Which F-16 kit?

[Mark P]

OK. Which is it? I looked at an Academy 1/32nd scale F-16 today. It sure looks like an F-16 to me! However, I know very little about the F-16.

 

What are the pros and cons to these kits. Clearly, the Academy F-16 is cheaper. But is the kit OK? If not what are the "issues" with it? Is the Tamiya kit a quantum leap ahead of the Academy offering? I would like to know before making the plunge.

 

 

Mark Proulx

[Juggernut]

Well, I have one Tamiya Block 50 and one Academy Block 40/50. If you want to display things outside the aircraft such as the engine and/or switch ordinance loadouts, then pick the Tamiya kit. If you want more versatility and don't care about displaying engines or switching ordinance then go with the Academy kit. The Academy kit lends itself to wider possibilities as you can make a block 40, 42, 50 or 52 F-16C with it. The main difference among the blocks is that the 40/50 uses the GE engine w/bigmouth intake and the 42, 52 uses the P&W engine w/the smallmouth intake. The block 50/52 is, I believe, the only one with HARM capability. There are other subtle differences but none worth mentioning.

 

The decal sheet for the Academy kit is much more extensive than is the Tamiya sheet. Also, the Academy kit comes with oodles of ordinance whereas the Tamiya kit only comes with a small selection.

 

The only reason I have both is that I am using the Academy kit as an aggressor and the Tamiya F-16C for a standard USAF jet. I don't think I'm going to buy the Thunderbird release from Tamiya since the kits I have are adequate for what I need.

 

HTH

 

TimC.

[RBP]

Just took a look at the Academy F16 the other day.

I've probably heard all of the observations from the 'experts' and despite any shortfalls, perceived or otherwise, on this kit, I definately recommend it!

The weapons options alone are incredible and I congratulate Academy for providing a lovely model at a sensible price.

I've purchased their F18C, and the 'D' is certainly on my list when it hits the shelves in the near future.

I've already had the good fortune to see a review sample...... and it's superb!!

I wonder if the guys at Academy could be persuaded to do a nice Mk IX Spitty and a Hawker Hurricane (any mark) to the same standards?

Failing that, a Eurofighter Typhoon would be very nice!!!

Buy the kits and be thrilled to bits!!

[Dave Williams]

Well, having both, I'm more partial to the Tamiya kit. It is better, more accurate, and better detailed. I agree that Academy wins on price, weapons, options, and the decal sheet, I still plan to use Tamiya for all my F-16s and will probably just rob my Academy kit for the weapons and ROKAF decals.

 

If you go with the Academy kit, I'd recommend the Black Box cockpit set specifically for the kit that they just released. One of the more visible problems in the kit is the glare shield shape is all wrong and it is difficult to fix. The BB set fixes this.

[Juggernut]

If you go with the Academy kit, I'd recommend the Black Box cockpit set specifically for the kit that they just released. One of the more visible problems in the kit is the glare shield shape is all wrong and it is difficult to fix. The BB set fixes this.

 

Agreed. Definitely worth the investment in the BB Cockpit. I have the BB cockpit for both my vipers and they're worth the investment if you're planning on showing off the cockpit. (Personally, with the cockpit mostly visible anyway, I think it's worth it even if you don't plan on showing off the cockpit)

 

Tim

[RBP]

Dave,

The Tamiya F16 kit is SUPERB......and on quality it wins hands down!!!

But if you cut the cards on 'value' I think the Academy kit certainly provides the modeler on a more restrictive budget a very credible alternative don't you think?

Some comments that I've read on other sites might unfairly dissuade modelers from even looking at the kit - which would be a real shame.

The recommendation on the BB set is noted and I think I'll get one to add to the kit when I get it.

I just hope that the 'D' model will follow in due course.

Thanks for the tip!

[Viper Enforcer]

There's no comparison! Tamiya's Viper BLOWS away Academy in every detail, shape, and quality. There is only one area on the Academy that is done right over Tamiya, and that's the left upper aft strake panel lines. As we all know,

 

[Disclaimer Alert] : (I have to clarify "ALL", since it was brought up that I am assuming everyone in the modeling community knows about this issue. Figuratively speaking, when I am referring to "ALL", I am referring to those who have followed the Tamiya 32nd F-16CJ release and those F-16 modelers whom noted the upper left aft strake panel lines, which Tamiya mirrored from the opposite side.)

 

this area on the Tamiya kit is copied from the right side that has the wider Flaperon ISA panel. The Left side should be narrower, as Academy has correctly done, though they did mold the fuel depressurization poppet panel upside down. Beyond that, there's nothing better in teh same respect to the Tamiya kit. Here is the list of major descrepancies I have found to date. There are still more little things going on, but this is the beef of it. I also included some pics to better explain some of the technical aspect of things

 

COCKPIT:

The glare shield is totally wrong. It actually looks more like the aft cockpit glare shield on the D model. In fact the whole cockpit shape and length is wrong. The sloped consoles panels are too symmetrical, as the left should have more angle and thus, should not have all that shelf space before the instrument panel. The instrament panel is way off, being a cross of the rear and front panels and the shape is quite bad too, a result of the glare shield being so poorly shaped. The seat reclines back just at an extreme angle. The cockpit sill sides (where the canopy meets) are just to thin, making for a wide cockpit opening. Best fix to drop a Black Box cockpit in. But wait, after the rest of the major problems are listed, you may want to reconsider getting the kit in the first place, if quality or accuracy is of any importance/concern to you.

 

 

FUSELAGE:

-No block 40 plating! An essential characteristic for all USAF (and some FMS)Block 40/42’s

-The stabs do not have enough unhedral, but nothing that bad, though it is missing the characteristic "flare-out" of the upper aft strake.

-Tail dorsal base is way too wide, and the side angles (where it angles up to the center leading edge) are too sharp. The angle should be smooth and graceful.

-There is a crest on the upper backbone, right behind the aft transparency. I have no idea why that is there, but it needs to be sanded away.

-The tooling of the fuselage is somewhat soft and quite pebblely. They have some flaws; most are fastener and panel line details fading out as well as some bad panel line spreading, mainly on the avionics doors. Note that Academy had “gate” tooled their Viper kit for an eventually D model as well, but that leaves a raised ridge/step spanning across the gun bay to the strakes to eliminate. This is some pretty rough tooling for a kit this day and age.

-The lower aft fuselage is too rounded, where the ventral area is. It is also too wide here.

-The nose section, from the mid-canopy on, is tapered to an extreme. With that fact noted, that also means the front of the canopy is to narrow as well. I don’t know why Academy did this, as it gives the nose a too pointed profile, right down to the radome. I can run my fingers on the sides of the forward upper fuselage and feel a dip that’s not supposed to be there.

-The radome bulkhead is way off, being too rounded on the top, then to much taper on the upper sides.

 

INTAKES:

-This is the single worst area on the kit! Academy really blew it here, among other things.

Both intake mouth profiles are off. The gape is too wide on both, and the corners of the MCID intake are just too tight, or pinched. Even worse is the wedge splitter plate, (the triangle plate between the upper intake and lower fuselage) is extremely shallow, as it’s not even close to being the height/thickness it should be. This is evident on both the NSI and MCIOD intakes, but worse on the MCID example. On top of that, there’s no side RAM scoop representation, at all!

-Both intake light base plates are so faint, you can hardly notice they are there. The barely visible base plates are also too thin, and so are the intake NAV lights.

 

WHEEL WELLS & NLG/MLG:

-The bulges on the MLG doors are completely wrong. Also, the doors are oversized in height.

-341 Bulkhead (Where the MLG Struts mount) webbing is way too shallow.

-The dog link that connects the swivel collar on the Tension Strut (the strut under the MLG strut) to the brake housing is engineered the wrong way. The connection is off, out of proportion and mounts to far up the Drag Brace (the brace that connects from the mid lower well, to the Tension Strut) structure.

- The MLG wheels suffer from being “out of proportional aspect”. The wheel hub is too small giving a “balloon” like look to the nose wheel assembly, even though the height is right. The center hub area is recessed in, the opposite of what the real wheel is. It comes off looking like an original a larger Block 30 wheel, without tie bolts.

-Brake detail is generic and nothing like the accurately tooled brakes on the Tamiya kit. The brakes are totally recessed in the wheel, below flush of the MLG tire. This is not right at all, since the most of the brake housing extends past flush of the MLG tire sidewalls.

 

-The NLG wheel suffers from the same proportional aspect problem as the MLG wheels. The wheel hub detail is pretty weak on top of that.

-NLG Torque links are ridiculously small, like near 48th scale. Also, the upper mounted position is wrong. In fact, the whole NLG strut has suffers from a major proportional layout. The upper “T” structure is too short, which makes the rest of the strut look quite odd. The added solid mount tab looks to extend the NLG strut to high. The NLG fork is way to thin and not only does it look out of scale, but will most likely be prone to breaking once the model is complete.

-The previous factors may be why the model as an a$$-end squat to it.

 

NOZZLES

-The GE Nozzle interior Divergent/Convergent Flap/Seal segment details are over done and plagued with punch marks and nasty seams. At least this area is easily worked in the Tamiya Divergent/Convergent segments. The Divergent flap/seals are not broke down into 2 separate segments (Divergent/Convergent), but rather an over run of the Divergent flap/seals. This also is why there is little to no “convergance” on the inside nozzle. This is where the Conv/Dive segments meet and breaks to channel the nozzle, thus to raise the nozzle pressure on the real thing. This is mainly the result of some corner cutting on Academy’s part, as the turkey feathers are molded with the Divergent segments as one part. Academy’s attempt at the engine cone/flame holder/mixing duct/ and turbine (LPT) is just sad and does not even come close to capturing the look.

-The GE nozzle doughnut panel (the part where the Turkey Feather/Divergent assembly mounts) looks funky on the bottom and is to long!

-The Pratt nozzles fairs a little better, but suffers from the same “Non-Convergance” problem as the GE nozzle.

-The Pratt flame holder & turbine wheel details are acceptable, but will not be near as accurate or as nice as the Tamiya Pratt parts, of their Thunderbird kit.

-The exhaust liner duct (most refer to this as the burner can) has generic thin ribbing to represent the rolled-rounded detail of the real liner duct. Tamiya again captured this quite well and even though it is a hard to clean up area, it will be no where near the nightmare to clean up as the Academy exhaust duct!

-Also note, the Pratt nozzle represents a Pratt F100-220, and not a -229 that the Block 52 (and some ANG Block 42’s!) uses.

 

MISCELLANEOUS:

-The HTS pod looks good, but is on the small side.

-LAU-129 (AIM-120) rails are to thin, being as thin as the standard 210 (AIM-9) rails, which is quite wrong. The nose of the LAU-129 rails should be more blunt as well.

-The Gun muzzle vent slots are too small and have no angle

-With the LAU-129 rails to thin, so are the ALE-50 pylons!

-Academy molded highly raised ribbing on the 370gal wing tanks to represent the weld beads. Unfortunately this is not pulled off well as then ribbing is way overdone and the mid section circumference ribbing is not a weld bead at all. It should be a pair recessed panel lines, as that’s where the nose section is banded to the rest of the tank.

-There are no main tie bolts represented for the ventrals.

-The ALQ -184 pod just looks weak when compared.

 

On the Positive side:

-Academy provides a very nice decal sheet, much better than Tamiya’s.

-LANTIRN & NAV Pods

 

 

Everything that is wrong with the Academy 32nd F-16 kit, Tamiya nailed on theirs! As you can see, it’s not even close when the two kits are compared. Usually, I present the descrepancies and let the modeler decide with no suggestions on what to buy, but this is the exception. I do not recommend the Academy kit for not only the major errors in shape and accuracy, but also because in this day and age of modeling, we should expect a hell of a lot more from a manufacture, and certainly after one who just produced a very nice Hornet kit!

 

It's real sad when the Academy F-16 shape still takes a back seat to the 25 year old + Hasegawa kit! This kit is very bit the cliché of “You get what you pay for”, and even worse in this case. Don’t waste your money! Even though the Academy kit is a lot cheaper, it’s just not worth the major problems that come with it. It’s much more worth it to get the Tamiya kit that’s as close to perfect as an injection molded kit can get. I honestly believe even Trumpeter would have done a better job of a 32nd Viper, than Academy did.

 

Mike V

 

[Viper Enforcer]

Cockpit sill area:

Intakes:

[Viper Enforcer]

Nozzles:

Wheels/Bulkhead

Tails:

 

More on request

 

Mike V

[Mark P]

Great Stuff!!

 

How about an article on the two F-16's for us at LSP! I think it could be a big help for many looking to choose which kit to buy, or those wishing to make corrections. You pointed out a number of items here that I never would have noticed. Of course, I find the F-16 and its many production blocks to be difficult to figure out!

 

If you are game for an article, you can send it to Brad and he will get it posted. In all, a well balanced and informative review!

 

Mark Proulx

[Viper Enforcer]

I was thinking just that, an article on the Academy kit with the best and most realistic corrections. It would be more than twice the effort of teh Tamiya kit, but will serve to help those intent on making the best of this kit.

 

I was so hoping that this kit would fall along the lines of their F-18, but it seems corner cutting, bad research and/or QA proofing were the order of the day. They could have got all the shapes right, or very close with the plastic they had, which would have given teh Tamiya kit a run for the money. Instead, I think Academy was just banking on a 32nd Viper in this form to overcome the Tamiya element buy a lower cost alone.

 

I wonder if Academy actually had a real F-16 consultant, or someone who would have noticed all these problems before they cut die. After all, it's not like they didn't have F-16's in their own backyard.

 

I have my Tamiya kit going along well. I started on the Academy kit, but as you can see was quite put off by the magnitude of problems it presents.

 

Mike V

[RBP]

HOLY VIPERS BATMAN!!!

 

Jeepers, that is some comparison! Why couldn't someone else point out those differences elsewhere? Many thanks for your VERY constructive post Mike, you must have taken ages to write that down!

Well, I guess I'm sold on getting the Tamiya kit now, your right, absolutely NO comparison is there!

Too bad about the F16 but their F18 kits are still very good!!

Thanks again.

[Viper Enforcer]

Actually, I've been compiling all this information over the last few months. Most of the pics were done about a month ago. Initially, I pegged most of teh obvious errors from the first pics of teh build up models and the sprue shots and posted my findings on ARC, noting that things may be updated or correct, but also said I seriously doubt that would happen. Many people jumped me for daring to criticize a kit before it was even out and yet I was proven to be right on 99% of the descrepancies noted when teh kit finally hit the shelves. Now after further inspection, the kit has more problems and certainly more than the acceptable limit in this time frame of the industry.

 

Yes, it is too bad. I was really hoping for a les detailed, but comparable to the Tamiya Viper F-16 kit as a second alternative.

 

Mike V

[Juggernut]

Yep, the Academy kit is off. Some of the errors are correctable, some are not. However, I am still going to build the Academy kit as a nice block 42 aggressor. It's only for a shelf sitter so I really am not all the concerned about the errors other than the ones that can be corrected without too much difficulty. For the audience that's going to be viewing this model, they wouldn't particularly know whether the wheel well detail is corret or not. I'll know it, but again, since it's not going to be shown anywhere except my home, I'm not going to be that particular. Hell, where I live, there's no modelers anyway (or none that I've come into contact with in the last five years) so the only place that the kit may be devalued is here in cyberspace, and we here on LSP are not of the bashing ilk that inhabit other modeling forums so it'll have to stand on the merits of my skills as a modeler and not the accuracy of the kit entirely.

 

P.S. I'm scratchbuilding an AN/ALQ-188 pod and may, (read that as MAY) see if someone will cast it in resin for me so that I may make it available to others. It's not a huge priority though so someone else may get one done ahead of me.

 

TimC.

[Habu]

Hey Mike! Guess who's here

 

Glad to see you put up those pics man. I've found the same things you have.