Kitty Hawk Mig-25PD/PDS Detailing & Corrections

[Julien]

As someone who spent quite a bit of money and effort to obtain the kit quickly, I fail to see the humor. Instead, I feel the fool by not only having a kit that people I respect are suggesting I hide, but having actually photographed the kit sprues and posting the images online. I did this to find how I can better my model, not hide it. I'm a fairly recent return to Britmodeller and had been following this thread but, it is not doing me any good. I've learned my lesson and will not post images of anything new I get but just return to lurking.

Regards,

I think you will find Ken and I were indulging in a thing called humour / joking / fun as this is supposed to be a fun hobby. We were not poking fun at an individual or the kit, its just fun.

Julien

[Shar2]

The kit is hardly unbuildable, and certainly a whole lot better than the Revell/Monogram offering. Sometimes it's not healthy knowing too much about a subject as this hobby is also meant to be fun. Instead of rubbishing a kit, build the blooming thing and show us how you'd go about making it into the inch perfect replica that you're so obviously capable of.

You/You're is a generalisation, not having a go at anyone in particular.

[Mike]

Plus saying "one" instead of "you/you're" makes one sound like Prince Charles

I agree. Ya-Gabor shows where some of the faults lie, but let's see some folks building the kit and making good on the errors, rather than just wringing one's hand and telling everyone to throw it in the trash/bin. Next you'll all be musing about how wonderfully accurate the old Monogram kit was

[Stephen]

Plus saying "one" instead of "you/you're" makes one sound like Prince Charles

I agree. Ya-Gabor shows where some of the faults lie, but let's see some folks building the kit and making good on the errors, rather than just wringing one's hand and telling everyone to throw it in the trash/bin. Next you'll all be musing about how wonderfully accurate the old Monogram kit was

Agreed, I'm going to build mine as I've been waiting for years for a MiG-25. I'll correct what faults I can and live with the rest, at the end of the day it is supposed to be a fun hobby and if you give in to the wailing and gnashing of teeth that seems to haunt any new release no one would buy/build anything.

[Panzer Vor!!!]

Well I snapped my scalpel at this ANOTHER kit that's wrong im not BUYING any more kits till the makers get them RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Where's that cookery thread we can all take up cooking instead , I bet we can put on better shows then the W I !!!

:evil_laugh:

[sharkmouth]

Julien, on 29 Nov 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

I think you will find Ken and I were indulging in a thing called humour / joking / fun as this is supposed to be a fun hobby.

I do understand it was meant to be humorous (American spelling since it is where I am located). Truth be told, I thought of the same ideas if I still had my Revell kit... "what will I do with it now that I have the Kitty Hawk one?" but alas, I gave that kit away.

My failure to see the humor was because two people, whose opinions I respect, find it humorous that this kit should be hidden under tarps or sand. One of these people admits it not being their scale or interest but they have created fantastic models which sometimes involved cutting apart, reshaping, and scratch building. As of yet, I don't think this Kitty Hawk model requires such surgery. Being that surgery was required (yet performed) by that master modeler, why didn't he just cover the model up under tarps or bury it in the sand? I believe he knew his capabilities and, armed with proper documentation, was able to achieve the outcome desired. My skills may not be that individual's equal but the issues uncovered so far are within my abilities to correct.

The other person has been providing everyone with the proper documentation needed should the reader wants, or is capable of, performing the corrections. As of the 12th of November, that person doesn't have the kit. I still want to know what improvements I can make to the kit. It is the reason I posted my photographs on another site which, unlike here, didn't have a review with sprue images. Note that I still offered to take photographs to continue this visual survey of the kit to get all the details needing attention.

Julien, being new to this site, I didn’t know who you were at the time nor if you own the kit. My disappointment was that two modelers whose posts I actively seek suggest hiding this model particularly since they are both capable of creating a masterpiece with it.

Regards,

Edited December 4, 2013 by sharkmouth

[Dave A]

Beer o'clock folks, methinks...

[sharkmouth]

Beer o'clock folks, methinks...

Agreed, although I prefer a harder drink.

Rereading the complete thread, I see something to add...

So is the big blank spot in the sprue with the nose cone (marked PD/PDS) going to allow for a straight MiG-25P later? I'm sure a huge number of folks are going to want to do Belenko's airplane.

Jennings, the big space is there for the multi-part molds to fold in and impress the detail on the lower side of the nose halves

Regards,

[ya-gabor]

A look at the content of the box to start with. First the big fuselage parts. On my kit both the top and the bottom fuselage parts were warped as shown on the photos. The top has a distinct longitudinal warp while it should be completely straight. This results in an almost 4 mm gap at the center when it is dry fitted to the bottom part. Well, the question is if you can fit it to the bottom part. This one is warped too, only this time the side walls of the fuselage lean outwards. On modelforum.cz someone else had the same problem with the bottom. This is easy to correct, (even if it should not be there in the first place) by applying slight force when gluing it to the top part. Now the top part warp is not so easy to correct. Anyone with a good idea? An internal strengthening rib glued to the top part?

Best regards

Gabor

[Ali62]

Hi Gabor

Not having the kit or knowinganything about the aircraft, can your warp problems not be solved by creating stiffeners and or braces using some 4mm or 6.4mm SQUARE sections in the width and length of the parts. Or I m sure once the bottom U section fuselage is squared and stiffened the top will conform to that shape if it is assembled and clamped in sections.

Sorry you are probably a very good modeller from the comments and points you have raised so far, but I am sure once some of the intermnal parts are added and braces are set other areas will square up.

cheers Ali

[sharkmouth]

On my kit both the top and the bottom fuselage parts were warped as shown on the photos. The top has a distinct longitudinal warp while it should be completely straight. This results in an almost 4 mm gap at the center when it is dry fitted to the bottom part. Well, the question is if you can fit it to the bottom part. This one is warped too, only this time the side walls of the fuselage lean outwards. On modelforum.cz someone else had the same problem with the bottom. This is easy to correct, (even if it should not be there in the first place) by applying slight force when gluing it to the top part. Now the top part warp is not so easy to correct.

Wow, I had the warps but they were controlled by gluing alternating tabs to the upper and lower fuselage halves. I thought it may only be my kit and I attribute it to the packaging of so much plastic in a small box.

With the tabs in place, I was able to tape the fuselage together and the gap would disappear.

Thanks for the update Gabor, please be sure to update on the other sites as well.

Regards,

[regulus]

I pinned them with styrene rod. To be trimmed and sanded flush later.

[sharkmouth]

Lee,

When inserting the plastic rods, did you feel the fuselage halves trying to pull apart? Did you consider using the low heat setting on a hair blow dryer to warm up the plastic to accept the shape?

This is my plan once I get the wheel wells in.

About this issue,

I had been toying with the idea of replacing the exhausts with an aftermarket set (pehaps the Eduard exhaust 48-509 set for the Revell kit?)

Since the Fru Fru set for the Revell kit seems to fit this kit as well (except the petals seem a bit thick) would these be better?

Regards,

Edited July 27, 2014 by sharkmouth

[regulus]

When inserting the plastic rods, did you feel te fuselage halves trying to pull apart? Did you consider using the low heat setting on a hair blow dryer to warm up the plastic to accept the shape?

My parts weren't as warped as the ones shown earlier. Even with a slightly tight friction fit of the pins to the holes I've drilled, there is a tendency for the upper fuselage to pop out. Once the exhaust and inlet details are worked out I am confident the assembly of the top to bottom will sort itself out. The pins are just to allow the frequent dry fit to occur and stabilize any "sliding" of the affected parts.

[ya-gabor]

I think the contrarotating R-15 engines was a bit of joke from Mr Song of Kitty Hawk. It is a nice one anyway!!!

Seriously, I dont think you will see much of it when fully assembled, especially with the afterburner flame holder rings in place. The biggest problem comes with the flame holder rings itself. The lack of research or a simple stupid mistake by the designer is the problem here since the rings were made the wrong way around on the kit.

They are shown on the kit as a conical part. The fact is that the afterburner flame holder rings (parts F1 and F2) are concave on the real R-15 engines and the real MiG-25 aircraft. A simple solution could be that you turn them around, but then you will loose all the details on it (including the long ejection pins left on the parts). The flame holder ring is a big part with around 25 millimeter diameter and all that detail is shame to waste. Also this is something that is very visible on the finished kit.

A bit more complicated solution would be to cut up the parts into separate rings and reverse them into a right order to make the rings in a concave form. Non of this solutions are perfect, more research in the first place from the manufacturer would have been necessary and maybe some consultation (or listening to some advice) and real attention to detail!

Here are the kit parts to illustrated my point:

And the instruction sheet which should show what it should be like, but unfortunately it is wrong.

Best regards

Gabor

Edited December 8, 2013 by ya-gabor

[ya-gabor]

Hi Sharkmouth, the Eduard set is not a solution for the afterburner ring as it is completely flat with minimal detail on it. It is a shame that the possibility which is in photoetching was missed here since you can add tremendous detail on the parts. And the afterburner rings are going to be the ones which you see directly when looking into the engine exhaust and it is a very big part!

The etched exhaust ring is better than the original but still not a perfect representation of the real thing. You will have to go back in time to around 1999 when the engine exhaust rings were still on every MiG-25 (all five of them) at Hodinka airfield in Moscow to get all the details, measurements of the real thing.

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

Now this is interesting, in the instruction sheet you will find that you should either use transparent part GP5 or solid plastic part PD11 as alternatives for either MiG-25 PD or PDS versions. This part represents the search / ID light on the right side of the nose which was an addition introduced on the modernized Foxbats. The factory fresh MiG-25PD’s already had them, while the PDS versions which were converted from original MiG-25P interceptors had them fitted as part of the upgrade package. So both the PD and the PDS should have the search /ID light, the instruction sheet is wrong in this!

So part PD11 will come in useful only when you are intending to do the original MiG-25P version. For all the new aircraft one would need the search light but the part given is wrong in shape. The MiG OKB aircraft designer have cut into the curved surface of the aircraft to provide a flat, recessed surface for the search light. This is perfectly shown on the instruction sheet! WOW they got it right, well not exactly and I don’t really understand why! Somewhere on the way the information was lost and the final plastic part GP5 has a perfectly rounded surface which traces the curvature of the fuselage. Why, oh why???????? So the task here is to cut into the surface, remove the over emphasized ring around the light, drill a hole into it and glue in a replacement light from the scrap box.

While we are here on this page of the instruction sheet, a few more points. The MiG-25P/PD/PDS NEVER had an Angle of Attach sensor (DUA-3) under the nose. So please fill the hole which is its intended place. There should be only two AOA sensors on the sides of the fuselage!

One more, the pitot tube as shown should be only on the original MiG-25P and not on the upgraded versions which the kit is intended to show.

Its not completely clear why two versions (Part GP4 or GP3) of the “Teplopelengator” (heat search head under the nose) are provided, there was just one version! The only difference that you would see on some museum aircraft is that the glass front panels have been replaced with small metal plates. But this was not so on operational aircraft! One other problem is that in my view there was very little to justify the use of clear parts for this detail. On the original search head there is a white colour (completely not transparent (for the human eye) white opaque) plexi glass here. This is a heat search system and not a visual optical search head! So here we have two plastic parts instead of which just one would have been enough and even that could have been made from simple polystyrene.

Best regards

Gabor

[Ankor]

About engines... don´t worry about counter rotating, or if is or not the correct type..... anyway they won´t fit!!!! Engines are about 2mm. short in diameter to fit the airframe. In fact anything in this model fit like it should for $80.00... is a REAL SCAM. This is my first and definitive my last kitty hawk kit and for shure is the WORST KIT I have seen in at least 20 years.

[sharkmouth]

Engines are about 2mm. short in diameter to fit the airframe. In fact anything in this model fit like it should for $80.00

Would you please post a photo? I haven't reached that stage yet.

Regards,

[Ankor]

Hi Sharkmouth,

Here is a couple of pictures....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zltm09hicehmi08/PICTURE%201.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp1vfpha0w4ntd0/PICTURE%202.jpg

( Sorry but for some reason this doesn't allow me to post images direct from my computer desktop)

[sharkmouth]

Thanks for the images.

Regards,

[ya-gabor]

Hi Sharkmouth,

Here is a couple of pictures....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zltm09hicehmi08/PICTURE%201.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp1vfpha0w4ntd0/PICTURE%202.jpg

( Sorry but for some reason this doesn't allow me to post images direct from my computer desktop)

Hi Ankor,

WOW, I haven't tried a dry fit of this part till now but will do so. But please note that on the real aircraft the engine exhaust ring fits INTO the fuselage surface, that is the ring of the exhaust is overlapped by the skin surface. The ring continues for some time under the fuselage skin, it is a working and moving surface, constricting and expanding. All around the edges there are small steel plates which act as springs (leaning against the moving petals of the exhaust) and make the gap "airtight". There should be a gap but what you show on your kit is a "bit" too much!

So what I am trying to say to those who want to make (or produce) an engine exhaust ring for this kit is that there should be a small gap, dont make it LEVEL with the rest of the surface.

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

Here is a photo of the gap on the real Foxbat.

Best regards

Gabor

[Ankor]

I think the best way fix this should be to sand the edge of holes in the airframe to make them as thin as possible and try to center the exhausts to split the gap between top and bottom...

[ya-gabor]

There is a build somewhere on the internet by Gary Wickham on scalespot who proposes that the afterburner cans are way too long in the kit and he has cut them to a minimum based on a misinterpreted photo. The fact is that Kitty Hawk almost got this part right. Last time around I had the chance to measure every centimeter (for those in US “every inch”) of the MiG-25PD engine exhaust and the engine and the kit represents it well, although not spot on, but almost. But of course everyone can make their own calculations: there are scale drawings of the Foxbat, the dimensional data of the R-15 engine is no longer secret and can be found on the internet as well as it is known where the engine is inside the airframe so it is fairly simple to find out how long the afterburner cans are. There are plenty of mistakes on the kit as it is, there is no point in creating new ones.

For those who have already completed the kit and about to paint, here are a few notes on the mistakes, omissions and some additional information to add to the instruction sheet. I am sorry to say but Kitty Hawks artist Eric Chan got a lot of things completely wrong:

- To start with the two R-15 engines have natural metal cover panels. They extend all the way to the back end of the main gear bay! On the drawings they are shown far too in the back. On the side views this area is obstructed by the missiles. On the real aircraft the natural metal panels go all the way round to the base of the wings.

- The PD and the PDS fighters had a heat seeker searcher installed under the nose. The device had a matt antiglare panel in front of it, a roughly sprayed on matt black spot which extended onto the nose cone. You will have this only on the PD and PDS models the original P did not have the search head. This antiglare panel is completely missing from the artwork in the instruction sheet.

- The inside of the intakes is dirty, dull natural metal in colour. It could be only me but did not see any reference to this in the instruction sheet or the drawings. They are shown as the same colour as the rest of the fuselage.

- The wing and horizontal tail surfaces have a natural metal leading edge to them. There is no mention of this on the drawings by Mr. Eric Chan although there should be. The leading edge is dull natural metal in colour.

- I could not find any reference to this on the instruction sheet but the main external fuel tank is/was natural metal, aluminium colour.

Best regards

Gabor