IGKent Posted December 27, 2016 Share Posted December 27, 2016 Great thread, Gabor! I look parallel and here.... I'll have this kit tomorrow -) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted December 28, 2016 Author Share Posted December 28, 2016 On 2016. 12. 25. at 11:15 AM, ya-gabor said: Hi Blue Flyer, I am sorry but as far as I know there was no camouflaged RBT version. But who knows. The known examples in service are: Red (with white border) 20 RBF well documented camo Red 38 is RBF Red 57 is RBF White 37 is BM Red 21 is unknown but I think it is an RBS or RBF. I have seen just one photo of this one under servicing with some covers on the nose so the version is not clear. Best regards Gabor I can confirm that red 21 with camouflage on it was in fact a MiG-25 RBF version serving in Satalovo. There is little chance in finding an RBT with camouflage. Yes, it would be nice but the camo versions were one-offs and only in the end period (OK there were one or two well documented examples in GDR also). Have to add to my list of camo aircraft one more: it is No. 76 and it was RBS which served in the 90’s. It is a long gone airframe. The airframes which were not scraped virtually where they served after the retirement of the Foxbats were used as targets on gunnery ranges. There is an interesting and sad video of No. 16 being “eaten” by a crushing machine and many photos of Foxbats standing on the ranges and getting set on fire with different forms of armament. No. 76 was one such. Best regards Gabor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofjim Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 Thanks for this Ya Sir I'm ashamed to say I've always overlooked ICM as a brand, because I suppose for some reason I always thought them slightly inferior ? There was no real reason for this and I don't know why really ? I was clearly mistaken not to mention stupid because this looks great and now I'm really considering getting one . I look forward to seeing more , I love all Russian subjects especially the big fighters . So thanks for setting me straight cheers, Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted December 30, 2016 Author Share Posted December 30, 2016 There is still a lot to see on the kit here is something else that I will need for the kit. The Polish Master Co. has produced a perfect pitot tube for the Foxbat family. There are two sets available. One of them is for any other MiG-25 interceptor kits, of the later version, that is for the PD and the PDS interceptors. This set is AM-48-130 and it has the base for the pitot and the pitot itself as a separate part. The advantage of this two part set is that you need to glue in place during construction only the base to the radome. The fragile pitot itself can be left to the very last moment of building. This is excellent. For the kit in question we have another set, it is AM-48-129 and intended for all other versions of the MiG-25 which had those very distinct antennas on it. Building on the success of the previous “new generation” pitots this set also incorporate 3D printed original parts for the antennas. Here we have three parts, once again the base, the 3D printed central part with antennas and the pitot itself. As you can except the brass parts are perfect but what about the antennas. They are 3D printed and made from a soft resin so when installed they will not brake off that easily. The antennas are of course beautifully at right angle, you don’t have to play around and trying to get it right by gluing individual etched antennas. With this set just slide the three parts together and you have a prefect pitot, just add paint. The 3D parts are as good as you can get them and have some incredible fine detail on them. There is not much more that can be said about this, have a look at the photos and judge for your self. Best regards Gabor 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loloskymaster Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Hello, Wow, this pitot from Master will have to go to my workbench too! I take this message to thank you, Gabor, for the interesting analysis. I just received my ICM kit and for the little I saw of my box, this is a great job. Regards, Lolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dot Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 On 27 December 2016 at 5:32 PM, modelling minion said: Picked up my example today from Mike at Clifton Curios (always helpful and usually knocks some money off whatever your total bill is) and I am very impressed with the kit. The only omission I can see is the lack of bombs to put on the underwing racks, though I'm sure Quickboost or someone else will come to the rescue. Oh dear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 No new posts. Sorry!!! Two words: laziness and Photobucket. X Mas and New Year, lot of food, a bit of drink and some other family priorities but the Foxbat kit is in the works. (Of course had to play U2’s “New Years Day” on 1st of January and watch the new years concert with Blue Danube from Vienna) Had a lot of things to do on the kit already and it was all photo documented on the way. But laziness: have to write it all up and post it. Photobucket: it is a real pain in the axx!!!! I have real problems with it! It is so slow, if working at all! By the time it allows you to upload photos it has downloaded/opened a hell of a lot of completely useless/annoying crap!!! This is so frustrating!!!! Plan was for the weekend to add few posts but we had our first 2017 club meeting on Saturday with some good discussions and in the end most of Saturday was gone. Some more research in the archive, doing some plastic work and also some resin casting for the Foxbat on Sunday left no time for up dates. I try hard to do something very soon. Sorry again. The biggest obstacle (mental obstacle) is the Photobucket!!! At least on ARC there is a possibility to add a photo (just one photo) with a post, even if it has to be smaller than 100 kb. I want to add more photos so this is not a real solution but at least something that I sometimes use. Unfortunately there is no such possibility on other forums like here on Britmodeller. Best regards Gabor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I know exactly what you mean Gabor, I quite enjoy doing WIP builds but once its done it's nice to do a build without the hassle of Photobucket etc, those builds seem to go so much quicker! Muzz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPMS19 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 - I comply with you , Ihave the same problem with photobucket in my WIP post about Sukhoi Su 24...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share Posted January 12, 2017 Now where was I? It would be important to make a note of the surface details. The MiG-25 Foxbat was a welded aircraft with only few of the service panels secured to the surface with the traditional fast locks or screws. There are virtually no rivets of any sort on the airframe. The main parts are built from big panels of steel which have on the inner surface reinforcement ribs which were spot welded to the surface and the bigger panels welded to each other. So what you should have on the surface are mainly weld lines with only some panels with traditional “rivet line” around them. Many of the panels on one of the edges had hinges, some bigger some smaller. The top of the airframe was virtually clean, sides with a bit more panels and on the bottom many service panels. Here correctly with engraved panel lines and fasteners or screw heads. The designers of the kit tried to follow this faithfully, giving the best possible representation of the real aircraft on the kit. We all know that there is no such thing as a 100% perfect kit. The ICM MiG-25 is no exception. One will find panel lines going nowhere, stopping in the middle of nowhere, some panel lines are automatically repeated on the reverse side of the kit, which in many cases was not true. A bit of filling of the wrong lines and 15 minutes of sanding will make the corrections without problem. Has to be said that the ICM kit represents the MiG-25 RBT version with some details which are not applicable to all version. Also has to be said that during the long years the type was under manufacture (and service) there were an incredible number of changes made to it. It would not be possible to cater for all the fine detail differences of all version (I mean not only within the reconnaissance family but also within the aircrafts under designation MiG-25 RBT ), although some alternatives are provided in the kit. A detailed study of the particular aircraft that one is planning to build is essential!!! I already started to make all the small conversions to the kit for it to correspond with the particular version I am building. Some new panel lines were added, few hinges and some fine surface details. Also had to make correction to the fuel system and added filler caps (something that was completely missing from a recent MiG-31 kit and the manufacturer did not think it would be important even when it was pointed out). Well here the solution was easy, simply mark out the area required, click on it, drag it to the new position and paste it there. Have to mention the wheels also. The main wheels are made of two sides, the fit is fairly good. Tried a dry fit of them and they basically snap together with virtually no visible joint line. It was not easy to get them separated later. The nose wheels are one part units with good details on the outer faces. Speaking of details, just on the airframe here two we will find both raised and engraved details. The raised lines represent the rubber mould lines on the side walls and they are just right, some will say even to fine. The running surface of the tyres have the engraved lines. Other manufacturers either over exaggerate these details or don’t provide it at all, relying on aftermarkets or themselves producing resin replacement tyres. One could criticise that the tyres are not weighed. Well, as far as could see on real aircraft they had a minimal depression at the bottom, so I will just sand it down a bit. More soon Best regards Gabor 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Hi Gabor Where are you up to on the build process? I've found a couple of little anomalies and wondered if it was just me! The front fuselage lower main fuselage just wasn't matching up for me due to the internal frame that holds the air intakes in place, I ended up having to remove the lower centre (curved) section which seems to solve the problem. I also now realise you need to paint the outside wall of the main undercarriage bay as it completes the air intake trunking. I'm enjoying the build, I'll need to get a Master pitot, it looks good. Currently waiting on the New Ware mask set arriving. Muzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 Hi Muzz, I dont really understand your problem. Could you please specify and if possible show a photo of it. A construction problem was raised on ARC by Dylan. He is right about the intake sides F17 and F 20. They are a perfect fit so if even a very minor misalignment is made on the way it will cause a problem with the fit of F17 and F20 to the nose part. Here is a link to Dylans post, it is around the middle of the page: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/289940-148-mig-25rbt-foxbat-b-by-icm-released/&page=9 Concerning my construction. For the moment I am making some minor detail correction in accordance with the particular version I am building. Taking photos along the way. More on this soon. Best regards Gabor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofjim Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Sweet kit ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Interesting thread, you have my attention! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 The question of fuselage roundness in front of the windshield has been raised in many forums as a unsolvable problem. It is interesting that no one has taken the time to have a closer look at this problem (if there is a real problem at all) and compare the photo to the real kit. It is fairly simple to compare the kit with the real airframe. The main bulkhead separating the cockpit and the photo pallet compartment has numerous vertical sub frames. The photo compartment has ten such and the cut of the airframe in the MAI class room is at the forth such frame. Based on scale drawings the forth frame was marked on the ICM kit nose. I added a bit of thin masking tape to it to make its location perfectly identifiable. From an old business card a cross section was cut, first just rough then it was adjusted to perfectly fit around the given cross section of the nose. Of course a cross section gauge could have been used but it was easier, faster and more visual to make it this way. The result is the same. Here is the cross section of the kit at that particular frame which is the same as the frame visible on the MAI aircraft. And here is the photo taken by Ken “Flankerman” and which was used for illustration few years ago in another kits review. No one is forced in any way, just have a look at them and make your own decision. Best regards Gabor 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 11 hours ago, ya-gabor said: Hi Muzz, I dont really understand your problem. Could you please specify and if possible show a photo of it. A construction problem was raised on ARC by Dylan. He is right about the intake sides F17 and F 20. They are a perfect fit so if even a very minor misalignment is made on the way it will cause a problem with the fit of F17 and F20 to the nose part. Here is a link to Dylans post, it is around the middle of the page: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/289940-148-mig-25rbt-foxbat-b-by-icm-released/&page=9 Concerning my construction. For the moment I am making some minor detail correction in accordance with the particular version I am building. Taking photos along the way. More on this soon. Best regards Gabor Hi Gabor I had a look at Dylans post and we're talking about the same part, F11, I followed the kit instructions and ended up having to cut the curved section off to get it to fit, Dylan suggest that attaching F11 to the rear fuselge first would solve the problem. Photo's attached to explain. And the join, not fixed in place yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 Hi Muzz, Houston we have a problem!!! The problem is simple! There is no problem! The actual aircraft is built this way! There are several strakes on the side of the intake inner side. They channel boundary air in different directions, both up, down and inside. The one at the bottom is to guide air downward and it (the strake) ends at the bottom channelling air in between the engine bays. If you stand under the aircraft you can look forward and see through in direction of flight! The area you are trying to fill in should be there. Unfortunately this problem was not clear from the photos of Dylan but the ones you have sent show it clearly. This is why I said that I don’t understand what the problem is and could not imagine such a big misalignment of parts! There are some mistakes on the kit but nothing this big!! Please look at the photos and it will be clear. (I hope) Sorry but the MiG-25 is built this way! Best regards Gabor 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Thanks for the photos Gabor, it confirms what I thought about the bottom strakes. I'm happy with the join I have between the front and main fuselage. I was pointing out that to get that join I had to remove part of the internal frame which you can see in my first photo. Cheers Muzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles87 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 It just goes to show how you can 'over-think ' something and create a problem which didn't exist in the first place, I've often done it myself. I will bookmark this extremely helpful thread for future reference. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPMS19 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 - Excellent feed back of this kit, now "the church is on the middle of the village", thank you Ya Gabor.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 Now where was I about a month ago. Oh yes the Foxbat. Had taken some photos in the meantime but as usual the photobucket is not a too friendly place, but what can I do . . . Photobucket is simply disgusting, annoying, frustrating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It took almost an hour to up-load the photos, with countless freezing on the way, photobucket loading all its spy things and completely useless adds . . . I am really fed up with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Still some review and a little work on the actual airframe. If you have a closer look the trailing edges of the different surfaces are nice and thin. Actually care should be taken as the plastic itself is fairly soft and it would not take much to cause damage to the edges. An interesting thing is that the counter rotating engine turbine blade has striked again. I imagine that during CAD development a simple mirroring of one side resulted in this. It is a nice little joke but in the end there will be little visible of it. The afterburner flame holder rings have the correct concave shape and when put in place little will be visible of the turbine blades, so in the end the counter rotating bug is not really visible only an annoying mistake from the designer. The instruction sheet is fairly good but it has some interesting things in it. A whole page was left for a nice computer line drawing of the finished kit. It looks good but takes away space from more important information. Only side views of the chosen subjects are given with just a top/bottom view of the wings to indicate the position of the national markings. The one page space taken up by a view of a fully completed airframe could have been used to give a full top and bottom view of the painting guide. At least for one aircraft. Well they are all the same overall grey airframes so it would have been enough to give one such drawing. It would have helped with the position of natural metal panels on both top and bottom surfaces. It has to be added that the leading edge of the stabs was also rust free steel colour. And in some cases even the wings had steel leading edges. One advice: As to the positioning of the stars on wing top and bottom surfaces, please note that they not always point forward! On many Foxbats (just as on many other Migs) they were painted at an angle so have a closer look at the references. There are some very good top views out there on the internet where this can be seen. A fairly comprehensive selection of stencils is given in the kit. And this has already been discussed. ICM is giving blue stencils for the darker technical markings while about 96% of the Foxbats life time they were black. Why I mention this again, is simple. At Nurenberg Show Revell has presented its Foxbat kit, which is a repack of the ICM kit and it also had blue stencils. (Yee, I understand that they had an ICM kit built for presentation and they probably used the original ICM decals) I just hope that the Revell decal designers will have a closer look when preparing the stencils for the real kit. OK I have been also doing some real work on the kit, here and there. Including the instrument panel. Some paint was added and a little detail. The ICM instrument panel was thinned down and additional three instrument faces were drilled out. Will have to add some more detail with paint, some more switches and other fine parts. Weathering and a final semi gloss will seal the instrument panel. Work is on in other areas of the kit, but more on this next time. Hope not in a month’s time. Best regards Gabor 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 great work Gabor! god looking IP two questions, maybe you have an answer the position of the flaps seems to be always up on the ground, or is it? http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig25/mig255.html second, also in another thread on the RBT some of us are wondering about the secondary nuclear role these planes had during the cold war. Do you know of any pictures out there showing live?! or training load out? one bomb at centerline I guess, but which kind of pylons? and which bombs? Rn-24, RN-28? thanks for any info on these topics! Werner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted February 19, 2017 Author Share Posted February 19, 2017 The flaps are about 99% of cases in up position. Yes, on some museum aircraft you will find them down (or even missing completely) but they are not operation aircraft. The stabs were “hanging” in many cases when on the flight line but not the flaps or the ailerons. Rudders could be slightly off set, but that is all. As to the nuke version. Yes, it has been mentioned in many places. One would need to have a look at the “Technical Manuals for the “Special” ordnance” but the chances for that are very close to ZERO. As to any photos of it, anyone who has taken such pictures I am sure would have enjoyed a very long and friendly welcome from the Military Security people. There are photos on the net of some Russian nuke loads or the training rounds for them which were a weight and shape equivalent of the “real “ thing. For example of the nuke pylon for the MiG-21 there are few photos and even some photos when they were carried ( I mean the pylon) by Soviet AF aircraft. But to have the bomb and the pylon on the aircraft . . . Speaking of the bombs, there are even very few if any photos of 25’s in real service with conventional bomb loads. Yes, you see some museum aircraft with the pylons (in some cases not even compatible with the MiG-25) and there are photos of the special “Heat resistant” bomb (separately) but how many photos of active service aircraft dated 70’s, 80’s with conventional gravitation bombs???? None I would say. So what about the even more extreme Nuke’s. No chance. I am sure it would have been on a centre line. As to which of the several possible stations, I don’t know but it would be easy to do some CG calculations and there would be a possibility. . . Best regards Gabor 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelling minion Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Very nice work on your Foxbat so far Gabor, and some great information you are sharing with us. I am building one too and want to build one of the aircraft based in East Germany during the 1970's (it's for the NATO/WARPAC 70's GB) and have a question for you that I hope you can help with. As we know the kit is a sort of mish-mash of various marks of the aircraft and does not have 100% of the things or details for any of them (not that it's a bad kit, I really like it) would I be correct in thinking that to build an RB from the time period I want all I need to do is to reshape the parabrake housing and shorten the upper lip of the intakes so that they are the same length as the side pieces? If I remember right there is no need to add the "lump" under the forward nose which is present on later aircraft such as the RBT, any help or advice you can give would be very helpful before I start re-shaping and adding things. Craig. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ya-gabor Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share Posted February 20, 2017 Hi Craig, Is there a photo of the actual aircraft that you plan to build? If yes, then it would be easy to see if it has the DISS-7 doppler unit under the nose, and then you will have to do the “under nose job” or get one of the aftermarket noses (Cold War Studio . . .) A photo would be very important as there are so many things which were changed depending on - the year the given aircraft was manufactured - the modifications carried out at unit level during service - the upgrades carried out during overhaul (about every 4-6 years or so of service) and upgrades at later stages of life. This is why you will see “so many versions” of a basically same version like the RBT. This is why people are saying that the ICM kit is a mix of version. ICM only built a copy of one particular aircraft from which only the absence of the DISS-7 bulge is what is missing. It is fascinating to have a look at same RBT marks of aircraft standing side by side, serving together and still having so many differences. The manufacturing numbers of these "special" Foxbats was very limited and so you would find basically "one-off" aircraft. This is the problem with the ICM kit, if this is considered to be a problem. No manufacturer would be able to produce all the fine modifications of all sub versions (even if only within the RB RBT family) IN ONE SINGLE KIT! Especially with a price tag as that on the ICM kit! - Yes only the late versions had the longer upper lip of the intake - only late versions had the Berjoza warning bulges on the sides of intakes - the wingtip counterbalance was also different on versions depending on manufacturing ( I am speaking here about the cylindrical counterbalance of which there were many versions!) As to the parabrake housing, once again you would need a photo to see what was used on that particular aircraft. The original housing cover was in line with the back of the aircraft and so it was further down on the airframe. The extreme heat from the engine exhaust was a problem so the solution was to tilt the brake housing upwards, further away from the exhaust and so it would not overheat so much. The bullet shaped housing was introduced. Under it additional cooling ventilation was provided also to protect the parabrakes. Hope this is of some help in your considerations. Not much but at least a direction in which you should do your research and work. Best regards Gabor 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now