Panda Models 1/48 F-35 ????

Curious about the quality of these kits? Anyone seen a review?

Reply to
Steve Faxon
Loading thread data ...

Steve,

A while back, I did a review of the USMC F-35B over at

formatting link
and since then have found more reference material on the subject. That review definitely needs updating...

The 1/48th Panda kit has some major accuracy problems. The fuselage underside, and wing-root underside, are incorrect in the way the shapes blend from front to back. Also, the canopy is provided as one piece instead of the correct two pieces... The intake fan doors on the upper fuselage spine are all incorrect, but the rear-most set are really off (as in much too small with doors that are hinged backwards)... There are a ton of scoops and vents missing from all over the fuselage... The cockpit is really lacking detail (much like most current Italeri kits) but could be built up with photo-etch instruments and scratch-built tid-bits. Stealing the resin Stencil seat from the 1/48 Black Box AV-8B set would help out the appearance of the cockpit too!

Marv Mays snipped-for-privacy@scalejets.net

formatting link

Reply to
M. Mays

The short version is that is basically a direct scale-up, with no added detail, of the inaccurate 1/72 Italeri kit.

Dave

Reply to
Dave Williams

rog' that one.

the STOVL SIG (well it was the harrier and JSF SIG) at telford last month had a model of one of these 1/48 scale kits and the faults are glaring. the easier way to check, i found is to compare the kit to an official BAe systems publicity handout on the type, with the X-35 landing on the pad. the kit is on this basis awful.

i think the italeri 1/72 scale kit is probably based on a X-35 mockup rather than one of the flying prototypes. the revell kit [which is just this one reboxed has though an excellent decal sheet]. the X-32 kit by italeri is also sh**e. the tailfins are _totally wrong_ for a start.

trevor

[who likes these kits anyway]
Reply to
87015

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.