1/72 - Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17F & Lim-5 "Fresco-C" by Airfix - released - new boxing in August 2024

[Nick Nichols]

11 hours ago, Col. said:

If LIDAR scanning is so wonderful as was claimed then human error must be responsible for missing the less than subtle neuances of that leading edge profile and making a mess of it.

yes, expectation and reality....

 

[Col.]

2 minutes ago, Nick Nichols said:

yes, expectation and reality....

 

Oh dear  At least there's plenty plastic to remove while trying to correct the shape if nothing else.

[Laurent]

6 hours ago, Nick Nichols said:

yes, expectation and reality....

There are two things here:

- a technological limitation: the lip has to be thick enough to avoid injection incidents

- an actual inaccuracy: the inlet is U-shaped instead of being circular

[Laurent]

8 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

Despite the dramatic Gaston Marty-esque arrows and lines, the massive repetition and the seeming animus against the Airfix designer, he demonstrates there isn't really that much wrong with the kit. I'm planning to get one and I don't think I will have much trouble following his pictures to fix the errors which I consider are worth fixing.

I have been up close to a couple and have some walk-around pictures somewhere.

I recognize that there are inaccuracies yet indeed the question is "What's the best 1/72 MiG-17F nowadays ? DML, Hasegawa or Airfix ?". I believe Airfix is the answer. The seat can probably be replaced by a Pavla KK-2.

[VMA131Marine]

16 minutes ago, Laurent said:

There are two things here:

- a technological limitation: the lip has to be thick enough to avoid injection incidents

- an actual inaccuracy: the inlet is U-shaped instead of being circular

They could, and probably should, have molded the circular ring at the front of the intake as a separate part. That would have increased complexity and increased the cost of producing the molds (more parts = more money). It would not be difficult to correct.

[Aardvark]

9 hours ago, Nick Nichols said:

yes, expectation and reality....

 

???

+

+

~<= 30 minutes for maked intake as on photo real aircraft.....without tea & newspaper ~ <= 5 minutes.

No problems with this intake!

But problem He-111 v.s. MiG-17 some differences....

 

B.R.

Serge

Edited October 29, 2019 by Aardvark

[Max Headroom]

FYI- the Liverpool Daily Post ceased publication a few years ago, but the North Wales edition is still available and a couple of days ago, Coldplay advertised their new album in its small ads.

 

Oh aye, I’ll buy a few of these new MiG 17’s.

 

Trevor

[Rizon]

22 hours ago, Col. said:

..... If LIDAR scanning is so wonderful as was claimed then human error must be responsible for missing the less than subtle neuances of that leading edge profile and making a mess of it.....

If I may ad my 2c worth of putting things to focus....

 

I have been involved in more than one reverse engineering effort of an aircraft, which involved everything from pen and ruler measurement to top end photogammetry and LIDAR.  And it is not a trivial whizz bang process to get the geometry right. My particular case was to engineer a wind tunnel model, so aerodynamic accuracy was CRITICAL to say the least. As wonderful as LIDAR is, it gives you a point cloud, ie a collection of points in XYZ space. Now this information has to be processed to turn it into a surface ( like a NURBS surface, STL wont do) and that in turn into a "solid model" that CAD can understand for further processing into useable components. The fitting of these surfaces is difficult to say the least. Even as LIDAR gives you millions of data points to work with, acurate fitting is still the focus of much, much research in reverse engineering circles. Especially in areas whrere the rate of curvature (like at the leading edge of the wing) is high, do the biggest errors creep in.

 

Then there is also the rendering of the CAD model. As simple screenshot from a CAD program does not convey the true geometry in my experience. It depends entirely on the graphics processing, and other things like screen resolution etc. One will have to "play" with the model interactively to get an idea and actually do further measurements on the CAD model to understand the geometry.

 

And even further there is the fact that something will have to be manufactured in 1/72 scale and injection moulded with preferably only two mould halves. On said wind tunnel model the thing had to be machined from marraging steel and selected parts 3D printed in titanium - all at the large scale of 1/12.5. The approximations that one has to do even at that scale caused many heated debates - with valid reasons all around. So now try to do that a 1/72 and keep everyone happy (dare I say every arm chair modeller...?)

 

I for one applaud Airfix's efforts. I hope the guys there have fun. I certainly did, even though years later I still dream of data points and the Hawk geometry....

[Nick Nichols]

3 hours ago, Aardvark said:

???

 

+

 

~<= 30 minutes for maked intake as on photo real aircraft.....without tea & newspaper ~ <= 5 minutes.

No problems with this intake!

But problem He-111 v.s. MiG-17 some differences....

 

B.R.

Serge

It's not about the hole at all. There, all the geometry of the part is incorrect and not similar to anything. 

 

 

they did it: 

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Nick Nichols

[KRK4m]

8 hours ago, Laurent said:

I recognize that there are inaccuracies yet indeed the question is "What's the best 1/72 MiG-17F nowadays ? DML, Hasegawa or Airfix ?". I believe Airfix is the answer. The seat can probably be replaced by a Pavla KK-2.

I also believe that the answer is Airfix, as Hasegawa is 1/68 and Dragon 1/76.

But there is also the very good AZ in 1/72 that I have in stash.

I'll try to compare it to Airfix when the last mentioned appears in my LHS.

Cheers

Michael

[Aardvark]

21 hours ago, Nick Nichols said:

There, all the geometry of the part is incorrect and not similar to anything. 

they did it: 

 

O.K. I didn’t see an elephant! 😁

But, I do not understand anything in He-111 and of course I have some questions!

 

How much He-111 H-6 was building?

 

Absolutely all He-111 H-6 was with this type intake or was different series intake inside modification H-6?

 

Museum He-111 H-6 have original part intake or this modern  restauration?

 

If this modern  restauration, how accurate maked this restauration?

 

But any case, no big problem with this detail in models He-111H-6, as for my, but wing MiG-17 have biggest problem than this intake He-111 H-6, as I think.

 

B.R.

Serge

[LN-KEH]

He 111 available for Airfix resarch team:

He 111P-2 in Flysamlingen outside Oslo - the He 111 P and Hs have different engines, they did measure up this aircraft

He 111H-20 in the RAF museum - a much later model

A number of Spanish built He 111s with RR Merlin engines

 

The only early He 111H that I know about being reasonably complete is a H-3 restoration project:  

http://www.nofmf.org/html/heinkel.html

[Dave Fleming]

They use lidar to get the basic overall shapes. not the details

[Nick Nichols]

15 hours ago, Aardvark said:

O.K. I didn’t see an elephant! 😁

But, I do not understand anything in He-111 and of course I have some questions!

 

How much He-111 H-6 was building?

 

Absolutely all He-111 H-6 was with this type intake or was different series intake inside modification H-6?

 

Museum He-111 H-6 have original part intake or this modern  restauration?

 

If this modern  restauration, how accurate maked this restauration?

 

But any case, no big problem with this detail in models He-111H-6, as for my, but wing MiG-17 have biggest problem than this intake He-111 H-6, as I think.

 

B.R.

Serge

)))

 

I made it special for you: http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_p_1581917.html#1581917

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Okay...   it's November.  Where's my Mig-17?!?!?!   

[ho590hm]

A couple of them on the Airfix stand at Telford.......

Getting ready to flatten the inboard underside of the wing.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

It's now December.  WHERE'S MY MIG-17?!?!?!?!?!?  

[Max Headroom]

It’s advertised in the latest Aeroplane Monthly so must be imminent?

 

Trevor

[Aardvark]

Motherland is calling! ... calling Airfix to make this 

MiG-17 'Fresco-A' 69th independent Traning Air Regiment at Ovruch airport in 1974:

At the same time, there is a reason to make the right wing with the new fuselage!

😉😁

Photo Vladimir Tamilov from www.easternorbat.com

 

 

B.R.

Serge

 

[Leamy]

Now available on Airfix website.

[Ratch]

What is the clear part (D4) that fits into the belly? A camera? Navigation lights?

[Wez]

23 minutes ago, Ratch said:

What is the clear part (D4) that fits into the belly? A camera? Navigation lights?

Short answer is I don't know for sure but it's neither a camera or a navigation light.  The former because whatever is underneath there doesn't look like a camera, whatever it's covering the well is very shallow.  The latter because the Mig-17 features only the standard wingtip and tail nav' lights.

 

Looking at the MMP Single No.5 monograph for the MiG-17/Lim-5 I would say it's either part of the radio-compass system or an inspection cover for maintenance.  Unfortunately the book offers no information on which.

 

I would like to know too, I've always wondered and now my curiosity is piqued.

[Ratch]

Thanks for responding @Wez radio compass system like H2S?

[Wez]

7 minutes ago, Ratch said:

radio compass system like H2S?

Nothing like.  H2S was a ground mapping radar.  Radio Compass uses a simple aerial which detects a signal from the desired beacon, it then resolves this into a direction vector from the aircraft, most systems feature a sense aerial to differentiate between where the signal is actually coming from and its reciprocal (180° difference).

 

A ground mapping radar like H2S is a big system with large power demands more suited to a bomber.  A bomber would use a radio compass (often called ADF - Automatic Direction Finder because it doesn't require the operator to tune the antenna towards the desired frequency), but an ADF/Radio Compass system could easily be fitted to a small fighter like the MiG-17.

[Tbolt]

2 hours ago, Wez said:

Nothing like.  H2S was a ground mapping radar.  Radio Compass uses a simple aerial which detects a signal from the desired beacon, it then resolves this into a direction vector from the aircraft, most systems feature a sense aerial to differentiate between where the signal is actually coming from and its reciprocal (180° difference).

 

A ground mapping radar like H2S is a big system with large power demands more suited to a bomber.  A bomber would use a radio compass (often called ADF - Automatic Direction Finder because it doesn't require the operator to tune the antenna towards the desired frequency), but an ADF/Radio Compass system could easily be fitted to a small fighter like the MiG-17.

I don't have the kit so I don't know what part you are talking about, but I'm guessing you are talking about the ARK-5 radio compass under the rear fuselage, which is the circular panel in this photo.