A pair of 1/48 Monogram F-16's. One built is the Prototype / Original issue kit

Started by Louis Gardner · 28 · 3 months ago
  • Profile Photo
    Louis Gardner said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    George R Blair Jr (@gblair)
    Hey George. Thank you for stopping by and commenting. I was thinking about taping the bag up again like you mentioned. I have not done that yet, simply because I didn't want the larger fuselage / wing parts to rub against each other. As they were packaged from the factory, everything was placed in a single bag. I'm trying to avoid this from happening, so I might have to beg, borrow, or "acquire" some larger zip lock bags from the misses. This way I can protect these parts and still keep everything together, minimizing the chance of lost parts.

    On the other hand, if I was to build it at the same time as the other F-16's, this problem would be solved. I'm still on the fence with the choice though. Thanks for the advice, it is well received.

    John Healy (@j-healy)
    Hey John. I believe your thoughts about the plastic in the ADF kit as being a Revell kit is spot on. It is head and shoulders above the older Monogram version as far as the details go. I don't know how the fit will be though. This is one of the main reasons why I have not decided to build it right now too. I don't want to get dragged down in a sand / filler / polish routine right now.

    Have you ever built one of these before ? If so, what were your impressions on it ?


    Also, the ND ANG decals are the choice I was going to use when I build this one. Old Teddy and the Rough Riders... My old 3rd Armored Cav unit was actually photographed with him shortly after San Juan Hill. This was way back before they became an Armored unit and still had horses. They were called the 3rd US Cavalry then.

    So it is the natural choice for me.

    No I wasn't in the picture ... 😉

    Thank you very much for the detailed information about these jets. I'm not so knowledgeable about modern jets, and know just enough to get in trouble.

  • Profile Photo
    Louis Gardner said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    I did make some more progress tonight on these two jets. Now they are really starting to look like Vipers.


    I discovered what the difference is between the original kit numbers. It all boils down to what color the plastic was molded in. I found this marking on the parts tree.

    The original kit was number 5401 and it was molded in White plastic.

    The second "edition" if you will, was number 5421, and it was molded in Gray colored plastic.


    I didn't want these planes to be a "tail sitter". I used my fingers to roughly determine where the center of gravity was, just like I used to do with flying balsa wood planes. I'm 99 percent sure these would have been OK without any nose weight. But I wanted to make sure.

    So I added some lead weight inside the nose cone.


    This is the original prototype kit, molded in White plastic.

    And this is the Gray one, for the second version.

    The nose cones were then glued in place permanently. Here is the prototype.

    Followed by the second model. You can see where they now balance at, as they are perched on a pair of paint bottles. The bottles are placed ahead of the main landing gear, so they will sit on the gear properly without a doubt now.

    The lower fuselage strakes and arresting hooks were added. This is the prototype plane.

    and the second one. I found it odd that a hook was used on an Air Force fighter, but it makes good sense as to why it was done. I checked online, and sure enough, they have hooks too ! I told you I don't know that much about these modern day jets.

    But I'm learning... and that's the cool part. 🙂 OK I'm definitely an aviation geek.


    This photo shows both planes with the hooks and strakes installed.

    This is how both models look right now... they are drying overnight, propped up on paint bottles.

    Thanks for stopping by, and as always, comments are encouraged.

  • Profile Photo
    Spiros Pendedekas said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    Always a fine moment when opening a mit and examining the sprues, my friend @lgardner! Great findings! And, I can place a safe bet that you will start building it 🙂

  • Profile Photo
    John vd Biggelaar said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    Some really good progress, Louis @lgardner
    2001 did sound quite young for this kit but I was not aware that it could be Monogram Models Inc. indeed.

  • Profile Photo
    Erik Gjørup said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    Having failed to comment for some time, I just checked up on these as I have a day off. Great progress on the F-16's @lgardner.

    As for the hook, these have a different function from a navy jet where they are always used to stop the plane on a carrier. On the F-16 these are there as a safeguard if the brakes fail on short runways. At the small airport where I work, we have some concrete foundations near the end of the runways as we are one of the original civilian airfields modified for deployment for the RDAF F-16's. The wires would be installed in advance of a deployment, and are not usually installed. In fact they have not been in use for many years, and would have to be overhauled if they were to be used.

    I guess they made the brakes too good? 🙂 (actually the RDAF has not used the civilian airports for ages, apart from the odd touch-and-go, and a seldom landing with a lightly loaded F-16, not needing a long runway or stop-wires as they are fully capable to stop at light weight)

    I will make sure to check in again later to watch the progress here!

  • Profile Photo
    David Odenwald said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    Louis @lgardner

    For the ANG Air Defense Variant there are three key areas to look for. The four IFF blades in front of the canopy just like an MLU F-16. Just below the left hand ECM blister in front of the pilot there is fitted a spotlight as seen Norwegian and Danish F-16s. The base of the vertical tail is bulged because of other modifications that escape my memory right now.

    My F-16AM had been bought because I knew it had all the parts to make an F-16A ADF but then I saw a photo J-248 "Dirty Diana."

  • Profile Photo
    John Healy said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    Great progress, Louis. I didn’t build the Revell kit. It was missing parts and instructions and I bought it for $4 or $5 just for the decals. Eventually, I’ll put them on that Italeri kit in the stash……

  • Profile Photo
    George R Blair Jr said 3 months, 3 weeks ago:

    Planes look great, Louis (@lgardner). I don't really know anything about the differences between specific versions, so it will be research time for all of us. The tailhook is indeed used to stop planes from running into the dirt, and many runways used to have cables on both ends. I have never heard of a plane actually using the tailhook to stop. When I was in pilot training, they had a barrier on each end of the runway. I think it was the same barrier that would be engaged by the tail hook. The barrier was made out of heavy wire cable that was attached to anchor chain on each end. The cable would lay flat on the arrival end of the runway and would be raised a couple of feet on the departure end. If a plane couldn't stop, the cable would snag the landing gear and the anchor chain would provide some weight to stop the plane before it went too far off the runway. When I was in pilot training in T-38s, one of my classmates was flying solo in a T-38, botched the landing, and took the departure end barrier at about 90 knots. He had already blown both main tires trying to stop, and engaged the barrier with one main gear and the nose gear. Because only one main gear engaged, the plane started spinning and made 3 complete rotations before stopping. He ended up in the desert just past the runway with the barrier and anchor chain all wrapped around the landing gear. My classmate was uninjured, flew the next day with an instructor pilot, and ended up graduating with the rest of us.

    3 attached images. Click to enlarge.

  • Profile Photo
    Louis Gardner said 3 months, 1 week ago:

    Spiros Pendedekas (@fiveten)
    John vd Biggelaar (@johnb)
    Erik Gjørup (@airbum)
    David Odenwald (@kahu)
    John Healy (@j-healy)
    George R Blair Jr (@gblair)

    Thank you gentlemen for the comments about the arrestor cables and how they are used. I learned an awful lot just by reading your replies. Thanks and I sincerely mean that. I try to be a sponge and absorb all of the knowledge I can about most things that are aircraft related.

    George, those pictures are cool ! It brings it home... 🙂

  • Profile Photo
    Louis Gardner said 3 months, 1 week ago:

    I made some progress on these two over the past week or so. I have not had as much bench time as I would like to have had, but that's how it goes on occasion.

    Meanwhile, here are some pictures showing what was actually done.


    These early prototypes didn't have this small bulge on the sides of the nose. The nose didn't house the radar at this time, so they were also more thin / sleek looking. I took some more time to sand the profile down a little on the noses as well, in an effort to make them resemble what I saw in the photos of the real thing.

    ]
    So off it came. After a few minutes and some quality time with a sanding stick and this problem was taken care of.

    This is the original kit molded in white plastic. Here I am preparing the landing gear doors for some Dark Blue paint. You can see the painting guide from the decal sheet next to it. There was a difference between how the underside was portrayed between the kit supplied instructions, and the aftermarket decal set.

    On the aftermarket illustration, it shows the Dark Blue color ending with a more rounded look to it as it nears the exhaust tail cone.

    On the kit supplied instructions, it shows the plane with the Dark Blue paint coming to a pointed end, as it ends at the exhaust cone. On the kit instructions, the paint division lines between the Dark Blue and the White are straight and not rounded.

    So I had to do some digging and online sleuthing to find out which one was correct...

    From what I have seen, the kit got it correct. Now it's possible the plane went through a metamorphosis during a repaint and may have possibly been painted both ways... Truthfully I don't know.


    Because here, in the picture shown below, it kind of looks more rounded to me... oh well. My lines will be painted on straight, simply because it is easier to mask that way. It's better to choose your battles.


    But I did find some cool photos showing how this area came down to a point. So this is how I will be doing mine.


    There was also a discrepancy on how the tail cone was painted. In some photos this area looks as if it was left in a bare metal, with a dark metal color predominant.

    On the kit supplied instructions, this area is shown as a Dark Blue color.


    Here again, the internet came to the rescue.


    The plane actually had it both ways, depending on what era / when it was being photographed.



    The canopies were glued to the side rails. The completed assembly was glued in place in the closed position. The cockpits are very basic, so I painted the pilot figures and installed them too. I left the pilot's helmets as they were molded and I didn't paint them. So the original Red / White / Blue jet pilot has on a White helmet. The Blue / White camouflaged version has a Gray colored helmet. It should help me to keep them straight.

    This helps to make it look a little less plain as well (I think).

    I used some LQS "sprue goo" and filled in the HUGE gaps that were present along the sides of the canopy frame. This would not have been a problem if I had left the canopy open. I like how the plane looks with it closed though. So closed it was...


    The landing gear and all of the gear doors were installed on the Dark Gray plastic model.

    I also started masking off the paint lines on the rudder / fin assembly, in preparation of the upcoming Dark Blue paint...on the Red / White / Blue prototype jet.

    You can't see it here, (and I didn't grab any pictures), but the underside and the landing gear / gear wells have been painted using a Flat White color on the Dark Gray jet.


    It will be painted as the one in the Light Blue / White "cloud" pattern of camouflage.


    I found some very good photos of the plane when it was painted like this on Wiki. It turns out these two different paint schemes were actually used on the same plane. Had I took the time to read the serial numbers on the illustrations, (and the pictures) I could have figured that one out a little earlier.

    Sometimes you can't see the forest for all of the trees... 😉

    Better late than never, especially at dinner time.

    As always, comments are encouraged.

    Thanks for stopping by.

  • Profile Photo
    Spiros Pendedekas said 3 months, 1 week ago:

    Excellent research and ditto works, my friend @lgardner! Loved seeing all these pics and how you implemented the info on your model. Looking forward to your next steps!

  • Profile Photo
    John vd Biggelaar said 3 months, 1 week ago:

    Some great research, Louis @lgardner
    Glad we have internet these days.
    The cloud scheme is a very nice one. Looking forward to it.

  • Profile Photo
    George R Blair Jr said 3 months, 1 week ago:

    Great work on the paint schemes, Louis (@lgardner). The early prototype or demonstrators planes always go through a series of repaints, often depending on who and where the plane will be shown. I was looking at the paint scheme on the T-6 Texan II, and the paint changed very often when they were trying to get the Air Force to buy it, and what role they wanted to accentuate for the plane. I have always liked the white and light blue camo. Glad you found a little time to work on the model. I have had several days of grandpa duty in the last couple of weeks, so I understand.