Jump to content

Apex

Members
  • Posts

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

970 profile views

Apex's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/9)

60

Reputation

  1. Then again, the MF can't fire the R-3R, can it? AFAIK only S/SM/SMT/bis can. Maybe we'll get R-3Rs with the SMT or bis boxing, whenever they will be released. Meanwhile we will have to shell out some extra CZK for the Brassin missiles.
  2. Here is a better look at the same aircraft:
  3. MiG-19S at Kbely, Prague: No, I did not measure it, but as you can see the base is several centimeters thick while edges are sharp. Maybe you can just file the kit fences, this worked quite well on a 1/72 KP (old tool) kit. ...and, MiG-17F at Kbely, Prague: Just a thin fence. Note how the fences are perpendicular to the wing, not vertical.
  4. I am not a subject matter expert here but it looks to me that the wings are different. In the instructions, I mean. Slightly more span (compare the panel lines near the wingtip pods), a small change of leading edge sweep near the outer pylon. These are the essential differences. ICM put the sprue shots online: https://icm.com.ua/en/aviation/mig-25-pd-2/ - however these clearly show the recce version wings. I think it is just a wrong picture, the link seems to refer to kit 72172 (RBT), not 72177 (PD): https://icm.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/72172_1.jpg. Perhaps it is a good idea to wait for inbox review or better pictures from ICM.
  5. The instructions show 4 sprue K's are included, and these look like R-40TD missiles to me: So no R-40RDs and no R-60s, a pity. Still, this looks like a considerable improvement over ICM's previous tooling of the MiG-25PD. Condor indeed makes a MiG-25P. I think it is rather basic, though. Perfectly buildable, just low on detail. Maybe the nose part (and wingtip pods for early version) could be used for conversion work.
  6. I recall the old (well, original) IIIE kit nose is not so good but I don't know of any other accuracy problems. Are there any, or do you declare the entire kit inaccurate because of the nose?
  7. I would also suggest Modelcollect instead of Revell. The Revell kit is mostly okay, but the turret is really pretty bad. Should you go with Revell but don't like the turret, there are aftermarket turrets (I recall at least Tankograd and Golikov Project), not sure about price or availability though. Here is comparison of Revell and Tankograd turrets, you be the judge: https://smallafv.blogspot.com/2016/02/72.html The Modelcollect looks really nice. The hull bottom is diecast metal however, not injected plastic. It sure is rigid but you need to use something else than regular plastic glue when attaching wheels.
  8. Thanks Ralph, I thought this was the case. Now that I cannot unsee the problem anymore, I need to start thinking about solutions. Yours is probably the best, but needs some effort.
  9. I see what you mean Ralph. The windscreen length is very close to the canard length: But the kit windscreen is slighly longer: Moving the frame(s) forward as you describe would indeed help. Did you by chance try if the Pavla vacform canopy is any better?
  10. Hmm, if the images are really from the KP kit, they are including the clear parts from the twin seater kit. The Bilek single seater canopy is pretty bad but this one would be both wrong and bad. A mistake with the pictures likely.
  11. Nice start, Andrés. Bookmarked this thread for reference - I have cut out some parts and cleaned them up, but not proceeded with the build much yet. I agree the kit is quite nice but could be improved. Many things are too thick/wide but the fit is generally good and I like the amount options and ordnance provided. I am not sure what is the correct ejection seat type for F.1CE. Since you mention Barracuda Models, I think you mean you will be using their MB Mk4. Some sources mention MB Mk6 seat was used in Spanish Mirage F.1s however. Perhaps you can shed some light on this?
  12. Fantastic paint job! Bookmarked this thread, will come handy whenever I start my kit. I can't say if the gloss blue shows through at all, but the aluminium looks absolutely gorgeous. Not sure why some people dislike the rivets on this kit; your picture of the real Mirage shows they are clearly visible, and in my opinion look just great on the model. To each their own I guess.
  13. My understanding (based on Eduard kit instructions and threads I have read here at Britmodeller) is that the "fighter bomber" is the Moscow built variant. The Moscow plant started building MiG-23s in 1975 and the production of MiG-21MFs was moved to Gorky (the "interceptor" variant). The Gorky plant was also building MiG-21bis and some changes were incorporated from bis to MF. I am not sure where the names "fighter bomber" and "interceptor" come from, I thought their capabilities were the same. Perhaps Eduard named them based on their roles in the Czechoslovak air force. The Armycast exhausts are for Eduard kits, I've got one of each and it definitely says "for Eduard" in the package. I would not expect any major hassle in substituting these for the plastic parts.
  14. Have you seen these pictures from Eduard?
  15. According to the Aerofax book, Bulgarian 211 is MLD type 23-22A. That is, no dog tooth, no vortex generators, no top of fuselage dispensers. Based on this, I'd say your ML kit is as good as it gets for that purpose, whatever the actual type designation is. You may be interested in this: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/244486-trumpeter-mig-23-ml-132-scale/
×
×
  • Create New...