Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Good

About Apex

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

810 profile views
  1. 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 id
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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 th
  9. 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.
  10. 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 Armyca
  11. Have you seen these pictures from Eduard?
  12. 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/
  13. These are clearly MLDs: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6130787 - I presume the ex-Soviet aircraft mentioned by @Linden Hill. I'd add the nose pitot tube also has additional vortex generators which the ML variant does not have, not very well seen in that picture. FYI, Aerofax book on MiG-23/27 says Bulgaria received both non-export (23-18) and export (23-22A) MLDs, plus MLs and MLAs to confuse us more. Maybe so, I really can't tell these apart...
  14. The colorful GDR red 604 Last Flight scheme, and united Germany 29+14 can be found on Hi-Decal sheet 72005. Revell decals are pretty good, but I think Hi-Decal are superior. IMO Trumpeter makes the best 9-12 variant in 1/72 scale. However... I have to add that the 604 bort number looks strangely distorted to me:
  15. Hello Antti, I don't know - there is confusing, there is totally confusing, and then there is Russian technology . I don't really know much of this stuff, but I guess that is part of the fun in building Russian planes. Admittedly it would be strange to remove ILS antennas from the MiG-25PD, however turbulence generating fins could have been removed if deemed unnecessary. I mentioned ILS as several cutaway diagrams indicate these blades are ILS antennas. For example (see item 101, инструментальной системы посадки): So how about a Su-22M4? Look
  • Create New...