Forum: Work in Progress

No joy on the pics or the text. all I'm getting is the small page with the red X.
The U-21 is a Queen Air Fuselage(non pressurized) with King Air wings (PT6A-20 turboprops)
It was replaced by the C-12 (Super King Air) I worked on one just like this after I left the Army.

F-16.net Sponsor

Hmm, dunno what the deal is on your end, I get the image just fine. Try viewing just the image itself. Ah, so you were army too eh? WO? And you flew fixed wing. Where from?

Attached is a pic of the tail end taped together. I see the extra 15 degrees on the ventrals but the angle of the stabs looks OK. I must not be seeing what your seeing on the twist. Feel free to draw the angles again. I see the pics from the last page now. I was a crewchief (E-5) @ Ramstein from 79-82. I wasn't a perfect specimen for pilot training in the late 70's.

Last edited by Habu on Dec 15, 2008 - 10:41 PM; edited 1 time in total

Look closely at the Tamiya bottom fuselage. The sides, from the TE of the wings, back to the stab hole have a pronounced twist. That's what I'm talking about. The stabs on the Kinetic kit have the anhedral, but that's not a product of the twist in the sides of the fuse, as it is on the actual aircraft, or the Tamiya bottom.

Proudpop

How did you solve the challenge of attaching the intake?

I've buildt the AM, I am building the DG and both are h**ll to get the intake to fit properly? Wondering if my next attempt will have to be assembled intake and duct, then attache those to the underside?

Thougths?

I'm also curious to know how the intake was done. I'm hypothesizing that it's not got the correct shape either.

Well, it appears OK - atleast to me.

Buildt the AM, and with the gear up. The main doors are too "flat", so they don't have the correct curve to follow the body of the airplane.

But back to the intake - it is a nightmare, and any advise is helpfull.

Haven't got to put the Intake on yet, I'm still grinding all the pins from the intake ramp, cleaning it up and painting it. Actually I'm in the middle of building 4 Tamiya's and 3 Hasegawa CJ's for the 14 FS pilots!

proudpop wrote:

I see the extra 15 degrees on the ventrals but the angle of the stabs looks OK. I must not be seeing what your seeing on the twist. Feel free to draw the angles again.

I don't have the Kinetic kit in hand so I won't speculate about accuracy.

I will post what I posted in another forum to illustrate the rear strake anhedral angle issue.

Starting with the prototype YF-16s and shared with every single F-16A/B/C/D/E/F produced, the horizontal stabilizers have featured a 10 degree anhedral as shown in the following image:

Note the speed brakes also share this ten degree anhedral. They don't open "up and down" but are splayed at ten degrees.

The trailing edge of the wing is at approximately fuselage station (FS) 409. The leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer is at approximately FS 460. If you look at the "side" face of the rear fuselage strake at the trailing edge of the wing it is vertical at this point, then gradually twists through an angle of ten degrees to match the anhedral of the horizontal stabilizers at their leading edge. This can be seen in this scan of the official General Dynamics F-16A/B loft lines:

The surface of the fuselage, where the horizontal stabilizers attach to the fuselage, is perpendicular to the horizontal stabilizer, tilting outward at the top by a matching ten degrees from vertical. This is the area that has been hotly debated every time a new F-16 kit has been released. Some kits depict the ten degree twist, others mold the entire side as a flat vertical surface. The horizontal stab in a(ny) kit may depict the correct ten degree anhedral angle but the side of the fuselage strake where the stab pivots is the angle in question.

These loft line drawings have been published in the public domain since 1982. No manufacturer has any excuse for missing this detail unless it was a concession to mold design and expense - in that case it would have been intentional, not an oversight.

direct links to full resolution scans:

http://www.habu2.net/vipers/loftlines003e.jpg

http://www.habu2.net/vipers/loftlines002e.jpg

Do these pics help at all?

I didn't need the pics, but yes, they do festoon the claim. Like I said before, they have very little of the twist that I've described. It is a small issue, but as H2 said, there's no excuse for it when the profiles have been available for so long. Now I also agree that this may have been done because it wasn't feasible to do it correctly. But if that's true, then how did Tamiya get it right, and Kinetic not? Could they have been trying to make more with less? Possibly. Does Kinetic not have the same technology Tamiya has? Maybe. But the quality of the final product suffers, as has been aptly illustrated.

habu2 wrote:

I don't have the Kinetic kit in hand so I won't speculate about accuracy.

I will post what I posted in another forum to illustrate the rear strake anhedral angle issue.

Starting with the prototype YF-16s and shared with every single F-16A/B/C/D/E/F produced, the horizontal stabilizers have featured a 10 degree anhedral

Note the speed brakes also share this ten degree anhedral. They don't open "up and down" but are splayed at ten degrees.

The trailing edge of the wing is at approximately fuselage station (FS) 409. The leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer is at approximately FS 460. If you look at the "side" face of the rear fuselage strake at the trailing edge of the wing it is vertical at this point, then gradually twists through an angle of ten degrees to match the anhedral of the horizontal stabilizers at their leading edge. This can be seen in this scan of the official General Dynamics F-16A/B loft lines:

I’ve explained the aft strake anhedral transition on a few occasions, but I don’t think many modelers understand the entire transition, structurally. The loft drawings help visualize this. I wish I could pull up the engineering brief I saw some 10 years ago that had reference extensions taped to the aft strakes (without the stab) which really displayed the whole anhedral transition to the layman. Also note the loft drawings are good for reference, but not really scale mapping, like dropping over photos of the real jet and/or built up models. Scale engineering drawings are much better suited.

habu2 wrote:

The surface of the fuselage, where the horizontal stabilizers attach to the fuselage, is perpendicular to the horizontal stabilizer, tilting outward at the top by a matching ten degrees from vertical. This is the area that has been hotly debated every time a new F-16 kit has been released. Some kits depict the ten degree twist, others mold the entire side as a flat vertical surface. The horizontal stab in a(ny) kit may depict the correct ten degree anhedral angle but the side of the fuselage strake where the stab pivots is the angle in question.

Also, some kits do not tool in the “enough” anhedral.

The problem with the Kinetic kit is that it does not have the proper 10 degree anhedral. It’s closer to 5.5 to 6 degrees. At first glance in the kit, it was not even noticeable and that is because it was engineered too subtle and lacking about half the anhedral. The Tamiya kit has a notciable anhedral transition, with the “correct” lower indented curvature.

I slaved the fuselages together of the Kinetic kit, then installed the stabs once all the parts were cleaned up. The stabs will slope down at 10 degrees due to the excessive amount of “slop” I the stab pin fit. This also results in a gap at the top pin pivot area, which is also compounded by a “coke-bottle” effect of the upper stakes, in the same area.

I think it should be noted that the speed brakes are real close to 10 degrees, but that does not mean that the aft strake side are at the same angle. The Academy 48th F-16 kit proves this point, as the speed brake trailing edges angle at near 10 degrees anhedral, yet the aft strake sides have absolutely not anhedral! This has been noted in my review of Academy’s F-16, posted on other forums.

habu2 wrote:

These loft line drawings have been published in the public domain since 1982. No manufacturer has any excuse for missing this detail

These are the first set of F-16 drawings (Detail & Scale F-16A book, Volume 3) I recall using to compare actual F-16 kits for basic shape, years before I got to work the real jet.

I feel the same way, as there is no excuse to make such major mistakes in shape and profile accuracy. This is why I was so unforgiving with the Academy 32nd F-16, as not only did they botch so many areas in that kit, but repeated it in their 72nd scale F-16 release; Unbelievable!

habu2 wrote:

unless it was a concession to mold design and expense - in that case it would have been intentional, not an oversight.

In the case of the Academy 48th & 72nd scale kit, it was intentional in lieu of cutting corners. That really does not make any less excusable than botching it.

Enter the Kinetic F-16 stigma. Before even seeing sprues, the amateur crowd was pumping the impending F-16 releases to be the next “Tamiya”, and even went as far to predict that they even eclipse Tamiya in tooling quality. Compile that and the over exuberance when test shots first were posted and you have a makings for a large bubble waiting to be pierced.

I saw the initial Kinetic Fuselage test shots and they were, to put it bluntly-ugly. Though they did improve most of the accuracy issues, the overly soft surface detail and trenchy panel lines still remained.

Here you have a company that has a nice approach to wanting to produce multiple F-16 variants, and for what ever reason does not take on a technical consultant (even after being offered), the one they have is not competent, or they just don’t listen.
Instead, Kinetic takes suggestions from a modeling forum through a second party. What’s up with that? You might as well be taking a Mall survey considering the differing amount of knowledge base you’ll be encountering. On top of that, most of the real subject knowledgeable modelers have since left that site. Not really a professional approach from “supposed” professional manufacture.

Overall, the Kinetic kit certainly does not live up to the hype. It could have been a real decent alternative to Tamiya if it where not for the sub par tooling and major profile/shape errors. The nose profile is the single worst aspect, and it really kills the overall looks of the real subject.

Modelers will still get the kit, as a lower priced alternative will often be put ahead of quality for those who are satisfied so long as it “looks like” an F-16. There will also be those who like myself, will build one just for review purposes and/or attempt to address most of the kit’s shortfalls.

BTW Proudpop, I like the in progress of your build. Keep posting updates when you can.

Mike V

proudpop wrote:

Haven't got to put the Intake on yet, I'm still grinding all the pins from the intake ramp, cleaning it up and painting it. Actually I'm in the middle of building 4 Tamiya's and 3 Hasegawa CJ's for the 14 FS pilots!

Pretty cool. Busy man, aren't you.

oh boy here we go...

ViperEnforcer wrote:

Also note the loft drawings are good for reference, but not really scale mapping, like dropping over photos of the real jet and/or built up models. Scale engineering drawings are much better suited.

What do you think loft line drawings are if they aren't "scaled engineering drawings?

ViperEnforcer wrote:

These are the first set of F-16 drawings (Detail & Scale F-16A book, Volume 3) I recall using to compare actual F-16 kits for basic shape, years before I got to work the real jet.

No, these are not the D&S drawings. They are scanned from an official copy of the engineering drawings from General Dynamics. I got them from Jay Miller, who also published them in his (Aerofax) book.

ViperEnforcer wrote:

In the case of the Academy 48th & 72nd scale kit, it was intentional in lieu of cutting corners.

And you know this how?

ViperEnforcer wrote:

Here you have a company that has a nice approach to wanting to produce multiple F-16 variants, and for what ever reason does not take on a technical consultant (even after being offered), the one they have is not competent, or they just don’t listen.

OK now I understand your attitude - you had your feelings hurt because they wouldn't listen to you.

habu2 wrote:

oh boy here we go...

What do you think loft line drawings are if they aren't "scaled engineering drawings?

Scaling perspective. Also noting that the actual “draft line” of the drawings accounts for overlapping of the outline of a photo of the real or scale subject as well. It's good for reference, I just don’t put a lot of faith in them compared to cross sectionals.

habu2 wrote:

No, these are not the D&S drawings. They are scanned from an official copy of the engineering drawings from General Dynamics. I got them from Jay Miller, who also published them in his (Aerofax) book.

Which are also the basic Loft drawings in the D & S book too. I’ve used the GD/LM loft, sectional, and die drawings before on more than a few occasions. We used the engineering cross sectional drawings for scale mapping for fabricating new panels. We also used loft drawings, but more or less for reference plotting.

habu2 wrote:

ViperEnforcer wrote:

In the case of the Academy 48th & 72nd scale kit, it was intentional in lieu of cutting corners.

And you know this how?

Gee, I don’t know, maybe using a little common sense to realize when a product or kit has been down/up scaled with absolutely no regard for corrections. Then there’s just quality of the kit that can spell that out fairly well.

habu2 wrote:

ViperEnforcer wrote:

Here you have a company that has a nice approach to wanting to produce multiple F-16 variants, and for what ever reason does not take on a technical consultant (even after being offered), the one they have is not competent, or they just don’t listen.

OK now I understand your attitude - you had your feelings hurt because they wouldn't listen to you.

Please dude, get a clue. I could care less if they would have listened to me or not. Had they of requested assistance maybe so, but since they passed on that and others who well versed on the subject in that regard, it’s their sword to fall on.

So really you understand squat, in regard to that matter.

Mike V

Forum: Work in Progress

Building the Kinetic DJ