Currently the mainstay in both attack and air defense for the US Navy, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has become a popular subject for jet modelers. Hasegawa's 1/72 Super Hornets first appeared around 2004 and have been re-released many times with different markings. Revell came out with a 1/72 scale kit of the single-seat version in 2009, but it wasn't until 2012 that they issued their two-seat F kit.
As a test of how these two manufacturers compare on this latest version of the Hornet, I built both kits. I’m hoping my experiences will be of help to those considering one or the other of these kits for their own collections.
General
The Revell version (kit # 04864) provides markings for
planes from VFA-103, the Jolly Rogers, while the Hasegawa (kit #02010) has
markings for a VFA-32 Swordsman CAG aircraft or a low-visibility scheme of a
VFA-11 Sundowners craft. Both kits had
very similar parts breakdowns, from two-piece air inlet ducts to forward
fuselage sections comprised of several pieces.
The rear fuselages were split horizontally into a top and bottom
section. The fit of both kits was
excellent, with the exception of the joint between upper and lower fuselages
behind the wing. Here filler was
required on both, and the molded-in scribing of the formation light was lost in
both cases. I chose to leave a smooth
surface and apply the formation light decal without re-scribing the framing.
 |
| Hasegawa's VFA-32 F/A-18F |
The Revell kit provides horizontal stabilizers molded in one
piece with a shaft running between them; you’re supposed to install this unit
when joining top and bottom fuselage pieces.
To make it easier to finish the fuselage joint, I cut apart the
stabilizers and made a support for the inner ends of the shafts so they could be installed at the end of the
project without sagging. The Hasegawa kit
provides rubber rings that are installed in the fuselage interior so the stabilizers
can be installed without cement and can be positioned, if desired.
Detail
The inlet ducting of the Revell kit is complete up to and
including the engine inlet fan, while that of the Hasegawa kit ends in a blank
wall at the front of the main landing gear bay.
Hasegawa’s panel lines were fine and included recessed rivets. Revell’s recessed lines and rivets were
deeper, which meant less re-scribing as work progressed. On the finished models, it’s hard to tell the
difference.
Stores
 |
| Revell's version in VFA-103 markings |
Both kits supplied two under wing and one centerline fuel
tanks. Hasegawa provided two AIM 120 AMRAAM missiles and AIM 9X wingtip Sidewinders, but
nothing for the remaining two wing pylons.
Revell’s kit has two MK 83 bombs, two AMRAAM missiles, and two HARM
missiles along with AIM 9X Sidewinders.
Both kits also provided AN/ASQ-228 FLIR pods for the fuselage as well.
Cockpits
Both kits give you decals for the instrument panels and side
consoles. Hasegawa surfaces are flat
where Revell provides recessed detail on the panels, consoles, and pilot seats
as well. I chose to spruce things up
with Eduard’s F/A-18D seat belt set (#73-369) for the Hasegawa kit, and the
Eduard Zoom F/A-18F cockpit set (#SS 488) for the Revell kit. This set could probably also be used in the
Hasegawa cockpit, but the side consoles
are slightly narrower and may require trimming the Eduard parts. Adding the Eduard details benefited both
kits greatly, and this was my first experience using after-market cockpit
parts. The seat belt set required about
2-1/2 extra hours while the complete cockpit rework on the Revell kit added
about 4-1/2 hours.
Wings
Part breakdowns for the wings differed for the two
kits. Hasegawa provides the usual two
upper and two lower wing parts; these assemblies are then added to the
fuselage. Revell has the upper wing
surfaces, out to the wing fold location, molded along with the top of the
fuselage, which saves time and filler at the wing-fuselage joint. Even though Hasegawa’s fit was good, I spent
some time adjusting the wing tabs and fuselage holes to get the location where
I liked it. After all this, the
Hasegawa wings needed filler on the bottom to blend the wing into the fuselage,
and the Revell kit needed some filler to take care of some minor sink holes on
the bottom of the wing leading and trailing edges. The Revell kit supplies separate pieces for
the outer wing panels, so they could be displayed folded, but no hinge detail
parts are provided.
Canopies
Decals
Both kits had extensive decal sheets which provided more
than 120 separate decals for each airplane.
Colors were sharply printed and in exact register, so there were no
problems in that area. The Revell kit
has you apply yellow trim and white skull and cross bones to a black painted
vertical stabilizer, and the colors were very slightly transparent. I had to touch up the yellow areas where two
layers overlapped, since the single layer was slightly less yellow. If I had it to do over again, I would take
more care to make sure the yellow trim pieces meet at a corner so they don’t
overlap. The white markings looked fine
once everything was complete.
The Hasegawa markings for the CAG aircraft would have you
use one decal to cover the entire vertical stabilizer surface. With several raised housings at the top of
the stabilizer, I decided this was too much to ask of a decal and chose the
alternate color scheme of a non-CAG aircraft.
To its credit, Hasegawa also provides separate numbers and insignia for
those who want to paint the stabilizers, but I still went with the alternate
scheme.
Both kits’ decals responded well to Micro Sol, but they were
somewhat stiff. This was not a problem
except when applying stripes to the missiles.
The only way to get the decals around each missile was to apply solvent;
then it was a race to get the marking in position before it became too soft and
wrinkled to be able to move it.
Instructions
Both kits had good instructions, but each had minor
flaws. Revell showed the weapons being
mounted not vertically, but correctly slanted outward at a four degree angle. Hasegawa didn’t make mention of this tilt, but
perfectionists would want to know. Revell’s
instructions failed to mention painting the beacon lights on the vertical
stabilizers. Revell also had vague
indications of exactly where the decals should be placed on the interior of the
engine inlet ducts to simulate air bleed holes.
Summary
So which kit is better?
I guess it depends on which of the minor differences are more important
to each modeler. I spent the same amount
of time on each kit, about 40 hours, half of which
was for painting and decaling. Both kits
required a little filler in some areas but the overall quality was great. For me, I’d have to give Revell a slight
advantage because of the complete engine ducting, wings molded in with the
upper fuselage, and more complete stores.
My suggestion – build both and see which you prefer!
Postcript-2017
Jon's Revell F/A-18F won Third Place in its category at 2017 IPMS/USA Nationals in Omaha. Congratulations, Jon, on your great build.
Postcript-2017
Jon's Revell F/A-18F won Third Place in its category at 2017 IPMS/USA Nationals in Omaha. Congratulations, Jon, on your great build.
