Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

KRK4m

Members
  • Content count

    745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

340 Excellent

About KRK4m

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member
  • Birthday 25/04/1957

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Krakow PL

Recent Profile Visitors

1,133 profile views
  1. Ju-88

    Agree with most of the votes mentioned above. All three new toolings have their pros and cons and in my opinion it's only the matter of numbers If you'd like to build the one and only Ju-88 in 1/72 it's hard to find more representative variant than A-4 (>5500 built) - then you can surely go for the Revell kit. If you plan two then the 2nd most prolific was the G nightfighter (>2500 made with large tail, half of them with BMW radials), thus Zvezda will provide you the same shape and details (u/c, surface) for A and G. If you'd like to portrait more of them then go for Hasegawa, where you can find almost all possible variations: Jumo-engined A bombers/C fighters/D recces, their BMW-engined R/S/T counterparts with small tails, large-tailed G fighters with Jumo or BMW engines and long-span egg-nosed Ju 188A/D/E/F (both Jumo- and BMW-engined recce and bombers). It won't be cheap, though - but the 88 is worth of this. More of them were built than Beaufighters and Mosquitoes combined. Cheers Michael
  2. Serge, Great thanks for the production numbers! Frankly speaking there is a misprint within the Arsenyev/Shavrov/Podrepnyi table as P/PF interceptors have been never manufactured in plants 126 and 153, while they were built in plants 21 and 31. But if you move leftwards the P/PF numbers horizontally the table will be OK BTW I have been learning Russian language for 11 years (ending with B2 level state exam), so there is no problem with understanding the text in Grazhdanka. Concerning the Yak-23 I have visited the museum today and the intake diameter at the very (station zero) tip of fuselage front is exactly 680 mm - hope it helps. Cheers Michael
  3. Serge, So we have reached the consensus - for me also camouflage is any coloring different from silver. Although the role played by MiG-17 and -17F in the VVS and in Polish Air Force was slightly different (most Polish-built Lims have been fitted with additional hardpoints for unguided rocket pods that made them rather close-support aircraft than fighters), the camouflage (featuring two-, three- or even four-colour uppersurfaces) appeared on Polish 17s in 1974-75. As the East German MiG-17s received camouflage also in the same period I really doubt if the VVS has introduced the camo od their -17s some 20 years earlier. Of course (after some 15 years of my museum job) I know that plenty of museum artefacts (not only aircraft) are exhibited in schemes and colours that have never been sported by them during their service life. Nevertheless AZ should say "the Kiev museum example in 21st century" and not "the VVS machine from late 50s". And of course add the rear fuselage for unreheated variant :)) Concerning the Yak-23 actually there are two of them in Krakow (of 7 preserved in Poland as whole) and measuring the intake diameter is not a problem at all. You will have this data this week. Cheers Michael BTW. Are there (even approximate) quantities known of the MiG-17 variants (-17, -17A, -17AS, -17F, -17R, -17P, -17PF, -17PFU) manufactured in the USSR? Some sources say that majority of them were the unreheated -17 while others name the reheated -17F the main (in numbers) variant. In Poland only the reheated variants (647 fighters and 129 radar-equipped interceptors) were manufactured, although a small number of unreheated Soviet-built MiG-17s have been also used.
  4. Serge, I have NEVER said that there were no camouflaged MiG-17s sporting red stars. Read my post WITH UNDERSTANDING once again please I just have said that AZ made the mistake (not for the first time though), as: the very aircraft they portrayed was NOT MiG-17F, but earlier MiG-17 with unreheated VK-1A engine and slim airbrakes the camouflage they (properly) show was not introduced in the "late 50s" but in early 70s - both in the VVS and in the DOSAAF by the way The photos (and the whole thread) you linked also shows ONLY unreheated variant and the pictures are dated 1982-83, thus they don't deny my words in any way Cheers Michael
  5. Polish RAF Mustang III

    Lack of Fin Flashes and yellow wing leading edges make this Mustang less colourful than it should be... Cheers Michael
  6. And once again AZ failed to be true. The aircraft from Kiev exhibition was the "bare" MiG-17 (NOT -17F) - with longer, slimmer rear fuselage, smaller airbrakes and no afterburner. There are dozens of photos existing of this #02, several decal manufacturers all over the world have included this plane in various MiG-17 decal sets, a.s.o. Moreover in late 50s all MiG-17s and -17Fs in Soviet service wore no camouflage. This 4 colour scheme has been introduced in early 70s, just before the Fresco retirement. Cheers Michael
  7. 1/72 Gnome-Rhône 14M suggestions?

    Once again, Jure Me 323 had Gnome-Rhone 14N engines - exactly double the size of GR 14M. They only do look similar, but whereas 14M is extremely tiny (1160 CID, thus smaller even than R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior), the GR 14K and 14N Mistral Majors are large beasts of 2360 CID - almost the size of BMW 801 (2560 CID), ASh-82 (2520 CID) and Wright R-2600 Cyclone 14. Better keep on with these Hs 129 engines... Cheers Michael
  8. 1/72 Gnome-Rhône 14M suggestions?

    Not exactly - actually the Br.695 used the twin-row 14-cylinder R-1535 TWIN Wasp Junior (like the Finnish Fokker D.XXI for example). The aircraft you listed used the single-row 9-cylinder R-985 Wasp Jr. Only the cylinders are the same... Cheers Michael
  9. P23B Karas 1/72

    BTW the author of this Polish article linked by JWM is GrzeM from BM forums - let him say more about the subject. Cheers Michael
  10. Best Soviet T-62 in Braille scale

    Bad news... So there are still some holidays for my wallet until the Modelcollect one appears By the way - is the 1/72 Trumpeter T-54/55 also full of errors? Do you rate the Revell one higher? Cheers Michael
  11. A joke? Surely not the most widely used WWII fighter (long long behind the Bf 109G and even the P-47D), not the most widely used SOVIET WWII fighter (behind even LaGG-3, La-7 and many others), not the most widely used Yak WWII fighter (behind the Yak-3, Yak-7B and others) and even not the most widely used Yak-9 variant (surpassed by the -9M and -9U). Actually the Yak-9 with cockpit moved back (thus -9T, -9K, -9DD and -9M) has been manufactured in far greater number (7474) than all the variants with original forward-located cockpit (-9, -9D, -9R, -9B) combined (3845). Even the 3rd generation Yak-9s (with wing moved 4in forward and no fabric on fuselage sides) with their total of 5004 -9U/-9UT and -9P have been built in greater number. Cheers Michael
  12. Totally different layout from what has been shown as 1/144 sprues. Let's hope this is the definitive 1/72 kit so needed and wanted by all of us. Cheers Michael
  13. BTR-50 in Braille scale - which one?

    Thank you for your interest I have seen the inbox photos of both and ACE looks much better. Many people say that (although not "shake and bake") it can be transformed into a decent model. The question is whether is anybody pleased with his own buld of the PST kit Especially the method of fitting the forward superstructure over the PT-76 hull looks weird. Cheers Michael
  14. For me rather like a progenitor of Aero 45 Cheers Michael
  15. Using an hour of the weekend time (the Museum is open 9-17 in winter and on all the other weekdays these are my office hours 20km afar too) I have measured the front fuselages of 21PF, PFM, M, MF and Bis. And the facts are as follows: The movable green nose cone housing radar is identical for all five versions There are three variants of steel intake lip there: PF and PFM have 89cm diameter, M and MF - 91cm and Bis has 92cm. Moreover in all variants prior to Bis the lip is 10cm long and its coning angle follows the whole nose shape, while at Bis there is a visible kink between the 6cm long lip and the fuselage front part. As in Bis the lip front edge is moved 40mm rearwards compared to the M/MF it is easily understood that its diameter is 10mm greater. The lip itself is riveted to the fuselage with 2 rows of 114 rivets each in PF/PFM, 2x116 in M/MF and 2x118 in Bis. At the sideview all dimensions are the same: 94cm between rear edge of lip and front edge of aux intake door, 202cm between rear edge of aux intake door and the end of fuselage first panel, 160cm length for cockpit upper side panel, 57cm length of debris deflector plate divided 23+34 for 1st and 2nd fuselage panel respectively However there is a notable difference on the fuselage underside: all five a/c measure 88cm between rear end of front u/c bay and datum line of fuselage 1st side panel and all feature the same 124cm long undercarriage doors, but the distance between the rear edge of steel intake lip and front u/c bay forward edge is 99cm for BOTH Bis and M/MF and 101cm for the PF/PFM. Thus it looks that if really the nose part axis of 21Bis is tilted 3 degrees down compared to the 21F, the modification has been made twice - some 2 degrees at the "big mouth" 21PF/FL/PFM introduction and then 1.2 degrees (2cm lower lip edge backwards move at some 90cm intake diameter equals 1.2 degrees) at the R/S/M introduction (the assymetric overnose probe can be the external feature there). But there is NO difference in attack angle between the M/MF and 21Bis. There is a visible difference in nose shape between the M/MF and Bis, but it applies only to some 50-60cm long area between the intake lip and the front u/c bay. Bis looks less conical (more bulbous there). But both "ends" of this area (i.e. forward edge of intake lip and the fuselage at station described as the forward edge of cockpit canopy) feature the same diameter for both variants. To be sure I should also measure the top fuselage distance between intake lip and front of the cockpit canopy. But heavy snowfall today and 7 degrees (C) below zero made climbing the fuselage a little difficult for the 60+ old man and there was no ladder about to help I hope I will come back to this subject once again soon. Cheers Michael
×