1/72nd Nanchang Q-5 from Trumpeter

[modelldoc]

Okay,

 

Wikipedia is not the best source, we know that.

 

Wings Palette, the same, all sources from the profile are "unknown" (!!!!)

 

In the book Chinese Aircraft (China's aviation industry since 1951 from Y. Gordon and D. Komissarov  first published 2008 by Hikoki (www.crecy.co.uk) you can find 21 (twenty - one !!!) pages about the Fantan, on all these pages you can't find the words "North Korea".

 

So, it is only a assertion, that, Fantan's are in North Korean serevice, before or just now.

 

That's the reality.

 

modelldoc

[AaCee26]

Hello again,

 

I tried to express myself that I those sources as a gospel. Wikipedia source is Sramble who I take much better face value than many other sources. Of cause problem is the credibility of their sources.

 

I have a couple of bools about Chinese aviation industry, including Chinese one, which I will check when I'm back at home after the new year.

 

I took this question as a challenge to see if it is reality or not.

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[XV107]

On 12/30/2018 at 9:11 PM, modelldoc said:

But the problem is, there are no Fantan's in service with the North Korean AF.

Never I saw a picture from a north korean Fantan, because, there is nothing.

 

modelldoc

With respect, the problem here is that the North Korean spotter community is, for some reason, not that large and certainly rubbish at putting photos online... More seriously, the exceptionally tight hold the DPRK government has over its population means that there is a lot which is not known about the NK forces, at least not in the public domain here (lest sources be compromised). Various RAND reports (some based on classified research for the DoD) note that the Chinese and North Koreans do not report on all arms transfers between the two nations (clearly, this is likely to be one way between the PRC and DPRK), which makes it difficult to show whether the reports of the sale of Q-5s to North Korea were accurate, incorrect assumptions or the result of misinformation. 

 

However, there are some more credible sources than Wikipedia suggesting that the KPAAF has Q-5s 

 

For example, Flight, 29 July-4 Aug 1998, p54, gives a total for the KPAAF of 40 A-5s; this followed on from references in their annual 'World Air Forces' reports (e.g. 29 November 1986, p.74) to the same number of these aircraft, and was still listing this in the 2004 edition. Clearly, the constancy of number of airframes is deeply questionable (no attrition at all in 18 years? For a design of a vintage where attrition was all but inevitable?), but the fact that a credible source, drawing on a number of credible/plausible information sources of its own suggests that we shouldn't automatically dismiss the possibility of the A-5 being in service with the KPAF, particularly when Jane's publications at one point held that there had been a delivery (again of 40 aircraft) in 1982.

On the flip side, the hard evidence is apparently lacking. We're into 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' territory, and if Trumpeter is linked to the PLA/PLAAF, it may be that we have the interesting scenario where the decal scheme offers intelligence pointers as to the validity of some of that information (equally, there may be a suitably qualified intelligence analyst who reads this site thinking 'Yeah, we've actually known this since 1984...')

[modelldoc]

Okay, but when look back, Flight is not ever corect.

 

For example in Flight from 29 November - 5 December 1989 p. 53 they wrote about the East German air force.

Flight wrote, that they have over 50 Yak-18 Max in service, now we know they got out of service in early seventies.

 

KPAAF show in the last years often her equipment, including the Hughes helicopters from the eighties, why not the Q-5,

because, they havn't it.

 

No real picture - Fantan in North Korea is a fake  (for me)

 

Here is a website about the KPAAF, no Fantan there:

 

http://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2013/09/north-korea-and-her-air-force.html

 

modelldoc. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by modelldoc
insert a link

[XV107]

Forgive me -  you're slightly missing my point, but this is because after reading my last, I've missed the point I've not made well enough too...

 

I agree with your view that there isn't sufficient evidence to be certain that the KPAF used/uses (I think the former would apply if at all) the Q-5 (aka A-5 in some sources)

 

Equally, though, what I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't be as absolute in saying Trumpeter have got it absolutely, definitively wrong [insert 'yet again' if so minded...], and that there's no justification for listing the KPAF as a user.

 

Flight may not get everything correct, but there was a sufficient level of plausibility that the KPAF had Q-5s in the 1980s and early 1990s to convince reputable, pre-internet sources including Jane's for a bit (I am not at work and can't look at the array of material from that source which covers the KPAF to ascertain how long Jane's believed this. Flight was no longer including the Q-5 in the KPAF ORBAT by 2008.
 

So we're left with a few possibilities.

 

1. Trumpeter is not alone in getting this wrong; credible sources, informed by er... informed sources were also off-beam (the level of hints dropped to the likes of Flight and Jane's in the past from people who were paid to make very educated guesses on this sort of thing, plus the use of public source US briefing documents, some of which were derived from offices somewhere in the Langley region of Virginia was sufficient to make their published guesstimates or even firm statements pretty credible. I daresay some information obtained came (very) indirectly from intelligence sources in Seoul when it came to the DPRK)

 

2. The KPAF used the Q-5, but retired it (probably earlier than Flight thought). Because of the secrecy in place under Kim Il Sung (it's odd to reflect that the DPRK is a more open society than once it was...), we never got to see any photographs and information was at best sketchy. However, since the Fantan would've represented a fairly notable increase in the striking power of the KPAF, one might have thought that their propaganda people would have been tempted to highlight this.

 

3. If Trumpeter has connections with the PLA - as many businesses do, even if not declared - their representatives reading this thread (via their access to one of our home computers rather than a subscription...) might be quietly chuckling at the fact that they are now confirming that they did, indeed, sell some Q-5s to the North Koreans

 

4. Someone, somewhere, had a bad day at the office and confused their J-5  or their H-5 with their Q-5/A-5 and....

 

5. The KPAF wanted the Q-5 to replace one of their earlier types - probably the H-5? - but did not go through with the procurement. However, while the evidence was convincing enough for Flight and others to publish it, it was - unsurprisingly - incomplete and the failure of the procurement was not known.

I think the point that I'm trying to make is that we can't be sure, for once, that this is yet another Trumpeter research error. Although the evidence for their getting it right is slim - and if interested in accuracy in my models, I'd not be putting the KPAF markings on my Q-5 - I think that the caution for fellow modellers is one of 'caveat whatever-the-Latin-for-modeller-is', since your nicely-built model may turn out to be a what if...

[modelldoc]

Okay, everbody can build this model he likes.

 

But back to the sources;

 

Wikipedia for KPAAF say nothing about the Fantan:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army_Air_and_Anti-Air_Force

 

Chinese manufacturer have only a superficial knowledge of the origin.

F.e. Trumpeter gave the Tu-16 Badger only five red stars for marking, but the need six.

 

The serials for the German Sea Hawk from Hobby Boss (part of trumpeter) are absolutely wrong....

 

I'm sure we can find much more, like a KPAAF Fantan.

 

modelldoc

Edited January 3, 2019 by modelldoc

[pinky coffeeboat]

Perhaps Trumpeter thought they would engage in a little bit of educated "what-if"?

Maybe NK didn't buy the Q-5 but they are/ were a plausible country who could/ would have bought it, so here's how it might/ may have looked? KP have done the same thing with some of their kits.

Has anyone thought of this?

 

Jeff

[XV107]

Yes - I’d say that it is in some ways more plausible than some of KP’s choices (and none of KP’s seemed unreasonable to my mind). There’s enough credible supposition that the KPAF might have gone for it, and the belief that they had which a number of sources held for some time is an interesting one.

 

I’m emphatically not trying to say that the KPAF did use it, just that the possibility is sufficiently credible enough for it not to be a surprise should it turn out that they did. The evidence as things stand is insufficient to be certain either way, although I’d tend towards the view that mistaken extrapolation of information led to a firm belief in the 80s amongst credible observers that the Q-5 was in use (i.e. I agree with Modelldoc, just not on the level of likelihood that they didn’t). Trumpeter’s choice isn’t a wildly unreasonable one in this instance, unlike some of their other suppositions/decisions (the control surfaces on the DH Hornet spring to mind...), and it may well be a case of ‘not sure, but plausible enough to include’. Or, given past errors, no thought at all may have been applied...  But this is getting (my fault) into J2 assessments of angels dancing on the head of a pin  territory, so I’ll leave it there.

[Jackman]

On 10/31/2018 at 6:36 PM, Modelraynz said:

Fingers crossed THIS is the one to get it right! Re. Correct wing tanks mounts from the q-5 and some belly mounts etc!

The sprue trees seem to indicated that that the only differences between the 1st release Q-5C kit and the 3rd release Q-5A kit are the tails (Sprue D vs Sprue C) and the decals:

 

Q-5A:

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10573973

 

Q-5C:

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10482893

 

All the other parts seem identical. Just that the instructions for the belly bomb bay are different.  And they don't even bother to tell you which parts are not in use for the Q-5A kit.

 

 

[Homebee]

Decals by Armycast - ref. ACD 72029 - Q-5/A-5C Fantan

Source: http://www.armycast.cz/gb/home/210-acd-72029-q-5a-5c-fantan.html

 

 

V.P.

[Vlamgat9]

Pleeeeeeeeease can Trumpy do this in 1/48!

[chrisov]

Seconded

[B.sin]

Third !!!😁

[Hobo]

Fourth!

[Basuroy]

Fourth and three quarter.

[Modelraynz]

On 16/07/2019 at 05:32, Homebee said:

Decals by Armycast - ref. ACD 72029 - Q-5/A-5C Fantan

Source: http://www.armycast.cz/gb/home/210-acd-72029-q-5a-5c-fantan.html

 

 

V.P.

Perfect!!! I was worried nobody would ever do these subjects!

[k5054nz]

Ever since they announced the kit I've been hoarding photos of Myanmar machines, this is great news!

[modelldoc]

On 7/15/2019 at 7:32 PM, Homebee said:

Decals by Armycast - ref. ACD 72029 - Q-5/A-5C Fantan

Source: http://www.armycast.cz/gb/home/210-acd-72029-q-5a-5c-fantan.html

 

 

V.P.

The North Korean version is a fake!

There are no safely information that the A-5 was / is used in North Korea. Never anyone has published a picture. The next mistake is in the markings. North Korean planes never had the red stars on the top wings, you had seen these fact often.

 

modelldoc  

[Modelraynz]

Good/bad news for fantan fans!

 

It appears trumpeter have quietly updated their q-5c kit with the correct wing tank mounts from their other fantan kits! :D

 

the tanks themselves are still a suspect, but you dont have to make your own wing mounts anymore!!

 

of course if your like me amd bought a whole lot of the early releases.....bugger!

 

 

[B.sin]

10 hours ago, Modelraynz said:

Good/bad news for fantan fans!

 

It appears trumpeter have quietly updated their q-5c kit with the correct wing tank mounts from their other fantan kits!

 

the tanks themselves are still a suspect, but you dont have to make your own wing mounts anymore!!

 

of course if your like me amd bought a whole lot of the early releases.....bugger!

 

 

It would be nice if  Trumpeter did one in 1/48th scale!  Trumpeter, are you reading this?

[stevehnz]

11 hours ago, Modelraynz said:

of course if your like me amd bought a whole lot of the early releases.....bugger!

Add me to that, though in my case it is only one to do a Pakistan Air Force one. Since when did this upgrade happen, I only bough mine last year from ebay?

Steve.

[Hornet133]

As they have Su-25s (and yes photos and film of those HAVE appeared), I very much doubt that the N.Koreans bothered to acquire the inferior Q-5 (A-5).

 

[modelldoc]

8 hours ago, Hornet133 said:

As they have Su-25s (and yes photos and film of those HAVE appeared), I very much doubt that the N.Koreans bothered to acquire the inferior Q-5 (A-5).

 

See my post 143!

 

Here is my kit out from the box:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/49002989127/in/dateposted/

 

modelldoc

[Jackman]

21 hours ago, Modelraynz said:

Good/bad news for fantan fans!

 

It appears trumpeter have quietly updated their q-5c kit with the correct wing tank mounts from their other fantan kits!

 

the tanks themselves are still a suspect, but you dont have to make your own wing mounts anymore!!

 

of course if your like me amd bought a whole lot of the early releases.....bugger!

 

 

 

Sorry for my ignorance, which is the correct wing tank mount (part no?) and from which kit?

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10573973

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10525291

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10482893

 

And what exactly was wrong with the early release? I too bought a few of the initial boxing.

 

Thanks much

 

[Modelraynz]

Hiya

 

The initial release q-5c had you attach the fuel tanks to a forward-mounted weapons pylon (b8,9) this pylon is never used for fuel tanks and seldom used in general - no idea why they did this shortcut then corrected in later releases!

 

The q-5 has under wing fuel tank mounts a la mig-19

 

The new parts are on the b sprue (b11,12,13,14)

 

My box has copyright of 2018, so that might be an indicator - i havent found any other indicators!