1/72 Revell F-18E Super Hornet

[phat trev]

Considering getting a 1/72 Revell F-18E Super Hornet, should I?

(basically thats it..) It would be great to hear some opinions on it guys? cheers

[Robert]

I would say yes, it is not a bad kit at all.

Robert

[upnorth]

Not in my scope of interests, but for what it's worth, I've not heard any ill comments made about the kit anywhere.

[Mike V]

Some model news doesn't get out this way.

The Revell/ROG (non Italeri rebox) F/A-18E carries over all the same gross inaccuracies as its 48th scale brother; see this article on the 48th Revell Super Hornet (the best Revell SH article on the net) for more details.

Also see John Chung's F/A-18E build series, as he addressed most of the shape and detail inaccuracies.

It's a kit with so many inexcusable errors, which is a shame as it could have been so much better. Repeating all the major shape errors from the 48th scale kit is even more inexcusable.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Mike V

[phat trev]

Thats a nice looking model Robert, thanks for showing it off.

A few inaccuracies are ok, I am sure i can overcome a few of them.

Managed to get the model now, it really is a good looking kit, nice details and wepons choice. Will probably consider a morn grey (non CAG) fighter F/A-18E with Air to Air missiles hanging from it.

I have with the kit Aim-9X for the wingtips (would these hand from the outboard points also/instead? also, does the Super Hornet carry ASRAAMS ? In the box there are AIM 120 AMRAAMs.

[Robert]

Thanks for the compliment.

Can't say I have seen the AIM-9X hanging under the wing, only on the wingtips and I do not think they can use ASRAAM as they have the AIM-9Xs.

Robert

[Bobski]

Some model news doesn't get out this way.

The Revell/ROG (non Italeri rebox) F/A-18E carries over all the same gross inaccuracies as its 48th scale brother; see this article on the 48th Revell Super Hornet (the best Revell SH article on the net) for more details.

Also see John Chung's F/A-18E build series, as he addressed most of the shape and detail inaccuracies.

It's a kit with so many inexcusable errors, which is a shame as it could have been so much better. Repeating all the major shape errors from the 48th scale kit is even more inexcusable.

I think you're being a little unfair, considering the review you have linked states:

This kit is not perfect and does have its share of issues, none of which are major and with a bit of basic modeling skills can easily be overcome. There are also inaccuracies and ‘short cuts’ that could have been done better, leaving the more “authenticity-zealous” rooms to improve.

It then concludes by saying the Revell kit is "highly recommended", so I think it's a little disingenuous use that as evidence of "gross" and "inexcuseable" inaccuracies.

My personal opinion of the Revell Super Hornet, having built 3 of them, is that although it definitely isn't perfect it certainly looks the part out of the box. The fit is pretty good, although the intakes and the nose take a little bit of work, and overall the detail is pretty good. With some aftermarket parts and a bit of work, as demonstrated in the linked build article, it can be made even better.

Considering the price of the Hasegawa offering (in both 1/72 and 1/48) I personally think that the Revell kit is an excellent low-cost alternative. In the UK you can get a Revell Super Hornet in 1/48th for £20, compared to £60 or £70 for a Hasegawa kit, and these savings can be used either to buy aftermarket or to buy other kits.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Bobski

[Mike V]

Not being unfair, as I am stating the facts about a “product” here. Minor shape and detail inaccuracies are one thing, but Revell botched their 48th Super Hornet kit, and then blindly scaled it down to 72nd; not correcting one shape or major accuracy error in the process. Other companies like Tamiya, Academy, and even Kinetic have taken steps to correct major errors found on larger scale same subject kits, when they scale down to 72nd.

John and I discussed and researched the Revell F/A-18E/F in depth prior to his reviews and I can tell you first hand that he was not as polite about the shape errors as you read in the articles. Not to mention, we both were in some heated discussions about the kit on other forums as well. John and I are on the same page on this kit.

Revell's F/A-18E/F shape inaccuracies are gross, especially when compared to the Hasegawa kit, but more importantly the real aircraft. It's pretty bad when the Italeri 48th and 72nd Super Hornets are more accurately shaped than Revel’s efforts. Sure it "looks like" a SH, but then again so does this;

The Revell SH can be built with all the corrections John made, but not without significant effort, as opposed to say the Hasegawa kit (not without its faults, though significantly less than Revell), which is not plagued with such gross inaccuracies. Also note John Chung is a master modeler and has skills way above that of the typical modeler. Making all the corrections he made to that level, is not a feat the average modeler can achieve.

The Revel kit is a low cost alternative as I agree the Hasegawa F/A-18E/Fs (frankly all their kits of late) are way overpriced, but that was not the point.

I do realize that price does matter in a purchase. Cheaper isn't always better, but sometimes one can live with the lesser alternative, especially when the better or more quality product is so overpriced.

Mike V

Edited August 11, 2011 by Mike V

[spike7451]

I think you're being a little unfair, considering the review you have linked states:

It then concludes by saying the Revell kit is "highly recommended", so I think it's a little disingenuous use that as evidence of "gross" and "inexcuseable" inaccuracies.

My personal opinion of the Revell Super Hornet, having built 3 of them, is that although it definitely isn't perfect it certainly looks the part out of the box. The fit is pretty good, although the intakes and the nose take a little bit of work, and overall the detail is pretty good. With some aftermarket parts and a bit of work, as demonstrated in the linked build article, it can be made even better.

Considering the price of the Hasegawa offering (in both 1/72 and 1/48) I personally think that the Revell kit is an excellent low-cost alternative. In the UK you can get a Revell Super Hornet in 1/48th for £20, compared to £60 or £70 for a Hasegawa kit, and these savings can be used either to buy aftermarket or to buy other kits.

I've built the 'F' version & it went together well,just a couple of issues with the windscreen fit to the fusalage.It looks like a Hornet & that's it,the innacuracies I can live with,especially when you consider the are other kits on the market that are far worse!

[Bobski]

Not being unfair, as I am stating the facts about a “product” here.

You are when you are stating facts that, while correct, the evidence you've provided to back them up does not actually support them. Personally, while I agree that there are some errors in the shape of the Revell Super Hornet, it is acceptable to me.

John and I discussed and researched the Revell F/A-18E/F in depth prior to his reviews and I can tell you first hand that he was not as polite about the shape errors as you read in the articles. Not to mention, we both were in some heated discussions about the kit on other forums as well. John and I are on the same page on this kit.

If he thought the kit was that bad and was full of errors that would take vast amounts of skill to fix then to write a review stating "This kit is not perfect and does have its share of issues, none of which are major and with a bit of basic modeling skills can easily be overcome" before listing it as "highly recommended" is disingenuous at best. It would be like me reviewing the Trumpeter Typhoon as "highly recommended" after the bashing I gave (and still give) it on here, or me saying the Revell Typhoon falls together out of the box without any work. It's not true and it's the sort of reviewing that is a real pet-hate for me as I see it all the time. If a kit has problems then reviewers should say so, not tell us "this kit is extremely well done" only for Joe Modeller to then build the kit and find out otherwise.

I do realize that price does matter in a purchase. Cheaper isn't always better, but sometimes one can live with the lesser alternative, especially when the better or more quality product is so overpriced.

This we can both agree on. Personally I would prefer to have the Hasegawa Super Bug, but when it's twice or even three times the price of the Revell kit then there's no contest for me.

Oh, and sorry for dragging this slightly off-topic!

Edited August 12, 2011 by Bobski

[Mike V]

You are when you are stating facts that, while correct, the evidence you've provided to back them up does not actually support them. Personally, while I agree that there are some errors in the shape of the Revell Super Hornet, it is acceptable to me.

If he thought the kit was that bad and was full of errors that would take vast amounts of skill to fix then to write a review stating "This kit is not perfect and does have its share of issues, none of which are major and with a bit of basic modeling skills can easily be overcome" before listing it as "highly recommended" is disingenuous at best. It would be like me reviewing the Trumpeter Typhoon as "highly recommended" after the bashing I gave (and still give) it on here, or me saying the Revell Typhoon falls together out of the box without any work. It's not true and it's the sort of reviewing that is a real pet-hate for me as I see it all the time. If a kit has problems then reviewers should say so, not tell us "this kit is extremely well done" only for Joe Modeller to then build the kit and find out otherwise.

His/our facts on the errors of the kit are backed up; even proven by the major correction work he did. I also had NATOPs drawings to working with at a time. Not to mention a China Lake Engineer on the SH program at the time, who was also modeler in my club.

John's main reason for doing the initial kit review was to identify most of the shape inaccuracies, as there was a lot of "misinformation" being pedaled on the forums at the time. One kit advocate went as far to say the kit was 99% accurate??? I don't even claim that of the Tamiya F-16s; it was just absurd! To back up John’s kit review, he wanted to build the kit and address the major shape inaccuracies within reason. Also note there were some other shape errors that were not addressed, as it would require such major surgery that it was impractical. One of those was the major lack of bend or arch radius from the stabs to the exhaust. It's near impossible to fix.

Now, in the case of the Trumpy Typhoon, there's no real fix as it was purely FUBAR! It's so hosed up it can't really be compared to the Revell SH. Most of the fixes required on the Trumpy Typhoon are just too complicated. Besides, then better and "more accurate" alternative kit just so happens to be a lot less expensive; quite the opposite of the alternative for the Revell F/A-18E/F.

To John and other advanced models, the corrections he made are straight forward and quite feasible, but the amount of extensive corrections he did to the canopy, spine, vertical tails, and especially the lower center channel between the engine bays is beyond the feasibility of the "average" modeler; my point. Other than myself and another modeler, I haven't seen any other attempts at correcting the Revell F/A-18E/F to that level.

What I find puzzling in all this, is that head to head, the Italeri kit is actually more accurately shaped than the Revell kit. Sure it’s typical Italeri with the worst cockpit, wheel well, and exhaust detail, but at least they did better job on the Super Hornet’s shape. I guess it’s easier to live with the major shape errors of the Revell kit, than spruce up the Italeri SH with cockpit and other details. Damn, look at me; I’m actually giving some praise to an Italeri kit over Revell…..

Mike V