Please Don't confuse Product Announcements with Product Reviews. This is a product review- F-20A LINK It has pictures of the sprues and a hands-on appraisal of parts quality as well as a short history of the type with 'people who were there' impressive background knowledge. When you don't have a boxing with which to show at least those new sprues added/changed from the last release, you don't have a review, you are just acting as a mouthpiece for the model companies' advertising department. Next, your reviewer needs to display some subject matter expertise. As an example: "A couple pods?!?" How about AN/AAQ-13/14 LANTIRN pods? How about a convincing appraisal relative to buying similar navigation and targeting systems pods from the Hasegawa Weapons Sets D or E? The LANTIRN pods were only just coming into service in 1991 when ODS (boxart) was happening. Quite a few jets had the AAQ-13 navigation pod but only about 20 of the -14 targeting equivalents had been sent to theater and were used exclusively by F-16D SCARs and F-15E SCUD Hunters. The nav pod required a specialist proprietary interface with digital flight controls to enable the TFR to literally command the FLCS automatically. The F-20 was not integrated with this capability. The F-20C was also a mooted version with a larger wing and bigger inlets, compatible with the F414 or EJ200 class engine. F/A-20 was never applied to this or any other Tigershark variant, that's a Navy fetish. The F-20 only carried about 5,000lbs of fuel. In a strike role, it would have _had to have mounted EFT_ to achieve any kind of useful combat radius. The 150 gallon tanks are leftovers from the F-5A program. The 275 gallon F-5E tanks (which the prototype Tigersharks were extensively photographed with, _underwing_) would have likely been themselves replaced by 330 gallon F/A-18 tanks in production. Because the F404 engine was too thirsty for anything less. What this means is that there should be, at a minimum, TWO, 275 gallon, tanks in the F/A-20C boxing to compensate for the added drag of heavy A2G stores. Not one. And no loadout like that shown on the box. The most common CAS load for the Tigershark was 7 Mk.82, 2 275 gallon tanks, and tip 'Winders, over a 150nm radius with 45 minutes station hold time. If using smart ordnance (the F-20 was carriage tested with LGB and fired Maverick) the LANTIRN pods should be replaced with period 1986 targeting pods like the AAS-38 Nitehawk (Hornet) or the ATLIS-II (France) as discrete system containers whose analogue interfaces did not require special modifications and were period accurate (the Pakistanis use Atlis II on their F-16As to get smart weapons capability 7 years before we had it on USAF F-16s). The GBU-16 would not be mounted under wing because the larger tails would interfere with MLG doors. The GBU-12 did not use the long-span canards or the 'necked' KMU/CCG unit adaptor. What part is actually in the kit? Without photos, we cannot say. Is the GPU-5 present? What about foreign SRM like the Brazilian Python-3/4 fit, similar to those on their F-5E? What about the Iranian vertical tiprails for Magic? In testing for potential Saudi export and license manufacture, the F-20 was fitted with three tanks intended (Persian Gulf War I, 'Tanker War' period) for ASST of small boat targets over large sea basins with threats hidden in swells and behind other maritime traffic shadows. In this role, it was found to have an 800nm range with some 20,000 square miles of sea search-1/2, high resolution radar mapping, capability. Are there in fact THREE 275s? How good does the Harpoon look compared to the Skunk models equivalent? Are the original AAM loadouts still present? Does the IFR probe fit well? What are the added user countries decals and do they still include the secondary roundel sheet of the first release? These are the kinds of questions you should be answering in a review of the latest boxing. At 53 dollars plus shipping for a single engine fighter which never entered into service, Freedom Models has a big qualitative bar to clear here and should be doing more to highlight what their new release includes. I hope you expand your F/A-20C review to reflect this.

Glaarg this is a news announcement NOT a review, as for being a mouthpiece this site announces new kits from which ever company releases them and this is a new release compared to the A variant you linked too.

I'm not the one confused. Andy