MiG-21F-13

[noeyedears]

If Tamiya made a F1 car with only three wheels and showed you a photo of the car in the garage half way through a wheel change and said "look it really does only have three wheels see!!" would you say yup looks like an F1 car to me or would you say "Oi! you! Tamiya! get off your backsides and do your research properly!!"

Eduard did.

Trumpeter have a photo of an F1 car with three wheels somewhere, waiting.

[Julien]

There has sure been a void in sprue pix save for the small and indistinct IPMS Phillipines website.

Odd.

Got mine on order only £22 from the Big H, will put some shots up when it arrives.

Julien

[ReccePhreak]

Very strangely. For example - four mistakes on a square inch:

1 - access panels are rectangles instead of ovals

2 - wrongly squared corner

3 - the intake is of wrong shape

4 - missed bulge

Should I continue?

Please, do continue. I would love to see an all-encompassing "Tweak List" for this kit, which is still on my Want List.

Larry

[Jennings Heilig]

So after all this hot air, those four "major flaws" are it? Well that certainly makes it unbuildable in my book...

[Julien]

Well I must say mine arrived in the post and I am impressed.

For £24 you would be hard pressed to get some new tool 1/72 kits for this let alone 1/48 and that's full RRP

Nice tooling, plenty of detail and weapons options decals for 6 aircraft.

Julien

[Silver Fox]

Fondled one at the model club meeting on Monday night, it does look very nice on the sprue, I've always liked the look of the 1st generation -21

[ya-gabor]

Good day to all,

I have just found this topic and it was an interesting read. Not surprised with the response (or attacks) on Yurij as I get the same in other forums. Believe that Yuriy is just trying to help to all those who have no real comparison and access to the real aircraft.

After all it would be foolish of Yuriy or me making any reviews of a Spit or a Buccaneer and pointing out inaccuracies of the kit. There is no Spit of Buccaneer anywhere near me (even if I have seen some both on the ground and in the air) but on the other hand there are a number of MiG’s all around as well as decades of research into them, as I know the same applies for Yuriy too. Everyone can make up their own mind concerning this kit and either buy it or not. All that Yuriy is saying (as well as me) is that it has problems both big and small.

On ARC there was a question for any opinions and review of the Trump MiG-21 F-13 kit. I did not use any four letter words to describe it, simply called it a TOY and not an authentic scale representation of the real aircraft. I have taken considerable flak as a response, but I still feel the same. Trump DID NOT DO a proper (or any) research in designing this kit. Apart from the points raised by Yuriy there are many others and I believe he has offered to “continue with the list”. I ceratinly do so on ARC illustrated with photos of both the kit and the real aircraft. It is very unfortunate but there is no going back, the kit is out and although it ”looks like” a MiG-21 F-13, the fact is that it is just a toy. I will wait for the Eduard’s scale replica.

Yuriy was comparing the manufacturers approach in design, research and production when making a parallel between the MiG-21MF from Eduard and the Trump F-13. It is perfectly acceptable!

The only advantage that the Trump kit has is that it was first out on the market.

Best regards

Gabor

Edited January 2, 2013 by ya-gabor

[John Thompson]

Hi Gabor! Personally, I'm always interested to read comments on any kit from someone who has good, first-hand knowledge about the actual aircraft, the way you and Yuriy do. Knowing these things helps the average modelbuilder (who can't just just run outside and look at his own real MiG-21) to decide whether the kit is good enough for him or not. When the Zvezda 1/72 "snap-together" Yak-3 was released, I thought it was beautiful. It got a thorough hammering on Scalemodels.ru, though - people wanted Prop & Jet to create resin replacement parts for almost everything in the kit, mainly because there's no obvious rib and fabric detail on the control surfaces (just like a real aircraft!). In spite of that, I still love the kit, and I can't wait to see what other Russian fighters Zvezda does after the future-release La-7. So please continue to show us what's good and bad about the new MiG-21 kits!

John

[ya-gabor]

Here is a bit of what I had to say on ARC. As I have time to go through the archive and pick out the photos or the weather gets a bit better and go out to the real aircraft I will have more.

Let see the cockpit. There is a major problem here, the designers did not research the MiG-21 F-13 version. It had a new generation seat especially designed for the MiG-21, the “SK” ejection seat. (Important to note that the “SK” is the correct designation for it and not SK-1 as it is stated in so many publications! If in doubt about the precise name please look into all the original Russian T.O. of the particular type.) The SK seat was different from the later KM-1 family of ejection seats in several respects (many-many) what is important for us is that the cockpit back wall (Part A7) corresponds to KM-1 seats of later MiG-21 versions. The SK seat was designed so that the seat guiding rails were on the back of the seat and NOT in the cockpit as shown in the kit! On the back wall there should have been some guiding rollers at the top and the prominent TSM-2500-38 ejector gun (or Telescopic Firing Mechanism in Russian). A long golden coloured cylinder of the firing gun. What we get in the kit is a back wall which is more appropriate for the PFM, S, SM, MF . . . aircraft with the KM-1 seat. The big armour plate behind the seat headrest is shown as part of the seat while it is this that should be on the back wall. There are two small windows either side of the armour plate which should have given a chance for the pilot to look backward (there are no rear view mirrors on the F-13), well he was not able to see 6 o’clock only to about 5 and 7 on the either side. As far as I know it was not common to use it so I am not surprised that on the Czech produced versions the rear part of the cockpit was covered up with sheet metal.

Here is the area behind the seat both with the seat and without it. Note the different shades of grey inside the cockpit and a wealth of colours on that SK ejection seat. But more on that latter.

Best regards

Gabor

Edited January 2, 2013 by ya-gabor

[Don McIntyre]

OK, this part has been hashed over for quite some time. Has anyone built and finished one of these yet that could tell us how it builds? I've bought one, I'm stuck with it, errors and all, but I'd like to know how it goes together and if there are any suggestions for building/improving it.

[Julien]

I have one, but goven my current build rate I think 2022!

Julien

[ya-gabor]

I have one, but goven my current build rate I think 2022!

Julien

Hi Julien,

By that time you will have plenty of info for correction of this kit, or what is more likely an Eduard kit with less fiction and mistakes. )))

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

Here is another piece of fiction in the Trump kit.

In designing a plastic kit you have to take into account a lot of things, amongs them:

-the overall shape of the subject,

-dimensional data,

-fine details,

-surface details . . .

-but it is also important to know a bit about the original aircraft, the way it was used and its capabilities. You can ask why would someone care about this on a plastic kit. Very simple: so that they don’t make silly mistakes, like for instance here on the Trump kit. The designers did not have a clue how the MiG-21 F-13 worked and this is why they added to its armament the RS-2US (Russian designation K-5) AAM missiles. There is a very simple problem with this, the RS-2US was a “radar beam riding†missile for which the pilot had to aim the aircraft at the target and use the narrow beam of the radar ( it was a narrow less than 5 degree beam) to get the missile to its “destinationâ€. It was not a “fire and forget†missile but the pilot had to keep the RP-21 radars beam on the target in two operational modes “fixed†or “trackâ€. He was able to see the progress of the missile after launch with the help of the four tracers burning bright at the tips of the missiles fins. Why is this so interesting for the Trump kit, simple, the F-13 DID NOT HAVE A RADAR! Under the nose cone there was a very simple SRD-5MK range finder antenna not designed for guidance. The primary weapon of the F-13 was its very powerful 30mm gun, the R-3S infrared guided missile and the UB-16-57 unguided missile pod. I am sure the Trump designers had in mind that the RS-2US would widen the choice of weapons in the kit and it would look very nice on it, but it was NEVER used on this aircraft type. Based on this thinking they could have added any modern missile, a laser or GPS guided bomb it would have been just as AUTHENTIC as the RS-2US. The RS-2US is pure FICTION in the kit showing the kind of attention to the subject that the Trump designers had. This is just another FICTION in this kit! The RP-21 (NATO designation “Spin Scanâ€) was introduced with the next generation Fishbed, the “Perehvatchik’ or interceptor MiG-21 PF (designation Type 76).

OK let’s say the F-13 did have RS-2US capability, let’s have a look at the plastic. Well it is interesting and you can make your own comparison to the real “metalâ€. The two prominent rocket engine exhaust on either side of the missile body are shown basically as just a panel line. The wings and the control surfaces are provided as a plain sheet of plastic with over thick edges. There is a problem with the painting too, as on the instruction sheet. Missiles with full white bodies were only the target examples used by the Polish AF. In service the RS-2US was aluminium painted, with a light grey warhead, a colourfull fuse and lots of stencils all over it. Red cover on the guidance receiver antenna and the control surfaces on the wings was a standard fit when a/c on the ground.

OK, let’s that the inclusion of the RS-2US was only because the same sprue is going to be used for the later PF kit. Then what is the RS-2US assembly, paint, and placement is doing page after page in the MiG-21F-13 instruction sheet?

The list of problems and fiction in the Trump kit is still very long.

Best regards

Gabor

[Julien]

I think you are being overly harsh on emntioning over thick control surfaces, you will get this on most models for kit inclused weapons. Even some weapons kits have this problem.

Interesting to note that the weapons could not be fired by the 13, could there have been a case where they were carried and fired but guided by another aircraft?

Julien

[jynski]

[Homebee]

Concerning the RS-2U(S?) missiles there's a resin alternative set in the Eduard Brassin range under ref. 648 040

http://www.ipmsdeutschland.de/FirstLook/Eduard/Brassin/648040_RS-2US/Brassin_RS-2U.html

V.P.

[Jon Bryon]

The list of problems and fiction in the Trump kit is still very long.

Please keep publishing them Gabor. Like Julien, I think your tone is rather harsh, but the info is very useful. A summary at some point would be excellent. Thus far I think the following have been mentioned:

1) Inaccurate panel line details near tail

2) Problem with the base of the rudder/vertical stab join

3) Small intakes on rear fuselage inaccurately shaped

4) Ejection seat is wrong

5) Rear cockpit bulkhead needs modifying

6) Instructions incorrectly indicate RS-2US missiles can be used

7) RS-2US missiles not great

Is that where we've got to so far? I am trying to keep a list for when (if?) I get round to building this kit.

I have to say though, even with the minor errors above, this kit was excellent value for $20. If major shape issues come to light, that's what will dent my enthusiasm...

Best

Jon

[Laurent]

What I see is three air scoops placed of varying shape and size. I also see a fillet at the rear of the wing root trailing egde. These are characteristic shapes of the Su-25 and I expect these features to be represented in a modern modern model kit. And oh yes there are some rivets in the pic you kindly posted but I don't care about them because Su-25s were camouflaged so rivet representation is pretty optional.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Laurent

[ya-gabor]

Interesting to note that the weapons could not be fired by the 13, could there have been a case where they were carried and fired but guided by another aircraft?

Julien

Hi Julien,

Not really. The missile is a beam rider and with a fairly short flight time, there would be no time for the "guider" aircraft to get behind the missile. Not even in theory would it work. A weapon system should work on its own, it would have been highly unpractical to have two aircraft in the air to get a single missile to the target. If there is an aircraft that is capable of guiding the missile then it would be the one who is launching it.

This was a nice try Julien but nope it would not work!!!! This is not the question in this case. They (Trump) simply got it wrong as with lots of other details. There is no way around it, and there could be nothing "soft" in pointing out mistakes. Its like there is no such thing as " some one is a little pregnant" you are either pregnant or not.

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

It’s going back to the cockpit rear bulkhead (Part A7) and the details on it. Well it is also a pure fiction from the designers. Unless you want to use it in a later generation kit equipped with the KM-1 ejection seats, it is of no use what so ever in a MiG-21 F-13 (Type 74). Only because it is a Fishbed it does not mean that every version of it had the same rear bulkhead in the cockpit. The early versions Type 74 and Type 76 (MiG-21PF) had a very different after wall primarily due to the older SK ejection seat.

Attached is also a photo of the Brassin MF/SMT cockpit after wall to show what the Trump designers had in mind.

More (lots) details later

Best regards

Gabor

Edited January 7, 2013 by ya-gabor

[Jon Bryon]

There is no way around it, and there could be nothing "soft" in pointing out mistakes.

Actually, it's easy to be 'soft' in pointing out mistakes. The English language is well equipped with plenty of ways to express degree of error; even if mistakes themselves are binary, pointing them out is not.

This is important because not all inaccurate kits are equally inaccurate. We need to differentiate those which are basically sound but have problems with the details (which, as far as we can tell from information shared thus far, is the case for the Trumpeter MiG-21F-13), from those kits which truly are inaccurate in every way (such as the Trumpeter 1/48 Su-15TM I recently finished, which as far as I can tell is not accurate in one single area). That's why I (and others) might find words like 'toy', 'fiction' and 'POS' (I know you have not used the latter yourself) inappropriate for the MiG-21F-13, because if *this* kit is these things, then what is the Su-15TM? They might both be inaccurate, but (thus far) they have not been shown to be equally so, and so exaggerating the seriousness of the errors such that the same adjectives might be used to describe both kits is not helpful because as things currently stand they are still a million miles apart in terms of accuracy.

Of course, time may tell that the MiG-21F-13 is also rather like the Flagon and wrong in every dimension...

Best

Jon

[jynski]

What I see is three air scoops placed of varying shape and size. I also see a fillet at the rear of the wing root trailing egde. These are characteristic shapes of the Su-25 and I expect these features to be represented in a modern modern model kit. And oh yes there are some rivets in the pic you kindly posted but I don't care about them because Su-25s were camouflaged so rivet representation is pretty optional.

I like that

[ya-gabor]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your very kind words. The photos and comparisons are of the Trump MiG-21F-13 kit with the real aircraft, this is not a comparison with the "excellent" Su-15 kits from the same producer. I can only show here things about the Fishbed kit and the full scale a/c and would not compare them to any other kit out there, there are no know mutually and universally accepted grades (as far as I know) that can be given for any given kits levels of accuracy, so I can express only my own opinions on this after comparing the plastic to the real thing. I am very sorry if this is offending to anyone, still a word like "fiction" is a bit far from any 4 letter words that would/has been be used by others. Thanks for taking the time and reading, watching the photos published in this post.

For those who are looking for remedies to correct the fiction / mistakes / faults / inaccuracies / blunders / misplaced or wrongly shaped, formed parts / details to something more authentic on the kit, I am sorry, will not be able to give you solutions only point out what is wrong.

Best regards

Gabor

[ErikB]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your very kind words. The photos and comparisons are of the Trump MiG-21F-13 kit with the real aircraft, this is not a comparison with the "excellent" Su-15 kits from the same producer. I can only show here things about the Fishbed kit and the full scale a/c and would not compare them to any other kit out there, there are no know mutually and universally accepted grades (as far as I know) that can be given for any given kits levels of accuracy, so I can express only my own opinions on this after comparing the plastic to the real thing. I am very sorry if this is offending to anyone, still a word like "fiction" is a bit far from any 4 letter words that would/has been be used by others. Thanks for taking the time and reading, watching the photos published in this post.

For those who are looking for remedies to correct the fiction / mistakes / faults / inaccuracies / blunders / misplaced or wrongly shaped, formed parts / details to something more authentic on the kit, I am sorry, will not be able to give you solutions only point out what is wrong.

Best regards

Gabor

 

Hi Gabor,

 

That's quite okay. Call out and show the inaccuracies, then I can decide 1. if I still want to buy the kit, 2. if I'll remedy or ignore them and 3. work out how to remedy them!

So I'm waiting with pen and paper in hand for the complete list!

 

Cheers,

Erik.

[ya-gabor]

Hi Gabor,

 

That's quite okay. Call out and show the inaccuracies, then I can decide 1. if I still want to buy the kit, 2. if I'll remedy or ignore them and 3. work out how to remedy them!

So I'm waiting with pen and paper in hand for the complete list!

 

Cheers,

Erik.

Hi Erik,

This is exactly what I was talking about. I have seen the mistakes on the kit, I know where they are (some anyway) and the only thing I can do is to show them to you and all the rest. You have to make your own decisions about buying the kit or the way you want to go ahead with its "production". It takes time to do the comparisons, to dig up the photos from my archive or to go out and take new ones. The problem with the last one is that a thick blanket of snow is over us at the moment. It should not last long and will melt in days or few weeks but it is time. . .

 

Few days ago I tried to post some more photos of comparisons but the system (here on britmod . . .) would not let me do it. I am sure the problem is in me or my comp although there was no problem with the same photos and text on the oversees ARC forum. I will try again.

 

Best regards

Gabor