RESIN CONVERSION KITS for F-16XL

[ACMIguy]

ATTIC Aircraft has conversion kits for three versions of the F-16XL.
They sent an email to me saying they were now offering these kits along with the other resin models at about 25% lower cost.
For those interested the web address is:
http://atticaircraft.com/

Take a look at the F-16XL walk around!

http://web.mac.com/ryanmecham/Site_2/F- ... round.html

[Habu]

Yeah, not the best renditions. I'd rather hold out for a better one.

[ACMIguy]

I have some issues with the ATTIC Atlas Rocket, hope they have improved it by now. As far as holding out do you know of anyone else working on the XL version?

[Habu]

Not specifically, no. Just rumors. But I'm willing to wait, rather than waste my money. Don't want another Meteor debacle.

[ACMIguy]

What part did you find inaccurate? Or is the problem more with the quality of the parts?

I looked on the NASA site and couldn't tell a lot of difference between the kit and NASA pictures.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news ... RC_prt.htm

I wanted to do a review for my club newsletter and would like your input.

Thanks

[Habu]

A lot of it is the quality of the resin, yes. I don't have the conversion set, so I can't look at it right now. I'd have to look at my pics and the set again to go through all the inaccuracies.

[ViperEnforcer]

I have all 3 generation ATTIC F-16XL kits. The first two issues had major casting flaws. The last Gen (the one posted) is not much better, if that’s anything. Most of the panel lines are poorly done and not all that accurate, especially the added plug fuel cells. Scribing is overly deep and inconsistent. Many of the smaller parts are best discarded as outsourcing and/or scratch building just about all the smaller details would be a better approach. I found the resin pitot, AIM-120s (these were actually cut down dummies on the real jets), and parabrake quite useless, as I could find or make a lot better examples.

As for accuracy, it's not all that good. There are some major problems with the side slope contours at the LEF wing to fuselage areas, by the gun muzzle. The wing cranks under curl is not well represented, nor are the LEF cross sections. The wing symmetry is quite off, as I recalled about one of the wings outboard sections were almost a ¼” thicker in cross section than the other side. This varies between the all 3 ATTIC XL generations, but was quite noticeable to my eye. I found the ISA booms (between the elevon and aileron) to be too flat in profile and not quite right in shape, not to mention there are no provisions for the lower ISA boom NAV lights.

Overall, the dimensions were not too far off, but probably goods enough for the lay modeler. I did not like the practical fuselage breakdown, where the modeler has to hack the aft end of the kit fuselage and mat it on. This is where the XL’s characteristic “tail cant” can be thrown off. It would have bee a better and more practical approach to have made both the upper and lower fuselage as two full span halves.

There’s no real mention of the aircraft upgrades and mods, as it pertains to the conversion. Lots of holes were left as mods like; spin chute beef up plating, spin chute, heavy weight gear/light weight gear applications, LNSI intake, block 40 wheels, throttle bump, and various antennas. Also, there are no weapon’s pylons or the hard point locations on the lower wings; which had me asking “what gives?”.

If are only looking for something that “looks like” an XL and are willing to deal with major casting flaws and some major inaccuracies, then it may work for you or anyone else that those issues don’t matter to. My view is that manufactures and the after market sector have overlooked this important Viper variant, but is one that needs to be done “right”.

I know this subject quite well and even had a few opportunities to work on both ships. I have extensive walk arounds (some posted on HABU 2’s site) and the whole XL program history at hand. There are a lot of key details missing from the ATTIC conversions to really even consider it being some what complete. Even Meteor’s 32nd scale attempt ended up being not done all that accurate! What a shame, as through Billy Crisler (Aerospace Modeler Magazine) I offered to help with the technical details and proof the masters. That notion fell on deaf ears, as even the other two contributors; Keith Svendsen and Tony Landis were also not consulted. Rest assured though, they are both in on a couple new projects, with lots of cooperation between the 3 of us!

There’s currently a 72nd XL in work, but don’t expect to see it till early next year. A new 48th scale conversion will be out not too long after it, which will most likely be the most “complete” XL conversion by far in any scale. Stay tuned…

Mike V

[ACMIguy]

Thanks Viperenforcer for the feedback.
I have some of the same problems with my Atlas Mercury. The casting was rather poor all around. The lower engine section should have a mating collar, which you need to scratch build. The overall detail of the engine section is so bad I decided to make my own photo-etch detail set to fix the problems.
The upper cone for mating the Mercury capsule to the rocket was deformed so bad I am now scratch building a new one.
The decals are thick and of poor quality but I'll deal with that after finishing the detail work.

Other than getting the basic shape of the Atlas D you will need to scratch build almost everything.
I have the Mercury Redstone conversion and the Gemini Titian kits too, but those are on hold till I get the first one fixed.

Hopefully they will improve the product, if not then we will have to wait till a better XL is available or as you say live with a "something that “looks like” an XL " version.

Thanks Habu for your comments too!

[Habu]

No problem!