1/72nd F-8 Kit Review
1. Academy F-8E, F-8E(FN), F-8J. The three listed types have been released, and
this is definitely the best 1/72nd F-8, but it is far from perfect, having a
lot of warts, most of which it inherited from its illegitimate parent, the
Hasegawa 1/48th kit, but some are all its own. Some “genetic” errors include
the bogus angled radar screen in the cockpit, the bogus bumps on the upper wing
at the wing fold, the flat plank representation of the ACM exhaust fairing on
the right fuselage, and the rudder which is not right at the lower forward
edge, there should be more of a cut out for the rudder post. A couple errors
that are pure Academy are the front windscreen, which has a center section that
is about twice as wide as it should be, and the radome cross section, which is
egg-shaped , little end up, where it should be an ellipse, long dimension up
(It, like all other E kits, is also wrong in profile, being symmetrical when it
shouldn‘t be). The latter is not all that noticeable but the windscreen is, it
assaults my eye every time I see one. Still number one, though, and currently
the best place to start for an F-8 in the One True Scale, but if Hasegawa ever
drops their 1/48th to 1/72, the Academy kit will immediately be relegated to
best-of-the-rest status.
2. Heller F-8E, F-8E(FN), F-8J; F-8P. Any of the three big nosed versions can be built from the original boxings, less the P, which didn't exist when the kit was released. The F-8P boxing incorporates the changes for that version and it may be that those changes are permanent, but it would not be a big deal to undo them. This is a very good kit, and for many years was the best available Crusader in any scale. For its time, it was well detailed, especially the cockpit, and included a separate speed brake. That said it has three significant (at least to my eye) problems: the bottom of the intake is almost flat where it should be rounded, the IFR probe bulge is the right shape, but too big, and the tailpipe profile is wrong: the upper profile slopes down to the end where it should sweep up slightly, mirroring the lower profile. The first can be mostly corrected by sanding away a bit from the intake edge of each fuselage half and squeezing them together when gluing the fuselage together. The probe bulge would be difficult to deal with, as is the tailpipe, but with the AB cooling scoops in place it is not as noticeable. Yes, the kit has raised detail including rivets (actually, most are panel fasteners, not rivets, which do tend to be quite visible on aircraft), but it is still a pretty close second to the Academy kit overall. And you can get them cheap.
3. Hasegawa F-8E. This kit was a major disappointment for me when it came out, a year or so after the Heller. It is a bit too short in both length and height of the fuselage, and in profile it looks OK because the two discrepancies sort of cancel each other out. In plan view though it is way too wide, fat whatever you want to call it, and it just looks off in any aspect other than profile. Another problem is the fuselage in the cockpit area, which is about a scale foot too wide, and the canopy is too round at the forward end, there should be a very pronounced peak, kind of like a McDonald’s arch. Like the Heller kit, it also has raised detail, but it is much finer than Heller’s, and for this reason alone, I think, it was regarded by many as the best 72nd F-8 before the Academy kit arrived. I can only conclude that those who thought so had never seen a real F-8, or paid any attention to it if they had. It is a reasonable representation of the Crusader, though, and worth picking up and building if you can get it cheap, but I would not recommend paying current Hasegawa prices for it.
The Three Amigos. In the late 80’s, three different, but VERY similar (it is hard to believe they did not originate in the same Korean factory they are so similar) clones of the Hasegawa kit arrived on the modeling scene in very short order (but not necessarily this order, I don’t remember the actual order): Ace, ESCI/AMT Ertl (now Italeri), and Revell, now marketed by Kangnam. All are based on the Hasegawa kit and share its faults, as noted above, but each adds some of its own. The Kangnam/Revell kit for instance has a canopy that is absolutely flat in profile. All three looked at the Hasegawa kits cockpit area and decided it was too narrow, since they are all even wider, almost enough for side by side seating! One of the three offers folding wings, and one has the vertical stab as a separate piece. The ESCI/AMT Ertl kit was also marketed as an F-8E(FN) and an F-8H, but none of the necessary changes/parts to reflect the differences are included in the kits, just decals. Overall, these kits, in my opinion, are not worth the money to acquire*or the time and effort to build. They might squeak past the first test, they look like Crusaders, more or less, but any one who has seen an F-8, or even some decent photos of one, will notice they aren’t quite right.
*I have used the separate tailpipe to correct the Heller kit. Also, the Italeri kit has a nice looking decal sheet that some might consider buying it for, but it is fraught with errors, a chief one being that the VF-24 aircraft given is a C not an E.
Fujimi F8-D(sic) A strong candidate for worst F-8 kit ever produced. It isn’t even 1/72nd scale actually, but 1/70th . It was apparently based on drawings of the TF-8A, since the forward fuselage and canopy profile is more like that unique aircraft than the single seat fighters, and it also has a brake chute housing on the tail cone another unique feature of the single TF-8A. And, in spite of the claims on the box, the radome is much closer to an E than a D, so there is really nothing to recommend it. In short, it just about fits the Supreme Court definition of pornography: appealing to prurient interests and without redeeming social value.
Tom Weinel
2. Heller F-8E, F-8E(FN), F-8J; F-8P. Any of the three big nosed versions can be built from the original boxings, less the P, which didn't exist when the kit was released. The F-8P boxing incorporates the changes for that version and it may be that those changes are permanent, but it would not be a big deal to undo them. This is a very good kit, and for many years was the best available Crusader in any scale. For its time, it was well detailed, especially the cockpit, and included a separate speed brake. That said it has three significant (at least to my eye) problems: the bottom of the intake is almost flat where it should be rounded, the IFR probe bulge is the right shape, but too big, and the tailpipe profile is wrong: the upper profile slopes down to the end where it should sweep up slightly, mirroring the lower profile. The first can be mostly corrected by sanding away a bit from the intake edge of each fuselage half and squeezing them together when gluing the fuselage together. The probe bulge would be difficult to deal with, as is the tailpipe, but with the AB cooling scoops in place it is not as noticeable. Yes, the kit has raised detail including rivets (actually, most are panel fasteners, not rivets, which do tend to be quite visible on aircraft), but it is still a pretty close second to the Academy kit overall. And you can get them cheap.
3. Hasegawa F-8E. This kit was a major disappointment for me when it came out, a year or so after the Heller. It is a bit too short in both length and height of the fuselage, and in profile it looks OK because the two discrepancies sort of cancel each other out. In plan view though it is way too wide, fat whatever you want to call it, and it just looks off in any aspect other than profile. Another problem is the fuselage in the cockpit area, which is about a scale foot too wide, and the canopy is too round at the forward end, there should be a very pronounced peak, kind of like a McDonald’s arch. Like the Heller kit, it also has raised detail, but it is much finer than Heller’s, and for this reason alone, I think, it was regarded by many as the best 72nd F-8 before the Academy kit arrived. I can only conclude that those who thought so had never seen a real F-8, or paid any attention to it if they had. It is a reasonable representation of the Crusader, though, and worth picking up and building if you can get it cheap, but I would not recommend paying current Hasegawa prices for it.
The Three Amigos. In the late 80’s, three different, but VERY similar (it is hard to believe they did not originate in the same Korean factory they are so similar) clones of the Hasegawa kit arrived on the modeling scene in very short order (but not necessarily this order, I don’t remember the actual order): Ace, ESCI/AMT Ertl (now Italeri), and Revell, now marketed by Kangnam. All are based on the Hasegawa kit and share its faults, as noted above, but each adds some of its own. The Kangnam/Revell kit for instance has a canopy that is absolutely flat in profile. All three looked at the Hasegawa kits cockpit area and decided it was too narrow, since they are all even wider, almost enough for side by side seating! One of the three offers folding wings, and one has the vertical stab as a separate piece. The ESCI/AMT Ertl kit was also marketed as an F-8E(FN) and an F-8H, but none of the necessary changes/parts to reflect the differences are included in the kits, just decals. Overall, these kits, in my opinion, are not worth the money to acquire*or the time and effort to build. They might squeak past the first test, they look like Crusaders, more or less, but any one who has seen an F-8, or even some decent photos of one, will notice they aren’t quite right.
*I have used the separate tailpipe to correct the Heller kit. Also, the Italeri kit has a nice looking decal sheet that some might consider buying it for, but it is fraught with errors, a chief one being that the VF-24 aircraft given is a C not an E.
Fujimi F8-D(sic) A strong candidate for worst F-8 kit ever produced. It isn’t even 1/72nd scale actually, but 1/70th . It was apparently based on drawings of the TF-8A, since the forward fuselage and canopy profile is more like that unique aircraft than the single seat fighters, and it also has a brake chute housing on the tail cone another unique feature of the single TF-8A. And, in spite of the claims on the box, the radome is much closer to an E than a D, so there is really nothing to recommend it. In short, it just about fits the Supreme Court definition of pornography: appealing to prurient interests and without redeeming social value.
Tom Weinel
Comments
Post a Comment