KRK4m

I was at the Museum today and I have to worry you. This is not one of these engines. The only one in which adjacent petals slide into each other is the RD-9B from the MiG-19. But its petal has lower side walls and without this round hole. In turn, R-11F-2S, R-13 and R-25 have such box-shaped petals with a hole in the side, but they do not slide into each other. R-27, RD-33, AL-7 and AL-21 are a completely different story. All that remains possible is the small-series R-37F (R-11F-300) from the Mig-21F, which, according to all sources, has a different nozzle than the 11F-2S, and since it is older, it may be based on the petal connection system on the earlier RD-9. Look at the photos : RD-9B R-11F-2S R-13 R-25 R-27 RD-33 AL-7F AL-21 Cheers Michael

Could you, @Homebee, move this bottom image (AFV and warships) to Trumpeter's 2025 news announcement? This is p. 4 from their 2025 catalogue, not from I Love Kit Cheers Michael

Plus 1:700 USS Midway CV-41 (06754 straight deck and 06755 angled deck) - AT LAST !!!! Cheers Michael

Don't be so optimistic, @bianfuxia. #3 and #7 is the same person . Cheers Michael

@GiampieroSilvestri - I stated precisely "there is not a single injection kit on the market" Saluti Michele

Breguet OK, but why Alize? Let me make a small comparison: Alize - 89 built, 2 users, used operationally by India in 1971 and 1987 and by France in 1999, there are injection kits on the market in 1/50 (Heller), 1/72 (Azur and Mach2), 1/100 (Heller). Br XIX - 3012 built, 21 users, operationally used by 8 of them (France, Bolivia, China, Croatia, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Yugoslavia), there is not a single injection kit on the market - neither in 1/48, 1/ 50, 1/72 or 1/100. I don't understand something here 🤔 Cheers Michael

Theoretically, I have several such 4-engined planes in my 1/144 stash. These are the prop-driven DC-6, Connie, Viscount (and I'm still hunting for the IL-18 - does anyone have one for sale?), and also the jets B707, B747, BAe 146 (and I'm looking for a Minicraft Super DC-8 - maybe someone has one too many ?). Certainly not half a dozen, but I should be able to fit in about two or three if GB lasts 2-3 months. In one word: I'm in Cheers Michael PS. IL-18 and DC-8 already fixed

@Rob de Bie - IIRC, the Russians had at most a dozen types of afterburner engines. The first way to narrow down the suspects may be the nozzle diameter. In RD-9 it is 65cm, R-11/13/25/27/29, R-15, RD-33, AL-21/31, D-30F are within 90-120cm range, AL-7 is 130cm , RD-7 is 140 cm and NK-25 is over 170 cm. The second thing is the number of petals - Tumansky uses 18, and Lyulka and Soloviev - 24. I will be at the Museum on Tuesday, January 7, I will look at the R-29 and RD-33 and let you know. Unfortunately, we do not have the AL-31, R-15, RD-7, D-30F and NK-25 in the Krakow museum. Cheers Michael

Dear @Scott Garard Thanks for your involvement in the topic, but I was at this stage a month ago. In your drawing, the front plug is 2.85, 4.13 and 4.84m respectively and contains 5, 6 or 7 windows respectively. Simple arithmetic shows that a single frame with a window would be 0.57, 0.69 and 0.69m wide respectively - ERJ135 does not fit the rest. In the rear plug it is slightly better, although there the ERJ140 does not exactly match the rest: 153/2 = 77, 307/4 = 77, but 236/3 = 79. The fundamental problem, however, lies in the numerical geometric data provided by Embraer and linked by @Dave Swindell. Well (because we all agree that both the fuselage nose and the central part with spars and main u/c bays are the same for all three versions) the length differences of the front plug must be equal to the difference in the wheelbase, and according to Embraer these are 12.43, 13.53 and 14.44 respectively. This roughly confirms the difference you stated between the front plug of the ERJ135 and 145, which is 2.01m (yours is 1.99m), but it places the ERJ140 in a completely different place, whose front plug, according to the manufacturer, is 1.10m longer than the ERJ135 and shorter by 0.91m than ERJ145. Since the total lengths provided by you and Dave's link are the same, his data shows a completely different rear plug length difference. In your case the differences are 0.83 and 0.71m, respectively, and in Dave's: 1.02 and 0.51m. But after inserting the ERJ140 parameters from Dave's data, the frame widths of both the front and rear ERJ140 plugs still do not match the other versions - at the front we have 394/6=66, and at the rear 255/3=85. Since both the data provided by Dave and by you are signed by Embraer, it means that the manufacturer is incorrect - either in one of these publications or (more likely) in both. Therefore, I clearly repeat the question from the beginning of this thread: does anyone out there have any reliable data on the ERJ frame width? Cheers Michael

While R-11, R-13 and R-25 are subsequent developments of each other (just as R-29 is a development of R-27), AL-21 IS NOT a development of AL-7F. It is a completely new engine, two-shaft, with variable stator vanes, largely based on the GE J79. The article you linked to is unreliable - the author has little knowledge about jet engines. But back to the point of this thread - do we know how many petals this afterburner nozzle has? 18 or 24? Because all the Tumansky and Lyulka engines mentioned above are exhibited in the Polish Aviation Museum in Krakow and the afterburner here does not look like this in any of them. Cheers Michael

As for the JJ-2, you are absolutely right - the Chinese have never manufacturced any MiG-15s (neither single- or two-seater). But you are completely wrong about the square hatch on the port side of the air intake - it is present in every MiG-15 and MiG-17, whether of Russian, Czech or Polish production. Moreover, during the operational life of these a/c it was a very important element of this plane for your and our pilots and ground crew - the 96% C2H5OH filler into the compass. And when flying at altitudes of up to 7-8 km (80% of flights), the compass still operated at a concentration of 70%. The rest could have been used in a more pleasant way and the difference could have been filled with water. That's soldier's life Cheers Michael

And I still hope it won't be a German plane. In such quizzes, the hints are always ambiguous or even deliberately misleading. Black cross - OK, but is it German? Is this also a black cross? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Air_and_Space_Force#/media/File:Fin_Flash_of_Spain.svg And maybe this too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Air_Force#/media/File:Roundel_of_Bulgaria_(1941–1944).svg Even though Spain was not formally an Axis member, both it and Bulgaria used many Italian planes. How about the Caproni 309-310-311-312-313-314-316 family? Cheers Michael

Of course you're right, @Dave Swindell, I understand that perfectly. However, the only source on the Internet giving the ERJ wheelbases is Jane's. And I don't know if I can believe them, because it doesn't match the modular principle of airframe construction. The wheelbase for the 135 is 12.43m, for the 140 - 13.53m and for the 145 - 14.43m. This means the front plugs would have to be 110 and 90 cm respectively. And for the rear plugs there are 102 and 52 cm left, respectively, while the window spacing in the entire E135/140/145 family is somewhere between 70 and 80 cm. From the design and production point of view, it makes no sense to make frames of different widths or to change the nodes such as spar/frame fixing points just to make the cabin length 10 cm shorter or longer. That's why I'm asking if anyone knows the width of the ERJ frames - because, for example, for B707/727/737 it is 508 mm and we all know it. Cheers Michael

One of the most popular twin-jet feeder liners - the Brazilian ERJ - has not yet seen a mainstream kit in 1/144 (Authentic is unavailable, shipping Duarte from Brazil doubles its price, and the Welsh also has a price that does not match the final effect). Thus I want to 3D print the 1:144 ERJ135 (Legacy), ERJ140 and ERJ145 models. We all know that they have the same wings, engines, complete tails, cockpits and landing gear - the only difference is the fuselage length. The 145 is 56" (142cm) longer than the 140, which in turn is 84" (213cm) longer than the 135. So the arithmetic would indicate that the hull frame width is 14 inches - first we add 6 frames, and then 4. However, the question is how much we add in front of and how much behind the wing. The drawings on the Internet vary significantly - for the 135 to 140 conversion, sometimes it is 3+3, sometimes 2+4. In turn, the difference between 140 and 145 is sometimes 2+2 and sometimes 3+1. Thank God, everyone agrees on the difference between 135 and 145 - the same length is added in front of and behind the wing. The photos confirm this. Does anyone out there have any reliable data on this issue? It's about the width of the ERJ frame and the differences between 135, 140 and 145 fuselages. Cheers Michael

In my case, the reasons are a little different - my collection includes aircraft from the entire 20th century, from Farmans and Albatrosses to F-16 and MH-60. But how many times in your life can you build a Me 262, Ki-45 or Ki-46? They are already in the display case and that's it. I have nothing against AH or Hinomaru - I just bought their Ki-43 because it came out before I could get around to the Special Hobby kit. Similarly, a year ago AH Ki-84 (and 3 years ago their FM-2) replaced Swords in my stash, and in a few months (I hope) the new AH P-51D will allow me to put a Tamiya kit on eBay. Cheers Michael

When it comes to the egoistic point of view, for me Hs 129, Ki 45, Ki 46, Me 262 are completely indifferent to me - I will buy neither 🤣 Cheers Michael

Are you sure @dalea? Nobody Cheers Michael

I'm sorry, Graham, but you're totally wrong. I.e. of course, the idea of these 4-character codes under the wings was the same as "buzz numbers" in USAF jets or large RAF serials before WW2. But subsequent blocks of serial numbers (those on the rudder) were assigned their underwing codes in the appropriate blocks. These Bloches belong to a block of 44 aircraft with serial numbers MB.210BN5-89 to MB.210BN5-132, bearing under-wing numbers E436 to E479. But in block E there were also Amiot 143s and Bloch 200s, while e.g. Morane 406s were in blocks N (mixed with NiD.622, Ble510, Lo46 and MS225) and S, and Potez 63s in B, C (mixed with CR690 and FK58), J and X (mixed with Mur 113/115/117, Pot 540 and Curtiss H75). Few years ago, together with the late Bartek Belcarz, we spent a good few weeks analyzing the French sources and I have established the correlation of these two marking systems for 6,255 aircraft - over 60% of those assigned. Cheers Michael

The front part of the cowling is a truncated cone with a side angle of ca. 63 degrees, and since the 440 has it extended towards the propeller blades by about 8 inches (1.5 mm in 1/144), the diameter of the inlet itself has become the same 8 inches smaller. This can be clearly seen in the drawings provided by Michael @Space Ranger Cheers Michael

I hope you're not trying to tell us it's the same level of completeness. I have 2 Brengun Yak-1 kits in my stash and both of them will end up in the trash (or on Allegro) as soon as I buy Zvezda ones. Although I admit that the same fate befell Amodel Yak-1 kit when Brengun appeared 8 years ago. Cheers Michael

I don't entirely share your admiration, @John Thompson as I don't understand at all why the landing flaps couldn't have been made entirely as part of the upper or lower half of the wing. In the solution adopted by Zvezda (identical to the AZ MiG-17), half of the flap is moulded with the upper part, and the other half with the lower part of the wing. After filling the joint, it must be sanded, which irreversibly damages the surface structure. However, this is the first time in my life that I see such a complete 1:72 high-back Yak-1 kit. Will we ever see such quality Yak-7/9 kits? Cheers Michael

Roden really failed with this stabilizer. Theoretically, they provide a C frame for all 720s, and a D frame for all 720Bs, but the difference in Roden's tailplane is the change in the dividing line - the elevator in the 720B has a reduced span. And it should have the same span and added a 20-inch-wide fixed tip (3.5mm in 1/144). This is how much you need to add to it and rescribe the dividing line. Life... Cheers Michael PS. In the meantime 8A Decs answered my question. They didn't put their decals on these fuselages. They simply believed in the 1/139 proclaimed by Revell and linearly increased the entire 1/144 sheet by this 4% in both directions.

Interesting - this is exactly what my calculations say, based on the photo #2 from there https://www.mojehobby.pl/products/Boeing-E-3-G-Sentry-AWACS-USAF-Service.html#gallery_start and the last photo from there https://www.dembrudders.com/atlantis--revell-707-and-kc-135.html and you certainly measured it in nature That much? Are you sure? From this picture it turns out that it is only 314 mm I have mastered the issue of 4 wing types in the C-135/B707/720 family thanks to this article https://airlinercafe.com/aviation-articles/ultimate-boeing-707-guide-84957/ Following the path of least resistance, I came up with the same idea as you - I'm building a -131B based on the Roden 720B kit (JT3C in the regular 720 are too big and I don't want to modify the wing glove), only by extending the fuselage and changing the mainwheels. It turns out that the u/c legs and bogies are geometrically identical. And this is where the real problems begin, because it is not known whether the boys from 8A Decs actually measured the models to which they dedicated these decal sets, or whether they only relied on the manufacturer's declarations (1/139 in Revell and 1/144 in Frog), and the TWA decals will either match the other way around or not match any of these kits at all. And here is the main problem, because considering my age, I may not live to see it... And converting this 720B won't be very difficult. Cheers Michael

Since 8A Decals offer sets for the Boeing 707-120/121 for the TWA, Western and PanAm airlines in two variants (one for the 1/139 Revell/Atlantis kit, and the other for the 1/144 Frog/Eastern Express one), I would like to ask for clarification, is the difference between them only the scaling of all elements from 1/144 to 1/139 or were these decals individually adjusted to each of these models? The problem is that the Atlantis/Revell model's fuselage - although nominally in 1/139 - is probably shorter than the Eastern Express's fuselage, which - as nominally in 1/144 - should be 10mm shorter. I want to buy their 7909-791-144 set for a model in the TWA livery, which I am building from scratch, because in my opinion both the Atlantis and Eastern Express kits are useless. In the case of PanAm or Western decals, the choice of version of 8A decals would be irrelevant - shortening the strip with windows by a few millimeters would solve the issue of matching the fuselage length. But in the case of the TWA livery there is a problem, because the stripe changes its width and as a result of cutting "to the size" of my fuselage (that is, the correct length), a kink will be created. As I hope that anyone reading this text has in their collection an open box with an Atlantis/Revell or Novo/Ark/Eastern Express B707 waiting to be built, I would like to ask you to provide the total length of the fuselage half (as it is in the sprue, i.e. Revell without nose cone). From what I can see from photos online, the only fuselage in exactly 1/144 is the Minicraft E-3 Sentry, while both Frog/Ark/EE and Revell/Atlantis have fuselages in 1/141, with the Revell being about 14mm shorter, but this is due to the fact that Revell intended to make the 707-120, and Frog - the 707-420, whose fuselage is originally 203cm longer. What's funny is that Revell's KC-135 (and E-3) have the same fuselage length to the millimeter as the 707-120, but in fact they differ by almost 5 meters (the KC-135 is shorter than the 707-120 by 2.54 m, and the E-3 has the 707-420 fuselage). The second request concerns decals 8A # 7909-791-144-EE and 7909-791-144-RA. I need to know the total length of the red strip with windows, i.e. the length of both the forward part (37 windows on starboard side and 43 on port) and the rear part (4 windows on s/board and 9 on port side). Unfortunately, on 8A website, only one version is shown for all three liveries (1/139 for PanAm and 1/144 for TWA and Western), and I did not receive an answer to my e-mail request for dimensions. Does any of you, dear BM fellows, have these decals on hand somewhere? Thus any help will be appreciated. Cheers Michael

IMHO the Ki-21-2 or Ki-67 are a bit too big for the current AH capabilities. And of the slightly smaller Japanese twin-engined planes, only 3 types were mass-produced - Ki 45, Ki 46 and Ki 48. Hasegawa has all 3 in her program, but why do you insist on Dinah? I know - Nick is a modern kit and slightly better, but the poorest of the three is Lily, produced unchanged since 1973. I don't know if the J1N has much chance - the Fujimi kit is excellent, and the Gekko was a low-volume plane compared to the abovementioned three. And AH so far only releases kits of aircraft used on a mass scale (Hurricane, F4F, P-51, P-39, Ki 84, Ki 43, Yak-1). I'm not talking about the PZL P.11, although by Polish standards it was also the most mass-produced aircraft of the 1919-39 period. So my pick is the Ki-48, and if AH stubbornly sticks to fighters only (just like they do so far), then the Ki-45. Cheers Michael