The latest release from Great Wall Hobby is a superb F-15B/D - the first in a new line of quarterscale Eagles.

Link to Item



If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

Now we just need the C model!

What? No Sidewinder missiles for the US B/D model? Also, I am rather amused by the "Kanji"ish pattern on the back of the radar planar array (pic. 32 of 55). That's supposed to be a Radio Frequency (RF) Waveguide that connects to all emitter points on the array and should look like an unbroken pattern of rectangular conduit...of course that's just a nit to pick and the aftermarket may address this. Otherwise an awesome looking effort by GWH!

I received my sample a few days ago. At first, one is impressed with the surface detailing, but having already studied just about all the sprue shots prior, I noted some significant accuracy errors.

Cockpit detail is actually quite decent, though still doesn’t quite top the Revell F-15E. The side walls are a nice tough BTW. The ACES II Seats are poorly done and the ESCAPAC seats are even worse! AM Ejection seats will be in order, regardless of what type.



The tire flats are over done. Having worked on USAF Military Fighters for most my career, it’s obvious the Great Wall F-15BD tire flats are too flat, even for radials. The tires look quite low on air; “scale wise”. The F-15’s tire sidewalls are not as bulging or rounded as depicted in the kit’s tires. They are near flat sidewalls. The early style wheel’s (often referred to as the F-15A/B wheels) tires are too wide.











Making the issue worse; the tires flats are clocked wrong in relation to the proper brake orientation. When you install the main wheel assembly with the flat spots down, the brake orientation is 90 degrees off. That’s going to be a tedious fix to say the least.



Like Academy, Great Wall provides lowered and normal position forward intake ramps/mouth for its F-15. Unfortunately, they made the intake ducting too narrow and got the engine fans/IGVs wrong. Once assembled, the intake ducts look like the plastic was pulled thin like a length of "shrink tubing" that was heat-shrunk all but the ends. The middle area of the intake ducts are closer to 72nd scale!

The full engines are gimmicky, sparsely detailed, and quite inaccurate. It’s a waste of tooling; not for just being poorly done, but for the fact that will not be seen once the model is assembled.
There are two sets of engine Inlet Guide Vane (IGVs) fronts; the main difference being different center cones. Sprue "K" Part#10 (X2) has the Pratt-100/200 IGV front with the blunt Center cone and Part#6 (X2) is the Pratt-220 IGV front with the PS2 probe center cone.



While GW provides options for the two different IGV/Fan fronts, they totally got them wrong. There should be 21 IGV Struts/Vanes on the Pratt 100s, 200s, and 220s, but the kit’s IGV Strut/Vane count is only 14; that’s closer to the GE-129, which has 13! The center cones are also missing accurate detailing and the struts/vanes are too shallow. The engine fans that go directly behind the IGV fronts are not accurate as well. There are supposed to be 38 fan blades, not 20.







The Exhaust nozzles are poorly done and dimensionally inaccurate. The aft nozzle segments (Divergent flaps/seals) are too long; similar to the Tamika 32nd scale F-15 Nozzles. The nozzles when assembled, the nozzles also lack to proper angling or “convergence” between the convergent and divergent sections. The molded on divergent flap struts remind me of Monogram’s cheesy attempt at featherless exhaust. Overall the GW Exhaust Nozzles do not compare to the Revell Strike Eagle’s or even Hasegawa’s featherless Exhausts.

One of the worst shape inaccuracies is in the forward fuselage and Radome. The problem stems from the 207 fuselage station (Radome bulkhead), which has an inverted Egg shape cross section. The Radome carries this cross section right down to the tip; totally wrong.





The problems extends to the lower forward fuselage, as GW missed the subtle “coke bottle like” contour by the avionics doors; just fore of the NLG bay. This lower area of the front fuselage transition to the lower Radome also carries the Egg cross section.



On the plus side, the surface detail is quite nice. Aside from the poorly done ejections seats, the cockpit is quite nice and detailed. The missiles are well done; though the proximity fuse windows on the Python 3 & 4 missiles are way over done. No AIM-9s included, which is significant omission they made. The main pylon detail is very well done.

The canopy has the proper “blown” cross section and is clear without any cold-flow lines. Test fit so far is quite good. There are a lot of stencils and markings and included are the “original” F-15A data stenciling.

It’s kind of hard to pull off a later F-15D with this kit, as no AIM-9s, AIM-120s, or ADU-552 pylon adapters and LAU-128s are included; not to mention the later MISP details.

Now that I had a chance to look over the GW F-15B/D first hand, I am convinced it’s not worth the $70-$100 retail considering all the shape/detail inaccuracies and other shortcomings. It’s a shame since this kit had the potential to totally eclipse the Hasegawa and possibly even the Revell F-15E kit, but in reality it falls short. I feel quite good about not dumping all my Hasegawa F-15 kits.

Mike V

Hi Mike

Many thanks for filling in the blanks. If you don't mind, I'll work some of them into my text. I wasn't struck on the rather rounded flats on the tyres, but them being 90 degrees out compared with the brake detail is definitely a howler!

Still a bit of room for the aftermarket guys and gals to get their teeth into.

All the best

Rowan

No problem, use what you like. I have other reference photos if needed.

The tire flats are over done, but I don't think many will mind; though fixing the brake to tire flat orientation will be challenging.

It's frustrating, as I was looking forward to this kit being the ultimate 48th F-15. The seats, wheels, Exhaust, and even the intakes I can replace or fix, but the nose and forward fuselage cross section is a major kill to this kit.

I also forgot to mention the aft canopy slope transition/contour to the spine, which is quite off. Revell's Strike Eagle isn't 100% correct, but it's a lot closer to the contour profile than GW's.

We already have correct wheels (both types) and an ACES II Seat in work. The wheels are CAD designed based off of data from the real F-15A/C wheels. There will be correct Engine IGV/Fans coming, though not sure about corrected Intakes.

I also know there's a corrected radome that's going to be coming as well. I heard Aires will be doing featherless Exhausts, so that will correct that problem.

Mike V

Hi Mike

Excellent. Thank you. As you can tell, my take on the kit is very much as a layman in terms of the Eagle, judging the kit for moulding quality etc. From that point of view, I note you describe your test-fit as "quite good", whereas I found the major parts in my sample clipped together beautifully. That's a concern in itself if the fit isn't consistent.

It's the way the weighted tyres are rather rounded that caught my eye - so I'd end up filing even more off to get them to sit flat on the ground.

I've flagged up your points to feed back to GWH - maybe some can be addressed in time for future releases?...

All the best

Rowan

Hi, folks!
GWH has confirmed reading this thread. Let's see what they will make of it. My bet is they may address issues concerning the outline and outer detail. I doubt they will re-design the engines.

Mike,

I notice you used the Monogram kit to compare the GWH kit to and referenced the Revell F-15E as well. How do you think the Hasegawa B/D kits shape up (as long as we're talking about this)?

Michael

The old Monogram F-15A/C is still the most accurately shaped F-15 in the 48th scale; all except the canopy which is non blown. It's dated (raised panel lines) and does have some problems itself.

Hasegawa is a close second to Monogram shape wise. The radome and forward fuselage are quite accurate; much more than the GW F-15 currently. Overall, yes the Hasegawa F-15B/D is much more accurately shaped than the GW Eagle. Note that the GW aft canopy to spine fairing is quite off shape/contour wise, but so are Hasegawa and Academy F-15B/D/Es. The Revell Strike Eagle, though not 100% accurate in this area, did do a much better job capturing the contour and shape.

"If" GW completely retools the forward fuselage and radome "correctly", then that would edge out or put it on par with the Hasegawa F-15B/Ds shape wise. There's still the way too narrow intake ducts, tire flat issue, and inaccurate Exhausts to consider.

It remains to be seen if GW will truly correct all the major shape and detail errors.




That's nice but a little to late for all those who have and who will be buying the current release.

I'm at a loss here wondering where was their technical consultants and/or their QA when these shapes were being designed? The backwards lettering on the tires and wrong clock orientation of the tire flats are as inexcusable as the terribly inaccurate radome and forward fuselage. These are some serious oversights to miss on an initial release in this day and age of the industry.

If GW actually corrects all the major errors in this kit and offers either kit replacements or corrected parts replacements for those who bought the initial release lemons, I (and many other modelers) would feel a lot better about buying future GW kits on initial release. We will have to wait and see.

Mike V

Hmmm, what would you expect, Mike? Send out all plans and CAD in high res and ask the modellers for the permission to release the kit? Whom of the many "specialists" should the producer trust to give relevant information? Especially as trashing kits has become a widespread and common part of the hobby.
As long as the kit is not released it's hard to see the mistakes one has made all by themselves. The CAD publicity shots had been published about 2 months prior to shooting the kit. At the time there were hardly anyone to note any of these mistakes. Now that the kit is out, there are one million specialists, to turn around every single rivet. Some "specialists" are just trolls and some have a point. GWH has seen your points and acknowledges them as relevant. GWH will correct these on future releases, if it makes economical sense. That is a whole lot more than most of the makers do.
This is how the business works and it's a business after all. Don't expect any correction sets from GWH. That is aftermarket business. Not even 5% of the buyers will buy a correction set. Great Wall Hobby is way too small a company to being able to afford spending money on that. They rather invest the money to make a better F-15 in the next get go.
I have seen the kit built and it remarkably looks like and F-15 and for 95% of the modellers that will be good enough.
Maybe the next F-15 kit will satisfy 97%. That I would call a good development.

[quote]


What I “Expect” for $100+ price tag is at least an accurately shaped and detailed F-15 in 48th. Asking too much, seriously? Great Wall made quite a few fundamental errors that should have been caught before final tooling was cut. They just didn’t do their homework shape wise and cut corners in other areas. It seems they were only going for the

Who’s demanding GW or any other model manufacture send out there CAD plans for proofing in general forums, or even magazines? Not only is that preposterous, but it would be a terrible business practice if they did. The fact is, they should have caught these fundamental errors themselves. The fact that most of these errors are being found by what be modelers who are well versed on the subject, kind of shames GW for having made those errors.

Trashing kits? So by identifying to the modeling community significant shape, detail, and accuracy errors in a kit is now called “thrashing” or “bashing”? My review points were straight forward and to the point. There was talk of POS, crap, junk, in my overall assessment, as that would be trashing. Talk about taking things out of context. The GW F-15 kit is a “product”, just like any other model kit. Being a product, it is subject to review just like any other product. To simply turn a blind eye and “down play” major/significant errors (like most Web-zines and magazines do) does the modeling community no justice. Modelers can look at the review facts from those who are willing to call out errors and problems, then decide for themselves if it’s worth spending an absorbent amount on a new model kit with as many major shape and fundamental errors.


[quote]


Nonsense, as that would not be the case for a “competent” model manufacture. There is no reason why these mistakes should have been missed before final tooling. I think they just did not have a good technical consultant, or QA. If they did, then may have not listened to them completely. I also think they rushed this product out; just my guess. Either way the faults are all on them, no one else.

I work with CAD for my resin company and I can tell you from my own experience, you can’t pick out major shape issues from just CAD renderings alone. You need to have cross sectional references factored into your design and have a CAD program or viewer to review them on. How many modelers have that capability? We do this with our wheels, since most of them I have drawings to reference from. The F-15’s station cross sections have been out for many years in reputable books and magazines. There’s no excuse for GW to have botched the forward fuselage and radome’s cross section so badly; not to mention the seats, tire flats, exhaust, and intakes. Maybe if GW published their F-15 “Cross sectional” CAD drawings, we may have caught that major error in the nose beforehand. Then again, that’s not our job. Either way, it’s pretty sad when so-called amateurs are identifying fundamental shape/accuracy errors that should have been caught by the manufacture.
GW should have solid technical advisor or consultant who really knows the subject on board, who would also be part of the “proofing” process. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.

When I worked with Tamiya of the 32nd and eventually 48th F-16, I was periodically asked to proof test shots, parts, CAD designs, and block configurations. I also had input with the engineers. Did they get everything right on the 32nd scale kit? No, but they sure as hell didn’t make any major shape errors. Most of the errors in the 32nd and 48th F-16s are trivial at best; hardly the case for the GW F-15B/D kit.

[quote]


It remains to be seen if GW will make all the necessary corrections and if they will do them right. If they do make “accurate” corrections, that would be great, but a little too late for the thousands of flawed F-15B/D kits on or inbound to the market. If they offer replacement corrected parts to all those who bought the first run of inaccurate kits, I would be more than satisfied. However, I don’t see that happening.

A good business practice would have been not to have released a 48th F-15 with major fundament errors in the first place! If you’re suggesting they put out a product that was not ready, just to see what was wrong and retool corrections; that’s a horrible and costly way of doing business.

So it’s only appropriate all us suckers who bought the original F-15B/D are SOL? We’re now suppose to pay even more on AM (when or if AM comes out for the forward fuselage) for corrections on an already over priced kit? Now that’s poor business practice on their part. They could at least offer an exchange; now that would be a great way to save some face and keep customers from “buyer’s remorse” and reluctance to buy a first release from GW.

Sure only a small percentage (it’s more than 5% BTW) buy AM, but that’s not the point. While I know the majority who get the inaccurate GW F-15's first release will be quite ignorant or not care about the shape issues. The detail is all the matters and they’re more than happy to pay through the nose for a quite inaccurate, but well detailed 48th F-15D/B. If a modeler if willing to pay for a $100+ 48th “good enough” F-15B/D, then more power to them. BTW, the Fujimi and Academy 48th scale F-15s are full of shape and detail errors, but they also “look like” and F-15. “Looks like” is the worst description or argument to use when reviewing or describing a kit.

Mike V

Good enough or not, cross section or even some outline problem may be negligible, but as far as I'm concerned, IDF/AF doesn't use ADU-552 adapter except on F-15Is, and USAF doesn't use LAU-7 rails on Eagles, but GWH, in this kit, give us ADU-552 & LAU-7 together..... I don't get it

Anyway' I got my sample today, hope my "founding" & text above can help them do some correction on next issue, hope it will be a fully specific IDF/AF Eagle(with dash-1 CFT) or USAF F-15C MSIP

While some of the other errors may be "negligible", the radome and forward fuselage cross sectional errors are not. GW's major shape error in the forward fuselage and radome are as significant as Academy's 48th F-14 nose cross section.

True, the IDF F-15A/Bs don't use ADU-552 adapter, but that's not near as bad as the botched nose. It's an omission, but one they should have caught configuration wise for this kit release, since it was marketed as an IAF and USAF F-15B/D. I agree, it's a significant omission and miscue. ADU-407 adapters/ LAU-114s and early AIM-9s should have also been included, so technically the missile and launcher adapter configurations are wrong for both.

I guess GHW might depend on "flat" 4-side linedrawing too much and did not notice "curves" as well.....
As a evidence, photos in some built-up review did show that this kit's outline is just fine if viewed directly on top, bottom or each 90-degree-angle of view, but curve-wise, I agree, less than desired, if compared to HASEGAWA stuff.

As for the rail-adapter issuse, in fact IDF/AF also use ADU-407, but for carrying LAU-7 rail they are a little blown up on the fore end, some modeler have "reconed" that for a long time, while manufacturer worldwide simply didn't, that's another mystery to me

When this item was announced, I did hope that GWH would do different, they did on LAU-7（HASEGAWA didn't), ignoring modified IDF/AF ADU-407...


As a result, even let nosecone issue alone, the kit can only built OOB as IDF/AF F-15B No.704 as it was in a relatively short period of time.（or with after market decal, other twin seat IDF/AF eagle, with the same configuration issue below)

My best speculation would be between late 1982 to late 1980s, because early than that IDF/AF didn't have the arched Python-3 adapter, later than that No.704 would not even be No.704 anymore, along with 708 it was converted to 404 & 408 as gun-removed photo-recon plane.

F-15B No.113 is not possible OOB. At the time this A/C get into service ( must be after year 1991, the batch is purchased after GW1), IDF/AF already fit Python-4 with LAU-7 /modified ADU-407 on F-15s, GHW kindly give as the missiles、rails but not the adapter, really a pity.

USAF simply don't use LAU-7, but LAU-114/118, so OOB we can forget US F-15D option.

With aftermarket stuff or kitbash the problem above can be solved, of course, not big problem but a little annoying for a brand new kit.

....and the kit costs $100 there ? I'm really surprised, it cost much less here~ shipping fee must be much higher than I thought~

Hello, Mike!
Probably some thing didn't come across here properly. I was not in any way trying to attack you in any form. We see and appreciate your input. Very much so indeed.
I never said you were trashing the kit. Please read what I said.
Why do I always, try to communicate these things? It's always the same. I should have kept shut up! This is pointless!

No problem. It did feel like you thought my review was thrashing the kit, so my mistake.

I don’t deliberately seek to destroy or bash a new kit when it has major problems or omissions. When I look to buy any new kit release, I want to know what I am getting into, especially is it’s super expensive. I don’t assume just because the faddish craze of a new is all warm and fuzzy, that it’s going to be the next best F-15, F-16, or any other subject. I appreciate a truly informative review with technical backing and one that’s bold enough to criticize shape, accuracies, or omission issues when they are deserved. When there is a minor fault, then call it out as minor. On the same note; if a kit has a major fault, identify it and to what degree it is. Major shape errors typically take precedence.

Not at all pointless. Our discussions outlined some possibilities as to what went wrong with this kit. I wanted point out the process I’ve seen from another company’s aspect. Again, I think they rushed it and for whatever reason, missed some key details and shape errors, which is all their fault; not ours.

Cheers





I don’t what reference they used for the forward fuselage, but either they translated the data wrong or flat out used bad refs. I still think they should have caught that error before they cut tool. From the side, it’s not that noticeable, but from below or on top, the tip of the Radome has a shark nose contour. In addition to being Egg Shaped, the 207/208 radome bulkhead is also a bit short in the vertical dimension; see my precious photo next to Monogram’s, which has the 207/208 correct cross section.

There’s also the transition area from the aft canopy to spine. GW did not capture this contour that well at all. The Revell F-15E ‘s aft canopy transition ( though not entirely 100% accurate) did a much better job capturing the contour; even the vent has the a decent crest to it. To be fair, Hasegawa’s F-15B/D/E aft canopy transition area is just as bad as GW’s.




So the IAF F-15’s ADU-407 is a bit different than the AF version when mated to the LAU-7; I did not know that, thanks for the tip. So the kits LAU-7s requite some beef up on the fore end? Do you have any good reference photos of the Israeli F-15 ADU-407/LAU-7 configuration?

So OOTB, you are limited to a short time period IAF F-15B. I should post some photos of the ESCAPAC seats, as they are terrible. They missed a chance here to make a decent base line seat. Again we’ll have t look to AM for a more realistic/correct ESCAPAC and ACES II, since those too are poorly done.

This also brings up another significant point; Feathered Pratt Exhaust Nozzles. Most IAF F-15A/Bs carried the turkey feathers long after the USAF removed theirs in the early 80s, so technically GW should have also carried Feathered Pratt Exhaust as an option as well.




This is good information to know, since weapons-stores are really not my specialty.




Yes, a combination of kit bashing and/or AM (when available) can fix most of the omissions and errors, though the forward fuselage and Radome are not as simply fixed. The Radome can get a compromise fix, but it would be impractical to completely correct the forward fuselage and Radome cross sections and AM would be quite expensive to fix this area as well.

Great Wall’s 48th F-15B/D MSRP in the US is $116! That’s ferociously expensive for a 48th scale F-15, especially knowing the shape and accuracy issues. You can find them for around $80; not including shipping. Even the kit did not have the major shape errors and omissions I still would have a hard time justifying $100. As it stands right now, the Hasegawa kit is more accurately shaped the GW’s F-15. One has to weight if the better surface detail, cockpit (except the seats), intake ramp position, and decal options is worth the cost over the Hasegawa kit.

Mike V

Too bad that all I know is from ISRADECAL's IDF/AF F-15 book, obviously I can't simply scan it and post it up here

The book is really expensive, costs about the same price as this GWH model here, but systematically providing everything one need to know about IDF/AF F-15. "Google" can't do the same job, not even close.

LAU-7 rails don't need modification at all, it's ADU-407 that need beef up at fore end where LAU-7 is attached.

Just to add to the list of errors on this kit - look at the grilles behind the intake ramps at the top - GWH have made them symetrical - they are both identical on the real thing and I was amused to note the artist who did their box top got it right! (so did Hasegawa 20 years ago) - profiles and shape corrections aside this is neigh on impossible to correct without some major surgury and so annoying in what looks like a very nice kit. why oh why do manufacturers get such basic, external and easily spotted things wrong - a few rivets and switches out of place I can live with this one means GWH have lost another sale

The Israelis recognized that the export AIM-9J (P/N) was worthless and did not want to wait for the Lima to reach export clearance status through Europe as the 9S.

USN superiority in Sidewinder design applied across the board but the AIM-9J in particular was a hotrod weapon, designed for low off boresight engagement with a very fast burn motor, to enable the SRM LAR envelope on high energy, opening, targets to overlap gun envelope from around 2,500ft to about 5,000ft and thus the weapon had a shorter duration motor impulse and 20 seconds less flight time.

The Israelis, who used USN heart attack tactics designed to exploit fleeting shot opportunities at higher off boresight angles and Double Attack or LD section doctrine instead integrated the 60 second AIM-9D which they had stocks of already and which was superior (especially if it had G-SEAM GCS switchout, as rumored) to any USAF period Sidewinder.

This is why the IDFAF F-15 has the LAU-7.

Move forward 5 years. At the time of the Osirak (Opera/Babylon) mission, the F-15s were carrying AIM-9Ds because there were only limited stocks of the new AIM-9L on hand and the F-16s had nothing without it because their tiprails were not Navy 'Winder compatible. It was thus felt that they needed (for fuel burn reasons) a face shot merge capability, far more than the F-15s did as the mission was right on the edge of being outside the range of the F-16.

If you want to model the Israeli Baz with their most famous loadout, you need Hasegawa Weapons Set C AIM-9Ds (or Brassin, if they have them). You also need the ALQ-131 Long Pod, one of the rarest versions of the 'Deep' variant, which was specifically loaded onto three F-15Bs which acted as SOJAM door kickers roll back for the final run-in to the reactor (whose SA-6 Gainful crews were, contrary to 'eating dinner' rumors, quite jumpy after the Iranian raid a few months previously...).

These pods, and the active U.S. collusion in the raid they portended, were so secret that they were literally delivered to Etzion the afternoon of the day before the mission and then taken back off the jets the moment they landed back (the pods had inertial and altimeter sensors, connected to a timer, as anti-tamper gear to prevent the Israelis or Iraqis from getting access to the pods gizmology under crash or 'maintenance difficulty' prior landing conditions) and flown out again on the C-141.

A fourth jet, depending on whom you believe, either provided AXQ-14 datalink support to early model GBU-15s which were used to destroy the dome or acted as a rebro comms relay, 'somewhere over Saudi' to signal to the war cabinet of Menachim Begin that the raid had been a success.

'Other Means' would have been used had it not been.

The F-15s single seaters which actually flew the cover missions (one section each) to BARCAP H2/H3 and BIA were in overload condition with three 610s and CFT and either Four or Two AIM-7s plus the AIM-9Ds.

This is why Etzion as the Southern Route was selected as it was critical to penetrate KSA after a final top off via in-flight tanking (the wings can carry more weight than the gear).

For those who believe the myth that the F-16 can fly farther than the F-15, let it herein be said that the F-15s flew the same 550nm @

@