npomeroy

If you allow the oleos to to compress, these parts need to articulate, and I don't trust them to fit reliably enough - I'd intend to cement them. Therefore I need to determine the length before installing the landing gear in the fuselage.

I can see a number of questions are arising for me with this build. The landing gear includes spring-loaded oleo action, with a pin and slot to limit travel. Mine will be fully static (enclosed in a perspex case) and so I will fix the gear height. Cementing the articulating "elbows" (C14, C17 etc) will depend on having fixed the oleo travel point during gear assembly and before installation on the model. I am assuming being on-ground I'd fix the gear at the fully depressed position, and hope that this gives a realistic "pose". It is quite tricky to dummy-assemble the landing gear parts to dry test but I may try this. How have others decided on gear height? And a hint concerning the instrument panel... I found the visibility of the instruments on the film was maximised by painting white correction fluid on the back - certainly better than placing it as is over a gray part as instructed. On the other hand I seem to have lost the clear front face - I don't know why it's clear: it needs to be painted anyway - will need to improvise on that. I will bump this with new queries as they arise, and others may wish to pose questions in the same thread. Cheers Nelson

Thanks. I could only see the photo-etched metal ones. With postage and waiting time I may not be keen. Actually I'm considering making them up from fine brass rod, soldered.

Thanks for the comments. On studying airbrushing further it seems there should not be a problem with the larger areas, by laying down several light coats and alternating stroke orientations. But I'll see how I go. Cheers Nelson

The Flanker B has a metal screen in the jet intake which can be "deployed" diagonally covering the intake to protect from debris ingress, or "stowed" lain flat above the slots of the underside of the intake. The 1/32 Trumpeter models the screen a solid part, so if in the deployed position (which seems to fit best) you can't see past it to the turbo fan behind it. Any opinions on whether to show the screen or not? It needs to be painted flat black with the screen strands highlighted in a lighter colour, maybe dark metallic. I am slightly tempted to re-make the screen with real apertures on my resin 3D printer. The CAD design would be fairly simple and I'd make it flat on the plate - it might be tricky to prise off in one piece. Alternatively one could custom make a screen from straight strands of wire or something. Any thoughts? Cheers Nelson

I use an automotive type touch-up spray gun for large RC helicopters, and am wondering how it compares with my Badger air brush for the large areas on my 1/32 Su-27. The air brush covers quite a small width per sweep and for larger areas it may be harder to get an even finish. Does anyone use the larger guns on these models? Cheers Nelson

In the piece I am looking at I assume all the panel liner will stray. I'm thinking perhaps part of the issue is that matte paint will tend to more easily be penetrated by the other color, compared to gloss. Sorry to be so naive on all of this, and I know there are plenty of guides, but this allows me to get feedback on WHY it is best done in a certain way. I am naturally hesitant about building any more coats than necessary.

Thanks for that. Why the gloss coat step 2? Is it to protect the base color from the enamel?

Let me get this clear: First paint the main colour in acrylic. When dry apply thinned enamel over whole surface. When dry, wipe enamel off main surface with enamel thinner ("mineral turpentine" here). Is that right?

Part D-13 on the 1/32 Trumpeter Flanker B - a flat section underneath the jet intakes - has shallow grooves that look to me like they are actually slots on the full size aircraft. I was generally not wishing to emphasise panel lines because I do not think you really see them om a large aircraft, and the indentations on the plastic are enough by themselves. However, this part looks like it actually has slits, so I would like to create dark stripes in the grooves. Reading on panel line washes, I am cautious about re-dissolving the surrounding colour which will be Tamiya acrylic. I would think a good way would be to apply the colour ("blueish grey" in this case) and when dry apply a water-based wash such as from water based felt pens, and wipe it off the flat surface with a damp cloth and/or cotton bud. I am assuming you can't use any solvent that will attack the surrounding colour but with acrylics that seems to only leave water. Am I missing something here?

Thanks Kev, When you say a "drop or two of X-22" in what volume do you mean? So what is the difference between applying gloss versus matte colour coats, if the final job gets a matte (or satin) clear top coat? I recognise that the range of colours is much wider with matte paints (a least in the Tamiya range), although I am happy to make my own blends.

This could be a decal section thread. Anyway, for a 1/32 Su-27: I'm assuming the final finish should be matte or satin. But decals over matte surfaces I understand often get air underneath and go silvery, so should be placed over a gloss surface. So what do you recommend as the sequence of colour paint -> decal base -> decal -> decal protection/final texture coat? If there is to be a final satin/matte clear coat is it necessary to use matte paint underneath it? OR a useful link to the info, I'm sure it has been traversed often already. My inclination is to use Tamiya flat acrylic paints, mostly airbrushed with lacquer thinner. This should bond to the plastic and not need primer. Vajello and Humbrol are also well available here. Cheers Nelson

I have received the Trumpeter 1.32 Flanker B, and as others have complained, the mould lines are notable on the clear canopies. I followed various references to remove the line and abrade - buff to remove the blemish thus created by the initial blade scrape that levelled the line. But I'm not happy with my result so far. I could continue with more 2000-grit w/d plus toothpaste and car polish, but am wondering about alternatives. There was a supplier - Zactomodels but the website says he has closed. I am considering taking a female mould off the canopy with plaster of Paris, and using that to make a male mould, perhaps from metal-filled epoxy, from which I could form a clear canopy from thin PETG. I had a vacuum forming machine until recently but would consider moulding with positive air pressure. I'm not sure about the "straps" that represent the section joints. I have a resin 3D printer that they could be formed with (probably flat and heat-curved after to wrap over the canopy). Or perhaps I could use some sort of printable adhesive film and pre-print the colour and rivet lines on it. But, does anyone know of another vac-formed canopy supplier? Do you recommend the three grades of Tamiya polishing compound, and their sponge, over my 2000 w/d - toothpaste - car polish? The stock styrene canopies are usually optically imperfect, so the view through them hardly justifies hours of internal cockpit detail. Cheers Nelson

Today the Trumpeter 1/32 Su-27 kit arrived. Contrary to advice, it does include missiles, 4 each of 3 types. They look detailed enough for me, and I am happy with an approximation to real dimensions, for this non-purist in terms of accuracy. I want it to look good and credible to me. Another change from earlier descriptions is the lack of metal landing gear parts. I think this is real change and not a one-off omission as the instructions make no reference to the metal parts (and DO have instructions for the missiles). I've ordered the Foxbot 32-033 Ukraine decal set.

I'm a novice here w.r.t. weapons and pylons. Does the Trumpeter model have simplified pylons, whereas the reskit ones are just more detailed? Or are there significant differences in the size/geometry of the kit vs reskit upgrades? I'd like the model to look detailed and "credible" to my untrained eye. I suspect the Trumpeter Russian weapons kit would contain a good selection and it appears from the weapon specs that several would be superficially similar dimensions and shapes to the US ones. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/trumpeter-03301-russian-aircraft-weapon--153850 Cheers Nelson

Thanks for the additional information. This Quora thread includes an image showing a series of weapon combinations for the various hardpoints. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Russian-jetfighters-like-the-SU-27-rarely-carry-external-drop-tanks

True, but I'm not sure all aircraft have been modified to that scheme. Also I think I prefer the traditional curvy margins, and the required stencils looked quite a challenge and cost.

Thanks for that. Yes the Reskit AGM-88 missiles with Su-27 adaptor seem an attractive choice. I see it is a Ukrainian company. I'll do more research to select what armament would at least "look" appropriate.

I've just ordered the 1/32 Trumpeter Su-27 Flanker B. I see it has few (if any) weapons included and there is a Trumpeter kit for Russian missiles. But I want to do a Ukraine version, and there sems to be a lot of current news about British and US weapons being provided. I have a resin 3D printer and could make my own from diagrams. I am not a purist scale modeler in terms of an exact match to a single aircraft. I just think it is a great shaped and coloured machine (the blue-blue-grey smooth-edged camouflage). So, has anyone here added any of the "western" weapons to their Su-27 and do you have any recommendations, either for kitsets, or CAD files/drawings that would be appropriate? This is my first entry to this forum. I've done a few 1/48 kits many years ago, and I also have done 1/8 display models of a tiger moth and a Pitts Special using wood and cloth construction. I also make 1/6 (approx) RC helicopters.