This is perfect timing, I was lucky enough to witness an F-104 fly over my grandmother's house Saturday afternoon. It has been my favorite jet for a long time, and to hear it howl overhead was surreal
I've just bought this model and this review is fantastic. When I opened the box my first two impressions where that the panel work is too shallow and the instructions had only 6 few detailed steps. I'm a little desappointed because the A-37 and the P-51C in 1/72 scale from Academy are very well built for the same price. In any case thanks for this magnificent review, it was really helpful!
Nice build. I built this tooling in the late 80s twice and for its time, I enjoyed it. The box art back then was simple. We didn't have many model shops in Namibia, so these Academy kits were great.
It looks like the original Hasegawa Starfighter that Frog issued in the late 1960's and early 1970's along with a few others. Academy in their early days was not above using other kits as a basis for their efforts. The 1980's Esci kit reissued by Italeri is a much nicer kit and the Hasegawa kit from the 1990's is even better, if you can find one. I have just finished one in Canadian markings. All the Marineflieger 104s I saw for real and photos in the 70's and 80's had a single colour uppersurfaces, although some may have transferred from the Luftwaffe and retained the two tone scheme for a while. The equipment fits were slightly different.
Looks superb, you've made a silk purse out of a sow's ear of kit. I am currently fighting with a 1960's Frog boxing of the same kit, which was a more reasonable £3.
Nice to see that you did a proper build again. Have you ever considered pre-shading or black-basing? This will create subtle colour variations that wil make make the paintjob more interesting and realistic. I feel like it's a bit "flat" or "dull" at the moment.
Yes, I'm thinking of doing some pre-shading on an upcoming model. It's not something I do very often but now that I have more experience with my airbrush it is a technique i'd like to get better at
i think its a waste of paint and time to do that. primer in grey or white, fix blemishes, then paint, then post shading and washes is how I do mine. I watch most builders shoot the model black, then try to paint little white squigglies for an hour, then totally obliterate all that work spraying the color layer. I prefer to layers colors base up, and then weather and wash.
@@orbitalair2103 how is it a waste of paint and time? It's excactly the same steps, in a different order. I feel like I have more control when I spray a light colour over a dark base then when I spray a dark colour over a light base.
Ohhh wow, so amazed with the model, as well as the color scheme. And I would suggest another dogfight doubles video or starter set ones. I love watching your tutorial videos, Matt sir🙂.
The F-104 G of the German Navy were finished in only one color on the upper surfaces. That was "Basaltgrau" (German color standard RAL 7012), the second color "Gelboliv" (RAL 6014), used for Luftwaffe-aircraft, was omitted...
Fanastic job on this basic F-104 Starfighter kit Matt. Hope you will tackle an Italeri F-104 kit next time. The biggest draw back to this kit is the lack of wheel well and cockpit detail......its just an a bunch of empty spaces. However looking at your finished model, you would not be able to tell that. I'm currently make this exact kit as a quick and easy side project. I decided to make in flight model on a stand. And like you I replace the pilot with a trusty Airfix figure. Paint scheme wise , its going to be a Royal Canadian Air Force CF-104.......hopefully it will turn out well like your one!
A thought for the stubby wings. As you have access to the inside at that point through where the undercarriage will go perhaps glue them together with a length of sprue as a spar between them inside? Once that's dry they /can't/ move.
I have Academy's MiG-21, haven't built it yet but its the same as the Starfighter an old rebox of I think FROG paid about what you did for the Starfighter. Only reason I got it was that it was the cheapest MiG 21 readily available from shops and I wasn't in the mood for ebay hunting for the Revell kit
It’s not a rebox of the FROG kit, as there are some differences in the parts breakdown and sprue layout. However it is a very close copy. A number of early Academy kits follow this pattern and, for a long time you couldn’t get Academy kits in Japan because so many of their 1/35 Armour subjects were unauthorised Tamiya clones. Fortunately, they no longer follow this practice and their newest releases rank with the best in the world; case-in-point the new Airfix “Katy,” designed and tooled by Academy from research provided by Airfix. Their are much better F-104 kits in 1/72: Revell, Hasegawa, even the old ESCI kit is decent and has recently appeared in an Italeri box. All that said, Matt’s model is nicely finished. Great result!
Fairly certain this is an updated kit based on the early Hasegawa one. Very nice job! These boxings do make halfway decent 'desktop' models if you can get them cheap enough. I've made a couple putting the wheels up and using old AM decals.
I just finished a revell starfighter. A bit more fiddely, but I think it had more detail in the airbrakes and wheel bay. Still seems to be an old tooling as the details are very shallow. I painted mine in light gray and found some Norwegian decals on ebay. This particular one were stationed in my home town and chrashed in the ocean nearby
Very simply kit but easy to build and fun too, and looks so cool finally. I get a very old Frog kit from Starfighter and is the same kit with rise panels. Maybe this old mould from Frog was retooled in the eighties for Academy.
Did a good job on the manned missile . Academy decals are a right pain in the bottom. Think they thickness is due to the fact of being used on gundam . But top tip for using the extra thin on them.👍
I'll be honest, I don't see the link here. Academy are from South Korea and Gundam/Bandai are from Japan, besides Gundam kits do not come with decals, they mostly have stickers or dry transfers. Saying that, the older Academy kit decals are famously bad. Then again so are the older Hasegawa kit decals as well. If you want to laugh at bad pilot figures look at the melted pilots from the dragon kits! I've heard some people have success with hairdryers melting decals, but it can melt the model as well, so is a double edged sword. Lovely build there Matt, but it looks likes the burner can/exhaust has dropped in some of the shots... Could be the angle the video camera was at. I've got the Hasegawa F-104J kit that I paid around £4 for, be interesting to compare it to this one.
Thank you for your build of the Academy F-104G Starfighter in 1/72 Scale. Your build and review of is very good. I'm only missing one thig that makes this kit really terrible and that is de dimension of the fuselage. It is much to wide. The real F-104G is much sleeker and had a different shape. For a realistic looking result I would recommend another F-104 kit.
Easy way how to fix decals is to add extra layer of varnish around them, or carefuly sand them with realy soft sanding paper, (of course sand it with water) fun note, i may have build same kit or simillar, like 15 years ago, but definitly same plane
What I see also from the instructions is that this is the old Frog kit (molds) You can see that the cockpit canopy is not of the specific bubble top as the original is. They were not able to get it out of the mold 🙂
interesting, It looks to me that the frog tooling had raised panels whilst the academy one had recessed. I wonder if Academy got the Frog tooling, and then updated it which is why it is listed as an Academy "New tool" in 1985 on scalemates
Have you tried a layer of gloss varnish under where you put the decals? It can help hide the film around the decals and stop silvering. Then just hit it with a matt varnish to tone it down.
Looks like a pretty alright kit to me. I'd love to build it. Other kits like the Revell one are probably better (got that one in my stash) but they're more than double the price as well. And the decals .. guess you've got a good point there although I'd use my own decals anyway. Thanks for the review :)
Does anyone else use MEK for a super thin plastic glue? A pint can is $8.00 US. if you can still find it. I still use the Tamiya thin bottles to apply it. Holy Douglas Bader! Chopped off your Pilots LEGS!
I tried my best to use the FS numbers (and the paints that matched them) from the instructions, so it is possible that it is still a little inaccurate due to the vague instructions and the paint i had available
15:07 I think this model has quite good level of details and panel lines, but you've bloated the surface with lacquer primer from hardware store. When you put the gloss coat at the end, the panel lines will almost disappear of wash could not grab onto the recessed lines. Try to find the finer nozzle for spray can to achieve better atomisation of the paint, or use some of the hobby primers specialised for this purpose. Anyways, very good looking aircraft :) Regards
The lack of detail in the landing gears' bays , cockpit and air brakes is really bad, there are better kits in the market, thumbs up for your ability to build a decent model from such an old kit, Academy should've retooled it.👍👍👍
Academy has reissued the Monogram/Revell F-104A/C, in 1/72nd scale under their lable.. Would you be interested in building that one and do a video on it???
Ah, the 1995 tooling of the F-104C, I might consider it in the future but would have to build quite a few of the models in my stash before I get around to it
@@ModelMinutes Bad experiences with them in the past. But lately I've seen some really nice builds come out of Academy Kits, so maybe it's time for me to stop overlooking them when I'm searching for a kit.
@@ModelMinutes I could tell how thick they were when you were applying them. I'll definitely give them a chance again, but maybe with some aftermarket decals
Academy is a bit of a mixed bag. When I was looking for a MiG-23/27, Academy went straight to the bottom of the list. Their Flogger kits include a peculiar raised canopy. Rather than look at Scalemates, I looked at my collection of Observers' Books of Aircraft, around 1967. 1967 was the year in which the MiG-23 was first shown to the public. There is something of a tradition of early Western pictures of Soviet aircraft looking a bit off. This comes from having to piece them together from grainy cine film, or airshow photographs taken by military officers using consumer-grade equipment. If you look at editions of an annual book called "Soviet Military Power", you will see what I mean. This defence did not assist Academy in the least. I also dismissed Academy out of hand for an F-104 due to the odd looking canopy. There are better options for an F-104. By contrast, the kits they produce of the F/A-18, F-15, and F-35 look superb. Some of the choices of markings are a bit dubious. Their 1/144 CH-47D/F/J/HC.1 includes two sets of Royal Air Force markings from Not The Falklands War - in fact both are from the failed intervention in Lebanon in 1983-4. If ever there was an opportunity to provide decals for Bravo November, this was it. One RAF version does have massive Union Jacks, which is appropriate for a Sixties aircraft. Their US Army options were both CH-47Fs - and there is no difference between them other than the serial numbers. There was also no Australian option, but that last point is pure personal bias. Having said that, I am looking forward to building it, and I just went to the aftermarket for Australian markings. Their box art deserves a mention. They rarely go down the Airfix route of commissioning evocative box art, preferring to use photos. Their CF-47 kit deserves special mention here - the box art is the title picture from the CH-47's Wikipedia page. Based.
Humbrol Poly Cement is good for managing anhedral/dihedral, far better than the Tamiya Extra Thin Cement. The thickness of Humbrol means you need to do a lot less holding. My usual technique is to give it a few moments to get "gummy", then get the position absolutely right.
Great job but saw the same kit recently at my local hobby shop it is now selling for $21.95 in the states ! I was also wondering so you used Tamyia extra thin glue as a decal agent how exactly did you apply it without it spreading everywhare an ruining the kit?
i applied the extra thin using the included brush, but i made sure that there was only the smallest amount of cement on it. The brush needs to be almost completely dry, it is really that small of an amount
Bad Kit, but great execution by you :) Having built the Revell 104 i can safely say that its about 200% better than the academy kit. what a difference a few years can make!
@@ModelMinutes I'd like to second the recommendation for the Revell F-104 (Either as a standalone around the 10 Eur price point or as part of the fantastic 60 years of Luftwaffe set), it's a really fun and easy build and despite the low parts count can still look fantastic. Also, at least in the multipack version, the decals were a lot more detailed (from the video it appears that the Academy misses a lot of the technical stencils for the maintenance hatches and control surfaces) and had 0 problems blending into the finished kit
academy decals are some of the worst great job on the camo scheme and i know what you mean with the masking taking forever honestly i think you have done a great job on a kit that isnt up to modern standards looking forward to the next build 👍
Le Kit référence 4044 de chez REVELL est d'un autre niveau de détail . Perso ,j'ai eu la chance de l'obtenir dans le coffret des 50 ans de la LUFWAFFE RFA . Sinon ,le kit ESCI reboité par REVELL est bien aussi . J'apprécie la présentation des colles et peintures utilisées .
Have you done a video on the Airfix churchill crocodile or Matilda hedgehog vintage kits? I'm currently building the Matilda and surprisingly the parts have hardly any flash. The only flaw in the kit is the infamous rubber tracks
Airfix Churchill (and Shreman) are featured on my channel - i don't really mind the rubber tracks in 1/72, but larger scales is a problem (because: detail)
I think you can add the single decoration choice to the bad points of this kit. I have checked for other Starfighters at 1/72, 1/48 and 1/32 scale and they offer more options, or at least 1 rather special one such as the "Ferrari" or "Tiger Meet" Starfighters.
Translated into google: Я не совсем уверен, что это на 100% правильный размер/масштаб - у них есть некоторый опыт продажи наборов моделей в «достаточно близком» масштабе (например, их Mirage 1/50, который они позже упаковывают как 1/48 - потому что «достаточно близко») I'm not entirely sure it is 100% the right size/scale - they do have a bit of a track record of passing off model kits at a "close enough" scale (for example their 1/50 Mirage which they later box as 1/48 - because it's "close enough")
I enjoyed the kit but was disappointed with the lack of detail in the landing gear bays and cockpit. And yea the pilot figure got tossed. Very pretty on the shelf but does not stand close examination.
I'm not 100% sure, but I feel as though the ones I've built have all had figures so far . . . but then i've only built a handful of academy models and not all their kits might have them
@@brockclark7404 pretty sure the B-17 does not have figures. Most of the figures they do include are pretty horrible, even in 1/48 scale. I had a few of their 1/48 Hughes 500/AH-6 helicopters - the figures were awful. I know it's an added expense, but after market figures are the best way to go.
@@mh53j yeah I had a mig 27 from them and used the pilot figure but I have a airfix fighterpilot and should have one in my collection but you are right about academy figures
I also came across this set. The quality of detailing and jointing is disgusting. All the niches where the landing gear is retracted had to be made independently. The pilot was especially amused. It's some kind of alien!
My goodness, what a poor kit. It only looks rudimentary like a starfighter! In many areas, especially in the cockpit canopy, the shape is not hit. A kit only for nostalgics! At least again well executed. Now you have a model on the shelf of which one can only guess what it is supposed to be. A good reason to build a "real" Starfighter again with a newer kit.
@@ModelMinutes Revell's 1/72 is pretty current these days (Belgian/Dutch AF) and looks really good. Just don't put the Academy one next to it if you do build it 😂
