I have the idea of a single engine F/A-18 and a twin engine F-16 for a long while. Finally, I'm motivated myself enough to make both. Both are from Hasegawa in 1/72 scale. To my surprise the width of the mid-aft sections of both aircraft are almost identical, at least in 1/72 scale. Fusing the fore section of the F/A-18 with the aft section of the F-16 is a breeze. I couldn't say the same for fore section of F-16 with aft section of F/A-18, there are simply not enough contact points to glue them together securely.
Completed models are on page 2
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXBbwMss/B19F6B3A-ADA9-4B03-A454-25C6F0537EE6.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsVPLYdN/F0DAF118-9B22-4C35-A47D-A016CE56B20A.jpg)
After applying some putty and sanding, things started to look better. The F-16TE continued to be a nightmare to work on. I had to reworked it a few times to a point I nearly wanted to chuck it in the bin. but the F/A-18TE went on smoothly
(https://i.postimg.cc/h482m4t2/8C5C6755-2E54-4299-BC7E-FB18657E5398.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvZJDXKx/ADE968DC-2CE7-4D1B-B082-4410BFB5E62C.jpg)
Finally, both started to look good. more putty and sanding. Originally, I planned to re-do the F-16TE main landing gear housing. But the time spent on the re-work in the beginning meant that I have to leave it as is and applied a simpler solution as seen here.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jj0Zvvq6/843919C9-B462-44B8-B463-610714AAA1B5.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/q7sQFngP/F9040405-9363-424F-8D8C-EFD41F55A855.jpg)
Oh I like where this is going :thumbsup:
Impressive PSR work there. :thumbsup:
Quote from: NARSES2 on December 17, 2022, 05:47:45 AMOh I like where this is going :thumbsup:
As do I. :thumbsup:
Excellent work! :bow: :bow:
I'll be watching very carefully cause i've also had a twin engined Viper in mind for a while, this will surely help when i get to build mine.
Quote from: DogfighterZen on December 17, 2022, 08:51:30 AMExcellent work! :bow: :bow:
I'll be watching very carefully cause i've also had a twin engined Viper in mind for a while, this will surely help when i get to build mine.
Can't wait to see yours. Mine one is a bit of after thought. My main focus is the F/A-18SE
Oh, at the rate i've been building, it'll be 2040 when i get to it... :-\
Anyway, i can't wait to see how these two come out, they're looking great already! :thumbsup:
This is looking very cool ..a twin engined F-16 done wrong would end up looking like a wonky Mig 29 but a single engined F-18 will look like a F-18 and I like that :thumbsup:
Next on the cards..a F-18 delta ;D
Excellent work!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Nice. :thumbsup: The F-16 will propably look pretty tail-heavy, though? The F-18SE is also my favorite.
This will be interesting. Can't wait to see side views.
Looks great - but one problem may be that the F-18SE is too short. There isn't enough room for the engine behind the wheel wells. Maybe add an extension?
looking good so far, and i can see it confusing a lot of folks when finished as well, the cockpits and intakes will say one thing, then the tail ends something utterly different. :thumbsup:
Looking good :thumbsup:
Quote from: mexchiwa on December 18, 2022, 04:24:33 AMLooks great - but one problem may be that the F-18SE is too short. There isn't enough room for the engine behind the wheel wells. Maybe add an extension?
My guess is that the engine would be somewhere between/above the wheel wells...
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on December 18, 2022, 01:48:24 AMNice. :thumbsup: The F-16 will propably look pretty tail-heavy, though? The F-18SE is also my favorite.
That's what I expect as well. I've put quite some putty inside the intake area. Hopefully it's enough to counterbalance the heavy tail.
Quote from: mexchiwa on December 18, 2022, 04:24:33 AMLooks great - but one problem may be that the F-18SE is too short. There isn't enough room for the engine behind the wheel wells. Maybe add an extension?
It does look short. I was contemplating to lengthen it slightly, but the exhaust is yet to attach. Now the aft section looks a bit like F-35 ;D
Wow ! They've really come along since the last time I've checked in. Excellent work !
The F-16TE is sort of done now. I haven't put on any weapon load or tanks, surprisingly, it's not tail heavy. Since the donation kit is an F-16N, I just make use of the existing decals and give it a snow aggressor camouflage. Not sure if I want to put on the tanks and all. It looks good enough without weapon store. F/A-18SE will come soon.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xChnV2Jb/10C6171D-86F7-482B-A973-9ACC4374AA0C.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/9F3CxcH6/8BA7CBE4-8C63-48E6-841C-DE263E9BA230.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8mY04Mp/FD74092A-BE5F-4993-A0F6-5F854F69EB10.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8xGLck7/8A542A40-418E-4294-9F26-C2BA32F914AB.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXx9zLnB/1962E41B-ACD9-422C-A0C0-F0D905A9D912.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/13sPQMtM/1FF3A6F0-B2AC-46B7-A60F-D0FCA985F651.jpg)
The word DAMN!!! comes to mind here..
Wicked cool build ..wicked cool :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
That kinda gives me ideas now for the F-14 delta.
Couldn't wait to see the delta F-14 ;D
Your F-16 is just COOL. You are a magicial merging different shapes. :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :thumbsup:
Nice work ! With that camo this build has made the turn from super-cool to epic !
Best splinter camo ever!
Quote from: Firefox on December 19, 2022, 03:21:55 PMCouldn't wait to see the delta F-14 ;D
Yeah I can't wait either and I still hope to get it this week but this sucky part of the yr has struck again with the starter motor in my car died and I've been waiting 2 days for my new one..better come tomorrow or I'm gonna have to nick a mates car <_<
That looks great, it would have fooled me into thinking it was just a F-16 if I had seen the finished model before browsing the thread. Probably would have just had a glance and moved on. Well done, looking forward to the F-18 :bow:
That Viper looks so good with that camo!! :bow: :bow:
Looks good. On F-16N loadouts:
"We normally flew the N with an AIM-9 Sidewinder captive training round on the left wing-tip, and an ACMI (air combat maneuvering instrumentation) pod on the right wing tip if we were going to be operating on a range equipped to support the system."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3383/what-it-was-like-flying-and-fighting-the-f-16n-viper-topguns-legendary-hotrod
F/A-18SE is finally done. All marking and decals are straight out of the box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7hw2VK6/A36399A3-EC5E-456A-A650-80E0D9256DA7.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5QzFSrf/9FFA5045-6BCD-4DF7-AD03-20D40FC94696.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rFz1Cdr9/57231A76-B014-407C-B274-A94822C15819.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/HkybRf3c/02B8D9D4-25D4-4DF4-BC6C-3586D3B744F1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBYDp0bW/30B95B56-3B0C-4F2C-A576-22D1DBB66ACE.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pVsQFQpT/13D5B3B7-F4EA-4A75-9E24-8FBD3E64101A.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvKd7dRn/8522AA64-D388-4313-8A49-70C87E5F124D.jpg)
Though the main focus was F/A-18SE, now looking at the finished models, the F-16TE grows on me more and more. HAHAHA. Never thought of that since F-16TE was simply because of not wanting to waste the other half of the model.
More photos:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yjm1xD8/6597F541-CB4F-4D20-8A1C-63A5F03C516B.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y2PG7dv1/101F8B6E-A236-47E2-A1C0-FC2354B1D40D.jpg)
Super bloody epic builds ...absolutely love these ..the F-18 looks prefect with one engine and to be honest it looks far better than a normal one ...beautiful work matey :thumbsup: :thumbsup: ;D
Quote from: perttime on December 19, 2022, 10:42:09 PMLooks good. On F-16N loadouts:
"We normally flew the N with an AIM-9 Sidewinder captive training round on the left wing-tip, and an ACMI (air combat maneuvering instrumentation) pod on the right wing tip if we were going to be operating on a range equipped to support the system."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3383/what-it-was-like-flying-and-fighting-the-f-16n-viper-topguns-legendary-hotrod
Thanks for the info. I've been looking for the training round in 1/72 scale for a while. Rather hard to come by though.
Very cool couple! Well done! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Firefox on December 19, 2022, 11:41:22 PMQuote from: perttime on December 19, 2022, 10:42:09 PMLooks good. On F-16N loadouts:
"We normally flew the N with an AIM-9 Sidewinder captive training round on the left wing-tip, and an ACMI (air combat maneuvering instrumentation) pod on the right wing tip if we were going to be operating on a range equipped to support the system."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3383/what-it-was-like-flying-and-fighting-the-f-16n-viper-topguns-legendary-hotrod
Thanks for the info. I've been looking for the training round in 1/72 scale for a while. Rather hard to come by though.
I think a training sidewinder could be made out of a live one: https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=563
An ACMI pod looks like a pretty skinny stick with a sharpened front end.
Two awesome builds! Well done, Firefox! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Took me a while...
Brilliant :wub:
Very good! Far better than what I do with 1/144 F-16.... :thumbsup:
They've both come out tremendously well :bow: :bow:
Excellent work on both, no doubt! :bow:
Quote from: perttime on December 20, 2022, 12:11:38 AMQuote from: Firefox on December 19, 2022, 11:41:22 PMQuote from: perttime on December 19, 2022, 10:42:09 PMLooks good. On F-16N loadouts:
"We normally flew the N with an AIM-9 Sidewinder captive training round on the left wing-tip, and an ACMI (air combat maneuvering instrumentation) pod on the right wing tip if we were going to be operating on a range equipped to support the system."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3383/what-it-was-like-flying-and-fighting-the-f-16n-viper-topguns-legendary-hotrod
Thanks for the info. I've been looking for the training round in 1/72 scale for a while. Rather hard to come by though.
I think a training sidewinder could be made out of a live one: https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=563
An ACMI pod looks like a pretty skinny stick with a sharpened front end.
An AIM-9 training round can look just like a standard Sidewinder, but it typically has a blue body orm more recently, blue bands around the body. Sometimes the fins are omitted, as a pure acquisition round.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7184/13325122723_4f53d8a28d_b.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/AIM_9M_Sidewinder_p1220807.jpg/1200px-AIM_9M_Sidewinder_p1220807.jpg)
(https://fft-keymilitary.b-cdn.net/sites/militarykey/files/styles/article_body/public/imported/2020-03-26/img_63-2_14.jpg?itok=G9fSnEht)
Both of them work out remarkably well, magic work there. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Firefox on December 19, 2022, 11:41:22 PMQuote from: perttime on December 19, 2022, 10:42:09 PMLooks good. On F-16N loadouts:
"We normally flew the N with an AIM-9 Sidewinder captive training round on the left wing-tip, and an ACMI (air combat maneuvering instrumentation) pod on the right wing tip if we were going to be operating on a range equipped to support the system."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3383/what-it-was-like-flying-and-fighting-the-f-16n-viper-topguns-legendary-hotrod
Thanks for the info. I've been looking for the training round in 1/72 scale for a while. Rather hard to come by though.
The CATM AIM-9 is easy to make from a normal AIM-9 but the AN/APX-95 TACTS Pod is in the Hasegawa aircraft weapons set nº5/US missiles and launchers and the ACMI pod is in the Italeri 1/72 USA/NATO weapons set.
https://www.scalemates.com/kits/italeri-177-usa-nato-aircraft-arms--144405
https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hasegawa-x72-9-aircraft-weapons-v--128603
The F-20 of F/A-18s, and the G.91Y/T-2C of F-16s
Both models are awesome! Very convincing! :cheers:
Well done :thumbsup:
I was thinking the F/A-18 would have a single engine.
Quote from: Jesse220 on December 22, 2022, 12:54:36 PMI was thinking the F/A-18 would have a single engine.
What I have read in aviation books is opposite: twin-engine is "of course" better than single-engine (for reliability, safety, range if you turn down one engine in cruise) but alas this is expensive, heavy and long to maintain so a single-engine may alas be chosen for a real program, while admitting twin-engines would have been better.
Maybe other arguments are possible, but this is the one I read, maybe to justify the 2-jet way of Sepecat Jaguar or Dassault-Dornier Alpha-Jet (here in France).
Dog meowing and the cat barking. Awesome builds!
Quote from: Tophe on December 22, 2022, 04:58:32 PMQuote from: Jesse220 on December 22, 2022, 12:54:36 PMI was thinking the F/A-18 would have a single engine.
What I have read in aviation books is opposite: twin-engine is "of course" better than single-engine (for reliability, safety, range if you turn down one engine in cruise) but alas this is expensive, heavy and long to maintain so a single-engine may alas be chosen for a real program, while admitting twin-engines would have been better.
Maybe other arguments are possible, but this is the one I read, maybe to justify the 2-jet way of Sepecat Jaguar or Dassault-Dornier Alpha-Jet (here in France).
That makes sense.
Thanks! ;)
while... feel free to invent good arguments for the single-engine way. Especially in the whif world, many different logics are possible.
It's quite true about the twin engine rule for navel aircraft..in the early days reliably was the problem and yep its way safer to have two than one and it's the same with passenger aircraft..also power was the problem but over time jet engines have gotten extremely reliable..F35 and Harrier ..both single engined ..the Harrier had a very long career.
That's the general rule of thumb for the twin engined thing but to be honest some of it I have no idea about because in WW2 pretty much all navel aircraft had only one engine..ok planes like the F14 which is huge would need a bloody big engine to move it so that makes sense having 2...still don't change the fact that these builds are superb.
Thanks for this addition.
Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on December 23, 2022, 07:33:16 PMreliably was the problem
I imagine another reason for twin-engine:; on ground attack mission, if opposite ground fire makes the (one) engine broken, the plane is lost if single-engined, or else: goes back home slowly safely if twin-engined. Not only if the engine is in a jam because an internal problem of reliability occurs.
Quote from: Tophe on December 23, 2022, 09:24:55 PMThanks for this addition.
Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on December 23, 2022, 07:33:16 PMreliably was the problem
I imagine another reason for twin-engine:; on ground attack mission, if opposite ground fire makes the (one) engine broken, the plane is lost if single-engined, or else: goes back home slowly safely if twin-engined. Not only if the engine is in a jam because an internal problem of reliability occurs.
One of the reasons the A10 has two engines. A former commander of mine flew F100s which was a single engine aircraft. While flying cross country the engine fire light came on. This was a no questions just bail out situation, and he did.
Quote from: Tophe on December 23, 2022, 09:24:55 PMThanks for this addition.
Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on December 23, 2022, 07:33:16 PMreliably was the problem
I imagine another reason for twin-engine:; on ground attack mission, if opposite ground fire makes the (one) engine broken, the plane is lost if single-engined, or else: goes back home slowly safely if twin-engined. Not only if the engine is in a jam because an internal problem of reliability occurs.
There's no doubt 2 engines are better than one for ground attack Tophe mate but just take a look at what the US Navy used for yrs as ground attack aircraft...the Skyhawk and the Corsair 2 ..the Skyraider ..the Crusader..all single engined .
The only twin engined figther bomber which comes to mind is the F4 Phantom which we know was replaced by the F18 and F14 .
As for the USAF Vietnam had the A4 ...F100..F105 were their main ground attack along with F4 ....primary figthers with twin engines in the US have only really been around since the 70s and it's only around that time when multi role ideas came to light with the F/A-18 ..F-15 and F-16 ..still the single engined figther prevails matey .
All right, and what is the best according to me is that each program has either single engine or else twin-engines, not both to compare. And that allows us what-if modellers to invent the missing one. ;) ;D
Quote from: Tophe on December 23, 2022, 10:20:15 PMAll right, and what is the best according to me is that each program has either single engine or else twin-engines, not both to compare. And that allows us what-if modellers to invent the missing one. ;) ;D
Damn Skippy Tophe mate ;D
The next step...three engines ..if 2 is good 3 has to be better :wacko:
Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on December 24, 2022, 12:11:55 AMThe next step...three engines ..if 2 is good 3 has to be better :wacko:
I tried earlier this year, as drawing:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kristofmeunier.fr%2Ff16_3mtrs.jpg&hash=05d4e40c22c03a3e74ce67975ad36a32e446f5ea)
= link http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/f16_3mtrs.jpg
IIRC the Boss man of Boeing was once asked why he only ever flew in his four engined products, the 707 and 747 etc, and he replied 'Because we don't make any five engined ones...................' ;D
A 5th engine on the B707 or B747 was very possible for Boeing, à-la-B727 in the tail... ;)
Sure, but Boeing didn't build one like that.
Great work!! :wub: :wub: :thumbsup: