Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Good

About Apex

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Cold war, Warsaw pact, NATO, Third world, 1:72

Recent Profile Visitors

597 profile views
  1. According to Scalemates the Smer kit is same as Pantera: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/sm-r-0856-su-17-22m4--1166005 I also think the Modelsvit kit is so much better than Italeri/Bilek that it is well worth the extra cost. I thought the Italeri/Bilek moulding was very crude, with excessively thick wing trailing edges, ill fitting pylons, wide panel lines and oversized details. Just note that Modelsvit has not released the 17M4 variant (yet), so a some conversion work from 17M3/17M3R is required. From top of my head I recall the 17M4 has an extra air intake in the vertical fin, and a large CRT display for the pilot. Not sure if there are other differences. Well, apart markings obviously.
  2. More troubles ahead, I see... if you are not in hurry and can spend a little more, maybe you could contact mr. Burenko who sells aftermarket metal missile containers for Tunguska (and a whole lot more): http://format72.ru/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=48 (I am not an affiliate, just a happy customer)
  3. Woah! Suddenly my Military Wheels Tunguska kit starts to look like an easy build! W-models kits are not exactly cheap so I would have expected something more buildable. Even if you decide to go on with the old hull, I'd be interested to know how the replacement parts would work out. If you receive some replacements, would you mind posting comparison pictures with your corrected hull? Nice work with the build so far, will be following with interest.
  4. Looks very much like the Kh-22, does not it? I like the Amodel missiles, but the trolleys are lousy. Sink marks everywhere, much more work than the missiles themselves. Nice job on the trolleys!
  5. Oh, I love your build, I have it bookmarked for reference whenever (if ever) I start my own build. Your build shows just how many things are wrong with the kit and how to tackle them. Inspiring, to say the least. Glad I could be of some help.
  6. Tu-16's carried KSR-5 instead, did not they?
  7. Well, this is most welcome news. With PF and PFM coming from Eduard, the early variants are going to be rather nicely covered, I believe. The Revell kit is not bad IMO. It has a few problems such as ill fitting canopy and nose ring, crude details in many places and horrible wheels. Many minor accuracy issues, sink marks. But a lot of nice models have been built from that kit and it is quite straightforward and enjoyable to build, has nice surface details and you can get aftermarket items to fix many of the issues. I like it. But I am sure I will like Modelsvit kit more. Their MiG-21F is just gorgeous.
  8. Nice start, and nice subjects! Do you have a source for markings? I built one a long time ago, and liked the kit. I don't recall much problems in the building except the ones you found out already: - Positioning the cockpit tub is not clear, it seems to leave gaps somewhere no matter how you put it. In my build the ejection seats ended up way too high (possibly because the cockpit tub was not in correct position, possibly because there was a gap between the tub and seats, possibly because the headrests which are assembled from separate parts were incorrectly positioned, possibly because the seats are just too large, or some combination of these...). I was unable to close the canopy because of that. Also try to make sure the clear part separating the cockpits will fit. - The wing-fuselage joint leaves gaps and/or a step and needs some work.
  9. So... do you know somethint the rest of us do not, or just teasing us?
  10. Interesting solution to the flatness problem. It works nicely here as you can hide the damage to the flame holder inner ring using the crown part. I recall having the same problem with Aires Su-27 exhausts. I left the flame holders flat, but that felt... bad. I'm sure you know what I mean. Eduard themselves solved this in different way with their Mirage F.1 set: I wish they had remembered this when designing the MiG-21MF exhaust set!
  11. Something tells me you are not planning to finish the engine with a single paint labeled "exhaust"... A very inspiring and informative WIP. Lately I have not had much interest in modelling but threads like this are just great as you begin to see new aspects in the hobby. Thanks Gabor.
  12. Apex


    https://www.scalemates.com/search.php?q=FMA+IA-58+Pucara&fkSECTION[]=Kits&fkSCALE[]="1:72"&fkSCALE[]="1:48"&fkTYPENAME[]="Full kits"
  13. Looks like the "Wallkyd Green" paint has chipped, revealing turquoise color beneath. Do you know if the cockpit was painted over in Hungary, and if yes, when? I have to say your detail painting is very impressive. It looks better than prepainted photoetch, just as sharp but with more depth.
  14. Well, the drawings are not wrong just because they are Ukrainian. Maybe. I don't have the kit but still they look like the subsonic 1300 liter tanks to me. Totally different fins. Why would PJ include both injected and resin tanks of the same type? http://aussiemodeller.com.au/pages/Reviews/acft kit/HPK072016_Mirage.html
  15. The Ukrainian magazine Aviatsiya i Vremya issue 1/2004 has 1/72 Mirage III plans, including fuels tanks and ordnance. The 1700 liter tanks measure 86 mm in length and 8.8 mm in width (don't take the decimal part too seriously, the line width in the drawings is much more than 0.1 mm). If the plans are accurate, I'd say the PJ resin tanks are spot on in size. The HPM injected ones look like the 1300 liter tanks to me (not the 1700 liter ones). These measure 80 mm in length in the AiV plans.
  • Create New...