Jump to content

Mig-29 1/48 GWH kit correct


dov

Recommended Posts

Just to ask, if anybody can give me advise. If the kit is ok for building straight from the box. Or what is to correct? 

Engine I get from Resin. Etched parts I have. Metal landing gear too. Masks from NewWare.

Happy for any valid information.

Happy modelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall great kit, some fit issues

 

Get a newer boxing, the first ones had too short pylons and wing tanks ( hardly fitted on the Fulcrum anyways, but still....

 

Which variantdo you want to build?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dov said:

C 9-13

SMT 9-19

All in Russian Service 

O want to choose!

The SMT has all new parts, fully ok, the first boxing  9.13 does not .Link.. ( the one I have of course ;)

Was reboxed in the meantime, so just make sure you get the updated boxart ;)

See also the kits history on scalemates :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only other point I want to add is that when I look at the sit of the GWH Fulcrum I have the impression that it stands "on its toes". I guess the landing gear was done according to a museum example with fully extended oleo struts as no liquids, fuel and equipment is present. 

 

Compare the "sit" of the kit and a real world example, and you can see that the Fulcrum should sit much lower to the ground than the kit portrays (see the position of the main wheel in relation to the bottom of the engine pod):

 

Cheers

Markus

Edited by Shorty84
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, exdraken said:

Get a newer boxing, the first ones had too short pylons and wing tanks ( hardly fitted on the Fulcrum anyways, but still....

May I tap into your knowledge and ask what boxings have this error? In my stash are L4811 late 9-12, S4811 RoKAF 9-13, L4814 early 9-12, S4809 MiG29AS, would be nice to know if there are issues before I build them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know inly the first 2 boxing had it. The sprue were re-tooled, so I assume later boxing all share the upgraded content.

You can only go by box design, not number!

See e.g. Scalemates for this. ( link above)

If yours only the L4811 is a probable. Depending on the box style.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hallo

 

Thank you all for the information.

My 9-13 is the old boxing.

Anyway I have SAC metall gear. This is the same as the kit provides.

This manufactorer of nozzles, seems to be good. Does anybody know it?

 

https://the48ers.com/mig-29-jet-nozzles.html

 

Today I am on my MIG-23 and 27 from Trumpeter with the new metal gear from Upwind.

 

https://the48ers.com/metal-parts-en/?features_hash=1-9318_5-12768

 

Happy modelling

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, exdraken said:

If yours only the L4811 is a probable. Depending on the box style.

I'll put them side-by-side to see if there are differences or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, found the info without digging into the cellar stash:

concentrate on the sprues around the extended tanks

 

and here on the sprue with the pylons: (the R-73 pylon is part nr 5)

http://www.internetmodeler.com/scalemodels/flaviation/Great-Wall-Hobby-1-48-MiG-29-Fulcrum-9-12-Early-Type.php
http://www.internetmodeler.com/artman/uploads/3/IMG_2623.jpg

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked the tanks and pylons of my side-opening box of L4811 9-12 late and they are identical to the sprues of L4818 9-19. So I guess I am lucky, maybe the previous owner already had them replaced.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2021 at 2:19 PM, Shorty84 said:

The only other point I want to add is that when I look at the sit of the GWH Fulcrum I have the impression that it stands "on its toes". I guess the landing gear was done according to a museum example with fully extended oleo struts as no liquids, fuel and equipment is present. 

 

Compare the "sit" of the kit and a real world example, and you can see that the Fulcrum should sit much lower to the ground than the kit portrays (see the position of the main wheel in relation to the bottom of the engine pod):

 

Cheers

Markus

I wonder how much of the difference in the attitude of the nose seen in the 2 pictures is due to the real aircraft taxiing under power while the kit would have been measured while the aircraft was static? Some aircraft will sit more nose up when powered down than they do when taxiing, check out the Folland Gnat as an example.

 

Duncan B

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...