Jump to content

1/72 - Tupolev Tu-128M "Fiddler" & UT "Pelican" by Trumpeter - released


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MVW said:

Can anyone decipher the Russian text in front of 15’888?

"До 0сеч 15 888" - to zero section 15 888.

B.w. it's typically Soviet standard (ГОСТ) drawing font...I myself write in this font.

😁

3 hours ago, MVW said:

and the magazine Aviatsi Vremja 02/1997 (sorry for my spelling). When copying the plans exactly to 1/72 (at least against the published dimensions), the kit is too long and wide in span. On my opinion, the plans are somewhat distorted, too.

With drawings in Aviation and Time (well, or Aviatciya I Vremya) many problems, one of them is connected with the angle of sweep of the wing in the top view. As far as I remember, this parameter was taken from the technical description. But in the technical specification the angle was indicated on the line 3/4 of the chords and not on the leading edge. Therefore, the A-model model does not coincide with the drawings from A & V.

 

B.R.

Serge

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Serge,

thank you very much for the translation. I assume now zero is the nose tip or close to it, as it does make sense when comparing the dimensions with photos. As seen on other aircraft, zero or frame zero is sometimes arbitrary (so it seems to me) defined by the aircraft maker.

 

Regards,

 

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Got mine in the post today and it is looking great.

 

The thing that strikes me the most is how much of a simple straightforward build this will be. 

The low part count is good and the breakdown of parts is not that bad taking into consideration that they are producing a few different versions from the base kit.

 

In regards to quality of plastic, sprues and detail it is up there with the other Trumpy 1/72 kits like the Mig-31 and SU-24.

 

I'll get some detail sprue shots and get some test fitting photos up shortly.

 

If anyone can recommend or has access to some cockpit reference I would like to see in reference to colours and seat harnesses 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, thepureness said:

If anyone can recommend or has access to some cockpit reference I would like to see in reference to colours and seat harnesses 

http://www.arms-expo.ru/articles/124/83535/

274b12a523334bd026488ec1167e93c1.jpg

e924b5dc0a1194b8fb847dc17a21ab00.jpg

e50c5c9b1fced9a76f4bcda2c3e6dc76.jpg

 

So, as write:

 

http://www.airforce.ru/content/okb-tupoleva/254-samolet-tu-128/page2/

 

"As far as can be understood, having studied the design of the seats on the Tu-22, Tu-128 and Tu-22M aircraft, they had a greater degree of unification. Especially after installing the NAZ-7M. It must be admitted that, with all the unification, the seat installed on the interceptor had several significant differences from the “bomber version” of the seat. Here are just some of them:
• the main parachute of the parachute system was located in the seat headrest;
• the NAZ-7 (NAZ-7M) was stowed in the seat cup;
• the pilot separated from the ejection seat along with the back of the seat.
This, however, did not prevent OKB A.N. Tupolev combine three very similar in design ejection seats under the same name KT-1. That is why in the “Instructions to the crew ...” of the Tu-22 and Tu-128 aircraft there appeared one name KT-1, and in the “Instructions to the crew of the Tu-22M” - the KT-1M seat."

 

Thus, the 

colours and seat harnesses ejection seat KT-1M

of  Tu-22M should be fair for color 

colours and seat harnesses ejection seat KT-1:

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/КТ-1М

%D0%9A%D0%A2-1%D0%9C.JPG

 

 

By the way, did Trumpeter make an ax in the cockpit? They must be there !!!

 

"In the cockpits of the pilot and navigator on the right side panel hung emergency axes. These were fully steel axes with a rubberized handle. They were attached to the right side wall with a special mount. Why this tool was needed on the plane, the instructions did not indicate the pilot. Veterans of the flight operation of the aircraft recall that the axes were originally intended for chopping off the horns of the steering wheel. This allowed for a safe ejection if the control column was not dropped. However, this is more like a legend. Most likely the axes were designed to exit from the cab after an emergency landing, if you can not reset the canopy  covers."

 

Without an ax in the cockpits  is not a model !!!

😁😁😁

 

 

 

B.R.

Serge

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Just got my kit today.

My initial thoughts:

Nice one piece missiles, carefully packaged to preserve the fins.

Decals look a little large - at least compared the the Amodel Tu-128 decal set, as do the ejection seats, which look considerably larger/more lounge-like than the 1/72 Neomega KT1 seats [not 100% sure that they should be the same though?] 

No missile rails provided, and looking again at the Amodel missile rails, and their rather industrial moulding quality, perhaps these will need to be scratch built.

Wheels are clearly [unsurprisingly] missing a fair amount of detail also.

Otherwise the mouldings all look nice and clean etc...and as someone above has said, it sure looks like a Fiddler :)

Happy with the kit, just wish it was a bit less pricey esp when compared the considerably more complex Trumpy TU-22M2/3 kits, which here in NZ, are not that much more expensive than the Fiddler, at least via one of our main online outlets.

Aaron

 

Edited by azzaob
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Antoine said:

No doubt that Aerobonus or Armory will take care of the wheels, sooner or later.

Long time ago Armory will take care of the wheels:

17556.970.jpg

17557.970.jpg

17558.970.jpg

17559.970.jpg

they took care so long, that I do not know whether they are available for sale, or their has been sold and production has ceased....

 

B.R.

Serge

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, armored76 said:

Are those "holes" on the rubber parts normal?

Are you about the little hole on Armory tires? Unsure, but in my opinion, on real tires, such holes control tire wear ... naturally, they are not continuous! Therefore, if I am not mistaken, then these holes are normal.

 

B.R.

Serge

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, armored76 said:

Are those "holes" on the rubber parts normal?

The holes in the rubber surface are a simple but perfectly working guide to the usage of the given tyre for the ground crew. When the holes completely worn off it is no longer safe to use the rubber and it has to be replaced.

 

It is not the surface wear which counts but the presence of the holes. I have seen many tyres which from the outside looked in a terrible condition with several layers missing and the textile reinforcement showing but the holes were still deep enough for it to be air worthy.

 

This detail is missing on 95% of aftermarket wheels! :shrug:

 

Best regards

Gabor

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 6:20 AM, azzaob said:

Just got my kit today.

My initial thoughts:

Nice one piece missiles, carefully packaged to preserve the fins.

Decals look a little large - at least compared the the Amodel Tu-128 decal set, as do the ejection seats, which look considerably larger/more lounge-like than the 1/72 Neomega KT1 seats [not 100% sure that they should be the same though?] 

No missile rails provided, and looking again at the Amodel missile rails, and their rather industrial moulding quality, perhaps these will need to be scratch built.

Wheels are clearly [unsurprisingly] missing a fair amount of detail also.

Otherwise the mouldings all look nice and clean etc...and as someone above has said, it sure looks like a Fiddler :)

Happy with the kit, just wish it was a bit less pricey esp when compared the considerably more complex Trumpy TU-22M2/3 kits, which here in NZ, are not that much more expensive than the Fiddler, at least via one of our main online outlets.

Aaron

 

 

Shows the difference in prices in the UK compared. 

 

The TU-22 here is double the price than the Tu-128

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

It is not the surface wear which counts but the presence of the holes. 

Gabor, You are contradicting yourself! Because it’s like how a description of surface wear:

18 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

When the holes completely worn off it is no longer safe to use the rubber and it has to be replaced.

Or why should the holes disappear?

18 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

I have seen many tyres which from the outside looked in a terrible condition with several layers missing and the textile reinforcement showing but the holes were still deep enough for it to be air worthy.

Indeed, when some users  https://aviaforum.ru/

asked for photos of the worst wheels on the Russian forum,

https://aviaforum.ru/threads/shiny-tu-154.10196/?amp=1152073762

these wheels showed the Tu-154:

331479_3b4e90fdb7a92f396a24e20457f8ca44.

331480_a7a6a02362d8bfdbeb51db9759c5cdcb.

331481_3cb6efc54b1a2a34d2b5c8a3e11bc777.

and they wrote that this Tu-154 can fly on these tires, because there are all holes (you can see holes in the first photo), but to the question: "Are these tires from a flying plane or not?". The author of these photos responded that this aircraft is not flying and is located in a sump (reserve). Taking into account the fact that these photos were published in 2006 and the Tu-154 were decommissioned in the Russian Federation, I think these wheels did not fly anywhere. According to Western standards, this degree of wear is absent because there is a control over the degree of wear along the grooves:

(use Google search by this text. It's a download manual 

Goodyear on Russian)

 

" https://aviav.ru › posobie-po-obs...
Пособие по обслуживанию и эксплуатации авиашин от Goodyear "
 

But here it is necessary to take into account the following factor: the Tu-154, like the Tu-128, are airplanes, each rack of which has many wheels, so losing one wheel on the main rack of four during takeoff or landing probably will not lead to a catastrophe, therefore there can be exploited such wheels as in the photo.

 

Therefore, it is possible to make one or two Tu-128 tires such as in the photo, but in my opinion it will not look very aesthetically pleasing.

 

B.R.

Serge 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I acquired the Armory wheels as soon as they came out (assumed the kit ones would need replacing) along with the New Ware mask sets and a couple of NeoMega KT-1M seats, (may need modding, not sure how, if at all, they differ from the standard KT-1, as the canopies will be open)......just waiting for a kit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Armory wheels look very nice and a big step up from the kit ones.

The other thing I failed to mention was the intakes, which Trumpeter have moulded with about 3cm depth to them, very much like Hasegawa 1/48th Phantom intakes, a pity they aren't a little deeper.

From the pics available on the net of Tu-128s, I can see a few unusual access panel lines on the kit, but that may well be due to version differences, prototypes/early models versus later production versions?

Exhausts look good to my uneducated eye :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 7:20 AM, azzaob said:

Decals look a little large - at least compared the the Amodel Tu-128 decal set, as do the ejection seats, which look considerably larger/more lounge-like than the 1/72 Neomega KT1 seats [not 100% sure that they should be the same though?] 

 

I went again through the kit yesterday after reading your comments, and indeed, there must be something with the seat!

Tu-128 crews were certainly the same stature as Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson!

 

On 12/28/2018 at 3:46 PM, ya-gabor said:

It is not the surface wear which counts but the presence of the holes. I have seen many tyres which from the outside looked in a terrible condition with several layers missing and the textile reinforcement showing but the holes were still deep enough for it to be air worthy.

I don't know for elsewhere, but in France, when you check a tire, the general condition count the same as the wear indicators.

If you have a wear indicator which looks fine, and, say, a big escalope going through the layer nearby, the tire goes to the bin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Antoine said:

 

I went again through the kit yesterday after reading your comments, and indeed, there must be something with the seat!

Tu-128 crews were certainly the same stature as Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson!

What are your general thoughts of the kit?

The more I look over it, and test fit the main parts together, I think it will be a relatively straight forward build and with some AM wheels, seats etc be a decent model. 

I am still finding it quite hard to find some useful detail  pics of surface details beyond the Monino example. There look to be some inaccurate detailing on some panels, but I guess that is par for the course with Trumpy/Hobbyboss kits isn't it?

Overall pretty happy with the kit, and would be interested in your thoughts, Antoine?

Aaron

Edited by azzaob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aaron, 

I didn't go as far as dry fiting, I just had a closer look, that's all.

Can't speak about shape and dimensions too.

But overall, it seems to look like a real Tu-128, which is fine with me.

I'm just concerned a bit by those seats, and by the pit, but I can live with this.

 

I've a reference book in english, not really modellers friendly, but at least with dimensions and a few pics, so I'll have a better look when I decide to start building the kit.

Edited by Antoine
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Homebee changed the title to 1/72 - Tupolev Tu-128M "Fiddler" & UT "Pelican" by Trumpeter - Tu-128M released - Tu-128UT release March 2019

Did I spot a mismatch between the box art and the painting guide, with the prototype cut-off fin rather than the square?

I guess this upsets the cross kitting option proposed by Ken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be a shame if the UT kit doesn't include the square tipped fin - as that is the configuration of operational Tu-128UT's..

 

Only the prototype UT had the raked fin - as it was converted from a production Tu-128 fighter.

 

Note also that most pics of Pelicans show them without missile armament (as they lacked radar) - but with the pylons.

 

There is a photo in Yefim Gordon's Red Star 'Soviet Heavy Interceptors' showing the prototype Pelican - with raked fin plus R-4T IR missiles.

 

I hope it isn't the case that you can only build the prototype Tu-128UT with what Trumpeter provide.... :crying:

 

Ken

 

PS - Any pics of the sprues to confirm or refute the square-tipped fin inclusion???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there!!!

I am responsible of this box art image and i want to state that i made my work based in a lot of information..and as Flankerman correclty puts it, operational Tu-128UT's had square tipped fins...and only the prototype used with raked fin...of course with soviet airplanes none can be sure for 100%..but i am sure that blue 49 had a square tip finn...!!! Now...why Trumpeter guys change this to raked finn..i do not know!! They were pleased when i finished the image as it is used in the box...SQUARE TIP IS THE CORRECT FIN..

  • Like 2
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
×
×
  • Create New...