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. :)

172flogger

1/72 - MiG-21 Fishbed by Eduard

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

What is the problem of printing a separate sheet of paper with the correct operation? Nobody insures against such mistakes! I had Hasegawa Ki-61 in 1/72, there was also an error in the instructions. Hasegawa put into the model a separate instruction the size of two match boxes where only this operation was depicted separately. But she was portrayed correctly!

 

B.R.

Serge

Hi Serge,

 

I dont know if Eduard is aware at all of this mistake. Have no idea what they will do, if anything at all. It could be possible to add a small sheet or what ever  . . .

I feel that Eduard is cursed with the MiG-21 kits main gear, remember that on 48th scale kit the trapeze system to turn the wheel hubs into the bay was completely forgotten. As an adjustment it was latter added but only a childish drawing was made to illustrate the correction. Now this with the covers. . .

 

While some people could think that my post was an attack of the new kit, in fact I just wanted to draw attention to the mistake in the instruction sheet and help those who will be building the kit to get it right. 

 

This mistake on the instruction sheet is absolutely normal and anyone can make it. It was just strange that the 2 Eduard modellers did not notice it when building the very first kits.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, ya-gabor said:

 It was just strange that the 2 Eduard modellers did not notice it when building the very first kits.

Let's say the Czechs are very disciplined and follow thoroughly instructions. Case closed 😊

Edited by Laurent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ya-gabor said:

While some people could think that my post was an attack of the new kit, in fact I just wanted to draw attention to the mistake in the instruction sheet and help those who will be building the kit to get it right

Gabor, hi!

It's normally situation.  For Eduard, the reputation of high-quality products was fixed. But when "WOOOOOW" is expected, and in the end, the output is a modeller "ahhh"... what else can I say? There is a small mistake, there is a misprint, there is problem e.t.c...... in the end many small problems create the impression of a poor product.

 

B.w. I looked in the detail of the fairing of the alcohol tank. It is cast together with the hood cover. With this design details you can have any high-tech injection molding thermoplastic machine, any moulds ... you can never mould this detail with thin ebge! This is either a conscious simplification, or not the highest qualification of the designer.

 

1 hour ago, Laurent said:

Let's say the Czechs are very disciplined and follow thoroughly instructions. Case closed 😊

I agree about Czech's but

Russians on this subject have a modern folkler:

 

- Why you have made it?
- Mother has told!
- If mother tells you to shoot oneself, you will make it too?

Instructions - instructions, but Gábor won't allow to tell lies, even mistakes and typos occur in technical documentation of planes in spite of the fact that they were read by editors, proofreaders and them to sign special persons before the press. Yes, these mistakes found, corrected them, people who made these mistakes were deprived by awards and perhaps fired, but these mistakes were all the same made! These are people, people can be mistaken. Therefore it is desirable to compare instructions to reality and common sense.

 

B.R.

Serge

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

B.w. I looked in the detail of the fairing of the alcohol tank. It is cast together with the hood cover. With this design details you can have any high-tech injection molding thermoplastic machine, any moulds ... you can never mould this detail with thin ebge! This is either a conscious simplification, or not the highest qualification of the designer.

 

B.R.

Serge

Hi Serge,

 

Remember this is a 72nd scale kit. The set already has some small parts, I dont think they wanted to add even more parts and increase the price further. Yes, if it was made separately then it could have been thinner. In its present form I would say it takes 3-4 minutes and a new No.11 scalpel blade to make it better. 

 

Earlier comparison was made with some really small parts in the amazing Modelsvit MiG-21F kit. Yes it is possible to do it even with injection moulding but as it was already discussed different technologies and the Eduard and Modelsvit kits are for different markets and buyers.

 

I dont think the alcohol bottle cover is any problem at all! It is good as it is (in this scale). Good to see that a small detail was added to the forward radio compartment cover. One should note that it is not present on all MF's.

 

Best regards

Gabor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

Why?

 

Eduard has found a formula that obviously works for them: well-moulded plastic kits that can be built with as little or as much aftermarket enhancement as the builder desires. The aren't doing anything unethical or anticompetitive so it's a bit ridiculous to criticize Eduard's business model based on what you think they should be doing.In the end, if they don't make money they'll go out of business. 

 

 

Because kit companies should be striving to get their plastic kits as good as possible.   Most people prefer plastic over resin and people mainly use resin if the plastic parts aren't detailed enough.   That's why companies like Special Hobby are improving their mould making and bringing out more and more kits made entirely of plastic.   If a kit has a choice of a resin part and a plastic part that have the same amount of detail then most people will use the plastic part as it's easier and better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SeaVenom said:

   If a kit has a choice of a resin part and a plastic part that have the same amount of detail then most people will use the plastic part as it's easier and better.

Except plastic parts can't currently get the same finesse of smaller details that resin does due to production limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, charlie_c67 said:

Except plastic parts can't currently get the same finesse of smaller details that resin does due to production limitations.

 

 

That would appear to be the case but I suppose it all boils down to whether Eduard or any other companies are intentionally simplifying plastic parts when they could do a lot better.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They brought a pallet or two of MiG-21MF kits with them to Moson - and they all disappeared in a few hours on Saturday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few bits regarding future MF releases and other MiG-21 versions, taken from the current issue of Eduard Info + various posts in Czech forums.

 

  • MF Royal Class in July, will contain sprues for both "Interceptor" and "Fighter Bomber", ie. both Gorky and Znamya Truda variants. 12 paint schemes. Will also contains some brassins, poster picture and some kind of pin.
  • MF "Fighter Bomber" (Znamya Truda) Profipack in September. 5 paints schemes -- Czech, Slovak, Vietnamese and two others (will be chosen from Soviet/Russian, Egyptian and Iraqi aircraft).
  • During 2019: Weekend editions, first limited edition box -- MF (1/72 version of the 1/48 limited edition kit focused on Czechoslovak/Czech/Slovak Fishbeds).
  • End of 2019: PF + PFM Profipacks
  • R will be done together with PF and PFM (from modelforum.cz)
  • bis/SMT will be made as a separate subproject, in unspecified later time (from modelforum.cz)
  • Regarding F/F-13/UM, the answer was "We will make them one day." (from modelforum.cz)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which MF boxing I'm gonna need for the RF and the Lancer C because I'm not too fond of the basic MF version?

 

And since Bison/Mig-21-93 are out of the equation,someone will ever make a conversion or I will be eternally stuck with Eastern Express/Condor 21-93?

 

Luigi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Silverkite said:

And since Bison/Mig-21-93 are out of the equation,someone will ever make a conversion or I will be eternally stuck with Eastern Express/Condor 21-93?

I share your disappointment. Condor just took their bis and added some parts. The problem is that the -93/UPG windscreen wraps around the nose like a MiG-29 windscreen so new fuselage halves are required. Cost is too high, resin conversion wouldn't be straightforward. In others words, we're doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silverkite said:

So which MF boxing I'm gonna need for the RF and the Lancer C because I'm not too fond of the basic MF version?

Based on the list here (scroll to the end of the article):

http://www.aripi-argintii.ro/aparatdezbor.php?p=131

almost all of the MiG-21 converted to LanceR C were of the MF-75 version. And from the following article it would appear they were made at the Gorky plant:

http://aviatia.net/romanian-mig-21/

Quote

The last fighter version purchased by the RoAF was the MiG-21 MF (izdeliye 96F). It came in two varieties: the first, totalling 36 built at MMZ No. 30 ‘Znamya Truda’ in Moscow, was the standard model which made its debut with the RoAF in 1972; the second (35 delivered) was built at zavod 21 imeni Sergo Orzhonikidze in Gor’kiy from 1975 onwards and was given the local designation MiG-21 MF-75 as it incorpo­rated the cockpit details of the new MiG-21bis.

Now it`s just a matter of time before someone comes along to contradict these, right? :D

 

Btw, if you`re interested in making a LanceR and don`t necessarily fancy scratch-building all the elements and printing your own decals (the RV ones have several accuracy issues apparently) it might be worth waiting a bit. Based on a post from a Romanian forum, the guys from Icaerodesign who made the LanceR conversion set for Eduard`s 1/48 MiG-21 kit are considering (as opposed to being already committed to it) a 1/72 set too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Laurent said:

I share your disappointment. Condor just took their bis and added some parts. The problem is that the -93/UPG windscreen wraps around the nose like a MiG-29 windscreen so new fuselage halves are required. Cost is too high, resin conversion wouldn't be straightforward. In others words, we're doomed.

 

I can hope for maybe Modelsvit to fill whatever is still lacking on the Mig-21 prototype/demonstrator types, fixing the windscreen doesn't seem to be that difficult, but reshaping the fuselage sides for the flare dispensers IS cause I can't find clear fuselage pics showing the contours of it, also the bubble canopy will be a problem

 

21 hours ago, Fin said:

Based on the list here (scroll to the end of the article):

http://www.aripi-argintii.ro/aparatdezbor.php?p=131

almost all of the MiG-21 converted to LanceR C were of the MF-75 version. And from the following article it would appear they were made at the Gorky plant:

http://aviatia.net/romanian-mig-21/

Now it`s just a matter of time before someone comes along to contradict these, right? :D

 

Btw, if you`re interested in making a LanceR and don`t necessarily fancy scratch-building all the elements and printing your own decals (the RV ones have several accuracy issues apparently) it might be worth waiting a bit. Based on a post from a Romanian forum, the guys from Icaerodesign who made the LanceR conversion set for Eduard`s 1/48 MiG-21 kit are considering (as opposed to being already committed to it) a 1/72 set too.

 

Thanks Fin, I bought RV Lancer twice, first time from a well know "that bay" seller, asked him if both Mig-21R and Lancer C had all parts since in the last order he shipped me an RV Mig-23 MLD without the stencils and as soon he told me "yep" the order was in.

 

Turns out that all Lancer bits were missing, waited for a month as he said he was getting some newer ones with spare parts but I failed to receive anything, had to sell it back and then a month ago I bought a newer one from a different seller,all bits are luckily where there so it's on the wait station, I will also wait for Icaerodesign and their conversion as I'm still waiting for an F-15 S/MTD conversion even tough I probably have anything needed to start one minus clear pics of those aerodynamic plugs placed above engine's nacelle

 

Luigi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Fin said:

Based on the list here (scroll to the end of the article):

http://www.aripi-argintii.ro/aparatdezbor.php?p=131

almost all of the MiG-21 converted to LanceR C were of the MF-75 version. And from the following article it would appear they were made at the Gorky plant:

http://aviatia.net/romanian-mig-21/

Now it`s just a matter of time before someone comes along to contradict these, right? :D

 

Btw, if you`re interested in making a LanceR and don`t necessarily fancy scratch-building all the elements and printing your own decals (the RV ones have several accuracy issues apparently) it might be worth waiting a bit. Based on a post from a Romanian forum, the guys from Icaerodesign who made the LanceR conversion set for Eduard`s 1/48 MiG-21 kit are considering (as opposed to being already committed to it) a 1/72 set too.

Dear Fin,

you're right. All MF-75 are Gorky produced planes. All MIG-21MF in RV Aircrafts kit 72037 MIG-21 Lancer-C are Gorky produced aircraft and contrary to the instructions should have the wings without the small panels with rounded edges. Or otherwise: Eduards kit shown in post #208 is the right base for a Lancer-C. If you have access to the serial numbers of a specific aircraft: Moscow build aircraft have 6-digit serials, Gorky 8-digit serials. See my post in the Cold War section: "1/72 MIG-21MF/bis upper wing panel question".

What puzzles me now: In the first link you provided, all Lancer-C serail numbers are 8-digit, but two are described just as MF's. I pray for a typing error ...

 

Martin

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MVW said:

What puzzles me now: In the first link you provided, all Lancer-C serail numbers are 8-digit, but two are described just as MF's. I pray for a typing error ...

Cannot confirm the crashed no. 6413 (which in aviation-safety.net record of its crash is listed as MF-75), but no. 9611 seems to have the oval panels on the upper surface of its wings. See https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/648238/9611-romania-air-force-mikoyan-gurevich-mig-21-lancer-c/ and compare with no. 6824 which clearly is MF-75 https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/786418/6824-romania-air-force-mikoyan-gurevich-mig-21-lancer-c/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JBr said:

Cannot confirm the crashed no. 6413 (which in aviation-safety.net record of its crash is listed as MF-75), but no. 9611 seems to have the oval panels on the upper surface of its wings. See https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/648238/9611-romania-air-force-mikoyan-gurevich-mig-21-lancer-c/ and compare with no. 6824 which clearly is MF-75 https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/786418/6824-romania-air-force-mikoyan-gurevich-mig-21-lancer-c/ 

According  «Mikoyan MIG-21», Midland Publishing 2008, ISBN 978 1 85780 257 3:

6413 is a MF-75 with serial 96006413 (8-digit - Gorky)

9611 is a MF with serial 969611 (6-digit - Moscow)

6824 is a MF-75 with serial 96006824 (8-digit - Gorky)

So it makes sense: the Moscow built MF have the oval panels on their upper wings, the Gorky MF-75 not. I'm pretty sure beside some cockpit similarities the MF-75 actually had also the wing of  the bis version.

 

Regards,

 

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The oval panel on top of the wing is an inspection panel for the fuel tank. It is not part of the original Type 96 (MF) design, it was a Buletin conversion and introduced only later.

Also such design change implemented on most MF’s is a series of reinforcement plates to the wing tip, top and underside as well as several other smaller reinforcements around the wing outer 1/3.

 

Also the flaps received reinforcements. Only a general look to these plates was given, in real life there are no two identical ones. On some aircraft even the top surface of the flap had it. It all depended on damage assessment of aircraft during overhaul (after aircraft arrived in the factory this was the most important part of the work which influenced all the work later to be carried out on it), and based on this some aircraft received (or not) the flap enforcement “plates” but it could have been applied in an asymmetrical form (just on one side, differing in size and shape, on top just on one side and all possible permutations of this . . .).

The horizontal stabilizers also had reinforcement plates added from the outside.

 

All this was true of the “real” Type 96 aircraft produced in Moscow.  The Gorkiy factory produced Type 96 ( and I am intentionally not using the MF-75 identification as such type identity NEVER existed by the Soviet manufacturer, it was only a local designation, similar to the GDR only local designation of SAU for the MiG-21 bis or Hungarian 75AP).

 

So the Gorkiy factory produced last MF’s have received the so called “bis” wings which differed in design and metals used exactly to reinforce the structure (from the word GO and internally), to correct the weakness of the previous MF’s.  There was no need on “bis” wings for outer reinforcement.

It is interesting to see that on 6824 there are wing tip reinforcements!

 

A more positive identification of the Gorkiy produced Type 96 airframes is the fuselage itself and in particular the underside!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Gorkiy manufactured Type 96 did find their way into Soviet AF units. The few know pieces served only in secondary, tertiary units, like training schools or one at a live missile range where it was used by foreign pilots for whom it did not differ from the home used MiG-21MF airframes/cockpits. In the early days foreign air forces used to flyover their own aircraft for live missile firing, but in the later years local airframes were used. Think of it, it was a "bit" cheaper to get the pilots and technicians to the Soviet location than the logistics of flying a squadron over.

 

I seen two such aircraft with big red stars, one in overall grey and the other in camo.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a pair ready for me at my LHS next tuesday!

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2018 at 4:25 PM, SeaVenom said:

 

 

Because kit companies should be striving to get their plastic kits as good as possible.   Most people prefer plastic over resin and people mainly use resin if the plastic parts aren't detailed enough.   That's why companies like Special Hobby are improving their mould making and bringing out more and more kits made entirely of plastic.   If a kit has a choice of a resin part and a plastic part that have the same amount of detail then most people will use the plastic part as it's easier and better.

First and foremost, if they expect to survive long term, model companies strive to make money. There's nothing wrong with this, it's how they generate the resources to pay their employees and hopefully have some left over to invest in new kits. There is a long list of model companies that no longer exist because they failed to achieve this. If you don't like how Eduard presents their kits, then nobody is forcing you to buy them. However, when I look at what Eduard provide in the box, whether it's a ProfiPack kit or the more basic Weekend Editions they provide phenomenal value for the price; certainly more so than some of the big brands from China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The kit is interesting. It has some very high quality features and at the same time some areas which are say the least “interesting”. All this somewhere deep inside have the intention of the producer to encourage you to buy aftermarkets of their own production. True enough it is a business strategy and one can argue with it but there is not much point. This is what keeps the company alive, which at the very end boils down as a good news to us all when we get more and more kits from them.

 

I find the cockpit of the original MiG-21MF plastic kit of the highest standard which needs just paint. It has some fantastic details! Had a look at photos of our own MF’s and all the switches and knobs are there! One or two in a different position but apart from that it is all there. What more can a resin cockpit give? If you take into account that all the side walls are separate parts in the plastic kit and you have an unobstructed possibility to paint it in comparison with an “all-in” one piece resin cockpit where it is impossible to get a brush into the very constricted areas. I definitely stay with the plastic parts.

 

Same goes for the wheels. The resin parts don’t give that much extra which would validate buying them. With 15 minutes modelling work on the original plastic parts can result in just as good wheels.  

 

On the other hand the plastic engine exhaust is so “clumsy” with thick trailing edges that it cries for a resin replacement. If one was shown separately the cockpit and the exhaust ring then he would say that it is not the same manufacturer, not the same kit.

I have to say that the resin engine set by the manufacturer is superb with sharp edges that I haven’t seen from Eduard in years! They could have changed resin cast technology. It could be a good news for the coming front air brakes but having seen the CAD images I fear that it will once again be an over thick product with extremely thick edges. Hope not, but . . .

 

So basically there is a good plastic which in some areas needs those resin and etched parts but in the end it will be a choice for the modellers. If they want they can replace almost everything with "hi-tech" parts or stay with the original plastic. At least we have a choice.

 

It is interesting that the latest version of the MiG-21MF (the so called Moscow produced Type 96) was out at last weekends IPMS Nymbruk show as part of the Royal Class kit (which has both versions of the MF) and I haven’t seen anything on it from our Czech friends for whom the FIshbed is so close to heart.

    

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×