amurray

Putty, lots of files and sandpaper. I'm making progress on the intakes. Definitely the worst part of the kit!

I used both the AMS instrument panels as well as the kit pieces. This makes the instruments look more realistic, especially the front panel the rear of which should be visible. Harold of AMS pointed out to me that the rear panel is covered in a shroud so the back of that panel is not visible anyway. I made the shroud out of lead foil.

I used scrap plastic to fill the large gaps and to give the kit parts something to bind them together. Otherwise the parts flex too much. I will cover the remaining gaps with putty. When gluing the parts the wing fairings did not quite match the intakes so I put a toothpick under each fairing to spread the part to match the intake. This simple step saves a lot of sanding at a tricky parts joint.

Looking very good!

Now to the dreaded intakes - and they deserve their reputation! I highly recommend one read the excellent build reviews by Tom Cleaver http://modelingmadness.com/review/korean/cleaver/usaf/tmct33.htm and Mike Millette http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/features/t3332mm_1.htm I used Mike's assembly method, Tom's suggestion to cut the intakes apart and my own contribution to solving this problem: enlarge the notch in the fuselage/wingroot where the edge of the trunking is to slide. I also filed away the inside of the fuselage to give more wiggle room. All these steps improve the fit but additional filler is still needed. Before you install the splitters remove the tabs so that they fit.

I decided to use the AMS cockpit tub and seats. The kit has resin seats but they appear too squatty. If you install cockpit sills as I will, be sure to leave a gap in the back for the rear of the cockpit tub.

Be still my heart!...and my wallet.

Exceptional! Love the paint scheme. Would like to see larger pix.

To make a twin tail one must remove the existing tail sections. One can either remove the entire tail at the fuselage break and then make a new mold for the tail and vac form it. Or, one can remove only parts of the existing tail and build up a new tail with scrap plastic and putty or epoxy. I chose the latter route with Milliput and Metal Bite two-part polyster glaze as my choices for fillers and for re-building the tail. The Metal Bite came from a local auto paint supplier. First I removed the vertical tail. You'll see a slope to the rear after I removed the tail. I'll correct this and make it flat when I re-build the tail. Next I removed the stubs for the horizontal stabilizers. I first reinforced the inside of the fuselage with Metal Bite. Then as I removed more of the top of the fuselage and the wall of the fuselage became very thin, I added plastic strips for reinforcement. The piece above the slot became vey thin and narrow so I cut it to relieve the stress and backed it up with plastic strip. This also served the purpose of reducing the bulge in the sides of the fuselage because the re-built tail will have straighter sides where it fairs into the fuselage. Photos of the twin-tail show a straighter side than the single-tail. And while I was at it, I removed the deck at the rear of the cockpit. There is no deck on the real aircraft. The rear of the AMS cockpit tub I am using will fit in its place.

The first step was to cut out the paper parts I need - the twin vertical stabilizers and the horizontal stabilizer. I then glued them to 1/16 inch plastic card and cut out the parts using very sharp scissors. I trimmed and sanded until I felt it was right and then beveled the leading edges. I'll also use the same templates to scribe each part. There is a minor error on the scribing of the paper model that reveals itself in the pictures. It is in the area of the hinges. The card model also shows trim tabs that are not evident in the pictures of the horizontal tail sections.

Ever since I saw the picture of the twin-tailed T-33 (TV-2) in Squadron's P-80/T-33/F-94 In Action I've wanted to build it. I found an additional picture each in FAOW F-80/T-33 and Shooting Star T-Bird & Starfire. Search as I might, I could find no plans or drawings. One day I was perusing ecardmodels website and - Eureka!!! There it was in 1/48 scale designed by Rob Carleen for Design Group Alpha. (Picture below). It is a simple matter to blow the 1/48 card model up to 1/32 scale. There are some minor panel line errors in the tail section, primarily the elevator and the underside of the tail. They are easily seen and corrected from the photo in FAOW. I used the enlarged printed copies as my templates. This should be fun! Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

The kit cone is correct if one builds an "A" but not if one builds a "C". The "A" had no afterburner whereas the "C" did. I agree with Bruce re: the Eduard cone. One ends up with an expensive piece of useless metal. It is far easier and cheaper to shape two pieces of telescoping plastic tubing. It is a shame because the Eduard PE engine cone for the Trumpeter MiG-21F-13 is one of the finest pieces of PE engineering I've ever seen and makes that kit. The "A" Team must have done the MiG-21F-13 whereas the "night shift" must have done the MiG-17 cone. There is also a problem with the shape of the fuselage around and above the cone. The kit lacks the distinctive flair of the actual aircraft. Scrap plastic and filler correct the problem.

Nice job, Rob!

Rick, Very nicely done! Love the Rufe! How did you achieve the textured finish on the bomb casings?

The Pavla MiG 21 F-13 tub casting was sharp as was the casting for the smaller parts - side rails, canopy parts, rear fuel line compartment, etc. The ejection seat was inexplicably "clunky" for lack of a more precise technical term. It is as though one person did the Pavla tub and small parts and another person did the seat. I have the AMS MiG 17 castings and think we will be hard pressed to ever find resin any better. For the MiG 17 I have the CE set, the Lone Star set and the AMS set. The first two are quite good. The AMS is in a class all its own. I look at it, scratch my head and ask "How did he DO that?!?!

I am building the kit now using the Pavla set. I also have the Eduard Interior set which I did not use. If I had it to do over again I would kit bash both sets. My obesrvations of the Pavla set: Excellent casting. So-so fit of the tub. It's too big and requires substantial sanding and re-shaping. So-so fit of the seat. Had to shave a lot off the part that fortunately one can't see anyway. The piece containing the fuel lines behind the cockpit is excellent, though very fragile. Vac canopy - tough decision. Kit canopy is well done and easier to handle BUT the kit canopy has a molding seam right down the center that is impossible to remove. The vac canopy is very nice but thin. Canopy frame is VERY fragile. Haven't broken it - yet. One must make one's own armored glass piece and side pieces. Not hard to make but the latter are hard to fit in place. Parts I would kit bash from the Eduard Interior set(32081): Seat Clear film armored glass and side pieces. Possibly the instrument panel Other Eduard sets: The Eduard Exterior set (32082) is a must for detailing the Sidewinders. Each missile becomes a separate miniature kit. The exterior set also has a small detail part (chute cable attachment) that drew my attention to something that I realized sets the F-13 apart from the later MiG 21's - the chute cable. Believe it or not, the F-13 chute cable hangs OUTSIDE the fuselage and has considerable slack in it. I couldn't believe the instructions so I checked my reference sources. Sure enough, the aircraft has a steel chute cable that is attached below the afterburner and runs back to a side fuselage panel where the chute is stored. The cable dangles outside the fuselage. During flight it must have beat the side of the plane like a drum. I would have overlooked the cable had not the Eduard set shown it. The exterior set also has good illustrations for detailing the wheel bays. The Eduard Engine set (32083) is great! The afterburner is beautifully engineered and its assembly was well-thought out. It looks very real. The kit is very nice though overengineered in places. The "lock tab" horizontal stabs were a good idea (in theory) but the resulting gap leaves a bit to be desired. I may even finish the kit this year! I love the F-13 for its clean lines and aerodynamic shape. The later the MiG-21 version, the less I like it.

Very nice!!!

I knew Charlie was ill and that it was not good. Still, I am very sad to hear of his passing. He helped me many times over the years via the Internet dating back to rec.models.scale in the mid '90's. Rest in Peace.

Very nicely done! A neat little kit.

Exceptional collection!

I have both the Waldron and the UMM-USA sets. I love everything Waldron has done for our hobby but I would go with one of the UMM sets. It is less prone to break or bend due to its design and it is much easier to work with.

Mike, Many thanks for organizing and executing this purchase for all of us!

I see my box but where are everyone else's boxes?

Not really a bummer. Jack at Mid Tenn Hobbies does a great job and is a nice guy to boot. He's come to several shows in the SE.. He is a wealth of information and carries great stuff at fair prices.

Very well done! I especially like the extra work on the engine.