[smartd]

Originally Posted by Elmer

Mine was only $82.00 nice.

And, yes, the price difference from the Dragon "black bird" is worth it to me, not because it is limited, and not because it is CW, but because, I think, it is a better model.

I have 5 CW F-14's ( I was asked here why I bought both 210 and 203) and 1 Dragon. Are we pinning our hopes on CW at the potential cost of losing other manufacturers?
Is there anything fundamentally wrong with Dragon/ Witty/ et al? Apart from the fiddly bits.

[firefighterpilot1]

Originally Posted by smartd

I have 5 CW F-14's ( I was asked here why I bought both 210 and 203) and 1 Dragon. Are we pinning our hopes on CW at the potential cost of losing other manufacturers?
Is there anything fundamentally wrong with Dragon/ Witty/ et al? Apart from the fiddly bits.

Yes there are fundamentally wrong issues with Witty/ Dragon Tomcats. Missing pitot tubes on Dragon F-14's, wrong Engines/ Engine fairings on Wittys specifically (Dragon has bad fairings as well, but they usually get the engines right), wrong nose cameras (not all, but many), wrong colors (Witty particularly), Wrong antennas, the nose on Witty's F-14's isn't exactly the right shape. I'm sure I left stuff out and that's just with the F-14's. I'm sure Hingten will chime in on this. Witty is apparently really bad at researching the different variations of different aircraft. It's like they think parts are interchangeable and nobody will notice. As has been mentioned, CW tends to get just about every major detail right, even really small details that 95% of collectors won't notice, CW gets right. Great paint and build quality, extremely high accuracy, a great looking mold. CW is really the company to beat right now. I do have to say that I recently purchased my first couple of Hobby Masters and they are the only diecast models I have owned that can compare with CW. (tail burners that is, I can't comment on warbirds)

[David Hingtgen]

Witty's F-14s can be summed up with "if it's possible to do something wrong, they did". Dragon is slightly better. If you got a list of the differences between an early, mid, and late F-14A, and the differences between the F-14A, F-14B, and F-14D----that's pretty much the list of errors for the Witty and Dragon F-14s. And that's just the physical things, paint's another matter.

Honestly---of ALL diecast jets I know, Witty F-14s are the least accurate, with Dragon right next to them. And Century's F-14s are the best. Strange that the F-14 occupies first and last place.

[Alain Lee]

Originally Posted by David Hingtgen

Witty's F-14s can be summed up with "if it's possible to do something wrong, they did". Dragon is slightly better. If you got a list of the differences between an early, mid, and late F-14A, and the differences between the F-14A, F-14B, and F-14D----that's pretty much the list of errors for the Witty and Dragon F-14s. And that's just the physical things, paint's another matter.

Honestly---of ALL diecast jets I know, Witty F-14s are the least accurate, with Dragon right next to them. And Century's F-14s are the best. Strange that the F-14 occupies first and last place.

What about FOV's Tomcats? since I have now tomcats ftom both manufacturers. here is what I observed so far.

CW: Glossy, more pronounced panel lines, no weathering ( Atleast for the VF-111, dont know about the other tomcats )

FOV: Matt, less pronounced panel lines, weathered but not overdone.( VF-41 )

I like both Jets, and they are displayed side by side, my question David is, are navy Jets suppose to be matt finish? IMO I find FOVs tomcats more accurate looking than CW. I only observed semi-gloss finish when it comes to USAF Jets.

[David Hingtgen]

Planes are what they are---if the real thing was glossy, the model should be glossy. Generally, high-vis planes are glossy and low-vis are matte. But that's not absolute. (And there's always arguments over what really is low-vis)

The Century and FOV molds are very similar, though Century has a slight edge in accuracy/quality IMHO.

[Alain Lee]

Originally Posted by David Hingtgen

Planes are what they are---if the real thing was glossy, the model should be glossy. Generally, high-vis planes are glossy and low-vis are matte. But that's not absolute. (And there's always arguments over what really is low-vis)

The Century and FOV molds are very similar, though Century has a slight edge in accuracy/quality IMHO.

Yah they are indeed very similar, except for the hinged canopies for FOV's Tomcats. I realy like the subtle weathering in their Tomcats.

Fortunately for me, my CW VF-111, realy has no problems, Phoenix Missile Pallets fits in. no cracks in the wings.

[Elmer]

DH or Zed...

I know I read this somewhere, but I can't find the post now: what is the BuNo for the Tomcat that CW based its Vandy model on?

Mine finally arrived today. I spent my time getting a real good fit for the Phoenix pallets and missile loadout. I have it sitting right in front of me as I type. What can I say that hasn't been said already about this model. I never thought I would have one... and it is beautiful! It is stunning! It is gorgeous! And I have one that I can look at every day!

[valkyrie]

Hi Elmer, I asked DH the same question some time back. The BuNo is 161287.

[zed550]

think the number is right,anyway its a fine model of a very short lived scheme.

[a-6e tram]

Hey everyone! Long time reader first time poster to this forum. Thanks to everyone for the heads up on the VX-4 Bunnies in Japan. Live everyone else, I ordered and received mine within 2.5-3 weeks!!! And boy is it a pretty bird; never thought I'd be able to get one.

Quick questions: Is the recon pod appropriate for the VX-4 and did the plane operate mostly with or without the Phoenix racks? I'm just curious because I would like to display the plane in a "most likely" configuration.

Again, thanks for all the good info on this site!

-Stefan
Chicago, IL