Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

973 profile views

cherisy's Achievements

Established Member

Established Member (3/9)



  1. The yellow and black markings were for visibility in identification as a target tug. RAF aircraft used in this role have had them since the late 1930s and certainly into the 1980s.
  2. Thats a 100 sqn Canberra. I recognise the tail markings. We used them for ground to Air firing when I was on Rapier back in the 80s. The Canberra would fly towards us towing a Rushton "Smoke pot" on a long cable ( I think it was about a mile but maybe wrong ) As the Canberra flew over our position we we were free to engage the target. 7 sqns badge was some stars I believe.
  3. Like Troffa said above plus the FGR2 didn't have the 3 landing lights on the nose wheel door.
  4. Thats great Andre many thanks. That solves the mystery of the pod then. How did I miss that site ?
  5. Hi Has anyone here made the Zvezda Mig 27 ? The instructions are vague to say the least and I'm looking for guidance on the correct positions for the weapons pylons. Part 20/21C seem to be for some kind of pod. Does anyone know what kind and how often it was fitted? I'm also looking for guide as to what weapon loads they would have carried. I was considering a rocket load on the wing shoulder and 2 forward fuselage pylons. Thanks in advance Lee
  6. Which explains Bort 17 carrying the gun pod ( the pilot fired 200 off rounds of AP as a "warning ") So we may have gotten to the bottom Of this..lots of surgery needed. It also explains the American Intel guy seeing TMs. He could see the double Delta wings.
  7. The plot thickens. The Begemot sheet states thar 17 is now preserved at Yuzno Sakhanlisk City. A bit of work on Google shows a very sorry looking airframe with original conical nose but kinked wing bearing the bort no 40. Now the airframe could have recieved the new number in the years following but it may be that it is one of modified airframes as the sheet describes although there is no mention of a new wing. Going by some of the remarks on the photos it seems this is indeed the airframe. Curious. Still it shouldn't be too difficult to replicate .
  8. Further to my earlier post I've actually found a Russian website via the ARC forum ww2.RU where a discussion took place after a member built the aircraft as a TM. There was mention of Osipovich's aircraft turning up as a museum exhibit in Russia and a post from the chap who runs Begemot who was very insistent that the aircraft wasn't a TM but a modified A ( to carry gunpods) He also stated that a second SU15 that was airborne that night from the same Regiment was an A version. I don't know how to post the link on here unfortunately and I'm aware it may be a bit of a no no. But I found it easily enough just by putting SU15 bort no 17.
  9. So in all likelihood we will never know for sure and one " could be right " if 17 was done either as a TM or an A. Sadly I think you are right as regards reliability although I was always under the impression Begemot were pretty good with their research unlike some certain other decal companies . I think I'm going to have to toss a coin as to which mark I do it as . Interestingly the 707 that was shot down in 78 ( and can I find what bort number it is ? Nope) was a TM with no gun pods and carrying Anabs and Aphids. It was an Aphid that brought the plane down. Fast forward to 83 and the SU15 involved in the shoot down was carrying gun pods and Anabs only.
  10. I'd read in the comments made in the thread that Begemot were always well researched. That said are we ever going to know for sure?. Like you I've an Interest in cold war hardware, probably as there was a likelihood I was going to encounter Floggers, fitters and Fishbeds during my RAF days in Germany. However any photos from the 80s are like hens teeth. Most decal sheets these days are for the early 90s on . I started this thread and I'm still doubtful if it's a modified A or a TM. I agree about the Amodel kits. They are a bugger to make but look great when they are and the shapes are right. Just finished an SU9 Fishpot that really captures the look.
  11. Sadly not. All I have is the Begemot decal sheet that give 17 as a Flagon A that had recieved modifications during its service life. There is some evidence apparently from other pilots at the time that they were flying the earlier Flagon A and not the TM Flagon F. Given that older aircraft were used by the Regiments in the East that would make sense.
  12. Interesting that they show Bort no 17 as an SU15TM though.
  13. I'd seen your build online. It looks great
  14. Yep I've read the reviews but it seems the only kid on the block at the moment. Which is a shame
  15. The plot thickens then. According to the Begemot sheet Bort no 17 is on display somewhere. I wonder if there are any photos anywhere? Cheers Lee
  • Create New...