... just started building the magnificent 1/32 scale Italeri F-104G, will finish this as a Belgian aircraft. Very nice kit, no faults, fit is great.
Was wondering : is there a possibility in this world to build also a 1/32 scale Belgian F-16AM MLU block 20 like the ones the BAF has today ?

Hasegawa makes a 1/32 F-16A that you can adapt. It's an older kit which can use some TLC, but it can be made into an excellent model. Your other choice is to backdate the Tamiya F-16C.

Actually there are some problems with Italeri F-104. I got mine last week and was disappointed with the overly soft detailing. The seats are poorly done and the cockpit Photo etch are a useless. The cockpit IP/Consoles and Landing gear look as though a bottle of Tenax was spilled on them. The early main wheels and nose wheels are horrid.

The surface scribing is also soft and the panel lines are quite inconsistent. There are areas of graininess and that combines with the very soft surface detail does not make painting a metal finish practical for later versions.

The Exhaust nozzle is a passable, except for being partially closed.

Shape wise Italeri's F-104 is quite good, but they blew an opportunity to make a state of the art 32nd F-104. I plan to replace the cockpit, wheels, Exhaust and possibly the gear. I just can't justify another Italeri F-104 for over a $100 considering the so-so tooling quality and overly soft detail.

As for making an F-16AM, you sure can. Note that there is no such thing as F-16AM Block 20. The F-16AMs are rebuilt/upgraded Block 10/15 F-16A/Bs. Block 20s are built from the factory with Block 15 airframes and block 40 wings with modern F-16 avionics.

For started, use an AM F-16C (older Black Box) cockpit and look to PWMP for the parabrake vertical tail dorsal. There will be some RWR antennas to add, as well as the fuselage beef up plating, depending on if the jet has been too Falcon Star or the time period. Look for other details; like high profile ECS duct and 2 slotted gun muzzle. Have any pics of the subject you plan to do?

Mike V

Hi there ! Sorry for the late reply - been busy. But thanks a lot for your clarification on the F-16, I'll check if I still can find those items you mention ... I fear the resin tail by PWMP (made in Belgium) is long out of production however ?
I still have to figure out how to upload pics on this forum, but what I would want to build is a fairly recent F-16 MLU of the Florennes wing, I was thinking about FA-72, which still had the 2 TAC Wing Boar head badge on the tail a couple of years ago.

Now. About the Italeri 1/32 F-104G : sorry to hear that you are so disappointed with the kit ... but allow me to explain my personal view on things here below :

a) I understand that you feel let down by the quality of the moulding of the kit : well I agree it's not the same quality as what Tamiya does in 1/32, or Wingnut Wings. Did you really expect that same quality from Italeri ?
Personally I could say - but I won't - that I feel let down by the quality of the moulds in some recent Airfix kits : for example their 1/72 Sea Harrier, while the most correct kit of this aircraft in form and dimensions, has panel lines that would look like trenches in reality. Their recent Javelin (is it a Javelin ? I think so ?)is certainly not of the same quality as Tamiya's or Wingnut's kits, and the cockpit and wheel well parts are not better than those of Italeri's 1/32 Starfighter, but nevertheless it gets critical acclaim on all English-speaking forums. Why, because it's the "home boys" from Airfix ?
Seriously : look at some German or Italian modelling forums, and you'll find some more balanced reviews about the Italeri Starfighter.

b)OK, about accuracy etc. : the Italeri F-104G is indeed a kit from which you can build out of the box either a totally 100% correct German or Italian F-104G or an Italian F-104S. Period.
Dutch and Belgian machines do require some very tiny minimal modifications to be built 100% correct from this kit (millimeterwork really) 3 small panels filled, two small "lumps and bumps" removed, 5 very small extra exhaust louvres carved on the underside. The Belgian machine needs two small lumps and bumps added, and the Dutch four I think.
Also, some extra pods and missiles not used by the Italians may not be in the box : fe. practice bomb dispensers, and - unfortunately - no AIM-9J Sidewinders (aaargh !), although you do get some VERY nicely moulded Bravo's and Lima's for sidewinders !
And then, apart from this nitpicking, you have a totally correct 100% accurate Starfighter, now can you say that every big 1/32 Trumpeter jetfighter kit buids into totally accurate scale models of the real aircraft they represent ? I seriously don't think so !!

But I guess I'm like preaching in the desert here - seems the Italeri Stafighter is bound to get a reputation that stinks just as bad as the reputation of the real aircraft ("Widowmaker" - although actually losses were not worse than other aircraft.
Or should I put it this way : just as the real Starfighter was a very unforgiving aircraft, but a superb fast low-level bomber and/or medium-high altitude interceptor in the hands of a very skilled pilot, just like that a very good modeller will be able to build a very good F-104 from the Italeri kit and a lousy modeller won't ?

I’m sure you’ll be able to source an F-16A Parabrake extension. Keep looking. If you need more specific detail on the MLU F-16 you intend to build, don’t hesitate to ask.

No need for you to feel sorry I was disappointed with the kit. You had nothing to do with the manufacture of Italeri’s 32nd F-104G/S; Italeri did. While I am experiencing significant “buyer’s remorse”, I do see a good deal of potential for this kit. I already have replacement for the Exhaust and after some test fitting, I think I can get my Black Box F-104G cockpit to fit. I’ll have to strip the LG to clean it up and I already have main wheels in design

While I did not expect “Tamiya” Quality (and probably never will) quality tooling, I expected better than the soft effort put forth on this F-104 Kit. It’s obvious Italeri is still using the outdated acid etch mold tooling process. For this low quality of tooling and poor detail, $130+ is certainly way over priced. $75 is a lot more reasonable for the quality you get with of the Italeri 32nd F-104G/S.

I never refer to any model as “100% Accurate”, as there’s no such thing. I don’t even claim that of Tamiya’s 32nd F-16CJ/C, which is the most accurate 32nd model jet aircraft to date. From my references and some other reviews (one from a prolific Italian modeler), Italeri’s 32nd scale F-104 is more in the “80%” accuracy range on its own. I also would not have wanted Trumpeter to make a 32nd F-104, as they’d probably get more fundamental shapes wrong; so yes, agree with on that scenario.

While the overall tooling is poorly executed and the detail unacceptably soft, it is an ok kit and by no means a piece of junk. I do agree the F-104 was an unforgiving aircraft and had the maneuverability of a pencil, but it sure was a beautiful aircraft. It’s just too bad Italeri put forth their typical effort into it.

The F-104 did have one of the worst loss rates for a single engine jet fighter. The Luftwaffe lost just over 30% of their 104s and the Canadian AF lost half of theirs. The US los 104 loss rate wasn’t much better than the Luftwaffe. The F-104 deserves the “Lawn Dart” nickname a hell of a lot more than the F-16.

-"How to get your own F-104?"
-"Buy a piece of land and wait for one to drop on it!"

Harsh humor, I know, but it's still kind of funny

Mike V

I was thinking about this aircraft to make a model of :

http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album37/album05/aos

Ah, the poor "Zipper". No way to deny the F-104 crashed a lot but it has to be considered in context. The Luftwaffe loss rate for the F84/RF84 was higher than the F-104; The legendary and esteemed F-8 Crusader had a class-I accident rate of approx 80%; not all were destroyed but severe damage. I read Gunther Rall's book and IIRC, after the early spate of crashes, Luftwaffe orientation and training brought the loss rate down to 'safe' ratios. Must recall that Luftwaffe was putting pilots into the Zipper without any supersonic experience, unlike most NATO air forces. Pakistan only lost a few of theirs operating in iffy conditions; Spain operated the F-104 from 1965 - 1972 and their Starfighters had the distinction of operating without a single accident during their seven years of service. Other countries operated Starfighters with accident rates comparable to other single-pilot single-engine fighters of the era.

Germany and Canada took what was designed as a high-altitude clear airmass air-superiority fighter and took it into the tree tops in European weather to carry nukes and conventional weapons. Read accounts of how Luftwaffe F-104 pilots would fly UNDER helicopters and below the rim of the Mosel River valley and their early loss rates become clearer. Canada's loss rate may be considered in light that they flew the wings off, averaging 6,000 hours per airframe compared to Germany's 2,000 hours. Consider how well the F-4 Phantom served and then understand that for USAF in the mid-to-late 1960s, they lost more F-4s to pilot loss of control than to enemy fire over Vietnam. USAF had to implement a special program to teach pilots how to safely fly the beast (Red Baron?) without spinning out in a turn.

F-104 was a fighter designed for operations that never came to be; we can only debate how if might have fared if it was employed as envisioned by trained and experienced pilots. The F-104 does have a cadre of Zipper pilots who loved by it.

My thoughts exactly.

Plus, the bad safety record of the F-104 was much publicized perhaps because also the way it came to be NATO's prime fighter aircraft was controversial - there was the Lockheed scandal of course. People in the highest political circles in Western Europe had been bribed to lobby for Lockheed. When this became public knowledge, the press also happily pointed out it was a bad aircraft as well.

Hi Killian,

Thanks for pointing out the political scandal aspect of the NATO F-104 story.

I found this the other day, a story about HAVE DONUT: evaluating the MiGs at Nellis against our TACAIR.
It is interesting that, despite the fun we have repeating that "the F-4 proves you can make a brick fly with enough power", that all F-4s were judged able to "control combat" against Fishbed below 15,000. However, it should be no surprise that of the Starfighter it was shown, "Results of the evaluation showed the F-104 should avoid maneuvering, use hit-and-run, mutual support and effective defense accelerating above MiG-21 limit speed. Again...SPEED WAS LIFE!!! ...and the F-104 could only go in a straight line." (That's what otherwise successful Pakistan Air Force F-104s found out against Indian Air Force MiG-21s in their only encounter.)
EXPLOITATION OF SOVIET MiGs AT AREA 51

Does anyone have information on the combat record of Taiwan's F-104s against PLAAF?