Best 1/72 F-16 kit/s

[Giorgio N]

Monogram also did an F-16XL, but it is a child of its age with raised lines etc. Still the only game in town for that variant though I believe...

Unfortunately the raised panel lines are the least of this kit problems. Monogram based the kit on drawings released well before the aircraft was built with the result that the shapes of the kit only barely resemble the real aircraft. A correction is possible but requires a lot of cutting, adding plastic and reshaping. I hope that a new 1/72 kit will followe the recently issued 1/48 one

[Phantome]

Hi, gentlemen,

Agree with all of these comments.

Any big mouth C can be built using the Tamiya kit. Any other (Revell or Hasegawa) requires the bulged doors/strenghtened u/c legs.

(Academy's is said to have shape issues in the nose, in the vertical fin and, for real men, the coaming. Surface is well detailed but just a bit rough. However it comes with bulged doors/strenghtened u/c. Nevertheless, having the Tamiya kit, I wouldn't consider it exception made of basis for conversions)

Regarding the availability of the Revell kit: Revell F-16C can be built as an A (the parts are there). Revell F-16B can be built as an A, provided a Rob Taurus vac canopy is added. F-16C can be built as either big or normal mouth, GE or PW engined, buts lacks bulged doors/strenghtened u/c legs.

An F-16D Block 52 Plus can be built (OOB) from Kinetic "European" box (72002). Tough kit with rough surfaces and difficult assembly; have just finished one. But has every detail more or less correct (and no nose droop!)

A Sufa can be built from Hasegawa (the old D with conversion pieces; looks good) or the Kinetic (same kit as above)

An early big-mouthed, enlarged-spined Israeli F-16D Block 30 Barak cannot be built OOB.

I would really stay clear of any kit other than Tamiya, Revell and Hasegawa (exception made, if talking strictly OOB, of the Kinetic 52 Plus -for the moment). Esci, Italeri, Hobbyboss or the other concoctions mentioned above are a generation or two behind.

Guess we leave the conversions for another post (Airwaves resin F-16D spine for one?)

FErnando

I was starting to think that but the long AMRAAM wingtip pylons are molded to the wing so you can't do one with wingtip AIM-9s.

Big omission IMHO and a strange one.

That said, for a block 50, the Tamiya is miles ahead of the Revell, it's only deficiency being an inferior seat. This is quite simply put, one of the best kits in 1/72 scale ever made.

Btw, anyone know when/if Tamiya will release earlier blocks? It's been a while and the kit does seem to be made for multiple variants.

[Fernando]

I was starting to think that but the long AMRAAM wingtip pylons are molded to the wing so you can't do one with wingtip AIM-9s.

Big omission IMHO and a strange one.

That said, for a block 50, the Tamiya is miles ahead of the Revell, it's only deficiency being an inferior seat. This is quite simply put, one of the best kits in 1/72 scale ever made.

Btw, anyone know when/if Tamiya will release earlier blocks? It's been a while and the kit does seem to be made for multiple variants.

Hi, Phantome,

I think they are not. Just look at the sprues in the link above (the Monogram is the same kit as REvell's). Neither the early AIM-9 pylons (16S210 I have seen them named) nor the LAU-29 "dual purpose" are molded into the wingtip. On the contrary, the strange that the current MLU boxings (most conmemoration/airshow machines) do not come with the latter.

Absolutely agree regarding the Tamiya. If you are building a USAF Block 50, look no further.

Fernando

[Phantome]

Hi, Phantome,

I think they are not. Just look at the sprues in the link above (the Monogram is the same kit as REvell's). Neither the early AIM-9 pylons (16S210 I have seen them named) nor the LAU-29 "dual purpose" are molded into the wingtip. On the contrary, the strange that the current MLU boxings (most conmemoration/airshow machines) do not come with the latter.

Absolutely agree regarding the Tamiya. If you are building a USAF Block 50, look no further.

Fernando

I'm not talking about the Revell, I'm talking about the Tamiya. The AIM-120 pylons are molded into the wings. Which presumably makes it impossible to make an A or a C variant pre-AMRAAM, say, 1980s. I am not an expert on pylons so not sure what year it was introduced.

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10299546z2/70/2

I guess a big mouth Block 40 is feasible with the Tamiya but only post-1990s Block 30s? Not a Viper expert so info appreciated!

[charlie_c67]

Depends. If you have a donor kit (Revell's F-16C is a good example) you can build an A from the donor kit, then use the C bits ('winder tips etc) for your back dated Tamiya. Can't be that far out after all!

[Fernando]

I'm not talking about the Revell, I'm talking about the Tamiya. The AIM-120 pylons are molded into the wings. Which presumably makes it impossible to make an A or a C variant pre-AMRAAM, say, 1980s. I am not an expert on pylons so not sure what year it was introduced.

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10299546z2/70/2

I guess a big mouth Block 40 is feasible with the Tamiya but only post-1990s Block 30s? Not a Viper expert so info appreciated!

Ah, OK, you're right!

However, a current -16AM would invariably carry LAU-29 AMRAAM launchers in such positions nowadays. Tamiya has obviously catered for present-day machines.

Fernando

[Pollie]

Hi, Phantome,

I think they are not. Just look at the sprues in the link above (the Monogram is the same kit as REvell's). Neither the early AIM-9 pylons (16S210 I have seen them named) nor the LAU-29 "dual purpose" are molded into the wingtip. On the contrary, the strange that the current MLU boxings (most conmemoration/airshow machines) do not come with the latter.

Airshow machines carrying smokewinders will have the 16S210 launchers fitted because the smokewinders are not compatible with the LAU-129. So Revell is right :-)

Nowadays the 16S210 is still in use on the F-16A/AM because some airforces simply did not buy enough LAU-129s.....

[Phantome]

Which confirms my concern that we might not be seeing early (pre-90s) F-16s unless Tamiya goes for a whole new wing on future variants.

Shame since clearly only a few pieces would have been needed to design the full spectrum of Vipers.

When was the kit released? 2014? It's been quite a while. I'm losing faith!

[Fernando]

Hi, Phantome,

I think the Tamiya kit is intended to represent present-day variants only. It could only be transformed into a D or a Block 32/42/52 with ease, but nothing else (many are still waiting for them to do exactly that-the two-place forward fuselage add-on- in 1/48th scale!).

Consider that the signature of the slimmer A fin base on the rear fuselage would be different, and the panel lines also. Revell has you simply grab the wider C fin base onto the A fuselage and the results are not too bad (it simply obliterates the old slimmer "bed" and the offending panel lines) but I doubt the same can be done the other way. Even less, that Mr. Tamiya would allow you to do that. Tamiya kit's rear fuselage is "C-specific"; I know because I use it as a pattern to modify REvell's panel lines (very little change, actually)

So a new rear fuselage would also be on order, and then there would be little left of the former kit.

Fernando

Edited August 24, 2016 by Fernando

[Fernando]

Airshow machines carrying smokewinders will have the 16S210 launchers fitted because the smokewinders are not compatible with the LAU-129. So Revell is right :-)

Nowadays the 16S210 is still in use on the F-16A/AM because some airforces simply did not buy enough LAU-129s.....

Hi, Pollie,

REvell kits do not come with Smokewinders, only with AIM-9L/M you could depict as inert ones; they are the same in every boxing, airshow and conmemoration, and I for sure in the earlier "operative" ones (which I have seen none); I suspect that with an extension added (containing a couple of LAU-29, two AIM-120 and what could possibly be the fairing for the forward Carapace antennae), nowadays only present on "C" boxings . Besides, I have seen the 16S210 launchers on present-day AM/BMs, but only on positions 2-8.

Of course, that's enough for the airframes they intend to depict; you are right.

Oddly, Smokewinders look like the Sidewinders in the kits of the 70's (or the Esci kits from the 80's!)

Fernando

[Jacarre]

Hi all, i read a review in the 72 scale census and they said that Revell F-16 are 3mm more longer than certain drawings. Also, they criticized the lack of taper of the aft - wing trailing edge rear fuselage, saying that it's one of best things of the Italeri one is the shape of the rear fuselage. Have you compared the Hasegawa and Revell with drawings? Are they right? Thanks a lot in advance. Here's the link of the analysis:

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

Javier

[Dennis_C]

What is particularly bad with Kinetic's Sufa other than maybe too wide panel lines?

[Fernando]

What is particularly bad with Kinetic's Sufa other than maybe too wide panel lines?

Actually, nothing of note... except a general blandness of detail (most noticeable in small parts) and a very sloppy assembly, placing the kit firmly in the "putty queen" category. Wings can be warped. Looks much worse in the sprues, contrary to most kits. I have built the European Block 52+, which is the same kit. The Eduard PE set really helps and fits like a glove.

Fernando

EDIT: I should add, a general pebbliness in every surface. It is a prime-n-polish of the whole kit thing, but after several sessions, it looks way better. Tiresome to say the least.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Fernando

[charlie_c67]

Hi all, i read a review in the 72 scale census and they said that Revell F-16 are 3mm more longer than certain drawings. Also, they criticized the lack of taper of the aft - wing trailing edge rear fuselage, saying that it's one of best things of the Italeri one is the shape of the rear fuselage. Have you compared the Hasegawa and Revell with drawings? Are they right? Thanks a lot in advance. Here's the link of the analysis:

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

Javier

Interesting. Though I note it is from 2004. This is the comparison I mentioned earlier.

http://www.rollmodels.net/ninbox/airplanes/oharef16/72revf16aaa.php

Edited August 25, 2016 by charlie_c67

[Fernando]

Hi, Charlie_c67,

The profile of the stub rear fuselage (the vertical plate leading from the wing trailing edge to the airbrakes) in the Revell kit certainly looks more "angular" than most plans, which shows a gentle curve. I have never examined an Italeri kit so deep to compare that (usually I stopped looking at it much earlier). However, the good points of the kit makes that irrelevant IMHO.

Regarding the review in Roll Model, well, the guy seems in love with the Revell kit (not that I am not jealous); but mostly, what he says is true. What I would fine tune is:

- Making an ADF is not so easy as building up the tail base bulge. For some strange reason, the almost complete A kit lacks the short tail. You should get it from the unused part in a MLU boxing (or a previously butchered USAF C one. Beware it will be wider). The IFF antennae arrangement is widely different, and of course you do not have the ventral intake lip ones.

- The base in the A's fin is much thinner than the C's; the kit depict this faithfully (not like the 1/48 Kinetic) and the extended tails are sized to the A's base; so that to extend the tail in a C model you'll have to widen it;

- The LEF antennae are not so sweet, and you'll have to open the scissors, or either cut one leg and bevel the stump to allow for the wing's sweepback;

- It lacks both the heavy duty u/c legs and the bulged doors (true, the Hase also does; only the Aca and the Tamiya come with that good);

- Dressing up the intake interior is not nearly such a piece of cake as the writer puts it, though it can be done;

- The seat is no brainer: all the lovely side detail at the base will have to be erased to make it fit the cockpit bathtub.

ALL that said, I certainly like the Revell kit and would prefer it to the Hase any time.

Fernando

Edited August 30, 2016 by Fernando

[Gene K]

F-16I - Hasegawa, there is the Kinetic, but it's apparently not so good.

Why do you say the Kinetic kit is "apparently" not good? I've seen some alluding to nose shape problems (drooping?) but haven't tracked down specifics. Does this "problem" exist in all the Kinetic F-16s, or has this been corrected in later releases?

I also read in a review that the gear provided in the 42/52 and on kits is not the heavy weight and that the gear doors are insufficiently bulged. Other challenges?

As a heads up - Lucky Model currently has unbelievably low sale prices ($10 USD) on the SUFA and Block 52 F-16D, but stocks look low for the D model. I assembled the SUFA while watching football on TV yesterday, and had no problems ... other than both top fuselage speed brakes being short-shot . I really like the kit, but if you consider it flawed, the "extras" like conformal tanks, spine, weapons, etc would be a bargain at $10, I think.

Gene K

[charlie_c67]

Well for starters I was talking about in comparison to the Hasegawa offering and I say apparently as what is a glaring error to some is a minor issue to others. If I remember correctly there was an issue with the sharpness of details, as well as some apparently being out of scale, a few shape issues and as you say the wrong undercarriage. Not having one I can only go on what others have said in various reviews.

Edited September 12, 2016 by charlie_c67

[zkalos]

Hi Folks !

I bought a SUFA last month, and I checked the undercarriage too. I can say, that I suprased a lot, because Folks reported in different model-forums, that the undercarriage is not good for this type. I can say, that the main wheels are all good, the bulged door is present in the kit !!! (I watched this at angled light). The only downside is the nose wheel, which good for all modell, exept SUFA, because SUFA's wheel and fork is wider a bit because of the SUFA larger wheight. The little bulge in the intake channel is present too above the nose wheel bay due to space requirements for the wider wheel. I don't know, why modelers says, that the bulged door not bulged and the main wheels not the "heavy" type. Look at yourself before you criticize a kit. The main wheel rims good too, and almost as good as the Tamiya wheel (the Hasegawa and Revell main wheels are not large enough in diameter). The cockpit, the intake channel, the bays and engine exhaust are very good in this little scale. The panel lines are a little wide and deep in this small scale, but even more advantageous for me because of a thick coat of paint and warnish I used in the past (because of the complex multi-layered painting work). A little priming help a lot in this problem.

I have a problem too with the short-shot at the LERX and wing meating point on both sides , but not a significant error for me. This kit way better than the obsolete Hasegawa in details, decal and the special IAF weapon (missed in Hasegawa) options, cheaper and It gives us more extras for this lower price ! I checked the nose profile too, and I didn't find any significant error like for example in the Academy F-16 kits. The final downside to me with this kit is the box design and material quality (like Revell), which I don't like. Sorry for my poor english

Edited September 12, 2016 by zkalos

[Fernando]

Hi, Gene,

Kinetic's is a correct kit, though it looks terrible on the sprues (à la old High Planes extra-low run kits). It has none of the drooping nose problems (that was typical of the very early editions of 48002 and 48005 -the F-16AM and F-16DG/DJ-, and was corrected to some extent later).

The 1/72nd kits (both the "European" and the "Sufa" are the same plastic, probably with some differences in armament which in any case is composed of sprues from the corresponding Skunk Models set) are legitimate Block 52 + with all the marks of the type: they do have the bulged doors and TMK heavy duty u/c legs with wide wheels. Panel lines are very overscale and "roundy" and surface is pebbly, but some work with primer, sanding and polishing paste can help a great deal. Assembly is sloppy with lotsa putty needed. Spine fits good on fuselage (though the accesories on it do not), but the intake and CFT are terrible. Canopy is a wonderful piece of clear plastic. The Eduard PE fits like a glove and certainly is all you need to dress up the cockpit. The present armament is good; it comes with the prized IRIS-T SRAAM for the Greek version but lacks the AIM-9X for the Polish one. It also includes the big fuel tanks. Exhaust has an intention at detailing the inner surface, and the trunking in the intake is an advance over Revell's.

That's it. Not a truly bad kit, can be built. I have built it as a Greek version; can be seen at M2.

Fernando

[Gene K]

Thanks zkalos and Fernando for those very useful (and detailed) observations!! Appreciate your kit comparisons.

Fernando, I didn't have many problems with the fit and assembly, so was surprised at your experience - maybe you had some warpage? In fact, I was pleasantly surprised when I fitted the intakes and CFTs, the CFTs being a particularly good fit (once I figured out from photos where they should go - instructions are not very good).

I looked at your outstanding build over at Modeling Madness, Fernando - WOW!!!!!

Gene K

[Dennis_C]

I actually looked at my Kinetic Sufa kit. I honestly do not see why it could be called horrible on the sprues. Well - panel lines are a bit on wide and rounded side. But otherwise looks good and fairly well detailed. No moulding faults BTW. And an excellent set of IDF weapons!!!

Can't comment on the fit - but with Sword experience - should be shake-n-bake

Thanks for positive reviews and links to completed models - that's inspiring!

[Fernando]

I actually looked at my Kinetic Sufa kit. I honestly do not see why it could be called horrible on the sprues. Well - panel lines are a bit on wide and rounded side. But otherwise looks good and fairly well detailed. No moulding faults BTW. And an excellent set of IDF weapons!!!

Can't comment on the fit - but with Sword experience - should be shake-n-bake

Thanks for positive reviews and links to completed models - that's inspiring!

Hi, Dennis_C,

The look of the sprue attachments to the nose cone almost made me toss the kit on the spot! Later, it all went for the better.

Fernando

[leptiprince]

Custom I prefer the Tamiya and academy, and revell hasegawa for my what if

 

 

More files http://www.figthingfalcon.eu/

[leptiprince]

A neew kit convert for hasegawa:http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~lonestar/SALE06.htm

 

 

[Shalako]

I have read all the reviews and comments for the Revell, Hasegawa, and etc F-16s, however, I've noticed that no one mentions the ESCI F-16s.

 

Anyone knows how accurate or not, are these kits?

 

Edited February 17, 2019 by Shalako