New 1/72 La-5 kits... which one?

[MarkoZG]

I saw most of the early pre/re-views of new La-5 kits and noticed grossly overlooked facts regarding Clear Prop's product.

Everyone seem to be fascinated by their technology, but it seems that few people have "the eye" to judge the kit's shape.

Only most recent posts adressed this finally. Despite promising CADs, Clear Prop made a huge miss with final product.

The canopy is most obvious fault, being to tall and disrupting the first impression, but if you look better, you will see

there is something wrong with the entire airframe. This model looks like someone tried to make a joke out of La-5, like a caricature.

There is something very wrong with many other proportions on this kit.

I do not underestimate the top technology this kit was made with and very fine and detailed small parts that look as if they

raised the bar for 1/72nd scale, but if you want a faithful replica of La-5, then all of these advantages do not suffice.

[Tbolt]

11 hours ago, MarkoZG said:

I saw most of the early pre/re-views of new La-5 kits and noticed grossly overlooked facts regarding Clear Prop's product.

Everyone seem to be fascinated by their technology, but it seems that few people have "the eye" to judge the kit's shape.

Only most recent posts adressed this finally. Despite promising CADs, Clear Prop made a huge miss with final product.

The canopy is most obvious fault, being to tall and disrupting the first impression, but if you look better, you will see

there is something wrong with the entire airframe. This model looks like someone tried to make a joke out of La-5, like a caricature.

There is something very wrong with many other proportions on this kit.

I do not underestimate the top technology this kit was made with and very fine and detailed small parts that look as if they

raised the bar for 1/72nd scale, but if you want a faithful replica of La-5, then all of these advantages do not suffice.

I only could see the very slight shortness of the windscreen in that comparison photo since it was cropped, but when I looked yesterday at the whole of the aircraft it looked like the canopy may be a bit tall.  I think it's made worse by the fact that they have canopy overlapping the rear fuselage, like the real thing, but the problem is in 1/72nd scale the thickness of the plastic is obviously that much thicker, adding to the height.

 

 

 

The other point is that the La-5 canopy seems to extend below the cockpit side sills and is therefore deeper than the windscreen. I'm wondering if they took the dimension for the canopy and match the windscreen and the cockpit cutout to it, making them too deep?

 

 

[Graham Boak]

It seems a very upright windscreen too.  Otherwise couldn't this be rescued by trimming the bottom of the windscreen so that it sits a little lower, and forgetting the nonsense about sliding canopies.?  Or is the rear fuselage too high?

 

If this is setting some new standard for the number and tininess of parts, then for me this is showing off their technique over practicality and way over the top.  I will avoid it, but then I didn't want another La-5 anyway so it may be less easy for others.

[Tbolt]

32 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

It seems a very upright windscreen too.  Otherwise couldn't this be rescued by trimming the bottom of the windscreen so that it sits a little lower, and forgetting the nonsense about sliding canopies.?  Or is the rear fuselage too high?

 

If this is setting some new standard for the number and tininess of parts, then for me this is showing off their technique over practicality and way over the top.  I will avoid it, but then I didn't want another La-5 anyway so it may be less easy for others.

Hard to say if the front is too upright, it could be the height and length just giving that impression. I'll let some else measure and get the red lines out 😉

 

Maybe the windscreen could be trimmed or wait for a more accurate vacuform one.

[Aardvark]

2 hours ago, Tbolt said:

I only could see the very slight shortness of the windscreen in that comparison photo since it was cropped, but when I looked yesterday at the whole of the aircraft it looked like the canopy may be a bit tall.  I think it's made worse by the fact that they have canopy overlapping the rear fuselage, like the real thing, but the problem is in 1/72nd scale the thickness of the plastic is obviously that much thicker, adding to the height.

 

 

 

The other point is that the La-5 canopy seems to extend below the cockpit side sills and is therefore deeper than the windscreen. I'm wondering if they took the dimension for the canopy and match the windscreen and the cockpit cutout to it, making them too deep?

 

 

Sorry, I'm absolutely not expert on La-5,  but as I know, CP maked nose part canopy with circle visor early series La-5, but on photo  which You posting nose part canopy with 

flat visor last series La-5.

Sorry but  comparison canopy CP with this photo not correct.

 

B.R.

Serge

[Tbolt]

40 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

Sorry, I'm absolutely not expert on La-5,  but as I know, CP maked nose part canopy with circle visor early series La-5, but on photo  which You posting nose part canopy with 

flat visor last series La-5.

Sorry but  comparison canopy CP with this photo not correct.

 

B.R.

Serge

I know,  but  I just couldn't find a picture on the internet of the early aircraft to post here showing the canopy well - I posted them to show how the main canopy overlaps the fuselage, I thought the were the same.

[Tbolt]

Here you go, I forgot about the Soviet warplanes site and found a couple. Looking at it the main canopy did change as well.

 

 

 

Compared to this, where the canopy does seem to come down a little further. Though did the main canopy change on the same series as the windscreen?

 

[Graham Boak]

In the bottom picture, the lowest frame of the windscreen has been overpainted, but both transparencies appears to be otherwise the same as the above examples.

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

In the bottom picture, the lowest frame of the windscreen has been overpainted, but both transparencies appears to be otherwise the same as the above examples.

 

I'm seeing what seems to match this drawing. But there could have been several canopy changes and who knows when they changed.

 

 

Early canopy.

 

 

 

 

Later canopy. Note the thicker rear frame as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

In all the pictures I see thicker rear frames to the canopy than in the drawing, but little difference if any between upper and lower views.  What I see in the windscreen/fuselage join matches the plan in all the photos in both postings.  If there were different canopies I don't see them in these photos.  Which is not to say they didn't exist.   I do see windscreens with and without a flat front piece, presumably armour glass?

[Tbolt]

14 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

In all the pictures I see thicker rear frames to the canopy than in the drawing, but little difference if any between upper and lower views.  What I see in the windscreen/fuselage join matches the plan in all the photos in both postings.  If there were different canopies I don't see them in these photos.  Which is not to say they didn't exist.   I do see windscreens with and without a flat front piece, presumably armour glass?

In the drawing the lower side view is the later, flat windscreen series and you can see another strip on the bottom of the canopy which you can see here behind the pilot head. The upper side view drawing which is the earlier series with the curved windscreen does not seems to have this strip on, resulting in the edge being slightly higher. The rear edge is noticeable thicker to me on the later series as in the drawing.

 

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

OK, I was looking at the rear, as in vertical, frame not at the lower one.  However, having seen this, I find it difficult to reconcile the two views of this change.  On the white airframe the extension appears to tuck under the rail, whereas in the last picture it appears to run outside.  Perhaps there is something odd about the light on the last - flash camera, perhaps.

[Tbolt]

Just having a look at LaGG-3's as well and they seem to vary also. Maybe just different manufacturers?  I wonder what the canopy you get in the new KP kit?

 

Thick rear frame.

 

 

Thin rear frame.

 

[Graham Boak]

I suspect different modifications being introduced on different lines, with the two types being produced in parallel for a while.  You really need the batch numbers to distinguish the fittings (if these are ever made clear) and then good luck as regards different sites.

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

I suspect different modifications being introduced on different lines, with the two types being produced in parallel for a while.  You really need the batch numbers to distinguish the fittings (if these are ever made clear) and then good luck as regards different sites.

Yes could be and the canopy types may have been interchangeable, well that's what I'm saying anyway to make my models correct!

[John Thompson]

The LaGG-3 with the thicker (actually two separate frame members) rear frame is a series 66. While some very early La-5's had the curved windscreen the same as the pre-66 series LaGG-3's, most had the later, flat windscreen of the series 66.

 

John

[Tbolt]

49 minutes ago, John Thompson said:

The LaGG-3 with the thicker (actually two separate frame members) rear frame is a series 66. While some very early La-5's had the curved windscreen the same as the pre-66 series LaGG-3's, most had the later, flat windscreen of the series 66.

 

John

Isn't the series 66 a different canopy frame again? Because like you say that one has a clear section in-between those two parts, which doesn't look like the solid one.

[John Thompson]

20 minutes ago, Tbolt said:

Isn't the series 66 a different canopy frame again? Because like you say that one has a clear section in-between those two parts, which doesn't look like the solid one.

 

I've only noticed the version with the clear section between the two frames, but there could be a solid one. I'm not very observant sometimes! I vaguely remember figuring out why the series 66 canopy was like that, but it's gone now. Maybe reference to Jumpei Temma's drawings might be useful? I think it was because the series 66 windscreen wasn't as long in the fore-and-aft direction as the preceding series(es), so the sliding part of the canopy was extended rearward to make up the difference.

http://soyuyo.main.jp/lagg3/lagg3.html

 

I thought I had an English-language version bookmarked, but apparently not; no time to look for it right now.

 

John

[Tbolt]

 

1 hour ago, John Thompson said:

 

I've only noticed the version with the clear section between the two frames, but there could be a solid one. I'm not very observant sometimes! I vaguely remember figuring out why the series 66 canopy was like that, but it's gone now. Maybe reference to Jumpei Temma's drawings might be useful? I think it was because the series 66 windscreen wasn't as long in the fore-and-aft direction as the preceding series(es), so the sliding part of the canopy was extended rearward to make up the difference.

http://soyuyo.main.jp/lagg3/lagg3.html

 

I thought I had an English-language version bookmarked, but apparently not; no time to look for it right now.

 

John

It's was certainly an interesting canopy design and I guess the clear part was for visibility, even as small as it is.

[John Thompson]

English version of Temma's LaGG-3 write-up:

 

http://soyuyo.main.jp/lagg3/lagg3e.html

 

John

 

[DavidB]

Any chance of a 1/72 La-5 / La-5f / La-5fn joy pack from Kp? I have a bunch of decals that I would love to use.

Currently building their La-5 Valery Chkalov, not a bad build overall, will need a scrape of filler in the usual places but nothing major.

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by DavidB

[mholly]

On 5/10/2020 at 5:18 PM, MarkoZG said:

I saw most of the early pre/re-views of new La-5 kits and noticed grossly overlooked facts regarding Clear Prop's product.

Everyone seem to be fascinated by their technology, but it seems that few people have "the eye" to judge the kit's shape.

Only most recent posts adressed this finally. Despite promising CADs, Clear Prop made a huge miss with final product.

The canopy is most obvious fault, being to tall and disrupting the first impression, but if you look better, you will see

there is something wrong with the entire airframe. This model looks like someone tried to make a joke out of La-5, like a caricature.

There is something very wrong with many other proportions on this kit.

I do not underestimate the top technology this kit was made with and very fine and detailed small parts that look as if they

raised the bar for 1/72nd scale, but if you want a faithful replica of La-5, then all of these advantages do not suffice.

It would be really nice if you show/quote hard references proving where CP got things wrong. Maybe you have original WWII La-5 in your backyard?

 

[mholly]

On 4/2/2021 at 7:09 PM, DavidB said:

Any chance of a 1/72 La-5 / La-5f / La-5fn joy pack from Kp? I have a bunch of decals that I would love to use.

Currently building their La-5 Valery Chkalov, not a bad build overall, will need a scrape of filler in the usual places but nothing major.

 

I doubt, La-5FN is very difficult to find even in Czech Republic/EU. AZ outsourced molds for these kits and seems to have a problem with supplier.