Kitty Hawk Mig-25PD/PDS Detailing & Corrections

[Plastic Licker]

Ya-Gabor, as someone who has this kit sitting under his Christmas Tree, I really appreciate the input you are giving. As others have said, it's nice to be shown exactly what is wrong and why, and I will be making an effort to correct most, if not all, of these things.

Looking at the photos Ankor posted, I wonder whether the fuselage halves are together as tightly as they could be? The joins at the side aren't visible in the photos, and I have heard that it is necessary to cut out some small notches to let the burner cans sit inside properly, as illustrated near the bottom of this page: http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/builds/kh/build_kh_80119.shtml

Jon

[ya-gabor]

Further to the instruction sheet problems. Starting in the cockpit, of course the internal colour is not “AIR SUPERIORITY BLUE” as stated but the typical Russian cockpit blue colour. Now the ejection seat is a completely different story. They are light grey (slightly bluish) as far as the frame goes with lots of details in black, light grey (headrest), buff (seat back and cushion) as well as dirty grey colour for the harness. Only the very late PD’s had the black version of the seat where the frame colour was changed to semi gloss black with black artificial leather upholstery but in most cases the harness remained the same grey.

No reference is given to the instrument panel coming (part H15) it was black on the fighters.

The etched instrument panel information given in the kit is wrong. Two different etched panels are given and it is stated that PE3 is for PDS while PE4 is for the PD model. I have no idea where they got this information from and especially that on PE4 there is no radar scope given. Now that would be a blind flight for any MiG-25PD pilot chasing the enemy without radar information while the radar unit is actually under the nose cone. Even the trainer two seat MiG-25PU second cockpit has a radar display to give the trainee pilot the feel of the real aircraft even though it only displays false information (since the PU has no radar unit in the nose). So please ignore the instructions by Kitty Hawk and use only the instrument panel (PE3) which has the radar display a bit to the right in the middle.

Bit more on the colour part of the instruction sheet while we are here in the cockpit. It is a question of the canopy. The Kitty Hawk gives this as “AIR SUPERIORITY BLUE”, wrong gain. As in almost the whole aircraft the MiG OKB designers had a problem with excessive heat and needed a way to control conditions within the airframe. The softest target for the heat is was the cockpit and the pilot himself. Most of the heat protection is hidden on the aircraft but on the canopy you will see the typical Russian heat shield material on the inner side of the canopy. It is green in colour (as it has been for ages and it is used on all Russian aircraft) a shiny textile material. This is just the passive heat protection while there are two cooling tubes with the first responsible for air cooling/demisting the transparency and a second blower situated right over the head of the pilot. These tubes are also Russian cockpit blue in colour.

The frame of the canopy is the same cockpit blue as the rest of the “office” but its edges are covered in the peculiar Russian pink coloured “Germetika” rubbery sealing material (once again it is and was used on all sorts of Russian aircraft both in the past and in the present).

One thing missing from the canopy is the light grey coloured sun shield which is visible even when in stored position. There are plenty photos of it on the internet if someone wants to make it.

While with this drawing one more thing even though it has been said when the first images of the box top were released early in the summer. The nose and the dielectric panels were grey and never green as shown on the drawings!

Best regards

Gabor

[Tom Cooper]

Gabor, many thanks for all the explanations, much appreciated (they're very useful also for drawing accurate artworks of these 'beasts' ;-)).

Just some 'hair-splitting' here, if you like:

- If one is building an Iraqi example, the 'dinghy' (that's how the Iraqis nick-named that huge drop tank), then paint it the same grey colour like most of the plane.

- If one is building an Iraqi example, then yes, the 'R-40DT/DR only' configuration is the right one to go with, then the Iraqis very seldom installed any R-60MKs on their Foxbats.

- But, if one is building a Libyan example, then you'll do better with a combo of two R-40s (one SARH, one IRH), and 4x R-60MKs.

Finally, I must 'insist' - - that it's not truth that 'nothing' (but nuke-tipped Nike Hercules) could catch a MiG-25R/RB. Iranians have shot down at least two (one by a the famous F-14/AIM-54 combo, another by a combo of MIM-23B I-HAWKS and nifty HQ-2Js), both of which are 100% confirmed, and Israelis say they got one too (should have been a combo of MIM-23B I-HAWKs and F-15/AIM-7s).

[ya-gabor]

Hi Tom Cooper,

Good to hear from you.

I dont remember ever going into the fruitless and very theoretical debate on who shot down who and when. I think this belongs to other forums and not on a kit building one. I don’t really care much about what was or was not, especially that it make very little change to what a kit looks like!

The Syrian, the Libyan and the Algerian aircraft are very different from the Russian PD and PDS and since I never had the chance to examine the African examples close up I could comment little on them apart from what is visible on published photos and they show a very different aircraft in many ways from the standard Russian examples. So I would rather do just a Russian version for the moment.

I only had the chance to see, measure, photograph the Russian versions in different places and could comment on them and the way they differ from the kit. This is the part where I can help others who want to build a better kit from the severely faulty Kitty Hawk release.

Best regards

Gabor

Edited December 18, 2013 by ya-gabor

[Ankor]

Hi Tom Cooper

Thanks for the info about missile combination, I´m planning to do my Mig 25 Iraqi and wasn´t shure about armament.

[Tom Cooper]

Hi Gabor,

hi Ankor,

obviously, I should have observed that my commentary about MiG-25RB-losses was related to 'history review' on the first page of this thread (2nd or 3rd post, I think).

Anyway, to help those interested in Algerian, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian MiG-25s....

Early Algerian, Libyan and Syrian MiG-25s consisted largely of MiG-25Ps and MiG-25Rs. 'But', Libya and Syria are 100% certain to have got ex-V-PVO MiG-25Ps upgraded to MiG-25PDS-standard already by 1981 (first of these were sighted in August that year). All the documentation I've seen about their interceptor Foxbats cites their radar as 'Smerch-A'.

Iraqi MiG-25s included ex-V-PVO MiG-25Ps (first batch, all were upgraded to MiG-25PDS-standard after delivery but before their service entry), and newly-built MiG-25Rs. Second 'generation', delivered in mid-1980s, included an upgrade of surviving MiG-25Rs to RBT standard, plus deliveries of additional MiG-25RBTs and MiG-25PDs. All interceptors were equipped with the radar cited as 'Smerch-A2' in their documentation (note that Iraqis were the first to prepare an English translation of the MiG-25-manuals).

(BTW, there is an interesting story about the possible reason for Kreml stopping all further development of MiG-25s, as of 1986, and pressing for exports of Su-24s instead, and this is Iraq related, even though fiercely denied by most of Iraqis I know.)

Except for few Algerian and many Syrian examples, most of these aircraft were either retired from service (i.e. run of their resources) or destroyed (Iraqis) by the mid-1990s.

Nearly all of MiG-25s that are still operationional in Algeria (very few, then the entire type is short of being retired) are all ex-V-VS (RBs) or ex-V-PVO. They were purchased from the Ukraine, in the 1990s. Thus, there should be next to no differences to Soviet examples (except in regards of IFF-systems, I guess).

Except in the case of Libyans, who regularly loaded R-60MKs on their MiG-25PDS', Iraqis and Syrians have almost exclusively deployed R-40s on their interceptor Foxbats. Known examples of confirmed kills by Iraqi MiG-25s include one Iranian Fokker F.27 (1x R-40RD + 1x R-40TD), in 1986; USN's F/A-18C on 17 January (1x R-40RD), USN's F-14A+ on 19, i.e. 21 January 1991 (2x R-40RD). The only R-40 variants I have seen as mentioned in their documentation were R-40RDs and R-40TDs.

EDIT: important regarding R-40s: these are not painted 'white and black', but white and 'titanium' (sort of a mix of very dark grey, nearly black, with a strong bluish 'touch').

Edited December 19, 2013 by Tom Cooper

[Ankor]

Tom, could you post a photo of R-40 to use as a color reference please?

Thanks.

[Tom Cooper]

If I ever find out how to do so on this forum (is there a function for uploading photos directly into the forum?), I'll do so, no problem.

Meanwhile, here a 'video' with photos of IrAF MiG-25PD. Note: no R-60MKs around.

Oh, and before I forget: from around 1981 or so, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian MiG-25s had those huge chaff & flare dispensers installed on top of their wings (instead of wing fences), as 'obligatory'. You can see them on photos like this one:

http://www.acig.info/forum/download/file.php?id=3300&t=1

[ya-gabor]

Tom, could you post a photo of R-40 to use as a color reference please?

Thanks.

Hi Ankor,

Fortunately there are several original R-40 missiles on show as museum pieces in Russia and they have also been shown as part of MiG-31 missiles. I try to find some for you.

Hi Tom Cooper,

Yes, posting photos is not that easy but it can be managed through placing them first on one of the photo share sites and linking its ID to your comment. I am not a big computer expert or to be more exact I have no idea how it all works, but this is how I can post. Sure some experts will give you better guide as to how to do it.

Best regards

Gabor

[SaintsPhil]

If I ever find out how to do so on this forum (is there a function for uploading photos directly into the forum?), I'll do so, no problem.

Meanwhile, here a 'video' with photos of IrAF MiG-25PD. Note: no R-60MKs around.

Oh, and before I forget: from around 1981 or so, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian MiG-25s had those huge chaff & flare dispensers installed on top of their wings (instead of wing fences), as 'obligatory'. You can see them on photos like this one:

http://www.acig.info/forum/download/file.php?id=3300&t=1

Tom,

As Gabor says you need an external hosting site (photobucket, Flickr etc), to link to, see here:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234932831-posting-pictures-in-3xx-using-photobucket/#entry1212505

If you don't have an account, or don't want to both, PM me and I'll put the pics up for you!

Phil

[Cimmerian]

All this correctional chat is actually making me want to build my MiG-25 kit even more!

Thanks for all the input so far everyone.

[ya-gabor]

All this correctional chat is actually making me want to build my MiG-25 kit even more!

Thanks for all the input so far everyone.

Hi Cimmerian,

It was never meant to put you off the kit!!!

My intention is that it is partly a review, comparison with the real aircraft and also a sort of guide to make a better and more authentic representation of the Foxbat from the Kitty Hawk kit. Dont know about others on the forum.

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

Tom, could you post a photo of R-40 to use as a color reference please?

Thanks.

Hi Ankor,

There was an excellent report by Pavel Vanka to 764 IAP in Perm, a base for MiG-31 fighters. The photos have the copyright blue line of Strizhi.ru (in Russian) so I guess I found it there some time ago but I could not get back to it ever since.

Here they had some perfect views of the R-40 under the wings of a MiG-31 from all sorts of angle. What is very important that these are live missiles and not museum pieces so they are as authentic as you can get! These are the original colours of the R-40 missile!

An important note to the authenticity of a kit with missiles on it, you should note that the very last thing which the ground technician will take off from the aircraft just as it is about to roll for take off will be the safety pin and nose cover of the missile. So unless you have a pilot figure in cockpit and "engine running" and no covers of any sort on the airframe it should have the safety pins and at least the nose protector on the missile.

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

A question was raised concerning the colours of the R-40 missiles. It is a complex question and the missiles have a lot of colours on them. Hope that the attached photo of a real R-40T can help in selecting the main metallic colours.

Fortunately a lot of R-40 missiles are on display in different museum in Russia but also live versions have also been on show recently since the R-40 is still operational on the MiG-31. There was an excellent Russian photo report on a visit to 764 IAP unit in Perm, home of MiG-31’s. I have no idea where I found the photo report but the pictures have the blue bottom line of Strizhi.ru copyright and the photos were taken by Pavel Vanka. I am sure some comp expert kids will be able to find where it is on the net. There were several photos of live R-40TD under the wing of the 31 giving a perfect reference as to how it was painted, or to be more precise “unpainted” since most of the missile body is in its original metallic colour showing a lot of different shades and metals. The war head is almost white, light grey on some examples, the rocket engine part is painted white. The two engine exhaust are redish brown bakelite just as several areas further backward. The guidance antenna at the very end of the missile has a red protective cover on it, but the real antenna is bright gloss green. There are tons of stencils all over the missile, very prominent rivets and visible spot welding on its surface as well as lots of detonator windows, sensors, service panels and electronic connection points, all of them of different colours.

Also note that the very last thing that will be taken of from the aircraft just before it rolls out for take off is the safety pin of the missile and the cover on the search head. It is interesting to see that the MiG-31 on this open day at Perm did a roll down the runway for the audience but still the safety pins were kept in place. So please make a note of this. It is fascinating to see a perfectly executed, built, weathered aircraft kit at modeling shows with no safety pins, protective covers on the missiles! It ruins the whole thing, its authenticity!

A bit more on the colours later on.

Best regards

Gabor

[Ankor]

Hi Gabor

Thanks for the info. I found a Pavel Vanka´s photo showing the R-40 with the protective covers: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pplhkdnruq9mtvr/948.jpg

You are right about modeling the aircraft with this covers an safety pins but I would prefer to see the missiles without these red caps even if this is not 100% authentic, anyway I found very useful all the info about color you posted.

About dielectric panels in both fins, should them be exactly the same in PDS version?

[Navy Bird]

This is a fantastic thread! Although I will never build the 1:48 Kitty Hawk kit, I have started the ICM 1:72 scale PD kit and the reference material presented here will be invaluable in correcting and detailing the smaller kit. Thank you for taking the time to do this, Gabor!

Cheers,

Bill

[Rod bettencourt]

Has anyone tried putting the Fru Fru BM nose to KH Kit?

[ya-gabor]

Hi Gabor

I found a Pavel Vanka´s photo showing the R-40 with the protective covers: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pplhkdnruq9mtvr/948.jpg

On ARC forum Sharkmouth has found that Russian site with the Perm photos. Here is the link for anyone wanting to have a look:

http://photo.strizhi.../v/Paja/perm10/

There are lots of good photos here of the R-40 missile.

Hi Bill,

As I have said at the start of this thread at the moment I have no intention of building the Kitty Hawk kit, it would take too much time trying to make something out of it. I also have the 72nd scale kit and would rather spend time on them. The kits are not perfect but far less fuss.

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

The question of the nose section is not an easy one to solve. Well to be more precise there is no solution for it, you will need a brand new nose section to make it look like anything on the real aircraft. When the CAD images were released and Kitty Hawk was allegedly doing all the corrections to the airframe (at least they said that) the problem with the flat top of the nose section was pointed out, backed up with photos of the real aircraft. Unfortunately in the end the corrections did not materialize in the final plastic product.

The problem here is that the real aircraft has a perfect round cross section both on top and bottom. On top it is applicable all the way from the cockpit. If you have a look at the kit parts it has a strange shape which doesn’t go to a full round cross section even when reaching to the radom! Even here it is a strange potato shape. One can try to sand down the nose section to a more rounded cross section but the plastic is too thin and there is not enough “material” in the kit to reproduce the real cross section. So sorry but there is no solution for this problem.

All I can do is to post photos of the real cross section with help from Ken the Flankerman and of the kit parts. Feel free to make comparisons based on the photos and form your own opinion on how authentic is the kit.

Best regards

Gabor

[SleeperService]

Gabor

This is a fantastic thread you're leading. I still REALLY want to get this kit and build one. The nose is a problem but I'm sure something will come along to deal with it.....I hope. The problem is I want to do the trainer as well......

Just a thought on the flame rings. It may be possible to slice through each ring from the centre to outside edge and then push the centre in to make it concave. Reglue each ring to finish. I've managed the same trick on other similar items.

[Andreas88]

One important point I have to add. This thread was not started by me. I don’t intend to build the Kitty Hawk MiG-25 kit and as such it has nothing to do here on Work in Progress! My original post was a reply to a review of the kit here on britmodeller. It was the administrators of britmodeller who have moved it here.

My only purpose with the posts was and still is to help anyone who intends to build the kit in identifying the parts, places where corrections should be made, the errors by the manufacturer which need attention. I can only show what is wrong on the kit and try to give some ideas on how to mend them.

I wish all good modeling!

Best regards

Gabor

Hi Mike,

The new Kitty Hawk MiG-25 kit is much better than anything before, that is the Revell kit. But lets say you dont need much to be better than that!

There are several and problems with the kit. First of all the designers could not decide on what they wanted to do and so crammed everything into one kit. On many parts they have added particular features of different subtypes of the Foxbat. I understand that they want to have as many kits on the market as possible and there have been already photos of the future recon/bomber MiG-25 RB version as well as the twoseat trainers, and since there are some Kh-58 missiles are also on the sprues we can assume that there will be a MiG-25BM Wild Weasel version of the box too sooner or later. Mr Song tried to defend the mistakes and admitted on another forum that it was difficult to get any information on this aircraft, fortunately today there is wealth of publication, books on the Foxbat but what is far more important there are many original airframes all around the world and not only in Russia, which are available to measure and examine for details.

Just a short list to start and some illustrations to go with them:

- The kit is supposed to be PD/PDS interceptor version, for start it has the engine exhaust of the RB/BM version. For the P a brand new set of nozzles will be required!

- The tail fins have the details of all the versions, so you need some rework on it to make it adaptable to the particular version you are building.

- The long bulge at the base of the fin is there only on the left fin (on both sides) and only on the PD/PDS versions.

- One needs to cut off the small intakes and sand, while on the right side you need to fill in the hole for the additional intake. It is there only for the RB versions.

- The intake ramp has been mentioned before, this can be solved with an intake cover.

- There is a serious shape problem with the engine covers going all the way back from the main gear bays, this is not so easy to fix

- The small fins on the underside are shown as symmetrical items, unfortunately they are completely different. The one in the kit is good only on the right side.

- The air brake on top of the fuselage has no bay of any sort, the air brake simply fits onto the surface. The bay in the KH kit is pure fiction!

- The air brake on the under side has a wrongly shaped bay.

- There is a big overflow exhaust on the left side near the tail on the underside, completely missing

- The pressure relief doors are shown as holes in the fuselage, they should be engraved circular panels, only with engine running would they be open. You need to fill and engrave them.

- There are two panels on the underside of the engine bays which are not there on the real aircraft in the form shown by the KH designers. What we see on the kit is the reverse side of the given panel, that is the nice detail should be inside the fuselage. Shave it off completely and sand.

- The reinforcement rib on the middle of the main gear bay outer wall was used only on a handful of preproduction experimental aircraft! Shave it off and sand.

- On top of the fuselage beautiful engraved panels lines with lots of rivets are shown on the kit. The only problem with this is that the MiG-25 was mostly welded from steel parts. The internal structure of the skin panels was spot welded to it and not riveted. There are some very ugly weld lines all over the fuselage. Fill the rivets, sand and add weld lines.

- The missile pylons have the shape of the interceptor version but a ram air intake for the Kh-58 missile pylon for the MiG-25BM was added on them. Cut it off and sand. The pylon for the BM version was smaller and of very different shape. Hope they do a new pylon for it eventually.

- It is interesting to see the R-73 AAM missile and its launch rail (APU-73) also included as they were not used on the Foxbat.

- The two versions of the R-40 missile should have two massive rocket engine exhausts on their after side, it is shown on the kit parts as little bumps.

- Just as interesting the inclusion of the bombs and the rails for them, never on a fighter version!

- The big fuel tank was adapted for the PD version only. It was not carried on the P version (it simply did not have the attachment points for it).

- The front of the fuel tank attachment is wrong in shape, scratch building will solve this

- The fin tip pod is not an optional parts, it is a counter weight with few electronic antennas on it. It is applicable only for the newly manufactured PD version, botht he P and the PDS had a very different one!

- The pitot tube is only applicable for the early interceptor MIG-25P version. For PD/PDS you need to shave off all the small finlets on the pitot.

I know it will not affect in any way the kit we are building but there is a small gem on the kit, Kitty Hawk designers had a small joke buried deep in our kit. The part for the engine turbine blades show them to be counter rotating engines! This is a nice one, congratulation for it!!!

Best regards

Gabor

Hello Gabor,

thank you (and Tom as well) for this good summary of points on the new MiG-25.

A lot of work to do (as I know for some weeks by myself - as I try to convert a very-early-25 from this kit).

I am sure, you would not shock all the other modellers with too much points, but forgive me to add another shortcoming, which is tricky to correct.

The exhaust nozzles of all MiG-25 are directed very slight inwards AND upwards (in comparison to the longitudinal axis of the big bird).

I think, to fit a little bit plastic to the lower fuselage end, will solve that target.

Here is a photograph (taken in the early 90s of a MiG-25 RBs), showing the upward-angel of the nozzle (for the freaks: pay attention to the downwards lowerable ground-touch-device "finger" in the lower fin - only left side):

Happy modelling

Andreas88

Edited February 2, 2014 by Andreas88

[Andreas88]

Gabor and H-or-M,

Thanks for taking the time to make such a list. It's a great resource.

I test-fit the Fru-Fru models P/PD/PDS/PU/RU Resin Exhausts (48-013) on the new kit taped together, and her's the result:

The kit's exhaust trunking will require some sanding to fit, but the resin nozzles fit to the fuselage really well.

Hi fj55Mike,

I bought the FruFru exhausts some years ago, and found them not so good. Before something will come from the eastern part of Europe, I quote for the click2detail exhaust nozzles. These are 3D printed parts (the long-feathered nozzles are offered as well), that means:

BOTH burner cans, incl. outer, inner feather-rings (with actuators), the middle junktion, the aft flat-wall burner pipe and the forward wave-structured burner pipe WITH the flame-holder-rings (dome -correct- in flight-direction!) . . . comes as ONE PART.

Here are two photographs of that fine product (second showes the separate engine final-fan clicked in front of the flame-holder dome):

Happy modelling / ordering / waiting . . . ?!

Andreas88

[sharkmouth]

I quote for the click2detail exhaust nozzles. These are 3D printed parts (the long-feathered nozzles are offered as well), that means:

BOTH burner cans, incl. outer, inner feather-rings (with actuators), the middle junktion, the aft flat-wall burner pipe and the forward wave-structured burner pipe WITH the flame-holder-rings (dome -correct- in flight-direction!) . . . comes as ONE PART.

Hi Andreas88, have you tried these on the kit? I saw them on Click2Detail but did not order them yet.

Regards,

[Andreas88]

Hi Sharkmouth,

no, the c2d-part does not fit without some preparation of the KH fuselage parts. But this is no big match for a modeller. Here is my solution:

The diameter of the two nozzle openings, the upper and lower fuselage parts are offering, are slightly too big in diameter (around 1,5mm). You can reduce these diameters (and getting the minimal "overlapping" look of the outer fuselage skin) by sanding a little bit off both halfs. As you have to avoid getting two ovals, you have to sand VERY slightly curved, the glueing faces of the halves have to be twisted very light inwards, and finally you have to bend both fuselage parts a little bit in the upper and lower outer quadrant. That guarantees you still have circled openings for the exhaust nozzles (not the very thin red marked sanding area):

After that, two little jobs in sanding down the KH positioning spar, and the fin basis inner face a little bit, have to be done to give the massive c2d burner cans enough room, and the c2d part fits good. (in the last row, to the right, I simulate the area (in red) which has to be added for the correct slight "upward" looking position of the MiG-25 nozzles:

Happy modelling

Andreas88

[ReccePhreak]

Fascinating thread!

I was considering either getting the kitty Hawk MiG-25PD/PDS kit and converting it to a recce model, or waiting to see if Kitty Hawk will issue a "stock" MiG-25R or MiG-25RB. Now I really don't know what to do.

Larry