Oldbaldguy

Looks like only two per wing, assuming a symmetrical load. I see two warheads and two side by side lighter spots back at the fins. The clips you mention: Could it be there are two in the front and two in the back that attach the rocket to the rail but ride on either side of the rail? Otherwise, what’s to keep the rocket from falling off? This obviously is not a zero-length launch rail and the rockets have to ride along it to the end when fired.

Not particularly hard to fix that. Basic modeling stuff. I cut out the blanks and then trimmed a small white plastic throw-away cup until it fit like I wanted it to. Sourced a generic turbine face somewhere and there you go. Hard to see much in there no matter what you do.

Gust locks when parked? Crew holding aft stick while taxiing? Trim set for takeoff - pre taxi checklist item?

Admittedly, I did not bother to check what has come before, but these come to mind…. “That’s not what I meant”: LSPs modeled for missions the planes were not originally designed for, such as firefighting or spray missions, search and rescue, research, air racing, R&D, maybe even a playground diorama. Lots of options. Must be supportable; no what-ifs allowed. “Helos only”: LSP rotary wing models. No other limits. ”Saturday night at the movies”: an LSP model of any flying device as it appeared in a movie except for the Top Gun movies - those airplanes have been done to death already. ”Demonstrators”: LSP model of anything flown by any demonstration team anywhere on the planet. Must be in team colors. ”Warboats”: LSP model of any military flying boat, floatplane, or amphibian from WW1 or WW2 ”Minis”: the smallest LSP model you can find ”No Crewcuts”: any LSP anybody wants to build as long as it has at least one well-dressed crew member and/or support vehicle (in a nod to Kev’s tanker truck) posed in/with it. Just posed together; no diorama needed.

Seriously, Mach Schnell?

Four. There’s a dude texting with his back to you beside the gun. Or maybe he’s taking a nap - hard to tell.

Having owned seven airplanes, I cannot begin to imagine what it takes to fly something as exotic as a foreign jet fighter, much less what it takes to maintain one out your own pocket. Frankly, the concept is staggering considering how I used to ***** about the cost of avgas or having to pay $25 for an approved alternator belt that I could have bought at an auto parts store for less than $5. Heck, there are countries today - the United States included - that have to park their inventory because they either cannot afford to maintain them or can’t get the parts. The expense aside, if you listened to these guys talk about their time in the Flogger, you quickly realize that they still have, after all these years, an astounding technical knowledge of the airplane’s many complex and unique systems that does not come from simply reading the pilot’s manual while in the loo - they both had to know some serious engineering stuff. And all they did was fly the things - they never once had to sit on a mechanic’s stool in a hangar at 2 AM staring at some gizmo trying to figure out why the grunch converter suddenly quit, knowing that no one in ten thousand miles could help them fix it. We’re all Walter Mitty at heart and imagine ourselves as valiant birdmen storming about the skies in our own jet fighters but, in reality, combat pilots are not like everyone else. They go to work everyday and do things the rest of can’t even conceive of - and wouldn’t attempt for any amount of money - for meager pay in airplanes that are only too happy to kill them. Most of us do not have that particular trait.

Wow. Gorgeous.

And this is basically the old Revell kit? Hmmmm.

This is like walking into the middle of an afternoon soap opera on TV - you kinda know what is going on, but you kinda don’t.

Wait. What? I must have missed something. Are we suggesting I floss my teeth with leveling thinner??? I guess that would be fair since I use a toothbrush on my models…

Full glass panels - no steam gauges at all - are common in all sorts of GA airplanes from corporate jets to single place puddle jumpers. Flat touch screens for IFR flight, navigation, fuel and engine management with full synthetic vision doesn’t so much as raise an eyebrow these days. No moving parts to speak of - just electrons and ones and zeros. Aviation took a quantum leap years ago with the advent of GPS, personal devices and cellphone technology. My biggest complaint is that new students these days spend so much time learning to use all the mind blowing features found in every glass panel that it takes them forever to solo. It is so easy to get wrapped up in playing with all the cool gizmology on a long and boring cross country flight that they forget to look outside and often fly the panel instead of the airplane. We are several generations into flat glass panels already and the stuff gets more cosmicer every day.

I dearly loved having Foreflight on my IPad when I was still flying. Easy to move from one airplane to another and it didn’t care if it was in my Cub, my glider or my 182. Being old school as I am, I always felt a bit guilty because simply following the magenta highway made life so easy compared to using a sectional - felt like I was reduced from a steely eyed aviator to just another button pusher. Of course, all that went away when I realized I was no longer lost as soon as I left the pattern.

Two points you all seem to be missing: The sheer number of tires - new or used - involved and the man hour effort it takes to stack them on these airplanes. Where did they get them all and why tires? The why of it all is a completely different question that only whoever it was that came up with the idea can answer. Odd as this is, I don’t see it as an act of desperation but a level of creative problem solving we are not used to seeing in the Russian military. It would cost a fortune to model something Ike this by the way, what with the price of aftermarket wheel sets from Reskit and others.

I must apologize for being technology deprived, but all of this is way, way beyond me. It seems to me that, to do this voodoo you do, you must have some basis as a starting point. How do you find the points in computer space that allow you to begin to create an accurate model in 3D? Do you start from accurate 2D drawings or some other image or do you just pull the thing out of your butt and manipulate it until it looks right to you? I can draw an airplane on paper and make it look like whatever it is supposed to be, but the idea of coercing ones and zeros into an image then pushing a button and have it pop out of a toaster leaves me dumbfounded. And the accuracy you guys are achieving increases exponentially every day!! One last question: We’ve watched you many times beat a traditional kit into submission with jaw dropping results. Is creating a model in this “new” way as much fun or as rewarding as more traditional modeling?

I was stunned to Learn that a Mig-23 needs 14,000’ to make a successful deadstick landing from essentially a midfield downwind position. By way of contrast, my Cessna 182 needs only a thousand feet - less in a pinch. Tweren’t no way that thing was going to make the airport from where they were whether they were in it or not. To butcher the line from Top Gun a bit, it’s better to save your ass in a bad situation and come back to fly another day than to ride the thing into the ground. They both ought to buy the FAA a beer of three for letting them have hot seats.

Anybody know if the backseater was some kind of MiG-23 expert? Don’t think the host ever gave the guy’s bona fides. Pretty sure he had no vested interest in the airplane.

Very nice. I’d have sworn it was 1/32.

Hmmm. I’m having issues with MRP paint doing weird things as well. Just stripped an ejection seat for a repaint after spraying interior green over silver only to have the green disappear into the silver. Never seen anything like it. Same color shot over primer or bare plastic did just fine. Love the ease of use with MRP, but……. Really like your fuel truck; I could use a couple myself.

So are you saying you have two tats - the USAF logo and a chicken??

Look closely at the two nose gear struts. From the photos, I think they are not the same. It would be much easier for MiG to change the nose strut than the main gear on this airplane.

Amen, brother. My models all live in the historical fiction section - they are mostly true but partly fiction, but all are close enough to be plausible. I’m always amazed at how folks who have never in their life seen a given airplane in an operational setting will argue with absolute certainty about how it looked or what it carried, etc. Modeling is a creative pastime and creativity requires imagination and a degree of antipathy for rules and norms.

Simple truth is that every one of these airplanes was unique. Because of the conditions at forward bases, there was a lot of fading from the hot tropical sun, abrasion and wear to the paint from operating on a dirt/coral strip, and gunk and grime in certain places - mostly underneath - because the maintainers lacked the time, facilities and stuff to keep the airplanes squeaky clean. The photo of the Corsair on its wheels somewhere in the Pacific is classic - look at the layers of gas stains and fading all down the sides of the fuselage and top of the wing from the guys overfilling the tank. Spilled high octane gas always leaves a mark because, even tho it evaporates quickly, it always cuts the paint. Many of its panels have faded differently from some of the others and while there is some abrasion wear, there does not appear to be lots of dirt and grunge on the topsides. This is because most of the POL gunk coming out of the engine bay ends up on the bottom of the airplane. Dust that settles on the surfaces blows off in flight and flying in the rain is like driving your car through a car wash. Boots cause abrasion wear and maybe a little ground in dirt on high traffic areas before the paint disappears entirely but only on sheet metal - nobody walks on a fabric surface. Or if you do, you do it only once before the maintenance Chief has your ass for lunch so fabric areas will show little or no wear or ground in dirt,mostly fading and patched places. Contrary to what many might think, prop blades rarely show chipped paint. Sometimes you will see prop blades that have paint peeled away in places, but I think that comes from improper surface prep more than normal use. Most wear is on the one third of the blade closest to the tip with leading edges and much of the backside of the blade smoothly sandblasted down to bare metal. I had to laugh at some of the comments about the panel lines on the model possibly being too prominent since builders on this site often live or die by their obsession with panel lines. Panel lines are visible in photos and real life for a couple of reasons: They are where dirt and grunge collect and/or paint tends to be thicker along the edges of removable panels or thicker where two panels meet so it lasts longer and fades less than the rest. Okay, coffee mug is empty and the rest of the day is calling, so you all will be happy to know I’m done for now. By the way, I think the model looks great and is 90% done with 90% to go. Can’t wait to see where you go with it.

Just wondering to myself why the national insignia would fade on fabric more than it would on metal, if that’s being opined? The prep coats are different on fabric from what they would be on sheet metal before the final color goes on which accounts for the differences down the road, but this doesn’t necessarily mean something like a very dark insignia laid down on top of everything else would look or act any differently just because it was shot on a fabric surface. Seems like it fade evenly.

Hey, on that one photo, where is the hook on 305?