251-Mig 19PM Farmer -A Mig with missiles***FINISHED***

[stevej60]

Nice one Pete,I often wondered what this and their Mig21 looked like in the flesh.

[Aardvark]

22 hours ago, PeterB said:

See what you mean - KP got that right, I will have to take a file to the Heller tail and wing it seems!

Pete , that's why I wrote - make it the way Heller intended it, without changing anything!  I am sure that sooner or later a normal, accurate and good MiG-19 from some manufacturer will appear.

 

22 hours ago, PeterB said:

Any idea what colour the ejector seat frame and cushions should be?

frame -  grey

cushions - black or brown.

More details on colors, as far as I remember, I wrote in my unfinished build MiG-21F from Modelsvit.

 

B.R.

Serge

[PeterB]

Right, time to make a start. Serge has already mentioned a couple of inaccuracies I need to attend to later, but first I will try and sort out the fuselage!

As I mentioned earlier the fuselage is see through, so I will start by adding some tailpipes. I found a couple of what I suspect were drop tanks off a 1960's Revell Ki-84 and sawed off the front and back. I will paint the insides, glue them back together and put them on the "backing plate" that goes behind the tail fairing, closing them off with card later. That will take care of the back but the front will be a lot harder. The cockpit floor doubles up as the roof of the rear part of the nose bay so I will extend it forward and then box the bay in. I probably need to put a bulkhead behind where the seat will be as well. Of course this arrangement means that the nose intake trunking cannot go between the cockpit floor and the roof of the bay as I guess it did in real life, so I may just end up with another bulkhead in front of the cockpit, though I may be able to get some sort of trunking in. I have of course to bear in mind the need for weight - although Heller do not mention it I am pretty sure it will need some! I have a couple of ideas, but in the worst case scenario it will just end up behind the cockpit, though that will mean putting rather more in than if it were right at the front.

 

So, on with the story!

Having tested the engines and general configuration in Mig 17 test beds, work was started on Mikoyan's I-360 “Escort Fighter” aka Izdeliye SM-2 following receipt of an order to proceed from the Council of Ministers on August 10th 1951, followed immediately by one from the Ministry of Aircraft Industry the next day, with a deadline for an aircraft to be ready for State acceptance trials in July 1952, so they weren't hanging about.

 

To fulfil the escort task the plane had to be bigger than the Mig 17 so that it could carry more fuel so the fuselage was lengthened by 1.6m, and the wing sweep was set at 55º to facilitate supersonic flight. Two prototypes were constructed together with a static test airframe. Initially it was fitted with a “T” tail with normal elevators, and was armed with 2x37mm cannon in the wing roots, as tests showed problems with gas ingestion when the test bed was fitted with the guns under the nose as on the Mig 15 and Mig 17 – firing them caused the engine to stall! The first prototype, Article SM-2/1, was ready for testing in April 1952, when it was found to be 400kg over weight. It first flew a month later and in spite of engine problems and problems with the gases from the guns still stalling the engines seemed generally pretty good. These problems were gradually overcome and State acceptance trials began in February 1952 but were problematic and there were still areas the Air Force were not happy with, so Mikoyan carried out a redesign, resulting in the Article SM-9/1 which had several modifications, and more were made during continued service testing, continuing even after the authorities had decided to order the aircraft into limited production as the Mig 19.

 

One of the most serious problems was that at high angles of attack the airflow over the horizontal tail surfaces was unsatisfactory and the plane became unstable. The horizontal tail was progressively lowered and some improvement resulted, but in the end, after a few early Mig 19 were produced, it was decided to fit a “slab” tail and that more or less solved the problem when coupled with various other detail changes and the provision of a revised power boosted “artificial feel” control system. This produced the Article SM-9/3 aka Mig 19S (for Stabilizator). Amongst other changes were to fit a more powerful Tumansky (one book says Mikulin!) RD-9B afterburning engines technically producing the Mig 19SF (for Forsirovanny or boosted but they did not bother to use that designation much), whilst the armament was changed to 2x30mm cannon with muzzle brakes which seems to have reduced the problem with engine stalling when the guns were fired. There were many more changes but I will not list them all here. The Mig 19S was the first major production version and was widely exported not only to other Warsaw Pact countries but to amongst others the Chinese. However, after the falling out over ideology in between Russia and China in 1960 the Chinese began unlicensed production of their own version and undercut Soviet prices. 

 

This is an acient KP kit of the Mig 19S I made in North Vietnamese markings, though in reality it would have been the Chinese copy the Shenyang J-6. KP seem to have moulded the anti flutter weights on the slab tail much more accurately than Heller.

 

All my background ramblings are a condensed version of what I have read in a number of books and may not be entirely accurate, so, if anybody such as Serge with his superior "local knowledge" knows better please feel to join in.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited October 10, 2020 by PeterB

[PeterB]

Ok,

 

Here is a question for @Wez and the rest of the moderators. As Serge has pointed out the tail on the kit is wrong. I have filed it down so it looks better but now find it is several mil too short. I know the instructions allow aftermarket bits, but there are no replacements for the stabs on a Mig 19 AFAIK. I have however another Mig 19 in my scrap box with correct stabs - an ancient KP one in fact. Would I be allowed to graft them on to this Heller kit, failing which I will just have to try and extend the kit ones as I cannot bring myself to build it with stabs which are each a scale foot short. Alternatively, I could perhaps transfer this build to either the forthcoming Interceptor GB or the next KUTA, and substitute my Heller AMX-30 tank kit.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited October 23, 2020 by PeterB

[Rabbit Leader]

Pete, 

Fill your boots with the KP stabs mate. We allow all aspects of AM parts and decals to be used so can't see why we wont allow bits from other models (so long as it's not the entire fuse and wings!). 

Cheers and good luck.. Dave 

[PeterB]

Thanks Dave,

 

I should have checked the length of the stabs first but as I was only intending to take 2mm off I thought they would be close enough. However it seems they must have been short by at least the same amount to start with. I will wait and see what the others say before making a decision. This is probably not one of Heller's better kits, but at that time they might not have been able to get close to one to check, I guess.

 

Pete

[Heather Kay]

If it helps, I shall echo what Dave said. 

[Aardvark]

Pete, As I already wrote, MiG-19 Heller is best done as it is, but if You want to correct his shortcomings with the help of MiG-19 parts from the KP, why not?

 

B.R.

Serge

[PeterB]

Hi Serge,

 

Quick question. I believe the colour of the numbers on the nose of old Soviet jets has some significance. Most seem to have been red, but some are blue which I seem to remember meant they were part of a particular unit/force eg PVO - is that correct? As to the Mig-19, I could have built it out of the box, but the inaccuracy annoys me too much so I will see what I can do to make it a bit better. The wings in particular will need a bit of work. Not only will I need to straighten the trailing edge, but also add tabs to what I guess are the ailerons, actuating arms or whatever above the inboard flap, and I think also a very shallow fence inboard looking at your walkround and other pics. Ok, it will still be inaccurate but perhaps not quite as much.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited October 24, 2020 by PeterB

[Aardvark]

23 minutes ago, PeterB said:

Quick question. I believe the colour of the numbers on the nose of old Soviet jets has some significance. Most seem to have been red, but some are blue which I seem to remember meant they were part of a particular unit/force eg PVO - is that correct?

Hi, Pete!

 

This is a later 

charter

 on the insignia of the USSR Air Force, but in the charter

 from 1955 that was before it, everything that touched the number is the same:

 

http://www.airforce.ru/information/marking/index.htm



21. The tail number on airplanes is designated by a two-digit number and is applied to the side surfaces of the fuselage or the vertical tail of the airplane from both sides.  On heavy bombers, the number is applied only to the vertical tail above the star.  On frontline bombers, the number is applied to the side of the fuselage and to the vertical tail above the star.  For all other aircraft, the number is applied to the side of the fuselage: on aircraft with an extended nose section - in front of the wing, with a shortened nose section - behind the wing (Appendices 3 and 8).

      22. On all aircraft that are part of the aviation unit, numbers are applied at the direction of the senior aviation chief of the garrison, in compliance with the following requirements:

             - numbers must be in the range from 01 to 99;

             - numbers for units located at one aerodrome are issued without observing the sequence, for example: one of the regiments is assigned numbers from 05 to 16 and from 43 to 72, the other from 21 to 35 and from 81 to 99;

             - within the numbers received by the decision of the unit commander, each aircraft of the unit is assigned a number at random;

             If the number of aircraft of the same type at the airfield exceeds 100 units, it is allowed to apply the same numbers to aircraft of different units.

             - side numbers for aircraft based on the same airfield are applied with paint of one color (red, blue or yellow) and edged with a black stripe 10-15 mm wide.

       23. The following sizes and shapes of numbers for aircraft side numbers are set:

             А) Height of numbers without edging: 300, 400, 600, 900, 1200, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000 mm;

             B ) The width of the digits should be equal to 2/3 of their height, and the thickness of the lines that make up the digit should be 1/6 of their height;

             C) The numbers on the fuselage board should fit into a conventional rectangle and be applied, if possible, on the lateral projection of the fuselage axis in a place where they are better visible, taking into account the requirements of Art.  22 of this Regulation;

             D) The numbers of the aircraft side number on the vertical tail of a heavy bomber should be 400 mm high, and on the vertical tail of a front bomber - 400 mm high.

http://www.airforce.ru/information/marking/page_04.htm

http://www.airforce.ru/information/marking/page_16.htm

 

Therefore, the color of the number was regulated only by the order of the unit commander, and usually different squadrons in the regiment were simply indicated in different colors.  For example: the red color of the number - the first squadron of the regiment;  blue color of the number - the second squadron of the regiment;  the yellow color of the number is the third squadron of the regiment.

 

 

B.R.

Serge

 

 

[PeterB]

Thanks Serge.

 

That makes sense, but I have seen some with 3 digit nose numbers. For example one of my Su-27 is Blue 388 so I guess there were exceptions?

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Hi,

 

So, as to whether or not using the stabs off my old KP kit is within the rules, 2 out of 5 mods do not seem to have any objections, but I would like to hear from the others before going ahead - @JOCKNEY, @JeroenS and of course @Wez. I will build this one way or another but it is going to take rather more work that I expected as it is not one of Heller's more accurate kits, and whilst I am by no means a perfectionist, I do prefer my builds to look reasonably close to the real thing whenever possible!

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[Aardvark]

16 hours ago, PeterB said:

Thanks Serge.

 

That makes sense, but I have seen some with 3 digit nose numbers.

Conventionally, the numbering of the Soviet Air Force,

by my memory(!!!),

can be divided into such periods:

 

- until the end of WWII - 2-digital & 3-digital ( 3- digital rare);

- from after WW II to 1955 year 2-digital, 3-digital & 4- digital;

- from 1955 to 1974 2-digital, 

- from  1974 to ??? 2-digital, 3- digital for training.

After the collapse of the USSR, I did not study this topic in detail, nor did I study this topic in the pre-war period, due to the fact that this period is not interesting to me.

16 hours ago, PeterB said:

For example one of my Su-27 is Blue 388 so I guess there were exceptions?

Su-27  Blue 388 it's the plane belonged to the ЛИИ ВВС/ Lii VVS -   Air Force Flight Research Institute, I don't remember exactly, but in my opinion it could even be the Su-27 of the Air Force Flight LII test- pilot school, this aircraft also was on Le Bourge 1988 (or 1989? )  air show, thus

Su-27  Blue 388 it is not a combat squadron aircraft, but of course its flight time and intensity of use is greater than that of any combat aircraft.

 

B.R.

Serge

[JOCKNEY]

Hi Pete

All good with me supplementing some KP parts.

Cheers Pat

[PeterB]

Thanks Serge,

 

If it was at Le Bourget that may well explain where the kit manufacturers got the numbering from - I have 2 so I cannot remember if this is the Airfix kit or another make, possibly Revell or Italeri.

 

Pete

[JeroenS]

1 minute ago, JOCKNEY said:

Hi Pete

All good with me supplementing some KP parts.

Cheers Pat

I think you have a majority vote already so I'm fine with it too.

 

What are stabs? 🙂 

[PeterB]

Thanks Guys,

 

Stabs=stabilisers - maybe not quite the correct term but a bit shorter than "horizontal tail surfaces". There are problems with the actual kit wings as well - they have a kink in the trailing edge that needs removing, tabs need adding to the ailerons, actuator fairings to the flaps and a new small fence as well but I can hopefully sort them out with a bit of work.

 

Pete

Edited October 25, 2020 by PeterB

[Aardvark]

43 minutes ago, PeterB said:

Stabs=stabilisers - maybe not quite the correct term but a bit shorter than "horizontal tail surfaces".

The term "stabilizer" - "стабилизатор" is also more common in Russian terminology, however, the term "horizontal tail" is also used.  In fact, for the Russian language, this is a foreign borrowed word, therefore it is almost a foreign word adapted for the Russian transcription in Cyrillic. Therefore, with automatic translation of Russian texts on aviation in Google, you's will constantly come across a "stabilizer"!

49 minutes ago, PeterB said:

 

If it was at Le Bourget that may well explain where the kit manufacturers got the numbering from - I have 2 so I cannot remember if this is the Airfix kit or another make, possibly Revell or Italeri.

Was, Was! 

Was 2 aircraft 388 - Su-27 and 389 - Su-27UB.

In contrast to combat aircraft, aircraft of the OKB, LII or parade aircraft had more divergences from combat aircraft.  As an example, a MiG-9 with a portrait of Stalin on its nose against the background of a red banner from one of the aviation parades, a overall  black Su-15 red 47,  M-17 all with inscriptions and so on ...

Another more interesting direction is Soviet planes for cinema ... here you can note the MiG-17 with USAF insignia  and the inscription of the US Air Force, the Be-12 with a swastika, the Il-38 in the role of Orion with the inscription Navy and American insignia, black IL-  28 as Tornado or Canberra, Black Yak-25RV as U-2, etc.  .... according to rumors there was even a Tu-128 depicting a Phantom with "U.S. Air Force" and USAF insignia , but this film has not yet been found.  What is characteristic is that a number of planes then flew for some time in film-colored.

 

B.R.

Serge

[PeterB]

Ok,

 

So if you are wondering what all he fuss is about, if you look at the sprue shot earlier in the thread and Serge's drawings you will see that Heller made the anti-flutter weights at the end of the horizontal tail surfaces far too big. I tried trimming them back so they look about right but then discovered they were far too short.

The dark grey plastic is the modified Heller kit parts and the lighter plastic is from an old KP kit of the Mig-19S. The difference works out to around a scale foot on each side! Clearly I am going to need some filler to blend to KP ones on to the kit but 4 out of 5 moderators have agreed I can do it - so that just leaves @Wez who seems to be off the air at the moment - hope he is OK! If he feels it is against the rules, it is not a problem as I can still build it for the upcoming Interceptors GB and substitute my Heller AMX-30/105.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[Wez]

3 minutes ago, PeterB said:

4 out of 5 moderators have agreed I can do it - so that just leaves @Wez who seems to be off the air at the moment - hope he is OK!

 

Hi Pete!  I was away in a mobile black hole in the New Forest over the weekend, I'm fine but a bit windswept and slightly damp around the edges still!

 

Go for it mate, this is no different to using aftermarket parts as far as I'm concerned.  Carry on, get it built.

[PeterB]

So, now that I have the go ahead I have started construction proper!

The fuselage is just taped together to check that everything will fit - looks resonable so far but quite a bit moe work to do on the interior. I have glued together the wings, straightened the kink in the trailing edge that Serge pointed out and added the fences provided in the kit. I will have to make some more shallow ones for the inner wing, together with flap actuators and aileron tabs.

 

So, to continue the Mig 19 story.

 

Although originally classed as an “escort fighter” with a gyro gunsight and no radar, later some limited all-weather capability was given by installing what Nato called a “Scan Odd” microwave radar dish in the nose intake “bullet” together with the range measurement receiver being mounted in a lip over the intake, to produce the Mig 19PF. The P stood for Perekhvatchik which can be translated as interceptor, and had previously been applied to clear weather fighters but was now being more frequently used on radar equipped all weather ones, although of course the rigid system of Ground Controlled Interceptions was still in force. The PF was still armed with guns, but the final evolution – the Mig 19PM of this kit with the “M” standing for Modifikatsirovanny or Modified, dispensed with the guns and switched to the first generation of Soviet Air to Air Missiles which the Western Powers named AA-1 or Alkali.

 

After the end of WWII the Soviets realised they needed to develop guided missiles as a matter of urgency, being faced with the prospect of fleets of nuclear armed US aircraft. They therefore set up a programme to develop what would now be called a series of “weapons systems”which in the case of air to air missiles included not only the missile itself, but the associated radar, weapons rails and other related equipment. The first such system was named S-1-U with U standing for guided missile. They issued instructions to existing design bureaux (OKB) and also set up new ones, and the one I am interested in here was OKB 2 created on November 26th 1953 with P.D. Grooshin at its head. He had previously been involved in the development of the missile for the S25 Berkut, later Dvina air defence system, known in the west as the SA-2 Guideline, and the first product of his OKB was the RS-1-U which entered service in 1957. This was a short range (2-3Km) radar guided missile with a 9.2Kg warhead, which could be launched at between 5000ft and 10000ft and had a speed of around 1800 mph. It was mounted on an APU-3 rail and guided by the RP-1-U radar which was a development of the RP-1 Izumrood (Emerald) 1 radar developed for the Mig 17P interceptor – RP stood for Rahdioptitsel or “Radio Sight” produced by what later became NPO Almaz. This missile was used on the Mig 17PFM, Mig 19PM and Yak 25K.

 

The RS-1-U known to Nato as AA-1 or Alkali was followed in 1958 by the slightly larger improved RS-2-U aka AA-1a which had a range of 2.5 to 3.5 km, a 13Kg warhead, better guidance, and could be launched from an APU-4 rail at altitudes between 2500ft and 16500 ft. With the advent of faster aircraft such as the Su-9 a new missile known as the K-6 was being developed by OKB-4 Bisnovat (later GMKB Vymple) but this never did enter service so a third version was designed for launch at higher speeds – the RS-2-US (for Sukhoi) also AA-1a which was virtually identical with the RS-2-U. At a scale 2.52 metres in length the kit missiles could be any of the three versions but are nearest to the RS-2-US This family of missiles were designed to be fired during a stern chase at relatively slow moving and large, not very agile targets eg B-29,B-50 and B-36. Clearly, the low maximum altitude for firing was a serious handicap once high flying jets were encountered so missile development continued as a matter of urgency.

 

More another day.

 

Pete

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by PeterB

[JOCKNEY]

Looks great Pete, really pleased to see this one progressing 

Cheers Pat 

[PeterB]

I first started modelling around the time Airfix started mass producing "plastic construction kits" - they were crude and lacking in detail but on the other hand they were cheap and went together quickly, though the fit was sometimes not too good! These days the kits are far more detailed and usually they are fairly accurate, though the price is often ridiculous and the fit is still variable. I have to admit that I am having problems with small parts as I get older - I certainly could not handle the "OO" gauge doorknob in the Ratio trackside boiler house kit  like I managed 30 years ago - and so I like from time to time to build an old and rather basic kit, but for some strange reason I get considerable pleasure adding just a bit of extra detail if required. This Heller kit fits that bill nicely, and I have had a fairly productive afternoon "tarting it up".

Still a bit of work to do before I paint it but I have added all the appropriate bits to the wing - how long they will stay glued on remains to be seen! After that I stuck the tubes I made from old drop tanks onto the tail fairing and will close them off with a piece of card once the paint dries. I then moved onto the front fuselage and glued in the floor, seat, stick and IP - the headrest and rear fairing will go on shortly and maybe a rear bulkhead if needed. I made a front bulkhead to go at the front of the wheel well, extended the floor to make a roof, and then added sides and a rear which you can't see in the pic, so the well is now boxed in, which is a considerable improvement on the gaping hole Heller provide - I will also box in the main gear wells later.

 

That just left the actual nose itself. The kit "bullet" is far too short so I added a length of plastic tube behind it and then I made an intake trunk out of the last of my old window lead - @Enzo Matrix will like this I think. My new window lead strip that you can see in a rectangular "lump" is a bit thicker (that's the trouble with buying on line - you can't actually see what it is like) so I don't know if it would work as well, but I filed down one end of a strip of the old lead which I had cut to the correct width with scissors and then with the thinned end on the inside I wrapped it tightly round a paint brush handle of the right width to make a cylinder. The thinned down end makes for an almost invisible joint/seam so I have created trunking of sorts and added 1.5g of weight right in the nose at the same time, which I will supplement with the 5g block of new lead between the IP and the bulkhead - should be more than enough to stop it being a tail-sitter.

 

So, all I need to do now is fit the last couple of cockpit parts, tidy up the various bits on the wing to get a decent shape, and paint the interior. After that I should be able to glue the fuselage together, sort out the joints, and stick the wings on. My "borrowed" stabilizers will need a bit of cleaning up and can then be glued on and no doubt will need a bit of filler as the joint with the fuselage is not quite the same on this kit. After that I need to glue on the various intakes, all 18 of them, and it will be ready for priming. I was thinking of giving it a light sanding first as the rivet detail, although very muted, it a bit too much, but I will wait until the intakes are on as I would lose their location marks otherwise!

 

Bye for now.

 

Pete

 

 

[stevehnz]

Impressive work there Peter, it makes my KP one seem not so scary. 

Steve.

[PeterB]

Thanks Steve,

 

Is that an ancient KP one like the Mig-19S I showed earlier, or a newer version like the ones Reini is building in the Vietnam GB? Like this Heller kit, the old ones had loads of small intakes to glue on and slightly vague location instructions, but went together quite well, speaking of which_

this is not as bad as I expected, though plently of scraping, filing, filling, sanding and polishing to do yet. I have rubbed down the rivets etc on the wings but as you can see I still need to do the wing fences and the fuselage once the intakes are on. I also boxed in the main gear wells with some of my diminishing stock of paper thin card - no idea what thickness it is but you can see through it!

The current weather forecast is wet and windy for several days so I doubt I will be able to get it primed outside with a rattle can for quite a while. Oh well, plenty of time left and I can make a start on some of the other kits I guess.

 

In the meantime here is the final part of the long winded rant narrative.

 

To complete the story, the Zvezda (Star) OKB was set up in 1966 to design a modified version of the US-1/2 series of missiles missiles, with an infra red seeker head and a slightly longer body, and that entered service as the R-55 (AA-1b) as late as 1972, whilst in 1958 OKB - 4 Bisnovat were given an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile recovered fairly intact after an incident involving Taiwanese Sabres over China, and reverse engineered it to produce in 1960 the R-3S aka K-13, Nato name AA-2 Atoll. The Mig 19PM could also fire the K-13 from an ASU-13 rail after modification in 1965. The “K” designations were increasingly used by the military being somewhat shorter and easier than the full designation. The K-13 had a similar short range to the RS-2-U but had the advantage that it could be launched at up to 70000ft. If the two Mig-19's sent to try and intercept Powers' U2 had been carrying AA-2 missiles they might have been able to just reach it from their max altitude of around 66000ft, but the RS-2-U or -US they presumably were carrying could not be fired at anywhere near that altitude.

 

So - on with the kit.

 

Pete

Edited October 29, 2020 by PeterB