Jump to content

Yakovlev Yak-9 1/72 from Zvezda in 2022


Aardvark
 Share

Recommended Posts

Never mind all that noise about super-detailed 1/72 P-51B and FW-190D kits - here's a link to the Zvezda 1/72 Yak-9 page on Scalemates:
https://www.scalemates.com/kits/zvezda-73xx-yakovlev-yak-9--1376095

(Oh yeah - there was some mention of a new 1/48 kit, too:)

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/zvezda-48xz-yakovlev-yak-9--1376098

John

Edited by John Thompson
Corrected link to Scalemates page; deleted mistaken nonsense about easy-assembly kits
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2021 at 4:35 AM, DLinevitch said:

1.Tail shape incorrect
2.Incorrect canopy shape
3.Wrong radiator shape
4.Incorrect fuselage cross sections
5.Incorrect engine hood shapes

6.Incorrect fairings of machine guns
7.Incorrect air intakes
8.Incorrect exausts
9.Wrong wing
 

The photo is just for illustration, it is clear that if you are not familiar with the real object, one single photo will not convince you, however, if you start to delve into, you may be very disappointed (or not) :)

I find posts like this to be unhelpful in assessing a kit. The wing is wrong!!! Did they put a Spitfire wing on it? When you say the shapes are incorrect, just how incorrect are they? Are they out by half a millimeter or several? And are they out all around the profile or just at certain points. No kit can claim 100% fidelity to the original and you could make these same type of generic claims of inaccuracies about most if not all of them. If you’re going to claim some is wrong then at least say how it’s wrong.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

I find posts like this to be unhelpful in assessing a kit.

 

Unfortunately, in the age of social media, demanding modellers, insisting that manufacturers should produce the ideal, are disproportionately loud in relation to their numbers and their importance.

I have already seen complaints about an 'error' of 0.2mm (yes, seriously, 0.2 mm) and, of course, it was an inexcusable error and the company was going to go bankrupt making 'such inaccurate' kits.

The funny thing is that if you ask these error catchers for their sources, they use old plans, poor photos or their own ideas about the model. Very few of them really know what they are talking about.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

I find posts like this to be unhelpful in assessing a kit. The wing is wrong!!! Did they put a Spitfire wing on it? When you say the shapes are incorrect, just how incorrect are they? Are they out by half a millimeter or several? And are they out all around the profile or just at certain points. No kit can claim 100% fidelity to the original and you could make these same type of generic claims of inaccuracies about most if not all of them. If you’re going to claim some is wrong then at least say how it’s wrong.

In my case, this means that the differences are very noticeable in a simple comparison. For a specialist, this can be seen in the image that I attached, if you do not understand this, I have nothing to do with it.

Edited by DLinevitch
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DLinevitch said:

In my case, this means that the differences are very noticeable in a simple comparison. For a specialist, this can be seen in the image that I attached, if you do not understand this, I have nothing to do with it.

So, to sum up, there are problems but you have to be an expert to see them. Thanks! That’s helpful.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

So, to sum up, there are problems but you have to be an expert to see them. Thanks! That’s helpful.

Sorry, but I'm not the person to give the Competency Ratings. Find someone who acts on your level of understanding, this is a public place and there is no point in demanding something personally for yourself.

Edited by DLinevitch
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2021 at 4:36 AM, John Thompson said:

@Aardvark @Stew Dapple - thank you both!!! This is fantastic news! I suspect this will be the next addition to Zvezda's easy-assembly series, and will probably be a Yak-9D, so no series of VK-105 variants, but it's an excellent start!

Unfortunately, John, it turns out you were right. Today, Zvezda revealed further details.

Their #7313 is a Yak-9D - thus a VK-105-powered variant with a forward-located cockpit.

So the one that is (apart from a few minor details) modelled quite well by Valom.

In other words, we will have to wait many more years for the "rear cockpit" -9DD/T/K and the VK-107-powered -9U/P.

Pity...

Cheers

Michael

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KRK4m said:

Unfortunately, John, it turns out you were right. Today, Zvezda revealed further details.

Their #7313 is a Yak-9D - thus a VK-105-powered variant with a forward-located cockpit.

So the one that is (apart from a few minor details) modelled quite well by Valom.

In other words, we will have to wait many more years for the "rear cockpit" -9DD/T/K and the VK-107-powered -9U/P.

Pity...

Cheers

Michael

 

That's okay, and thank you for the good news - I'll take it! I've already converted the Valom Yak-9 to a Yak-9T, so if I feel the need, I should be able to do the same to the Zvezda kit. Do you have any information about the release date? I emailed Zvezda about it, but got no reply.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2021 at 10:35 AM, DLinevitch said:

1.Tail shape incorrect
2.Incorrect canopy shape
3.Wrong radiator shape
4.Incorrect fuselage cross sections
5.Incorrect engine hood shapes

6.Incorrect fairings of machine guns
7.Incorrect air intakes
8.Incorrect exausts
9.Wrong wing
 

The photo is just for illustration, it is clear that if you are not familiar with the real object, one single photo will not convince you, however, if you start to delve into, you may be very disappointed (or not) :)

 

On 12/7/2021 at 5:18 PM, DLinevitch said:

In my case, this means that the differences are very noticeable in a simple comparison. For a specialist, this can be seen in the image that I attached, if you do not understand this, I have nothing to do with it.

 

On 12/8/2021 at 12:58 PM, DLinevitch said:

Sorry, but I'm not the person to give the Competency Ratings. Find someone who acts on your level of understanding, this is a public place and there is no point in demanding something personally for yourself.

 

 

So, dude, can (will) you tell us, whats are the exact shortcomings on the kit?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LN-KEH said:

 

The Zvezda Snap kits I have seen are a good basis for further detailing, and I am quite sure Russian makers of detail sets will help us on the way. 

 

3 hours ago, IanC said:

 

If it's like the Bf 109F it'll be worth waiting for. A lot depends on how the parts are engineered for snapping and fitting. The new Hurricane is problematic in that regard. 

 

I agree completely! These somewhat-simplified kits can be a lot of fun to build/modify/add detail to. There have been some real beauties produced from the HobbyBoss MiG-3, for example. I've already got the Foxbot Yak-9D decal sheet #72-060 on order, and the Foxbot #72-001 Yak-9T sheet waiting in case I'm inspired to convert the Zvezda kit into the antitank version with the relocated cockpit and the 37mm cannon! A.I. Vybornov's "White 38" is first on the list if I do, in spite of already having built it with the Dakoplast kit:

Pict19.jpg

https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/yak9/misos/yak9t/yak9t.htm

 

Damn - isn't that gorgeous?! :wub:

 

John

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem.  Surely the 37mm version has nothing to do with being anti-tank but was just a different air-to-air variant for "snipers"?  I thought the "anti-tank" story was on a par with the Soviets only using P-39s for air-to-ground because of their cannon?

 

But yes, an aft-cockpit version would valuable, not just for the T but also the late-war standard M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Ahem.  Surely the 37mm version has nothing to do with being anti-tank but was just a different air-to-air variant for "snipers"?  I thought the "anti-tank" story was on a par with the Soviets only using P-39s for air-to-ground because of their cannon?.

You may be right, but everything I've seen emphasizes its effectiveness against tanks (as well as shipping, and yes, enemy aircraft). Was its originally-intended purpose solely the destruction of tanks? The answer is probably in the translation of the Russian word which provides its designation with the suffix "T" - is it simply something like "flying tank", or is it "tank destroyer"? As I assume you know, Russian suffixes were given based on the purpose of the variant and not in alphabetic order, as in the US system, for example.

 

(Gunston says "anti-tank", which is good enough for me, until someone fluent in Russian tells me otherwise; Yefim Gordon, on the other hand, says "Tyazhelowooruzhenny", which he translates simply as "heavily armed".)

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, John Thompson said:

The answer is probably in the translation of the Russian word which provides its designation with the suffix "T" - is it simply something like "flying tank", or is it "tank destroyer"?

 

T = танковый 

 

It translates to "tank" but in Russian this is adjective. Some sources claim it was противо-танковый (anti-tank) but I'm not sure about their reliability.

 

The phrase of the "plane for snipers" originated from the statement of one of the Soviet pilots, who said that "the Yak-9T pilot should be a sniper and hit the enemy with the first shot". The point was that the recoil from the cannon was so significant that the first 2-3 bullets hit, the rest flying far from the target. In addition, the small amount of ammunition, only 30 rounds, did not allow long series, so it was a plane for good pilots, who were able to use its advantages.

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

1 hour ago, Piotr Mikolajski said:

T = танковый 

I've read version what "T" was for "тяжелый" i.e. "heavy (fighter)" in English and what "К" was for "крупнокалиберный" i.e. "large-caliber" in English. 

Edited by Dimmy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, John Thompson said:

So then, "tank-like" or, per Gordon, "heavily-armed".

 

Heavily armed is different word in Russian - тяжеловооружённый

 

The Soviet version letter designations may look chaotic and meaningless, but only seemingly so. Generally, they denote the purpose of a given version of the aircraft or a change in a major piece of equipment, like engine or armament. In the case of Yak-9, the first group includes, among others, Yak-9B, Yak-9R, Yak-9V, while the second group includes Yak-9MPVO, Yak-9PD and so on. Sometimes a combination of letters and their meanings was used, e.g. Yak-9TD or Yak-9UV.

 

Of course, there must always be something that deviates from the pattern. So we have M and U designations, used for general modifications and major improvements to the whole aircraft, but we also have factory index letters like S (some sources claim it was from two B-20S guns) and we have doubles, like P (post-war variant was called Yak-9P VK-107А).

  • Yak-9B (Як-9Б = бомбардировщик / bomber)
  • Yak-9D (Як-9Д = дальний / greater range)
  • Yak-9DD (Як-9ДД = дальнего действия / long range missions)
  • Yak-9M (Як-9М = модифицированный / modified)
  • Yak-9MPVO (Як-9МПВО = М + ПВО / M variant with additional equipment for PVO units)
  • Yak-9P (1943) (Як-9П = пушечный / armed with cannons)
  • Yak-9PD (Як-9ПД = Як-9 с двигателем М-105ПД / Yak-9 with M-105PD engine)
  • Yak-9R (Як-9Р = разведчик / reconnaissance)
  • Yak-9T (Як-9Т = танковый / tank or anti-tank)
  • Yak-9TD (Як-9ТД = танковый дальний / Yak-9T with longer range)
  • Yak-9TK (Як-9ТК = танковый крупнокалиберный / could be armed with gun from T or K version)
  • Yak-9U (Як-9У = улучшенный / improved)
  • Yak-9UT (Як-9УТ = улучшенный танковый / based on improved, armed with gun from T version)
  • Yak-9UV (Як-9УВ = улучшенный вывозной / based on improved, dual control trainer)
  • Yak-9V (Як-9В = вывозной / dual control trainer)

Last but not least - letter markings from one plant did not necessarily mean the same thing on aircraft from another manufacturer. For example, Ilyushin Il-4TK is "Ил-4 с турбонагнетателями и герметической кабиной" which means "Ilyushin Il-4 with turbochargers and a pressurized cabin".

 

And... what about Yak-9K? Good question and a little surprise. We have Yak-9K armed with 45 mm gun (where K means крупнокалиберный - large caliber armament) but we have another Yak-9K too, where K means корабельный - ship-based. It was version developed in 1944 and 1945 for planned Soviet aircraft carriers and as a catapult fighter. A little bit info can be found in the book "Линейные силы советского флота" (Soviet Navy Line Forces) published in Russian by Gangut in 2016 on pages 537-539.

Edited by Piotr Mikolajski
Readability
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...