# Academy 1:72 F-16 - NEW KIT!!!



## Roguepink

Just picked up this CHARMING little kit today. This is a new tool from Academy and it is stuffed full of detail. This has one of the best cockpits I have ever seen in this scale. VERY fine detail and rivets all over the place and all the panels look very well placed. I am increasingly a fan of Academy kits, especially in this scale.

It blows the same scale Italeri kits out of the sky.

Academy also just released a 1:72 F/A-18, all new tool, so I'll get that one next month and get back with some comments.

I'll get some parts and build photos up soon. In the mean time, here's a very detailed review of this kit.

(not my review, someone else's, but a very good one)


----------



## KUROK

Wow, that kit looks sweet!


----------



## kit-junkie

Very cool!


----------



## Roguepink

I was ALMOST DONE. Assembled, painted, decals, gloss clear, and I dropped the damn thing. Little tiny parts went scattering all over. Pitots, gear struts, etc.

So I took it outside and smashed it with a metal pipe. I don't like to broadcast my temper, but this was premeditated, a deliberate and intentional act of working out my disappointment on something that, ultimately, doesn't matter if I hurt it.

I'll buy another one next week and try this again. I DID learn some things, some mistakes I'll fix next time around.


----------



## roadrner

Roguepink said:


> I was ALMOST DONE. Assembled, painted, decals, gloss clear, and I dropped the damn thing. Little tiny parts went scattering all over. Pitots, gear struts, etc.
> 
> So I took it outside and smashed it with a metal pipe. I don't like to broadcast my temper, but this was premeditated, a deliberate and intentional act of working out my disappointment on something that, ultimately, doesn't matter if I hurt it.
> 
> I'll buy another one next week and try this again. I DID learn some things, some mistakes I'll fix next time around.


It seems once you drop one like this, you can't rebuild it without it being noticable. Guess this will save you a trip to the therapist.  rr


----------



## Jafo

wow sorry to hear that. been there, almost done that!
hope the 2nd one goes a little better. great write up though


----------



## djnick66

I had hoped this would be a good kit but its not. Its very much a scaled down version of Academy's 1/32 kit which is very poor. The shape and proportions of both Academy versions are wayyyy off, which is too bad. Its one of those kits (typical for Academy) where the parts look good in the box, and the kit has a lot of detail. Aside from the detail and excellent canopy and decals, the kit isn't as good as Revell's CJ kit as far as overall appearance. Shape wise its probably the worst mainstream F16 to appear in a while in 1/72


----------



## Roguepink

Sorry to hear that. For all the fine assembly order, detail, and molding, perhaps the basics of a well proportioned and properly shaped airplane were missed.

I don't think I agree with your completely negative assessment, however, as I have seen MANY versions of this plane and consider the Italeri 1:72 to be the worst overall presentation. It had very little detail, soft surface panel lines, almost NO cockpit detail, a one-piece canopy (no open option, not that you would want one), and an awkward parts layout. Just behind that is the old Fujimi kit with the intake parts being the absolute worst design for assembly and final shape.

From the standpoint of wanting to start with this one and make it look right, what aspects SPECIFICALLY of the overall shape do not measure up on the Academy kit? I look at this kit and it very much looks like an F-16 to me, but I admit I have not really put in any hard research on it.


----------



## djnick66

Academy is really funny... their kits in general have a TON of detail. Arguably the most for the scale compared to other brands. In their 1/72 F-16 the cockpit and landing gear are very well done, and you do get the newer style gear doors. Overall scribing is excellent, too, and is a bit nicer than Revell's. BUT... they totally blow everything else... shape of the scoop, underside contours, plan form, etc. So shape wise (and appearance wise) their kits are poor, but detail wise they are really nice. I would prefer a lesser detailed kit that was shaped better. How hard is it to measure a real F-16?


----------



## Roguepink

Hmm. Well, I just can't agree with you. The Academy kit looks an awful lot like an F-16 to me. I don't see these glaring failures in shape and proportion. I admit, I have not measured it against a real one. Once I get a new one built, I will compare it to the reference photos I have been gathering and then I will respond with comments.


----------



## Roguepink

I got another one. I just finished the major assembly, enough to hold it up for comparison to photos of the real ones. I went to F16.net to compare to the image gallery.

My conclusions are: the overall shape and proportion is MOSTLY correct. There are, in fact, some errors in the shape of the nose and the intake as djnick66 has correctly pointed out. Not based on direct measurement, and not having access to original General Dynamics drawings (the only drawings I would accept as proof), I held up the model in poses to match the photos on the F16.net site. In every case, I could hold the model in a pose that matched the photos, looking at details such as where shapes appear to meet. The flaws are not a matter of gross inaccuracy, but in subtle shapes and detail.

Detail issue #1: The instrument panel could be more detailed as on the new Academy F-18C. Its reasonable enough to show under a closed canopy, but if I were to display this with an open canopy, I would want something better in the cockpit. Its still better than most anything else in 1:72 except the Hasegawa F-14 kits which are among the best with an included PE brass detail set.

Detail issue #2: There is an intake splitter MISSING just above and behind the main intake where the intake meets the fuselage. Upon further inspection it seems the intake sits too close to the underside of the fuselage. This detail was reproduced quite well on the 1:72 Hasegawa kit, not at all on other kits in this scale. I would accept this as a reasonable criticism as it could easily have been done right. I got out a 1:48 Italeri kit for comparison of this part and they did not do any better, and in fact, the intake trunking on the Italeri kit is a very poor fit overall.

Detail issue #3: The nose is too bulged on the bottom, it needs more curvature on the top starting at the canopy frame leading to the tip. In other words, a bit more of a conical section would be correct.

Parts fit is mostly excellent, but the optional panel in front of the canopy frame is off. Easily fixed, but it takes a bit of putty and shaping. Better than many older kits, but not as good as the new F-18 from Academy.

The Aces II ejection seat is a highlight of this this kit. The Verlinden resin aftermarket seat is a bit more detailed, but I think the Academy kit seat is better proportioned. The Verlinden resin seat does not include seatbelts or the F-16's unique center ejection pull ring (standard Aces-II seats have two side pull handles), details that are happily included in Academy's kit. The seat is correctly mounted at a 30 degree recline, something missed in every other kit I've seen of this plane.

Other stand-out details are the deep intake tunnel, highly detailed gear bays, and excellent panel and rivet scribing.


----------



## Roguepink

Finally, finished the second one. Would you believe I dropped this one, too? No lost parts, and the damage was easily fixed since it was early on in the build.

So you want to see the photos, right?


----------



## djnick66

Nice looking model. DO NOT drop it again


----------

