Mystere IVA 1/72

[RidgeRunner]

Hi all, 

 

I’m seeking advice on rectifying the nose and intake on the Azur kit. I’d appreciate thoughts on how to achieve this. Thanks.

 

Martin

Edited July 28, 2019 by RidgeRunner

[Aardvark]

12 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

I’m seeking advice on rectifying the nose

What a problem with Azur nose?

Thinner than

Matchbox?

13 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

and intake on the Azur kit. I’d appreciate thoughts on how to achieve this

Don't understand,

Azur have intake A11+A12 & A13+14:

.....do You want a more deeper intake?

 

I do not have Azur, I have Matchbox, but I plan to buy Azur, so Your problems with this model interested for my.

 

In this post used photo from:

1.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/72nd_aircraft/azur-frrom-dassault-mystere-iv-a-t6058.html

2.

https://www.super-hobby.ru/products/Dassault-Myste-re-IV-A-Indian-Air-Force.html

 

B.R.

Serge

 

[RidgeRunner]

You can see from the photos that it is too thin, lacking any curvature. It is only slight but it makes a difference to the look of the model. 

[Aardvark]

1 hour ago, RidgeRunner said:

You can see from the photos that it is too thin, lacking any curvature. It is only slight but it makes a difference to the look of the model. 

So, nose Azur 

thinner than

Matchbox....it's funny because I reading what Matchbox it's not a 72nd scale but it's ~ 74nd scale...

 

But what solution in this case do you want?

 

There are exactly four possible solutions to this problem:

1.Leave it as it is.  (simplest)😁

2.Kitbashing with nose Matchbox. (average)

3.  Use Millipyt for 

to create volume.

(the longest and unpredictable way)

4. Use new section somewhere after the beginning  of the cockpit.  Then the thicker  part will move forward and You will get the necessary volume, naturally You will have to remove the front part of the nose.

And of course You need rescribe new panel line.

 

As for my way 2 optimally, but I have Matchbox.

 

B.R.

Serge

 

 

[RidgeRunner]

Hi Serge, 

 

I'm not sure that Matchbox/Revell is any better. Maybe it is slightly. To me - maybe my old eyes - both have a nose and inlet that slightly trumpets whereas the aircraft's nose was slightly ballooned. It may be that it only needs the leading outer edge of the inlet rounded a little? What do you think?

 

Martin

 

[Aardvark]

Hi, 

Martin

 

It’s better to see the problem once!  Do you have any drawings Mystere IV and an opportunity to take a picture of the model Azur along with the drawings?

 

B.R.

Serge

 

P.S.

1 hour ago, RidgeRunner said:

 I'm not sure that Matchbox/Revell is any better.

Almost agree!

[RidgeRunner]

Hi Serge, 

 

I don't have the Azur or Matchbox kits. My observation is purely from the many posted photographs online of models. 

 

Martin

 

PS - trying to send you a message

Edited July 29, 2019 by RidgeRunner

[RidgeRunner]

Serge,

 

You can see the curved leading edge to the intake here 

 

(deleted)

 

Martin

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by RidgeRunner

[RidgeRunner]

Serge,

 

You can see the curved leading edge here

 

 

Martin

 

[72modeler]

Martin,

 

Did you get the IVA photos I sent? I think I know which one you might do, but I'm waiting to see if I'm right- I do have my Randolph Engineering USAF issue sunglasses ready, just in case my guess is correct!

 

BTW, the MB  kit windscreen doesn't look right, compared to photos of actual aircraft- what do you think? Maybe using  a Mig-17  nose ring faired back to the base of the windscreen and along the bottom to get the slight curvature would work? If you have one of John Aero's vacform Mig-17F conversions, IIRC, it had a metal nose ring- which would also provide some nose weight. Looking at your profile photo, it appears to me that the upper and lower contour of the nose forward of the windscreen tapers too much, when it should be basically straight along the bottom with a more pronounced taper along the upper surface. Does the forward nose gear fairing door stay closed unless the undercart is retracting/extending, or is it open like the one in your photo? Doesn't look like either kit provides the option. Just spitballin' here, as we say! (Sure glad I kept one of my old Matchbox kits, in any event!)

Mike

Edited July 29, 2019 by 72modeler
added text

[RidgeRunner]

23 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

Martin,

 

Did you get the IVA photos I sent? I think I know which one you might do, but I'm waiting to see if I'm right- I do have my Randolph Engineering USAF issue sunglasses ready, just in case my guess is correct!

 

BTW, the MB  kit windscreen doesn't look right, compared to photos of actual aircraft- what do you think? Maybe using  a Mig-17  nose ring faired back to the base of the windscreen and along the bottom to get the slight curvature would work? If you have one of John Aero's vacform Mig-17F conversions, IIRC, it had a metal nose ring- which would also provide some nose weight. Looking at your profile photo, it appears to me that the upper and lower contour of the nose forward of the windscreen tapers too much, when it should be basically straight along the bottom with a more pronounced taper along the upper surface. Does the forward nose gear fairing door stay closed unless the undercart is retracting/extending, or is it open like the one in your photo? Doesn't look like either kit provides the option. Just spitballin' here, as we say! (Sure glad I kept one of my old Matchbox kits, in any event!)

Mike

Hi Mike,

 

Yes, thank you. You're thinking of a "314-XX" machine, aren't you? 

 

M

Edited July 29, 2019 by RidgeRunner

[72modeler]

10 minutes ago, RidgeRunner said:

You're thinking of a "314-XX" machine, aren't you? 

My eyes, my eyes! I'm beginning to see a pattern here. 

Mike

[RidgeRunner]

5 minutes ago, RidgeRunner said:

Hi Mike,

 

Yes, thank you. You're thinking of a "314-XX" machine, aren't you? 

 

M

@72modeler Right now, Mike, I'm trying to settle down for the remaining Mustangs and then it will be Super Mysteres and, prompted by my recent book acquisition, a French F-100. In amonst that I want to get to at least one RF-84F and my Venezuelan F-86F-40

 

Martin

 

[72modeler]

RR,

 

Speaking of F/RF-84F's, I sure wish I could afford the re-issued  PJ Productions F-84F...of course, as soon as I do that, Sword will release an injected one to go with their RF-84F.- wonder if they have plans for that? Guess maybe I need to bite the bullet, although I do have two Airfix and two Italeri kits gathering dust on the shelves. It's such a handsome old slug!

Mike

[RidgeRunner]

I agree, Mike, it was a great machine.i live in hope that Sword bring out a F-84F. I'd be buying qUite a few

[Trenton guy]

6 hours ago, 72modeler said:

RR,

 

Speaking of F/RF-84F's, I sure wish I could afford the re-issued  PJ Productions F-84F...of course, as soon as I do that, Sword will release an injected one to go with their RF-84F.- wonder if they have plans for that? Guess maybe I need to bite the bullet, although I do have two Airfix and two Italeri kits gathering dust on the shelves. It's such a handsome old slug!

Mike

The PJ F-84F is a beautiful and well detailed kit but sadly represent an example that has been on a diet. Visibly narrow, left to right. Perfect in every other way but just doesn’t look right. The F-84 was a beefy aircraft, descendant of the Thunderbolt after all.