just represented by masking it.

- on the top right side beside the spine, there should be a circular access panel  that is missing, can be rescribed.

- the ventral pylon area is very simplified, there should be a raised panel that is missing

- the way hasegawa suggests to glue the underfuselage missile rails is not right, more so as they suggest to drill a hole through a vent.... there should be a proper "catamaran" also for the G while they only provide this for the J. The two are different, look for pictures of the 1/48 Eduard part to see what it's like.

- The intakes can be tricky to align properly... take patience and they can be made to fit well.

- the intakes may be not bulged enough... hard to tell and impossible to correct anyway

- the 3 panels on the fuselage top sides above the wings are correctly represented as rectangles with rounded edges but the edges should be even more rounded

- the circular auxiliary gravity refueling point is missing. This is represented as decal so may be left as is or may be rescribed if desired

- the instructions suggest to add the main landing gear before painting but this means having this in the way. If the landing gear is not attached though the keel in the middle of the well can't be put in place... so it's a choice between having the landing gear in the way while painting the model or having to add the keel on the model after painting with the resulting risk of having to sand and repaint again... in any case it's not ideal

- the rear fuselage is covered in rivets... some like them and some don't. If you don't then the only option is to fill them.

- the fit of the rear fuselage halves on the lower surfaces is often problematic. The plastic here is very thin and while this allows the modeller to bend things a little to help achieving a good fit, also means that a lot of care is needed to get the alignment right. Personally I've always ended up losing a lot of detail due to the sanding required... that in a sense is good as means getting rid of some of the rivets...

 

 

Wings

- the panels scribed above the wing are not of the right shape, they should be more rounded. The Esci kit gets them right. These are quite visible as in several schemes they are edged by a black stenciled line. Best would be to fill and rescribe

- the lower wing surfaces should have a number of small panels that are not reproduced. In general the wings are very plain on the kit while the real aircraft features a number of small panels, each with a stencil on

- there should be an elongated bulge on each wing root panel on the lower surfaces at the rear. Under the left wing there is also a smaller, more circular bulge behind this. None is represented in the kit

 

Cockpit: this is very nicely reproduced, with raised detail for both instrument panel and consoles. However it can be tricky to glue it in the right place. Moreover, the consolles should be a bit higher. The instrument panel should also sit a bit higher and this can be achieved by sanding the coaming to a more realistic thickness

Both seats are quite nice for a kit part. Just by adding some PE details they can become very good... however if the rest of the cockpit is moved slightly higher then they become a tad too tall to fit.

 

Landing gear they are both nice. but...

- the nose landing gear interior structure may be detailed a bit.

- the main landing gear can be tricky to assemble... the main single part must be aligned with care and this is not always easy. The extra linkages (parts A8) can be a real pain to glue in place! I suggest cutting each in two parts and add these separately. May not make sense now but when looking at the part and at a picture of the real thing it will be easy to understand what I mean

- the linkages connecting the two smaller side doors (parts C2 and C3) to the main landing gear assembly are not right and end attaching to the doors in the wrong place. I suggest removing them from the main landing gear part C12 and replacing with brass tube sections.

 

Antennas and other bits... the hasegawa kit is meant to represent various variants and this means that the main fuselage parts are moulded with features that may or not be present in all aircraft. I suggest checking pictures of the real aircraft to see what must be kept and what must be removed, although the instructions generally mention these.

What must be removed for most variants are the teardrop shaped builges on the rear fuselage as these are only for the S. The conical antennas also are only for Italian machines after a certain year.

 

Now that should be it... I may have forgotten one or two things and there may be others that I have not identified yet. As you can see they are mostly minor things and the ones really annoying for me are the lack of vents under the fuselage, the wrong hatch before the nose wheel well and the wrong shape of the panels on the wings. All can be sorted one way or the other. The missing bulges on the rear lower wing root panels are also annoying and are harder to add

 

[2996 Victor]

Hi Giorgio,

 

thank you very much for providing all the details to correct the Hasegawa kit - that's absolutely brilliant and I can't thank you enough for taking the time to set out all that's needed to make the kit as accurate as possible 

 

With kind regards,

 

Mark

[Giorgio N]

Glad to Help Mark !

I should of course mention that there are several walkarounds on the web that show many of the details I've mentioned. For the G one of the best is this one from Belgium:

 

http://www.sbap.be/aircraft/f104g/f104g.htm

 

 

 

 

[2996 Victor]

On 19/02/2021 at 15:16, Giorgio N said:

Glad to Help Mark !

I should of course mention that there are several walkarounds on the web that show many of the details I've mentioned. For the G one of the best is this one from Belgium:

 

http://www.sbap.be/aircraft/f104g/f104g.htm

 

 

 

 

Thank you again, Giorgio, you've been incredibly kind with your help and knowledge, it really is hugely appreciated.

 

I've got kit on watch on a well-known auction site, so fingers crossed!

 

With kind regards,

 

Mark

[Robertone139]

On 2/16/2021 at 3:47 PM, tempestfan said:

Then you should avoid the original Hasegawa kit on which the Academy is based like hell 

Incidentally, someone asked upthread if Revell reboxed someone else's kit or similar - they had at least the Esci C (probably the G, too) around 1980. 

Revell's F-104 is their own, the released it as a German Air Force F-104G and TF-104G, it was also reboxed by Monogram as a C variant with a shorter cord vertical stabilizer.

[Hook]

2 hours ago, Robertone139 said:

Revell's F-104 is their own

RoG released the C variant before Monogram - better decals too;

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-04302-lockheed-f-104c-starfighter--114924

 

One of the points the RoG scores over the Hasegawa is that it features the louvres around the nose wheel bay,  which are absent in the Japanese kit.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[tempestfan]

7 hours ago, Robertone139 said:

Revell's F-104 is their own, the released it as a German Air Force F-104G and TF-104G, it was also reboxed by Monogram as a C variant with a shorter cord vertical stabilizer.

Their current kit is, but looooong before that, they reboxed the Esci kit - that was my only point. Revell even reinstated their wonderful 1/64 kit after they ended reboxing/distributing the full Esci portfolio, so desperate they must have been to have some 1/72ish F-104 before they got around tooling a modern kit...

[modelldoc]

Here is another older kit from AMT.

These F-104 kit can be build as an A or G (different parts) or unique a QF-104A:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/51032934668/in/dateposted/

 

modelldoc

[John B (Sc)]

Interesting topic.  So, what are everybody's thoughts on the various 1/48th and 1/32nd kits of F-104s?

 

John B

[Gmat]

The AMT kit was a repop of the ESCI kit.

 

Grant

[tempestfan]

That‘s correct, Ertl, parent of AMT and MPC at the time (I think), owned the Esci toolbank from around 1988 or 89 until they sold everything to Italeri.

[modelldoc]

Thanks information about the AMT kit.

There are interesting options in the box, the QF-104 and the last flights from Canada and Germany.

 

Look:

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/amt-ertl-8759-lockheed-f-104-c-g-starfighter--130154

 

modelldoc

[Giorgio N]

On 3/13/2021 at 11:40 PM, John B (Sc) said:

Interesting topic.  So, what are everybody's thoughts on the various 1/48th and 1/32nd kits of F-104s?

 

John B

 

I haven't investigated properly the current 1/48 offerings, that see Kinetic as most modern, Hasegawa as still acceptable and the older Monogram kit (often reboxed by revell) as a cheap alternative so all I can say on these is that in terms of detail the Kinetic kit seems to be the best but I've heard some complain about accuracy I also don't like their decal sheets as they lack most stencils. The Hasegawa kit is still good but too many surfaces are covered in heavy riveting, something that you may or not like, particularly on a natural metal finish. Italeri reboxed this kit a few years ago so it shpould be easy to find. The Monogram kit is older and it shows, with raised panel lines and some fit issues that more modern kits do not have. There was also an Esci kit (that I did build many years ago), with very fine raised panel lines, little detail and the same wide canopy issue of their 1/72 kit. The even older Hawk/testors kit may also still be found, but it's a '60s kit with nothing to offer above the others.

 

I can say a bit more on the 1/32 kits, as I've looked at the Hasegawa kit more than once and I today own an Italeri kit... clearly the latter is a much more modern kit, so wins hands down in terms of detail. Accuracy also seems pretty good, with the exception of some details for some variants that however are really Starfighter expert stuff.

The problem with this kit is the value for money... in a sense the £90 or more that Italeri charge may be justfied by the number of parts, including PEs. Still I feel that the surface detail and mould finess are not what I'd like to see in a kit of that price. The decal sheet, at least in the first issue, also had several inaccuracies and again I expect to be able to use the decals in a €100 kit, I shouldn't have to buy a set of aftermarket roundels when I pay that kind of money. I got my C at an incredibly good price on Ebay and I'm very happy with it, but I dont' think I'd have bought one at full price. Price is always a very personal thing of course, but when I compare this kit to say the Tamiya 1/48 Tomcat (similar size and cost), the cost of the Japanese kit is much more justified by the quality of the plastic compare to the Italeri Starfighter.

The Hasegawa kit is much simpler and less detailed and being much older features raised panel lines. Having been around for a long time it's possible to find them at very good prices on the second hand marker while new issues can be expensive. To bring this kit to the same detail level of the Italeri would require a lot of either work or aftermarket parts of course, so it's hard to tell at what price range this kit would have merit if the intent is to build a thoroughly detailed model. Some may argue that rescribing the Hase kit may actually lead to nicer panel lines when compared to the Italeri kit but again, it would require time and effort. For a simple OOB model though a Hasegawa kit still has merits... and so does the Revell one, that is in some areas even less detail than the Japanese kit but can sometime be found for as low as £25...

So my view of 1/32 scale Starfighter kits is that it's still worth looking for an Italeri kit since it's way more modern that the other two, but better shop around and try to find one at bargain price

[tempestfan]

I can only speak from "stash experience" - the Hase 1/48 kit was also reboxed by Eduard some years ago, e.g. in a "Bundesfighter" boxing. I'd have to have a look in mine but I think it came with aftermarket parts included - it may be worth having a look for one second hand. For sake of completeness, Revell also had a kit of their own (besides reboxing variously Esci, Monogram and Hasegawa), released ca. 1979. I don't think I have one but guess it's closely related to its bigger brother. It is relatively scarce, and I think it hasn't been reissued post the Revellogram merger/takeover.

 

The big Revell kit is rather neat for its age (IMHO much better than their old-tool Phantoms in 1/32), with quite fine raised and recessed details. It has been reissued many times, and was something like an "annual special" for a German chain of toy shops, with a pricepoint in the 90s of DEM 20. Many of those should still be around cheaply. I have a built "wreck" (but essentially complete) of one I bought on a flea market a couple of years ago (for 50 Eurocents :-)), and it does look quite well - a decent basis if you can find one cheap. It's a kid's build but for a change I actually know where it is so could take a pic if you're interested.

[John B (Sc)]

Thanks Giorgio and 'tempestfan'.

 

I have a 1/48 Kinetic kit and a Hasegawa one - I see what you mean about the surface detailing Giorgio.

 

The Italeri 1/32nd kit seems very nice - especially the TF-104G, but an eye watering price. That decal comment is something to investigate, thanks. I do still have an old Revell kit ticked away somewhere, which as I recall looks accurate enough basically to be worth trying to improve/upgrade a bit.  (I built their Mirage!! at the same time as the Italeri Mirage IIIE - both turned out well) 

 

The old Hasegawa kit I liked a lot ; built one many years ago as a Dutch F-104G for my kids. It had the right look and feel to my mind.

 

Cheers,

 

John B

[Ghostbase]

My very first decent build back in the late 70's was the 1/48th ESCI F-104G Starfighter, I still have it now; severe lack of detail though. I recently built the old Monogram 1/48th F-104G and the fit of the two fuselage halves - upper and lower - wasn't good and I would think carefully before trying one of these again. One kit mentioned above is the Revell 1/32nd F-104 which contains parts for both the 'C' and 'G' models and I built one of these three years ago and finished it in foil and I was very pleased with the end result. I would be very tempted to try another one but this time with a resin ejection seat, some cockpit detail, and maybe an external detailing set. Michael

 

The 1/32nd Revell kit:-

 

IMGP2780size by Ghostbase, on Flickr

 

The 1/48th Monogram kit:-

 

IMGP4094 (2) by Ghostbase, on Flickr

[spruecutter96]

If you're looking for some excellent Starfighter reference, there is only one book you'll ever need, IMHO. The DACO Publications "Uncovering the F-104 Starfighter". Not exactly cheap at something like 30 Euros plus shipping, but what an incredible book! Easily beats ANY previously-published five Starfighter guides combined. It is probably worth pointing out that it only covers European F-104's (I don't remember any coverage of US ones inside).   

 

This book is STUNNING in its coverage. If I remember correctly, there's in the region of 16 pages of cockpit photos alone. Avionics, engines, undercarriages, weapons, data- stencils, ground-support equipment, FOD guards, etc, etc - you name it, it's covered, in stunning, colour close-ups.  

 

Chris. 

[tempestfan]

The old Verlinden Lock On is also very good (and very similar in concept), but rather hard to find and probably more expensive than the DaCo book. The DaCo books in general benefit from some 35 years of technological evolution regarding photography and processing, and they are definitely hugely impressive.