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. :)

Homebee

1/72 - MiG-17F "Fresco-C" (new tool) by Airfix - 3D renders+schemes - release November 2019

Recommended Posts

On 11/01/2019 at 20:42, KRK4m said:

Frankly speaking this will be ONE of the right versions for what Nigeria got during the Biafra crisis :)

Another one will be the Zvezda rebox of ex-Dragon MiG-17A Fresco A.

The hint is that among 36 Frescos supplied to Nigeria in 1967-69 there were 23 Egyptian -17Fs, 5 Soviet -17Fs and 8 East German -17As (with no afterburner).

Cheers

Michael

Notes taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'm with you Parrahs. Love to build one of the Nigerian MIG's used during the Biafran/Nigerian Civil War. One of my favourite subjects.!

 Paul

 

Share this post


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

Great infos about the history and design of the incoming MiG-17 kit: https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/early-classic-jet-project-for-young-airfix-designer

I love how the parts about the designer could easily be read by the old British Pathe announcer and would sound exactly right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a photo of the young designer with the screen at the back. Rocket pods on inner wing pylons. LIM-5M future boxing ?

Edited by Laurent
Typo

Share this post


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

There's a photo of the young designer with the screen at the back. Rocket pods on inner wing pylons. LIM-5F future boxing ?

It would appear so, good news indeed.

Edited by Wez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ivand said:

But no sign of a brake parachute housing...

Isn't that a Lim-6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ivand said:

Euhm, yes... 😮 The Lim-5M also had it. But what's a Lim-5F?

I'm not very familiar with the MiG-17 in general. It's nothing I'm afraid. LIM-5M rather I guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the man guilty of acquiring of more than dozen of MiG-15/17s by the Polish Aviation Museum I'll try to outline briefly the Polish WSK Mielec-built LiM (Licencyjny Mysliwiec = Licence-built fighter) designation system:

Lim-1 = 227 early MiG-15 a/c built at WSK-Mielec (incl. Lim-1A)

Lim-2 = 500 MiG-15bis a/c built at WSK-Mielec (incl. Lim-2R)

Lim-1A = (A just for the 1st suffix letter available) as LiM-1, but with ventral recce camera in blister fairing under belly starboard side

Lim-2R = (for Rozpoznawczy = reconnaissance) as LiM-2, but with ventral recce camera in blister fairing under nose port side

SBLim-1 = (Szkolno Bojowy Licencyjny Mysliwiec = training/combat licence-built fighter) various Soviet, Czech and Polish-built early (RD-45-powered) MiGs rebuilt by WSK-Mielec into 2-seaters

SBLim-2 = as above, but powered with later VK-1A engine (both variants were NOT built as new in Poland, only remanufactured from existing airframes).

Lim-2Art = (for Artyleryjski = artillery) ex-SBLim-2, but single flight controls only, for artillery spotting and FAC duties

Lim-5 = 477 standard MiG-17F a/c built at WSK-Mielec (incl. Lim-5R). Unreheated MiG-17A wasn't built in Poland, the very few Poland used were received from the USSR.

Lim-5R = MiG-17F with ventral recce camera in blister fairing under belly starboard side (like Lim-1A)

Lim-5P = (for Przechwytujący = interceptor) 129 MiG-17PF a/c (with longer canopy and wider nose intake under the radar lip fairing) built at WSK-Mielec

Lim-5M = (for Modyfikowany = modified) 60 a/c built with increased (chord and thickness) wing root parts housing large fuel tanks and twin-wheeled main u/c, underbelly brake chute and JATO bottles on fuselage sides. 10 lost in crashes, other 50 later rebuilt to Lim-6bis standard

Lim-6 = 40 a/c built featuring different approach to the close support idea: standard wing and u/c, brake chute above the jetpipe, 2 additional hardpoints and blown flaps - later rebuilt to Lim-6bis standard

Lim-6bis = (for Latin "the second one") 70 a/c built as simplified variant of the Lim-6 (unblown flaps) plus 90 others rebuilt from 2 other variants (as mentioned above)

Lim-6R = several Lim-6bis a/c fitted with ventral recce camera in blister fairing under belly starboard side (like Lim-1A and Lim-5R)

Lim-6M = in the 1970s all surviving Lim-5P interceptors were deprieved of the nose AI radar and the weight gain was used to fit the additional 2 hardpoints - though no brake chute was fitted

Lim-6MR = as the Lim-6M but fitted with ventral recce camera in blister fairing under belly starboard side (like Lim-1A, Lim-5R, and Lim-6R)

Hope it helps :)

Cheers

Michael

 

 

 

Edited by KRK4m
quantities added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael, very comprehensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MiG-17 was unique in its design. It was an interim aircraft from the very start on the way into supersonic flight of later MiG’s. In fact it was originally only intended as sub-variant of the MiG-15 with official identification “MiG-15 with afterburning engine and new wing”. It changed constantly through its service life from the early non afterburning version with small air brakes, small canopy, ejection seat inherited from MiG-15, all the way to the missile armed MiG-17PFU with longer canopy / periscope / “curtain” type ejection seat and the big air-brakes.

 

BUT

One thing remained constant, the actual wing which was very strange in a way. Yes it had a break, with the leading edge angle changing half way at the second wing fence. But also its cross section was different at root and from half way outwards. It was not a nice and elegant constant / continuous change but a very abrupt one. The “new” wing at the base had a much sharper leading edge which had to transition into the very blunt / rounded leading edge of the predecessor MiG-15 outboards. While the top surface of the wing remained the same profile, due to the roundness of the outer wing section it looks like it is much further down.

 

 

MSEkUyu.jpg

 

 

PAPf8ag.jpg

 

 

qLaD7ot.jpg

 

 

c5xwX9w.jpg

 

 

I have to borough here an image from a Walk around published on Prime portal which illustrates this point perfectly. Hope the owner does not mind.

 

 

r368hMm.jpg

 

 

Here are more views to show what is in question, first the Airfix LIDAR image

 

 

aEvmjdo.jpg

 

 

 

AgKEASR.jpg

 

 

 

In the freshly published Airfix interview with the designer there are some interesting things! They show the original LIDAR image of the scanned real fighter and even on this poor quality image the change in wing cross section is visible. On the final CAD images this “discrepancy” was corrected by the designer to a very nice and rounded cross section all the way, just like on MiG-15. Why???

OK I can accept people saying that the change in cross section is not so visible and what’s all the fuss about? After all it is just a 72 nd scale kit and this will not be visible (for most).

 

There is a contradiction in Airfix’s point of view. If the leading edge cross section question (a very minor one) is not important for this scale then why incorporate in the CAD design the miniscule undercarriage down / up indicators on the wings? 

Here is a view of the real indicator in my collection, in some countries it was called “soldier” and its diameter is just 10mm which in 72 nd is 0.138 mm!!! OK you can sand it off and make your own, more authentic size representation from something.

 

 

 

Bokeup7.jpg

 

 

 

On the actual aircraft there are 3 such indicators, one for nose gear and two for main gear. Why include only the ones on the wings and forget about the one in front of the windshield? Where is the consistency in design?

 

Most (not all) “afterburning” MiG-17’s already had a periscope on the canopy, which is visible on Airfix LIDAR image. Why did it disappear on CAD and from the kit?  If it was added on the plastic part, one could simply sand it off to represent the earlier version with no periscope. But to do the reverse and build a periscope is a bit more problematic (of course not impossible).

Same goes for the ejection seat. The one represented on the CAD is the original, simple MiG seat as inherited from the MiG-15, but it was mainly used on the early non afterburning versions. The “Curtain” type development of the basic seat was later a standard on all MiG-17’s. If it was just a difference in some internal systems, the rocket motor or the straps then no one would care. But the difference is in the most visible part of the seat, on its headrest! It is a big chunky box with the “curtains” D ring on front of it, a part which is very much visible on the kit!

 

I fully understand the frustration of Laurent with the nose cone shape of the new Modelsvit Mirage III kit. It is possible that some remember my completely useless endeavour to get the nose shape right for one of Eduard kits. Nothing could convince them and I am not speaking of subjective look at different photos, actual measurements of the real aircrafts for comparison did nothing even though we were still in early stage of development so it would have been possible.

The issue with the Mirage nose is a MINOR problem (by manufacture) and very few seem to care about it, far more people see the question of rivets as a unprecedented and unwelcome attack by the manufacture. 

 

Here on this MiG-17 the question of the wing cross section change will be just the same MINOR problem, if at all for most and they will barely notice it. Unfortunately the wing root is a far more visible part of the kit and here the designer made it nice, perfect, an aesthetically rounded while on the real aircraft it is a pointed / sharp edge. Of course it is the continuation of the leading edge cross section question, everything is connected with everything! This sharpness is not only on the leading edge but also on the wing to fuselage connection line only getting a little more rounded near the trailing edge. This is clearly visible on Airfix LIDAR scan also! Have a look. The CAD on the other hand shows a continuous rounded wing/fuselage joint line like on MiG-15.

 

But all this is just CAD.

I say as always, let’s see the real plastic in hands and make decisions on it then! Based on the amount of details shown by Airfix I would say by now metal is cut in China for this kit and there is absolutely no chance of revision here. Oh well. . .

 

Best regards

Gabor

 

P.s. I would love to see more details of the that “. . .FOD screen positioned in the distinctive air intake . . .” mentioned in the Airfix article! Having taken apart few real MiG-17’s there was absolutely no sign of that “FOD screen”. Neither there is any mention of it actual MiG-17 aircraft manuals from the 1950’s!

If Airfix (there is no name given to the author of the article) is speaking of the mesh found on VK-1 engines compressors then they should consider (and be aware of the fact) that this engine is actually a straight copy of the Rolls-Royce NeNe engine and all aircraft equipped with it (and there were a lot of types in those years on both sides of the iron curtain) had this interesting “FOD screen positioned in the air intake”. So there is absolutely nothing unique in it for the MiG-17!

Edited by ya-gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your argumented comments Gabor !

 

General comments:

 

1) a CAD model based on a laser scan doesn't guarantee that the CAD model will be perfecty accurate in shape because the designer still has to design the objects from scratch (a CAD model is a parametric model, a scan provides a cloud of points in space)

 

2) in most cases the designer is not very familiar with the subject to be depicted... the guys who provided the reference material are more likely to know the particular shapes of the airframe so they could check the export of the CAD model before tooling is started... this requires a dialog between the designer and the research guys

 

3) there are technical limitations when tooling moulds... the omission of the periscope could be intentional... perhaps the periscope cavity would act as an obstacle to the flow during injection and eventually increase the probability of a short shot... the overthickness introduced by the periscope could also introduce problems during ejection of the sprue

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Laurent,

 

1. Yes, I know. But the laser scan database was there to shart with, to look at and to use as a reference, after all this is what it is intended for!!! This is the normal way to make a CAD from a scan. And Airfix details this in the articles on the given page. The wing root problem is so clear on the CAD and so obvious how it should be on the Scan image. There is no reason why do it completely different!

 

Since there are only very few CAD images available till now it is difficult to say more about other areas of the kit, althoug there are some strange things going on at the trailing edge of the wing on top. I would love to see the flaps. It is a very complicated surface which was completely messed up by Eduard on the 72nd scale kit. Wing surface and fuselage joint line on the bottom is not so easy either and with MiG-17 the flaps are much bigger!

 

2. In the above mentioned Airfix article the designer states that he did not look into the given aircrafts details before hand and used what was given to him by the researchers. This is an internal company problem! There should be communication and people should ask questions when something is not clear.

 

3. Yes, I was also thinking of this as a possible reason for doing the plain canopy. But also consider the size of the periscope in 72nd scale! If it was true (that it is a problem to reproduce due to palstic thickness) then we would never see any details protruding from flat or round surfaces and they would be a "no-go" area for injection moulding. 

It would mean that we never see a canopy with a periscope on it????? That would be interesting and bad!

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As owner of the Primeportal image above (from the museum at Savannah) - I am happy for it to be used.  There are several more in the sequence that confirm the view of the LE section change.

The hanging example in SanDiego and the one parked in Seattle show the same feature - according to my unpublished images, as do the others on Primeportal.

It is even visible on the J5s at the Chinese Air Force Museum at Xiaotangshan.

 

Howard Mason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 12:20 AM, ho590hm said:

As owner of the Primeportal image above (from the museum at Savannah) - I am happy for it to be used.  There are several more in the sequence that confirm the view of the LE section change.

The hanging example in SanDiego and the one parked in Seattle show the same feature - according to my unpublished images, as do the others on Primeportal.

It is even visible on the J5s at the Chinese Air Force Museum at Xiaotangshan.

 

Howard Mason

Sorry I have to remove my posts

 

Good Bye

Gabor   

 

Edited by ya-gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Gabor for your interesting, informative and obviously knowledgeable assessment of the real aircraft vs the Airfix CAD designs.

 

A few things struck me.

 

1.  There is an obvious disconnect between the researcher detail and what the CAD designer is producing.

 

2,  Whilst the designer may have a basic knowledge of aircraft design and construction, he may not be aware of all the subtleties of an individual type and may have dismissed the transition between the sharp leading edge and the rounded leading edge as a quirk of the LIDAR data and not what those of us who work with aircraft understand happen all the time (such as the thick, blunt, trailing edge of the Javelin wing).

 

3.  Not having read the Airfix article, I don't know which aircraft they scanned to get the LIDAR data but it may be possible things like the periscope and the seat were peculiarities of that particular aircraft and it has been assumed that this can be read across to all other MiG-17's?

 

Above all though, the one thought that is screaming out to me above all others is "TELL AIRFIX !!!", they have listened in the past, witness the corrections they made to the Martlet when their initial errors were pointed out to them, I believe the post you (Gabor), have made makes it very easy to understand where things have gone wrong and what needs to be done to put it right so I urge you to contact them and alert them to your findings.  The CAD design stage is when it's easiest to get things put right, not once the tools have been cut.

 

Sincerely, thanks for your input.

 

Wez

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I have to remove my posts

 

Good Bye

Gabor   

Edited by ya-gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ya-gabor said:

Hi Wez,

 

In an indirect way I did point out this problems to the maker at the beginning of January this year when the first images were released of this till now secret MiG-17 project.

 

Based on the Airfix article where they are already detailing the way that a quote was asked from a Chinese tool maker and the planed layout of the sprues is already made I believe it is far too late. What they are showing now is something that it is well in the past. It is like looking at stars billions of miles away and you know that what you are looking at right now has actually happened millions of years ago.

 

Somewhere previously the planed release date was show, based on that I feel we are well over tool making by now. Just try to count backward: delivery to wholesale companies, shipping, packaging,  printed boxes, instruction sheet, box art layout, actual box arts, decal making, delivery of sprues . . .  Don’t forget the tools are made in China, and I would imagine injection moulding will also be there, this is a very time consuming business, to produce quality final sprues take time on injection moulding machine. . .  It also takes a hell of a lot of time to get all this back to Britain.  

But of course who knows.

 

By the way the article from last Friday is here if anyone is interested (it was pointed out by Laurent) :

 

https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/news/workbench/early-classic-jet-project-for-young-airfix-designer

 

 

 

I am still intrigued by the FOD screen inside the intake mentioned in the article!  :D

 

Best regards

Gabor

Thanks Gabor

 

You may well be right but nonetheless, please pass your observations onto Airfix, you never know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading through and studying the photograph I'm thinking correcting the leading edge issue will involve removing material from the lower leading edge of the inner wing. Is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KRK4m and ya-gabor – thank you very much for the in-depth posts concerning the MiG-17 and Lim series aircraft. Very much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I have to remove my posts

 

Good Bye

Gabor   

Edited by ya-gabor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 7:58 AM, Wez said:

Thank you Gabor for your interesting, informative and obviously knowledgeable assessment of the real aircraft vs the Airfix CAD designs.

 

A few things struck me.

 

 

2,  Whilst the designer may have a basic knowledge of aircraft design and construction, he may not be aware of all the subtleties of an individual type and may have dismissed the transition between the sharp leading edge and the rounded leading edge as a quirk of the LIDAR data and not what those of us who work with aircraft understand happen all the time (such as the thick, blunt, trailing edge of the Javelin wing).

 

Wez

 

 

But surely the designer has a large amount of photo's taken when they did the scan - you don't go working straight from LIDAR data without confirming things visually,

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 10:11 PM, Col. said:

From reading through and studying the photograph I'm thinking correcting the leading edge issue will involve removing material from the lower leading edge of the inner wing. Is that correct?

Sorry I have to remove my posts

 

Good Bye

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

×