Mig-17 matching after-market decals to suitable 1/72 kit

[MigModeller]

Hi all

 

Print Scale do  attractive decals for Mig-17 without mentioning the exact variant they are destined for.

https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/PSL72008

Please any recommendations for a Mig-17 kit in 1/72 scale?

In particular the Egyptian version?

 

Are there any pics on the internet that will assist?

 

Thanks in anticipation.

M.M.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi M.M.

Those guys at Hannants got it wrong, those green-white-black roundels with three red stars are actually for Syria. Cheers

Jure

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi!

Syrian MiG is one of two MiG-17Fs, which got lost and whose pilots had been tricked by Arab speaking Israeli flight controllers into landing on Israeli airstrip. However, decals represent previous Syrian national markings which had been, by the time of the incident, long since replaced by red-white-black roundels of United Arab Republic. On following link you will find one of the photos of the actual aircraft, now in IAF museum:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gerrit_kok_collection/16161816268

There is plenty more photos and colour profiles on the web, just type something like ˝Syria MiG-17 1033 Israel˝ into your browser. Cheers

Jure

[KRK4m]

Egypt (and Syria too) have used both the mainstream (MiG-15 nose/afterburner tail) MiG-17F and all-weather MiG-17PF. Regardless of the variant you'd like to build the AZ MiG-17s (both noses, six boxings so far) are the only 72nd scale Frescos worth bothering with.

Avoid both Hasegawa and (old) KzP kits that are out of scale and shape. Dragon/Italeri MiG-17F is a little better, but far behind the AZ (and there's no PF-nose by Italeri or Dragon).

Cheers

Michael

[Procopius]

13 minutes ago, KRK4m said:

Dragon/Italeri MiG-17F is a little better, but far behind the AZ (and there's no PF-nose by Italeri or Dragon).

 

Awww, dammit, really?

[charlie_c67]

Aren't Trumpeter coming out with one soon as well?

[RAGATIGER]

Hi there

 

Please notice that the AZ model kits also have PF issue

 

 

 

Best modeling

 

Armando

[Trenton guy]

The AZ kit is the way to go, but there does seem to be a problem. Based on most published dimensions and the original Detail and scale plans (published in D&S #1) the AZ kit is over span. The Dragon span is just right--a case for cross kitting. Both may have slight wing sweep errors but nothing that serious, in my view. Why is a fully accurate MiG-17 the impossible dream. Come on Eduard!!

 

ps. I believe the Trumpeter plan is for a MiG-19,sorely needed as well.

[chris57]

Mig 17/Lim 5 decals I have accumulated:-

HDL 72-030 Fresco A,  Soviet, East German, Mongolian, Royal Afghan, Iraqi

        72-035 Fresco C/Lim 5 Polish x2, Egyptian x2, Israeli, Angolan

Decals Carpena (Colarado) 72-43 Mig 17F Madagascar, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola

                                             72-44 Mig 17F Moroccan, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Soviet, Polish. Mig 17PF Soviet

Blue Rider                          BR219 Mig 17F Albania

DP Casper                         72-013 Mig 17F Syria, United Arab, Mig 17PF United Arab

Kanga                                72-020 Mig 17PF Soviet, Algeria, Mongolia, Syria, Iraq

[Aardvark]

22 hours ago, Procopius said:

 

Awww, dammit, really?

Actually, nobody is perfect!
(MiG-17 Bilek (Dragon) vs AZ model. Yes the text in Russian, but images are clear also without the translation!)

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/3811-sravnitelnyjj-obzor-mig-17-Bilek-i-AZmodel-1-72.html 

B.R.

Serge

[AMB]

I have a Dragon MiG-17F kit and the Hi-Decal 72-030 decal sheet with Soviet, East German, Mongolian, Royal Afghan and Iraqi markings available. PM me if you are interested? 

[Jacarre]

 

Post error

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Jacarre
Post error

[Jacarre]

I have some doubts in respect of the accuracy of the AZ offering. The russian forum has a great analysis in the Aadvark's link:

 

 

The fuselage appears to much long and a little wide and the vertical surfaces are more larger than this drawing

 

 

The wings are more larger, but this is workable in my humble opinion.

The Dragon offering fuselage is more shorter tha drawing and the fuselage is a little too narrow

 

 

Yeah, is another version (without afterburner, Dragon makes two versions) but is a good reference.

Anyone has more info about dimensions of the kit and the real deal?

 

Regards,

Javier

 

[Aardvark]

On 18.11.2016 at 0:13 AM, Jacarre said:

Anyone has more info about dimensions of the kit and the real deal?

Regards,

Javier

 

Info about dimensions of the real deal:

 

Link* for download in format "djvu" :

https://yadi.sk/d/HkzMJ4JHNvWLp

 

B.R.

Serge

____________________

*-This technical edition intended for pilots and technicians of the real plane therefore it can't be considered as the commercial edition. Copyright of this edition if was that belonged to the USSR which is absent any more.

[Jacarre]

On 19-11-2016 at 1:24 PM, Aardvark said:

Info about dimensions of the real deal:

 

Link* for download in format "djvu" :

https://yadi.sk/d/HkzMJ4JHNvWLp

 

B.R.

Serge

____________________

*-This technical edition intended for pilots and technicians of the real plane therefore it can't be considered as the commercial edition. Copyright of this edition if was that belonged to the USSR which is absent any more.

 

Thanks Serge, in regards of this dimensions, which one is more accurate? Dragon or AZ?

 

Regards.,

Javier

[KRK4m]

Some 30 years ago, when I was heading the Polish Aviation Museum at Krakow, the well-known Polish researcher and modeller Marian Gibas asked me about the possibility of making definitive scale drawings of MiG-15 and -17 using the plethora of specimen (Soviet-, Czech- and Polish-built) kept within the museum collection. At last I managed to contact him and here are the results. The drawings are scanned from the originals (1:24) scaled to 1:72nd scale. If you copy and print them in this size they should be exactly 1:72 (MiG-15 span and length should be 140 mm, MiG-17F length should be 154 mm and wing span 134 mm). 

 

 

Putting the Eduard MiG-15 against these drawings show only one minor fault - the MiG-15bis (i.e. later ones, finned, not flush-fitting) underwing fuel tanks are just 5% undersized. I had not measured Airfix ones, but these offered by Hobby Boss do fit spot-on.

Unfortunately I don't have the Dragon/Italeri MiG-17 in my stash*, but the AZ MiG-17F looks decent. The only faults are: fuselage 3mm too long (forward of the split frame it should be identical to MiG-15, here it's 2mm too long between the canopy tail and the split frame and 1 mm between the split frame and fin leading edge), too pointed wing trailing edge outer ends (the radius of curvature is too small, you can correct it with a file), opposite fault at tailplane trailing edge outer end (here the radius is too big, they should be more pointed, but I can live with this) and (AGAIN :)) undersized auxiliary fuel tanks. Both wing and tailplane (span, sweep, chord and area-wise) are correct.

Note that MiG-17F and -17PF do differ not only in front fuselage and windshield area. Also the fin panelling and rear underfuselage keel are different.

In my opinion the drawings linked by Aardvark show MiG-17 fin height being identical to MiG-15. In reality - although having the same sweep (a fact that most MiG-15 kit manufacturers had ignored in the past) - they do differ 95 mm in height above the tailplane.

Cheers

Michael

 

* look at the 2019 posts down in the same topic

Edited February 2, 2020 by KRK4m
pictures added again

[Aardvark]

On 08.12.2016 at 0:27 AM, Jacarre said:

 

Thanks Serge, in regards of this dimensions, which one is more accurate? Dragon or AZ?

 

Regards.,

Javier

I don't know because I have no Dragon any more, and AZ-models* not yet!😋

В.R.

Serge

P.S.

 Javier, but if you so want to make model MiG-17, it is:

http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/avia/after_1950/mig-17f/

http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/avia/after_1950/m-17/

http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_9857.html

possible will help you?😉

 

______________________________

*-however probably will also not be though the model is from me within walking distance in our local model shop. Just MiG-17 is not that plane which will remain only in models from the Dragon and AZ -models! Somebody will make high-quality model MiG-17 sooner or later! So why to spend money for low-quality?

[John Thompson]

Excellent drawings, Michael - thank you for sharing them here! There's always an element of suspicion regarding accuracy of any drawing, but knowing the origin and author of these ones makes them golden, in my book!

 

John

[Jacarre]

On 15-01-2017 at 0:22 PM, KRK4m said:

Some 30 years ago, when I was heading the Polish Aviation Museum at Krakow, the well-known Polish researcher and modeller Marian Gibas asked me about the possibility of making definitive scale drawings of MiG-15 and -17 using the plethora of specimen (Soviet-, Czech- and Polish-built) kept within the museum collection. At last I managed to contact him and here are the results. The drawings are scanned from the originals (1:24) scaled to 1:72nd scale. If you copy and print them in this size they should be exactly 1:72 (MiG-15 span and length should be 140 mm, MiG-17F length should be 154 mm and wing span 134 mm). 

Putting the Eduard MiG-15 against these drawings show only one minor fault - the MiG-15bis (i.e. later ones, finned, not flush-fitting) underwing fuel tanks are just 5% undersized. I had not measured Airfix ones, but these offered by Hobby Boss do fit spot-on.

Unfortunately I don't have the Dragon/Italeri MiG-17 in my stash, but the AZ MiG-17F looks decent. The only faults are: fuselage 3mm too long (forward of the split frame it should be identical to MiG-15, here it's 2mm too long between the canopy tail and the split frame and 1 mm between the split frame and fin leading edge), too pointed wing trailing edge outer ends (the radius of curvature is too small, you can correct it with a file), opposite fault at tailplane trailing edge outer end (here the radius is too big, they should be more pointed, but I can live with this) and (AGAIN :)) undersized auxiliary fuel tanks. Both wing and tailplane (span, sweep, chord and area-wise) are correct.

Note that MiG-17F and -17PF do differ not only in front fuselage and windshield area. Also the fin panelling and rear underfuselage keel are different.

In my opinion the drawings linked by Aardvark show MiG-17 fin height being identical to MiG-15. In reality - although having the same sweep (a fact that most MiG-15 kit manufacturers had ignored in the past) - they do differ 95 mm in height above the tailplane.

Cheers

Michael

 

Very interesting Michael. With my friend Fernando of my club - IPMS Chile - we do the exercise of comparing the front fuselaje areas of a Eduard MIG-15 with AZ and Dragon MIG-17 renditions. I dont have the measures here, but the most alarming thing is the fuselage width... it has more than a millimeter of difference between AZ and Dragon. In regard to Eduard, the Dragon fuselage is 0.5 mm more narrower than Eduard one, and AZ fuselage has a width 0.5 more bigger than the Eduard one! I will send you the exact measures in the next post.

 

Regards.,

Javier

[Jacarre]

Michael, i have taked some measurents of my Dragon and AZ Kits. I hope i hadn't commit any mistake:

 

Distance between the canopy tail and the split frame:

AZ 20mm
Dragon 18

 

Distance between the split frame and fin leading edge:
AZ 12mm
Dragon 13 mm

 

And this is very interesting:
Fuselage height at canopy tail:
AZ 20mm
Dragon 18

 

Nose intake ring width at the base:
AZ 14 mm

Dragon 14mm

 

Nose intake ring internal width:

AZ 10mm

Dragon 10mm

 

Regards.,

Javier

[KRK4m]

23 hours ago, Jacarre said:

Michael, i have taked some measurents of my Dragon and AZ Kits. I hope i hadn't commit any mistake:

 

Distance between the canopy tail and the split frame:

AZ 20mm, Dragon 18  should be 13, my AZ is 15

 

Distance between the split frame and fin leading edge:
AZ 12mm, Dragon 13 mm  should be 38, my AZ is 39

 

And this is very interesting: fuselage height at canopy tail:
AZ 20mm, Dragon 18  should be 20

 

Nose intake ring width at the base:
AZ 14 mm, Dragon 14mm  spot on

 

Nose intake ring internal width:

AZ 10mm, Dragon 10mm   spot on

 

Regards.,

Javier

 

Javier, I'm afraid you had

Nevertheless AZ looks better in this comparison

Cheers

Michael

[Jacarre]

29 minutes ago, KRK4m said:

 

Javier, I'm afraid you had

Nevertheless AZ looks better in this comparison

Cheers

Michael

 

Ohhh i suspect it haha.... Could you show me with a pic the canopy tail and split frames points in AZ kit please? I would like to take again the measurements in my examples, and to add vertical surfaces chord.

 

In a preliminary basis, we could say that the Dragon fuselaje is too narrow, and AZ fuselaje is too long... But i'm unsure about vertical surfaces.

 

Here is some measures from the MIG-17's flight manual... are ok with your drawings?

 

 

 

 

Regards.,

Javier

Edited January 20, 2017 by Jacarre

[KRK4m]

On 20.01.2017 at 10:46 PM, Jacarre said:

Ohhh i suspect it haha.... Could you show me with a pic the canopy tail and split frames points in AZ kit please? I would like to take again the measurements in my examples, and to add vertical surfaces chord.

 

In a preliminary basis, we could say that the Dragon fuselaje is too narrow, and AZ fuselaje is too long... But i'm unsure about vertical surfaces.

 

Here is some measures from the MIG-17's flight manual... are ok with your drawings?

 

The method of applying pictures to the BM forum is so troublesome, that I'll try to use different solution. The split frame is called "shp(angout) No 13" on the Russian manual you use. The distance from the 13th fuselage frame and air intake front lip (extreme front fuselage) in all MiG-15s and -17/-17F should be 4085 mm (according to the manual), which makes 56.7mm in 1/72. Both drawings by Marian Gibas (-15 and -17F) show 56.7mm, Eduard MiG-15 measures 57.0mm that is almost spot-on, while the AZ MiG-17F features 60.8mm - much too long. Some 2.4mm of this extra length is put behind the cockpit, but the intake ring itself is also 1.7mm too long - it's chord should be only 3.0mm.

The span given by the manual equals 9600 mm while most modern sources (and Gibas drawings) give 9628 mm - the difference of 0.4mm in scale is hardly noticeable.

The total length of 11 264 mm stated in the Russian manual is confirmed by the Gibas drawings (-17PF is exactly 418 mm longer, making it 11 682 mm o/a and 4503 mm forward of the 13th frame). This makes 156.4mm in the 72nd scale and 99.7mm (7179 mm full size) behind the split frame. Mind that in all the -17s the rearmost point is the tailplane trailing edge, located some 1.5mm (110mm in real bird) behind the rudder trailing edge extreme point. Thus the fuselage behind the 13th frame (including vertical tail) should be 98.2mm long with AZ kit (measuring 98.8mm) being almost perfect.

Dragon fuselage is too slim for sure, but this is not ONLY AZ, which is too long. Especially when 1.7mm of this AZ extra length is easily corrected by thinning the intake ring.

Hope it helps

Cheers

Michael

[AaCee26]

On 15.1.2017 at 5:22 PM, KRK4m said:

Some 30 years ago, when I was heading the Polish Aviation Museum at Krakow, the well-known Polish researcher and modeller Marian Gibas asked me about the possibility of making definitive scale drawings of MiG-15 and -17 using the plethora of specimen (Soviet-, Czech- and Polish-built) kept within the museum collection. At last I managed to contact him and here are the results. The drawings are scanned from the originals (1:24) scaled to 1:72nd scale. If you copy and print them in this size they should be exactly 1:72 (MiG-15 span and length should be 140 mm, MiG-17F length should be 154 mm and wing span 134 mm). 

 

Putting the Eduard MiG-15 against these drawings show only one minor fault - the MiG-15bis (i.e. later ones, finned, not flush-fitting) underwing fuel tanks are just 5% undersized. I had not measured Airfix ones, but these offered by Hobby Boss do fit spot-on.

Unfortunately I don't have the Dragon/Italeri MiG-17 in my stash, but the AZ MiG-17F looks decent. The only faults are: fuselage 3mm too long (forward of the split frame it should be identical to MiG-15, here it's 2mm too long between the canopy tail and the split frame and 1 mm between the split frame and fin leading edge), too pointed wing trailing edge outer ends (the radius of curvature is too small, you can correct it with a file), opposite fault at tailplane trailing edge outer end (here the radius is too big, they should be more pointed, but I can live with this) and (AGAIN :)) undersized auxiliary fuel tanks. Both wing and tailplane (span, sweep, chord and area-wise) are correct.

Note that MiG-17F and -17PF do differ not only in front fuselage and windshield area. Also the fin panelling and rear underfuselage keel are different.

In my opinion the drawings linked by Aardvark show MiG-17 fin height being identical to MiG-15. In reality - although having the same sweep (a fact that most MiG-15 kit manufacturers had ignored in the past) - they do differ 95 mm in height above the tailplane.

Cheers

Michael

Hi Michael!

Really plenty of thanks of these wonderful drawings for you to made Mr. Gibas possible to create these and both of you to make them available for modelling community!

Cheers,

AaCee

[Jacarre]

On 22-01-2017 at 9:13 AM, KRK4m said:

 

The method of applying pictures to the BM forum is so troublesome, that I'll try to use different solution. The split frame is called "shp(angout) No 13" on the Russian manual you use. The distance from the 13th fuselage frame and air intake front lip (extreme front fuselage) in all MiG-15s and -17/-17F should be 4085 mm (according to the manual), which makes 56.7mm in 1/72. Both drawings by Marian Gibas (-15 and -17F) show 56.7mm, Eduard MiG-15 measures 57.0mm that is almost spot-on, while the AZ MiG-17F features 60.8mm - much too long. Some 2.4mm of this extra length is put behind the cockpit, but the intake ring itself is also 1.7mm too long - it's chord should be only 3.0mm.

The span given by the manual equals 9600 mm while most modern sources (and Gibas drawings) give 9628 mm - the difference of 0.4mm in scale is hardly noticeable.

The total length of 11 264 mm stated in the Russian manual is confirmed by the Gibas drawings (-17PF is exactly 418 mm longer, making it 11 682 mm o/a and 4503 mm forward of the 13th frame). This makes 156.4mm in the 72nd scale and 99.7mm (7179 mm full size) behind the split frame. Mind that in all the -17s the rearmost point is the tailplane trailing edge, located some 1.5mm (110mm in real bird) behind the rudder trailing edge extreme point. Thus the fuselage behind the 13th frame (including vertical tail) should be 98.2mm long with AZ kit (measuring 98.8mm) being almost perfect.

Dragon fuselage is too slim for sure, but this is not ONLY AZ, which is too long. Especially when 1.7mm of this AZ extra length is easily corrected by thinning the intake ring.

Hope it helps

Cheers

Michael

 Thanks a lot Michael! The vertical stabilizer's and wing chords are ok the same that fuselage width/heigth and rear fuselage lenght?

 

Regards.,

Javier