Russian Cold War jets

[John Thompson]

Hi Serge! Very interesting thread on scalemodels.ru; thank you for posting the links. My main interest is in the status of the 1/72 I-153; Niknorov's translated reply to a question on this subject reads:

"Well, we plan to make it to fall. While there is confidence that all will"

That doesn't sound very positive - does the original Russian text suggest anything stronger? I'm grasping at straws here - the ICM I-153 would get my second-place vote for "1/72 Kit of the Year", after the Prop&Jet resin La-5! Please, give me some hope!

(I'm sorry that this isn't about Cold War jets, BTW...)

Thank you!

John

[Aardvark]

Hi,John!

Hi Serge! Very interesting thread on scalemodels.ru; thank you for posting the links. My main interest is in the status of the 1/72 I-153; Niknorov's translated reply to a question on this subject reads:

"Well, we plan to make it to fall. While there is confidence that all will"

"Well in our plans to make it by the autumn. While there is a confidence that all will turn out"

It's better?

As far as I understand it is a question of terms... And there as Englishmen speak: "time will tell!" (If on russian literally the proverb sounds "we will live Let's look")....

... Though the situation occurred with FW-189 in spite of the fact that promise I-16 isn't excluded also and I-153 "to make on the present"

That doesn't sound very positive - does the original Russian text suggest anything stronger? I'm grasping at straws here - the ICM I-153 would get my second-place vote for "1/72 Kit of the Year", after the Prop&Jet resin La-5! Please, give me some hope!

(I'm sorry that this isn't about Cold War jets, BTW...)

Thank you!

John

By the way thanks to the Chinese pirates at now there is own site. You will find there much that interesting! For example study of La-5F and the questionnaire-voting on planes assumed to manufacture.

http://propjet.ucoz.ru/

B.R. Serge

P.S. Guys give more close to a topic theme! And that as tell in Russia: "And the forester has then come and all has dispersed!"

[John Thompson]

Hi Serge - thank you for your reply! I'll wait and see what happens with the I-153. Maybe I'll try questioning Niknorov by e-mail, so he knows someone cares about this project.

My P&J votes are for the Tomashevich "110" and the Beriev Be-4!

All the best;

John

[Simon Cornes]

I/m now looking at MiG 29s. I've located a Heller UB but I'm wondering whether to go for an Italeri, ICM or Eastern Express single seater. Don't know anything about Eastern Express but someone has said that the Italeri kit is good?

Based on accuracy, clarity of clear bits and decal sheet, which do you reckon is the best compromise?

Cheers

Simon

[Giorgio N]

I'd like to know about the MiG-29 myself !

The italeri is a nice kit and looks quite accurate. The only complaint I've head is that the wing is not located at the right level with the fuselage.

Others swear on the airfix/heller kits, but the wing chord is very different between the italeri and airfix/heller kits. Which one is right ??? Would be good if someone could do for the MiG-29 the job Ken did on the Su-27 ! Or maybe some russian modeller with a go knowledge of the subject can help ?

Regarding the italeri kits in general, it's good kita and easy enough to build. The level of detail is not impressive but not bad either. The decal sheet in mine was nice in design but had very little adhesion, a common problem for Italeri kits of the days. I'm pretty sure this is sorted now. It might be worth searching for an aftermarket decal sheet for one reason: there are some great schemes, while italeri offers a relatively bland russian plane and a little more interesting one from Yugoslavia, both in the same camouflage.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Giorgio N

[Aardvark]

I'd like to know about the MiG-29 myself !

The italeri is a nice kit and looks quite accurate. The only complaint I've head is that the wing is not located at the right level with the fuselage.

Others swear on the airfix/heller kits, but the wing chord is very different between the italeri and airfix/heller kits. Which one is right ??? Would be good if someone could do for the MiG-29 the job Ken did on the Su-27 ! Or maybe some russian modeller with a go knowledge of the subject can help ?

Regarding the italeri kits in general, it's good kita and easy enough to build. The level of detail is not impressive but not bad either. The decal sheet in mine was nice in design but had very little adhesion, a common problem for Italeri kits of the days. I'm pretty sure this is sorted now. It might be worth searching for an aftermarket decal sheet for one reason: there are some great schemes, while italeri offers a relatively bland russian plane and a little more interesting one from Yugoslavia, both in the same camouflage.

Concerning MiG-29 I can tell the following.

Italeri does updating of MiG-29 a "product 9-12" (NATO a code "Fulgrum-A")

ICM does updating of MiG-29 a "product 9-13" (NATO a code "Fulgrum-C")

Difference between them, well approximately as between F-5A Freedom Fighter and F-5E Tiger II, Like it is insignificant, but it is.

Both models possibly while are uncontested. But the question in that that at us as always isn't present a common opinion about drawings

Some features of geometry of MiG-29 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=18886

Though these like rather quite good

Drawings MiG-29 http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_10319.html

For fans of Russian and simply sympathizing on 24 pages :

MiG-29 Various updatings and manufacturers: the review http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_13092.html

Edited June 15, 2011 by Aardvark

[Simon Cornes]

Hi Serge,

Many thanks for that. I have had a look at the links - boy the translation tool makes russian sound very odd!! But I am grateful because your english is light years better than my non-existent russian!!

So its seems like the ICM kit is based on the Italeri kit? I looked at an Italeri kit today and was impressed. I also looked at an Eastern Express Fulcrum and, based in what I saw, I won't be buying one, the Italeri kit seems so much better. I also bought a Heller UB today and, comparing the upper fuselage with the plans, the engines are set with thrust lines away from the centreline, not parallel as with the Heller moulding. Its still a nice kit though and I was surprised that it had engraved surface detail given that I presume it an Airfix mould?

So I am now thinking ICM for a Fulcrum 'C', but maybe an Italeri Fulcrum 'A'!!

Still not sure!

Cheers

Simon

[Giorgio N]

Serge, very interesting links.... now I really wish I could speak russian !!! I see there's so much information there and I wonder how much actualy arrives here.

The post on the mig-29 drawings is particularly interesting. In the stash I have an awful kit marketed by Aero Team and I often wondered which drawings to use to try and correct at least some of the more glaring imperfections.

[Simon Cornes]

Made the mistake of visiting my LMS yesterday and saw a lot of Zvezda jets! I have held the view that, being a Russian company, their products would be good, because the prices certainly seem to be! I had a look at a MiG 21 and that seemed to be good, what is the opinion on the multitude of Sukhoi's and MiGs then? I also looked at an Academy (or was it Hobby Boss?) MiG 23 but though it was cheap, wasn't too sure about it apart from the fact that the jet pipe needed extending with a piece of tube!

Since posting this reply today I have also had a look at the Eastern Express Su-17 and it doesn't look that bad. How does it compare with the Italeri kit? Would you try to find an Italeri 17/22 second hand instead?

Edited June 19, 2011 by Simon Cornes

[John Thompson]

Since posting this reply today I have also had a look at the Eastern Express Su-17 and it doesn't look that bad. How does it compare with the Italeri kit? Would you try to find an Italeri 17/22 second hand instead?

I suspect the Eastern Express Su-17 is a reissue of the Pantera kit. Here's a couple of threads which may be helpful:

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air...howtopic=140533

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air...howtopic=167622

Judging from what I read in these (I've got the Pantera kit, but haven't built it), you might be better off looking for the Italeri/Bilek one, though!

John

[Giorgio N]

Zvezda's MiG-21s are the best around, can't go wrong with these.

The Pantera Su-22 is not a very detailed kit. Or better, the original Pantera kits were not bad as included PE parts for the details, but their various reboxes end up being very basic kits.

They show some confusion in the version they actually represent, however allow some early versions to be built with some work, while the Italeri kit is only for the Su-17M4 (or the export Su-22M4). Before the M4, Su-17 and Su-22 had different engines and this resulted in a wider rear fuselage in the Su-22. This is kind of represented in the Pantera mould, although other parts are not correct. I have one of these in the stash to make a Su-22M3, and I couldn't do this version from the italeri kit, so I'm happy with it. However it will really need plenty of work to correct some parts and add the required detail. However since I bought this in a mastercraft box for 5 euro, it's worth the price for the decal sheet alone: this has markings for Lybia, Hungary, Afghanistan and Angola (that however never used this version).

[John R]

All 1/72 scale

I built the Zvezda Mig 1.44 found it to be OK except for the specified colours which, I believe, have top and underside transposed

Others

Avoid

Trumpeter Su 15 (early version) It's too long

KP Su 9

KP Mig 19

PM Su 21

Can't speak for accuracy but they were Ok to build

Hasegawa Mig 25

KP Mig 15

Airfix Mig 29

Italeri Su 27D

OK

Revell Su 37 a few build issues but generally Ok

John

[about:blank]

The Pantera Su-22 is not a very detailed kit. Or better, the original Pantera kits were not bad as included PE parts for the details, but their various reboxes end up being very basic kits.

They show some confusion in the version they actually represent, however allow some early versions to be built with some work, while the Italeri kit is only for the Su-17M4 (or the export Su-22M4). Before the M4, Su-17 and Su-22 had different engines and this resulted in a wider rear fuselage in the Su-22. This is kind of represented in the Pantera mould, although other parts are not correct. I have one of these in the stash to make a Su-22M3, and I couldn't do this version from the italeri kit, so I'm happy with it. However it will really need plenty of work to correct some parts and add the required detail. However since I bought this in a mastercraft box for 5 euro, it's worth the price for the decal sheet alone: this has markings for Lybia, Hungary, Afghanistan and Angola (that however never used this version).

Mastercraft re-released the Pantera SU-20 as well. Haven't built it, but it is a bit of a crappy kit surface detail and fit-wise. Don't know enough about Sukhois to comment on accuracy. The Angolan decals Giorgio refers to should be for this version.

[Simon Cornes]

All 1/72 scale

I built the Zvezda Mig 1.44 found it to be OK except for the specified colours which, I believe, have top and underside transposed

Others

Avoid

Trumpeter Su 15 (early version) It's too long

KP Su 9

KP Mig 19

PM Su 21

Can't speak for accuracy but they were Ok to build

Hasegawa Mig 25

KP Mig 15

Airfix Mig 29

Italeri Su 27D

OK

Revell Su 37 a few build issues but generally Ok

John

Hi John - so you are saying avoid everything from the Trumpeter Su-15 down to the Italeri Su-27?

Cheers

Simon

[Aardvark]

from the Trumpeter Su-15

Oy....Yeaaaa.....Good question on which there is such answer:

Big didn't test disappointment probably never...

Compared to drawings:

1. Pankov

2. Rudenko.

There is a following:

The radome in an arch, is more on 10мм contours incorrect, the fuselage is more on 4 mm, the side view isn't bad put in drawings, the top view is worse, to a place sawn-off shotgun to paste contour of air inlets more less, further the nasal part in an arch, instead of expansion to a cone there is not clear narrowing with sharp expansion directly before a cone, a such pear... Wedges of air inlets are incorrect under the form and the sizes, (it is more, without gathering additionally in width and a thickness). Fuselage sections are wrong, absolutely incorrect, especially in a tail part. Air inlets big on length also are incorrect under the form. Guards frontier layer plum accordingly in an arch. The lantern of a cabin is wider on 2 mm and on length 5 mm don't gather additionally. Kiel in an arch, on height doesn't gather additionally 1.0 mm, both under the form and in details, is incorrect. Nozzles in an arch, a tail compartment of a fuselage it is incorrect on sections. Wings more less, but corners on a forward edge are incorrect, scope covered approximately on 3 mm more than it is necessary. Stabilizers in norm. The arms are incorrect, stabilizers of rockets over leight, lengths of rockets don't coincide, the thermal rocket big, radar-tracking is shorter, gun containers over leight on length and aren't entered in the put contours. All the rest however as well as the cut any more has no sense compare with drawings.

At such abundance of mistakes the majority from which isn't treated at all I do not see any sense, in purchase of this model. And in finishing too.

Yes, nearly hasn't forgotten, molding excellent, small ditch, quite good joining, crazy rivets, all...

Scoundrels...

The first message from here:

1:72 Trumpeter Su-15TM... The despondency has captured me... http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewto...49_start_0.html

Su-15ТМ In 72nd scale - a model choice. http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewto...32_start_0.html

Resume: Su-15TM best at VES/Gran but this model in view of bad quality of molding (at excellent it is primary on master model to study of surfaces) not for the nervous.

B.R. Serge

P.S.

Italeri Su-27?

Italeri Su 27D

Simon, He possibly meant model Italeri Su-27K Sea Flanker (on NATO Flanker-D)

Now known as Su-33.

The new model of Hasegawa is much better than Italeri

Edited June 21, 2011 by Aardvark

[John R]

Oops! Didn't make it clear did I?

Avoid these

Trumpeter Su 15 (early version) It's too long

KP Su 9 - very thick wings and fin are the worst bits - overall shape is about right

KP Mig 19 - As I remember the wings were twisted relative to the fuselage datum

PM Su 21 - Wholly inaccurate

La 176 There is also a kit of the this about. I picked one up for a £1 at Southern Expo a couple of years ago thinking that you couldn't go wrong at that price but you certainly can. The fuselage is way oversize. The is a Maquette kit about that might be a re-issue of this.

Open mind - These were Ok to build but I couldn't speak for their accuracy

Hasegawa Mig 25

KP Mig 15

Airfix Mig 29

Italeri Su 27K - Flanker D

Aardvark is correct about the identity of the Flanker

Whilst I'm online...

I have an A model Su 15TM which I started and put aside until I had the patience to deal with it.

I also have an A model Tu 128 with similar problems.

I have been told that A model products result in an accurate model but are the devil to build. I'll endorse the last bit.

John

[brighton rock]

Not had any problem with KP Mig 19. Comparable to the Bilek Mig 19 and all very reasonably priced

[Giorgio N]

Oops! Didn't make it clear did I?

Avoid these

Trumpeter Su 15 (early version) It's too long

KP Su 9 - very thick wings and fin are the worst bits - overall shape is about right

KP Mig 19 - As I remember the wings were twisted relative to the fuselage datum

PM Su 21 - Wholly inaccurate

La 176 There is also a kit of the this about. I picked one up for a £1 at Southern Expo a couple of years ago thinking that you couldn't go wrong at that price but you certainly can. The fuselage is way oversize. The is a Maquette kit about that might be a re-issue of this.

Open mind - These were Ok to build but I couldn't speak for their accuracy

Hasegawa Mig 25

KP Mig 15

Airfix Mig 29

Italeri Su 27K - Flanker D

Aardvark is correct about the identity of the Flanker

Whilst I'm online...

I have an A model Su 15TM which I started and put aside until I had the patience to deal with it.

I also have an A model Tu 128 with similar problems.

I have been told that A model products result in an accurate model but are the devil to build. I'll endorse the last bit.

John

A-model kits can be very tricky but it must be said that their products have been constantly improving and the latest ones are much better than the early ones. Said that, some of their soviet types are unfortunately early ones: the Su-15 is not too bad, but the Yak25/27/28 family kits are really tough. Not recommended to beginners or modellers with little patience, but the final result is very pleasing. The panel lines are extremely fine and some of the details are also very nice, although separating parts from the soft sprue can be a nightmare. I recently built their IAR-80 and while some parts needed a lot of work, the final result was very good.

Speaking of Su-15, I can only agree on your comments on the PM ones: better avoided ! Never looked at the trumpeter ones, since I have an A-model TM myself in the stash.

The hasegawa MiG-25 is an older kit made right after Belenko brought his real one to Japan in the '70s. It's not as accurate as the Condor and ICM kits.

[John R]

I would have thought that after Mr Belenko presented them with a real one the Hasegawa version would be spot on.

Regarding the Yak 28, oh dear, I have one in the stash.

I also have an A model La 250. Anybody have any experience/opinions about it?

Just remembered - There is a brand called 'Red Star' (origin Russia?) I had a Yak 25 by them . So much flash that it looks like a vacform.

Edited June 22, 2011 by John R

[Giorgio N]

Just remembered - There is a brand called 'Red Star' (origin Russia?) I had a Yak 25 by them . So much flash that it looks like a vacform.

John, I've seen that kit, one of the worst plastic injected kit I've ever seen ! I was offered one for sale at a swap meet, thought about it for a while and then preferred to use approximately the same money to buy a Contrail vacform kit of the Albermarle... 'nuff said !

Don't have the La-250, but it's a subject I'd like to build one day. I have an A-model Yak-27 though, always tempted to start it, always returning the box to the stash...

[John Thompson]

I have an A model Su 15TM which I started and put aside until I had the patience to deal with it.

I hope this is useful; please forgive the over-excited "tone" - I was a lot younger and a lot smarter in those days, when I created this. Don't expect me to remember much about it - 10 years is a long time:

Building the Amodel Su-15TM

Step 1: This is the cockpit and nose gear wheelwell assembly. It's a handful, with a total of 13 parts shown in the sketch. Note that parts 73 (the ejection seat sides) are actually left- and right-handed and probably should have had separate part numbers, although the detail on these is pretty faint, and if you do ignore the difference, I doubt that anyone will notice! My plan was to use the NeOmega resin KS-3/4 seat anyway. The cockpit assembly includes four pieces (parts 2, 3, 4, and 5) which attach to the underside of the cockpit floor (part 1) to form the nose landing gear well. After studying the sketch for a while, I decided the best approach was to assemble parts 1 to 6, and then start dry-fitting this assembly to the two fuselage halves. All of the individual parts have very small amounts of flash on the edges which must be removed prior to assembly. I noticed that the plastic in this kit is somewhat tough and a bit stringy, so use some care if using a knife to trim the parts. I found that the cockpit floor (part 1) is a bit too wide, and needs to be narrowed a fair amount in order to get as good a fit as possible between the bottom edges of the wheelwell and the fuselage halves. The tiny L-shaped locating lugs on the inside of the fuselage are really just a source of interference - you can locate the cockpit assembly better by lining up the walls of the wheel well with the edges of the opening in the underside of the fuselage - so I sanded the lugs off. I suppose if you really wanted to get as perfect a fit as possible, you might try building the wheelwell separately, using a thin piece of plastic sheet for the "roof", and then treating the cockpit components (including the floor, part 1) as a second subassembly. My plan was to prepare the subassembly as per the kit instructions, consisting of parts 1 to 6, leaving off the cockpit side consoles and everything else. Then I installed this when I joined the fuselage halves in step 5, and added the consoles (parts 9 and 10) afterwards through the cockpit opening. This ensures that the consoles are as tight to the walls as possible and interfere as little as possible with anything else (like that NeOmega ejection seat!). Incidentally, the photos in the AJ Press monograph indicate that the consoles are shown in reversed positions in the instructions - through the canopy, you won't know the difference, but it's another argument for a full resin interior!

Step 2: Exhaust section assembly. This, and steps 3 and 5, demonstrate how the Amodel kit is better designed for ease of assembly compared to the VES kit. With the VES kit, the tail cone (Amodel part 15) is made up of an upper and a lower half, resulting in a really nasty horizontal joint line which is a brute to clean up properly, especially on the inside face. The VES kit also has some other internal parts which are just weird and awkward to assemble correctly without modifying them substantially - overall, the method used by Amodel is a huge improvement. However, there's still a lot of cleaning up to do on the Amodel parts - I found a piece of 5/16" inside diameter plastic tube wrapped with 220 grit wet-or-dry paper to be very useful when working on the inside of these pieces, after removing the worst of the flash, etc., with an X-acto blade. Note also that the instructions show an error - the sequence of the parts assembly should be 13-12-14, NOT 12-13-14. Despite these problems, it's a far cry from the laborious task demanded by the VES kit, and I spent less than an hour preparing and assembling the Amodel components in this step.

Step 3: Assembly of the air intakes. Again, a big improvement over VES's method of bending and spreading things to pop the intakes into place. The VES method also results in joint lines along the upper and lower edges of the intake scoops (Amodel does these scoops as an individual part, part 18) which have to be cleaned up afterwards. Describing this more clearly would be long and tedious - take my word for it, the Amodel method is much, much better. Just be aware that, like the side panels on the ejection seat, parts 16 (splitter plate), 17 (foreign object deflector? airflow contour plate?), and 18 (the external scoop itself) are left- and right-handed, so don't mix them up. One set of these parts is on the left side of the sprue, the other is on the right. Complete the assembly of one set of parts before detaching the other set from the sprue. I recommend just eliminating the three tabs on the splitter plate (part 16); when you assemble the three parts shown in this step, just make sure the back edges of parts 16 and 18 are flush with each other, and the tabs become unnecessary. When you cut part 18 (the airscoop) off the sprue, try to leave as much plastic as possible on the tip of the top "horn" of the intake, so you can blend it properly into part 16, after removing the front tab on part 16. I also found that, after attaching part 17 to part 16, it was impossible to fit these into part 18 without a lot of cutting and filing to get a tapered cross-section, and also to remove completely the two thick ridges (which are supposed to be details, not mould defects) on part 17. Sounds complicated, but it makes better sense with the parts and instructions in front of you. The first air intake took me about 30 minutes to complete; the second one, about 20.

Step 4: Assembly of the landing gear units. Some of the parts are quite finely moulded, and care is needed to remove the flash on these parts without damaging them. I'd suggest keeping part 44 (nosegear retractor drag link) separate until you actually install the nosegear leg into the fuselage.

Step 5: Fuselage main assembly. Here is where the Amodel kit really shines - the equivalent step with VES is a colossal pain in the neck, with a total of six parts that correspond to just two (parts 19 and 20) as designed by Amodel, although by the time you get the six VES parts wrestled together, they include the air intakes and the nose cone, which are integrated with the six main components. However, until you join all of these parts, you don't have a fuselage, whereas this assembly step with Amodel is basically, again, just two parts. The VES kit has joint lines all over the place, and requires endless dry-fitting, experimenting, and modifying to get these as neat as possible. A big "thumbs up!" to Amodel. Building this kit is pretty much like, well, building a model, NOT a redesign exercise! The instrument panel is simplified, but I like the representation of the equipment mounted on the "dashboard" above it. Still, a detailed resin set would make a big difference if you want the canopy open. I found the nosecone to be very slightly smaller in depth than the front end of the fuselage, creating a sort of "bird's beak" appearance. Try this: When I was preparing the nosecone, I assumed the joint between the two halves should be vertical (in other words, the same as the joint between the two fuselage halves). I found that it was slightly too wide for the fuselage, so I rubbed the cone halves down a bit to make the cone the same width as the fuselage. Maybe if I had aligned the joint in the nosecone at 90 degrees to the fuselage joint (i.e., on the sides instead of top and bottom), WITHOUT the rubbing down, it would have been okay. The location of the nosecone joint really doesn't matter, so try this and see if it works before doing any adjustment. I wound up splitting the cone apart, inserting a thin wedge of material to increase the depth, and reinstalling it with the joint lines on the sides instead of top and bottom - looks fine now! And don't forget to put a bit of weight into it before you glue it on... Assembly of the fin is straightforward, with just the usual dry-fitting (by now you're an expert!). When installing the small panel under the rear of the fuselage (part 21), remove the tiny locating pins on the fuselage cutout sides and set the panel flush at the edges by eye. Then attach the tail cone assembly, with a bit of fitting to get a stepless joint between this and the back end of the fuselage. Dry-fit the tail cone BEFORE you install part 21 (because it may be necessary to narrow the tail end of the fuselage for the best fit between the tail cone and the fuselage sides), but install it AFTER. This will require dry-fitting the fuselage, part 21, and the tail cone assembly simultaneously, in case part 21 needs to be narrowed a bit.

Step 6: Assembly of the wings. Aileron and flap actuators are separate parts - perhaps this is overkill; still, they cared enough to do it! These parts are very tiny, and care is needed in preparing them. Overall, wing assembly presents no unusual problems; the more dry-fitting you're willing to do, the better the result will be. Again, left- and right-handed parts are not distinguished by different part numbers, so I suggest removing from the sprue only the parts for one wing and finishing it before removing the parts for the other. Be careful when removing the parts from the sprues and cleaning them up - there are a few details and locating tabs which look very similar to sprue attachment points, so don't sand off the wrong ones! The wing underside components (parts 26 & 27) need to be rubbed down vacuform-style to prevent getting a bit of a step at the joint with the part of the upper surface that wraps around to the underside at the leading edge. This also gives a neater joint with the ailerons and flaps. The unique downward "kinked" effect in the leading edge of the wing where the sweep angle changes is beautifully reproduced, by the way, and looks really good. Assembly time was about 60 minutes for each wing, but it was actually quite satisfying work!

Final Assembly: After installing the wings and tail surfaces, it looks great! Wing attachment took more dryfitting than I expected - it seemed that the wing root area on the fuselage was slightly wavey and needed careful filing to make it flatter; some extra squinting and filing on the root end of the wings was also necessary to get a good joint. Finally, a tiny bit of Mr. Surfacer was brushed onto the wing root joints to help close minor gaps, then cleaned up with whiteboard cleaner (i.e., no sanding). The fin got the same treatment. Reference to drawings (AJ Press or Zlinek; the Zlinek drawings are more accurate, if you can find them) is helpful to set the correct anhedral angles on the wings and horizontal tail surfaces. The NeOmega seat needed heavy sanding on its base to get it low enough in the cockpit so as not to interfere with the canopy, but everything else fit just fine. NeOmega now makes a vacuform canopy for the Su-15TM, by the way, so this could be substituted for the kit canopy if desired. I won't bore you further with descriptions of adding the undercarriage - this looks pretty straightforward, with the only hitch likely to be devising a secure way of attaching the legs to the correct locations, since no locating holes are provided.

Conclusions: As a Su-15 enthusiast who's already spent more time than he cares to admit attempting not only the VES kit, but also trying to correct the long list of errors in the old PM "Su-21" kit, I have some experience with 1/72 Su-15's! This is an excellent kit, bearing in mind the standard moulding limitations of limited-run products. On the other hand, where would we be without people like Amodel, Bilek, Dakoplast, MPM, and numerous others? It seems the "Big Guns" like Hasegawa and Tamiya are somehow either unaware of, or afraid of, any Russian/Soviet subjects except the very recent and obvious candidates, like the MiG-29 and Su-27. And World War II types? Forget it! Surprising, considering the possibility of a fresh list of unexploited subjects, and the flood of excellent and easily accessible newly-published information since the fall of the Soviet Union; instead, we get continual reissues of too-familiar types like the Bf-109. Anyway, more power to Amodel and their kind, and back to the Su-15TM - bottom line, this is a very satisfying kit! While the parts will require extra work to clean them up prior to assembly, once this is done, their fit is, in most cases, near-perfect, suggesting excellent mastering by Amodel. If you like the subject, buy this kit - you'll be delighted!

John (Another one! )

[Flankerman]

I would have thought that after Mr Belenko presented them with a real one the Hasegawa version would be spot on.

ICM/Condor is the MiG-25 of choice

I also have an A model La 250. Anybody have any experience/opinions about it?

Just remembered - There is a brand called 'Red Star' (origin Russia?) I had a Yak 25 by them . So much flash that it looks like a vacform.

Amodel La-250.....

Typical Amodel - limited run, needs some work, but looks OK once finished.

Zvezda MiG-31....

KP Su-7BKL....

Amodel Su-11...

Amodel Tu-128....

Condor MiG-25P....

Amodel Su-9...

Ken

[Flankerman]

A few more.....

Amodel Tu-128U 'Pelican'...

Amodel Yak-28P....

Amodel T-49.....

Italeri MiG-29....

Amodel Sukhoi T4.....

Vacform La-15....

Vacform Su-9.....

Airfix (converted) Su-33.....

Heller Su-27UB....

Ken

Ken

[John Thompson]

Amodel Su-9...

Ken

Gorgeous builds all of them; certainly gives the rest of us (me, at least) something to aspire to! I do have a question about the Amodel Su-9; comparing the fuselage halves of my unbuilt one to drawings in a 1992 issue of the Czech modelbuilding magazine Zlinek, it appears that the nose of the kit is 1/4" (8mm) too short, with all of this immediately ahead of the cockpit. What am I missing (besides 8mm of nose length)? Did you extend yours, because it looks correct in the photo. Thanks!

John

Edited June 23, 2011 by John Thompson

[Simon Cornes]

Great photos of great models. Go on then, is that Alclad II or Halford's rattle cans? I sort of hope its the latter, having got Alclad paint but not yet used it!

If it is Halfords then which colours?

Cheers

Simon