pvanroy

The pilot was lying prone, and in case of emergency intended to slide out of the aircraft with his berth through a trapdoor on the underside of the cockpit.

Seems release may be imminent: Sale link on Aviation Megastore - with complete sprue shots

First renders of the Polikarpov I-185/M-71 "etalon" (a.k.a. I-186), the fourth and last prototype that was constructed and was intended to be the standard for the production model: I-185/M71 "etalon" first renders

Excellent!!!!

Totally agree regarding production numbers - the LaGG-3 and La-5 certainly were much more important in that respect. The point I was just trying to make is that non-combat types like utility aircraft, transports and trainers do play a crucial role in any military, and they are often overlooked because they are not as charismatic as combat types. So, I'm just happy to see them getting some love too. Again agree that the entire Yak family should be much more widely covered - it is, in fact, the most widely built fighter aircraft family, outstripping the Bf 109. And it also includes the ubiquitous Yak-11 trainer, and the Yak-15 and -17 jets - making it one of only two piston-engined fighter families that was (relatively) successfully developed into a jet fighter. So, I absolutely agree the entire family merits to be treated much more generously than hitherto has been the case! As regards common subjects vs obscurities: it depends on the manufacturing niche. KEPmodels is a small business of enthusiasts that basically prints kits on demand. If they are going to spend time designing a common subject, they run the risk that for all their efforts, a mainstream injection manufacturer may announce the same aircraft in mass production for half the price. Furthermore, they have limited production capacity. So, for them it likely makes sense to focus on niche subjects that are very unlikely to be ever mass-produced by a mainstream brand. On the other hand, a mainstream manufacturer could definitely look at an LaGG-3 as a possibility, and as you point out, it's fairly well covered in smaller scales. However, the La-5 is much more widely known, and likely has considerably greater commercial potential. Add to that the fact that LaGG-3 production is a bit of a nightmare with many very different series, add further differences between various production plants on top of that, and you get an airframe that requires lots of research to get right. So, from the perspective of a mass-produced mainstream kit, any of the Yaks not yet covered, or an La-5 or -7 are lower hanging fruit. Therefore, I can see any of these being produced in 1/32 before an LaGG-3. And if we ever see an LaGG-3 in styrene, I'd still rather expect it to come from Special Hobby or the like - in fact, an LaGG-3 seems something totally in their wheelhouse.

Apologies for being unclear - the LaGG-3 is being worked on for a future release by KEPmodels. Not sure which series they're considering though - although it would make sense to do more than one. For anyone interested, here's an Excel file with all KEPmodels releases current and planned in all scales: KEPmodels kit list I do think the Yak-6 and Shche-2 are important types - the former having a production run of close to 400 aircraft, and the latter having over 500 produced. They were essential utility types, and saw widespread service as liaison, light transport, casevac, supplying partisans... Maybe not very glamorous, but important nevertheless. The Shche-2 is also quite interesting from a technical point of view, as it was intended to be as cheap and simple to produce as possible - that way, it ended up using undercarriage parts from the La-5 and Il-2, props from the Po-2, and , if I remember correctly, the tailplane of the Pe-2. And while I agree that the LaGG-3 is a very important aircraft, and will be a welcome addition, I can also somewhat understand that no-one has produced one so far in 1/32: it's not very famous outside of the former Soviet Union, limiting sales prospects, and, let's face it, it was a pretty mediocre design (even if it laid the basis for the excellent La-5 and La-7). I agree it would be nice to have a Yak-1, -7, and early -9 variants. On the other hand, a Korean War Yak-9P would also have my attention! And of course the La-5...

Indeed, good models of those already exist. No experience with HPH, but LEMkits tend to be pretty nice!

Actually, it seems an LaGG-3 and two I-180s are planned for the future, although considering their release schedule, I'd not expect to see any of those this year. Also, while the I-185 and BI-1 may be considered left field, the MiG-9 and Yak-15 are historically important as the first Soviet jets, and 'inglorious' utility aircraft like the Yak-6 and Shche-2 are indispensable to any air force. So, I don't think those are weird choices.

I just ordered directly from KEPmodels - you can contact them at kepmodels@mail.ru . In my case, I paid them through an intermediary.

The Yak-6 looks really nice, but one thing that worries me a bit from looking at the images is the strange way that the fabric-covered structure of the wing and tailplane are depicted - it appears it's rendered as recessed panels?... Anyway, I don't have the kit yet, so I'll reserve judgment for now. I can definitely vouch for the MiG-9, quality and detail are incredible, and it's obvious a huge amount of research went into getting it right.

Just want to draw attention to the rather impressive 3D-printed kits KEPmodels is bringing to market. They currently offer a Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9, Yakovlev Yak-6 utility plane and Yakovlev Yak-6NBB light night bomber in 1/32 scale: KEPmodels current aircraft models I have the MiG-9, with the Yak-6NBB on order. While the MiG-9 suffered some postal rage (all repairable), the quality and detail of that kit are VERY impressive to say the least. Next to be released in 1/32, probably by the end of this month or sometime March, is a Yakovlev Yak-15. After that, planned releases include the Bereznyak-Isayev BI-1 rocket-powered interceptor, Polikarpov I-185 (both M-82 and M-71 engine variants), and the Shcherbakov Shche-2 utility plane. Apart from the full aircraft models, KEPmodels also offer an entire range of both Soviet/Russian and Western ordnance, several large-scale engines, and other stuff: KEPmodels complete current catalogue

MikroMir has announced the release of a Yokosuka Ohka Model 11 in 1/32 - first test sprues here: MikroMir 1/32 Ohka Model 11 Note that the sprue seems to have a skid included, which hints at an Ohka K-1 in the future.

I totally agree - as any reasonable person would. Someone arguing the opposite, using arguments that are demonstrably logically fallacious, is unreasonable.

Trying to reason with someone who's unreasonable is an exercise in futility.

In principle, yes, adherence to the last IV. Luftflotte guideline on tactical markings includes the suppression of the rear fuselage band and V under the left wing. However, the order did provide for permissible delays in implementing the order in view of weather (and, no doubt, battlefield realities). So, surely, there were aircraft with a mix of markings. RLM 77 is a very enigmatic color. It's inclusion in the 7X range clearly indicates it was intended as a camouflage color. However, the only times it is mentioned in formal documents is as a color for night fighter codes, and a topside camouflage for high-altitude reconnaissance planes. However, it was quite widely used on upper surfaces of day fighters, as both shown by wartime color photographs, and wreck sites. A very interesting discussion of the topic can be found here: Luftwaffe Camouflage Commentary 1 – RLM 77 - Air War Publications And some pilots had the outer wing guns on the Fw 190 A aircraft removed to improve roll rate. So yes, it's not that unusual to find Fw 190 As with only the inner guns installed (in fact very common with the A-5 in particular, as the outer MG FF/M cannons by that point were of little practical use, and their ballistics were quite different from both the inner MG 151s and cowl MG 17s).

Wing bulges First, the outer wing bulges are NOT associated with the installation of MG 151/20 cannons: these guns fit well within the contour of the wing. The bulges are only required when the standard 20 mm MG 151/20 guns are replaced with the heavier 30 mm MK 108 cannon (i.e., on the R2, R8 and R12 Sturm modifications). German aircraft producers and their subcontractors were allowed to modify parts to accommodate local production techniques and practices, and to make improvements, on condition that the modified parts 1) met the original minimum standards; and 2) they were directly interchangeable with similar parts from other manufacturers. Standardizing on the wing with MK 108 bulges regardless of whether these guns were installed made sense for concerns producing the MK 108-armed versions, and posed no issues with regard to performance: the bulges are in a low-pressure zone on top of the wings, so practically, they impose no drag penalty. Production of MK 108-armed FW 190s was undertaken by Fieseler Kassel, Ago Oschersleben and Norddeutsche Dornier Werke (NDW) Wismar. The two producers of the F-8 and F-9 on the other hand were Arado Warnemünde (2400+ F-8 between February 1944 and March 1945, 310 F-9 between December 1944 and April 1945) and NDW Wismar (1300+ F-8 between March 1944 and December 1944, 110 F-9 between March - April 1945). While Arado Warnemünde did not produce any MK 108-armed versions, NDW Wismar also produced the A-8/R8 (in addition to the regular A-8 and F-8). Production of the A-8/R8 at NDW took place between March 1944 and January 1945, and hence overlapped completely with the production of the F-8 at this plant (March 1944 - December 1944). So, for NDW, it made total sense to standardize on the wing with the cannon bulge, and it seems likely that most if not all F-8 (and regular A-8) built by NDW had the cannon bulge on the outer wing, even if it did not have any practical function on this variant. Two things here need to be taken into consideration. Production plants often also served as sub-contractors for other plants, or sold excess production to other producers. I don't know if it was the case, but it is possible that NDW could have provided wings to other manufacturers building the Fw 190 A and F - in this respect, it is important to note that NDW Wismar and Arado Warnemünde were particularly closely linked, NDW having originally started as a subcontractor of Arado. So, NDW wings with cannon bulges may have ended up that way on aircraft from other production plants. Another thing to consider is that the Germans from the very beginning were very adept at recycling and rebuilding aircraft. This way, it is also possible that NDW wings with cannon bulges ended up mated to a fuselage produced by another manufacturer. NDW seems to have produced enough wings to meet its own production needs, so it is unlikely that any NDW-produced aircraft came off the production line with wings from another manufacturer; notwithstanding, there's one documented example of an NDW-produced aircraft with Arado wings, but this may have been the result of a re-build after having sustained damage. So, bottom line: if you're doing an F-8, try to find out the W.Nr. If it's an NDW-built aircraft, you can be pretty sure if it will have the outer cannon bulges. However, whenever you can, it's always just best to check with photographs. In your case, I do think you can be pretty confident that Black 6 / White 70 had the outer bulges. Upper wing color In fact, 76 is absolutely possible. The use of 76 and 77 on the upper wings of Fw 190 aircraft is quite well documented (see e.g. also Fw 190 D aircraft built by Mimetall and Roland), and there are quite a few photos of NDW-built A and F aircraft that show a very light color on the wings, which most likely is 76, or possibly the slightly darker 77. Rudder color If the aircraft's tactical markings are painted according to the final regulations for IV. Luftflotte markings issued on 7 March 1945, it should have a yellow rudder. This final order stipulated that: - All aircraft used in daylight combat were to have a 50 cm wide yellow band around the cowling, and a yellow rudder - Older ID markings (the yellow V on the underside of the left wing, and the yellow band around the rear fuselage) were to be removed. Hope this helps.

In most cases, no exact RLM color was specified for equipment that was fully internally housed and not visible from the outside, like cameras, etc. - these things were coded "RLM 99", meaning they needed to have some kind of protective paint cover, but the actual color was irrelevant. As a result, manufacturers of these items just painted them in regular industrial colors - usually some kind of gray or black. You can see the same thing on e.g. Patin gyro-compasses: they are generally some light gray color, but it does not match any RLM standard; I suppose some of these industrial coatings could be matched to RAL standard, but I'm not sure of that.

Shipping is directly from Moscow - postal services between Europe and Russia still work normally, and model kits are not sanctioned goods.

I agree that the specification against which the MiG-9 was designed obviously called for a viable fighter aircraft, and the designers obviously attempted to deliver this. However, if you look at the actual development history of the aircraft, I think it is fairly clear that producing a useful, competent fighter was not the primary concern driving Soviet leadership when they pushed this aircraft forward. First, the designers were under extreme pressure to deliver flying prototypes, leading to a compromised design cycle; corners were cut to achieve deadlines, and as a result, the MiG-9 contained many serious flaws that were intrinsic to the design. Even though the multitude of shortcomings of the MiG-9 became very quickly apparent during testing, Soviet leadership nevertheless pushed forward, and ordered a fundamentally flawed aircraft into production even before state testing had been completed, while setting absolutely impossible deadlines for delivery of series airframes. In an attempt to meet these deadlines, production was extremely rushed, cutting corners to the point that quality control and standards were dangerously compromised. The first production batch of 50 aircraft was, in effect, not combat capable - but this did not matter: they could fly and they represented an impressive sight to both foreign and domestic observers, and that was pretty much the only thing that mattered. After this first batch, production was temporarily halted to allow time to mitigate some flaws, but these were just palliatives that could do little to improve an inherently mediocre aircraft. At this point, any incentive to significantly redesign the MiG-9 had also dissipated: development of the clearly much more advanced and promising MiG-15 was well advanced (the MiG-15 made its first flight at the end of 1947, and entered production at the end of 1948), and it was only a matter of time before the flawed MiG-9s would be replaced by vastly more competent and powerful aircraft (primarily the MiG-15, but also the La-15). Finally, consider the faith of the Sukhoi Su-9/Su-11 (the designs from 1946, not the later unrelated supersonic interceptors that re-used this designation). While the Su-9 also had its share of issues, and its performance was somewhat lower than that of the MiG-9, it was overall a much better aircraft with considerably greater potential. Yet, even though it was recommended for production, it was passed over in favor of the MiG-9, in large part because of its configurational similarity to the Me 262: it was considered undesirable to be seen producing a "Me 262 copy". So, the inferior MiG-9 won out largely based on optics and perception, not because of greater suitability for the role it was ostensibly designed to fulfill. Taking all this together, at least to me, this strongly suggests that, even though the MiG-9 was designed to be a fighter aircraft, its actual performance in this role was not the primary concern driving the Soviet leadership's decisions to select this aircraft for production and put it into service.

You can simply order from I-modelist using the link provided earlier. They accept PayPal and speak English. Total price including shipping to Belgium is 98 EUR (+ bpost ransom and VAT...). If you didn't pre-order, you'll probably have to pay extra to get the Quinta set, not sure how much that would be. Check the photos of the parts on the website - it looks quite stunning, and I'm surely looking forward to receiving mine!

That's not entirely correct: the gas ingestion problem was pretty much solved on the MiG-9M which had a redesigned nose eliminating the splitter and placing the guns behind the intake, but development of that variant was discontinued very quickly when the MiG-15 appeared. I would argue that the gas ingestion issue when firing the guns was actually the lesser of the MiG-9's many faults. The aircraft was unmaneuverable, and had serious reliability and structural issues (there's a reason why no display squads were formed on the MiG-9 - they all used the Yak-15). Part of this was the result of poor workmanship due to rushed production, but part of it was inherent to the aircraft and resulted from a very rushed design cycle. In short, the MiG-9 was not a particularly capable combat aircraft, even if the problem with the guns hadn't existed. However, whether the MiG-9 was a good fighter or not is actually besides the point, as this was not the main purpose of the aircraft. The MiG-9 served three main goals: - Propaganda: by 1946, Germany, Britain, Italy, the U.S. and Japan had all flown jet aircraft, with Germany, Britain and the U.S. actually mass-producing and operationally deploying multiple types. The Soviet Union could not be seen to be lagging behind, both to outside observers and their own population - so they needed to produce and deploy a jet aircraft quickly. The MiG-9 and Yak-15 served this purpose well. - Deterrent: we now know that the aircraft actually had very limited capabilities, but this wasn't known - at least to the same extent - to outside observers at the time. So, when the Soviets quickly deployed large numbers of MiG-9 and Yak-15 fighters, many of their flaws were hidden and they seemed like a very credible fighting force. - Training and doctrine: The MiG-9 and Yak-15 primarily served to (re)train pilots and ground crews on the novel jet technology, and served to develop procedures and doctrine for the operation of jet fighters. They largely fulfilled their job in this role adequately. As such, even though it was a poor combat aircraft, I don't think the MiG-9 can be considered a failure, as it adequately fulfilled the actual task that were set out for it. The MiG-9 and Yak-15 were the ultimate interim types: first flown in 1946, all development and production of the MiG-9 almost immediately ceased when the MiG-15 started flying in 1948; by 1950, all MiG-9s had been withdrawn from active Soviet service, with more than half of the number produced being passed on to the Chinese during 1950-1951. In China, they were used a couple more years as trainers, serving pretty much the same role as they had in Soviet service, with actual operational tasks also being left to the MiG-15. So, even though the MiG-9 was quite lacking as a fighter, I do feel it nevertheless is an important aircraft, as it is the first Soviet jet to fly, introduced both Soviet and Chinese air forces to jet technology, and provided a stepping stone for the development of the superlative MiG-15.

Update: I was just informed that KEPmodels and Quinta have agreed to produce additional interiors, which will be made available free of charge to everyone who pre-ordered and didn't get one. In addition, if I understand correctly, the interior may be made available as an add-on option for anyone who purchases a kit now, after release.

To be fair, all early turbine engines were pretty intolerant of disturbed airflow, and the MiG-9 is not the only aircraft from that era that had issues with compressor stalls at altitude when firing the guns (e.g. Hunter and Il-40 in its original configuration come to mind), but the placement of that humongous N-37 right in the middle of the intake splitter in the MiG-9 was in this respect particularly ill-conceived. In any case, this was far from the only issue this aircraft suffered from... Still, it did serve its primary purpose (propaganda, deterrent and conversion of crews to jet power) quite well, so I don't think it can be considered a failure. And it's an important aircraft, as, together with the Yak-15, it was the first Soviet jet, and a necessary step on the road leading to the MiG-15.

Pre-orders have now shipped, and the kit is available for regular purchase in 1/32, 1/48 and 1/72 scales: MiG-9 KEPmodels 1/32 order Unfortunately, the 1/32 kit is sold without the Quinta interior set (which apparently is also missing from part of the preorders that were supposed to have it), and it appears it's impossible to order the set separately.

Same question on 12OCH - same answer: no difference in contents, just different covers. See (posts 42-43 in the link): The Secret Horspower Race - 12OCH thread