Zactoman

First, I have compiled a big list of walkarounds and reference sites for the MiG-29: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=229830 (see post #3) AFAIK, only the Iraqi 9-12 were retro-fitted for wing drop tanks, and then not all of them. Externally there were large humps added on the fuselage to cover some plumbing. Here is a thread showing a few pictures: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?79179-Iraqi-MiG-29-Notes As Thierry already posted, they did not really fix the UB kit. They did modify the lower fuselage and the transition piece in front of the exhausts to make the undersized nozzles look less odd, but they didn't really succeed. I do offer a correction set for the UB which has the same parts as my MiG-29A correction less those parts not needed such as the nosecone and chaff dispensers. It does correct the exhausts. Thanks for the nice comments about the missiles. Alexander Rogal mastered them and did an outstanding job. As for the Mastercasters wheels, they appear to just be resin copies of the kit parts (from the M). The K should have different wheels though. I'm not sure what Trump included in the K kit. You can see pics in this K walkaround: http://superfighter.freeweb.hu/MASK%202005/MiG29KMAKS2005FOTOLszlKvriandGborZord/index2.html I do offer resin wheels (original parts, not kit copies), but they are for the MiG-29A and MiG-29M (which, AFAIK, has the same wheels as the A). Cheers, Chris http://zactomodels.com/

Congrats on the move Chris. I hope merely having your own full sized pad will make it all worth it. Since you've now got the room I'd definitely suggest going for a u-shaped set-up. Having that extra space a chair's turn away is really convenient, especially for LSP builders. Having a keyboard and monitor (or a laptop) at your bench is good but I'd opt for a separate computer area to keep the printer and scanner out of your way. I've since upgraded and added a new monitor and a pull-out shelf for my keyboard and mouse: Otherwise, good lighting and a beer fridge are the best suggestions that come to mind.

Dance Pig! Dance! Bravo...

Wow! All that detail AND a digital camo? This is going to be one crazy model!

Thanks for all the kind words of encouragement. It's reassuring to know that all this work might pay off with lots of orders! I'll be sure to send a set for the article as soon as they're ready! I'm not setting a firm price until they're finished and I determine how difficult and costly they are to mold, but I'm guessing they'll be about the same as my Su-27 intakes at around $60. It might be possible to force them to fit but it would require lots of filling, sanding and rescribing on the exterior as well as chopping and moving the bypass details on the inside. Probably more trouble than it's worth. I'll investigate the possibility more once they are finished and in production. As for the bypass doors... I was planning to include parts to have the doors either raised (as shown below) or lowered but have decided to just include the raised ones. Anyone wanting to display them lowered will have to modify the parts. No, they will work fine with the kit gear wells. Just don't get too far ahead of me as there is some cutting and fitting required! There is this area that I already mentioned on my ARC thread: In addition to that, a portion of the duct on the upper fuselage gets replaced:

Wow!!! Stunning and inspirational. Makes me wish I built models...

Hey guys, long time no see! Thanks for all the nice comments and sorry I didn't reply until now. Life got in the way and these got delayed but are back on the bench. Both intakes are finished externally and I'm currently working on the bypass area. I will still need to make new pylons once the interior is finished. No ETA but I hope to finish them soon to get some income flowing again. These are modeled on the F-14D but with a few minor panel line changes will work with other versions. Here are a few updated pics: Today I received the Aires wheel wells and fitted them. I made a few modifications to my pattern so that they can be used together without any surgery. More pics and info in the Zactoforum at ARC: http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showforum=176

Only 2 left!

Packages shipped earlier today!

Invoices sent. Thanks! Chris

I have discontinued my line of Su-27 prints and sold those I had in stock. Thank you to those that bought them!

I'd recommend you sell them and use the money to buy a Tamiya or Trumpeter kit.The Revell kit is a caracature of an F-14 when compared to the other kits. Here is one area I'm very familiar with: The Revell intake isn't even close and is way too shallow. The Tamiya intake is pretty close with some minor issues. They made an odd mistake on the radius on the sides at the intake lip. The left intake (not shown) has a tighter, more accurate radius than the right. The Trumpeter intake has been discussed much (sucks) and is the weakest part of the kit. The Zactomodels replacements are coming along. The rest of the Revell kit is about the same in that it's 'sorta F-14 like', but not. The Tamiya kit is pretty close on shape but has a mix of raised and engraved surface detail. The kit lacks much of the detail of modern kits, especially the cockpit which has smooth panels and decals. The Trump kit is nice but has minor shape flaws throughout, most of which can be overlooked. It does have engraved surface detail, lots of parts and lots of detail. If you want a relatively OOB build that builds up nice and looks close, I'd go with the Trump (plus the Zactomodels intakes). If you want to go all out, rescribe, add a lot of aftermarket and scratchbuilt detail, I'd go with the Tamiya kit. Cheers, Chris

For those who haven't been following the F-14 thread in the Zactoforum at ARC, here's where I'm at on the intakes: I'll be posting more progress pics soon. Chris

No need to apologize to me. I'm guiltier than most of never being satisfied with my work and re-doing things again and again... and again... You've said enough good things about the parts that readers shouldn't be hesitant to buy the set. Thank you! Yes, his might end up being a very accurate MiG-29 but he is going even farther than you with extreme modifications in that he is merging parts from the Trumpeter kit with the Revell kit.The point I'd like to make is that just using my set (in addition to adressing the cockpit and maybe gear wells) will yield a nice looking MiG-29 that is far better than the stock Revell kit. Again, I applaud your passion and tenacity and look forward to seeing the finished model. Cheers! Chris

Stop torturing yourself! The only way to make this kit completely accurate is to start from scratch. My correction set is meant to improve the model within the constraints of using the existing inaccurate kit. You have made some impressive and ambitious modifications to try to make the model more accurate but I worry that some modelers might be hesitant to build the kit with the correction thinking it won't be good enough without a whole bunch of extra work... An almost OOB build using the correction set will get you a nice looking MiG-29 that is much more accurate than the stock kit. It is unfortunate that you weren't able to use my full length intakes. They do address the forward spacing of the intakes.Alexander's beautiful forward intake parts were not made to fit the stock Revell kit and it took lots of frustrating adjustments to merge them with my existing intake parts. If you were to build another using the new intakes, I think you would be pleased with the fit and results. Again, the correction was made to work with the existing kit...I think if you compare the kit to photos and published drawings you would find that the position of the little intakes (and entire corrected engine trunking) is more or less correct and that the main gear wells and location of the struts are too far forward (don't try moving the gear wells!). The recommended position of the little intakes may not look right when compared to the gear struts but is correct in relation to the corrected engine trunking. Again, impressive work on fixing everything. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished model. Cheers! Chris

Here's an interesting article by Wade Meyers: LOU IV: I'm Not Singin' the Blues ... Regardless, green or blue, it's a nice build and nice photography! Cheers, Chris

First let me say that I would assume that any Flanker B kit that you buy new at this point would be the 're-tooled' version. I'd think that most retailers would have already sold their older stock and now have the newer kits.If you buy one from an individual, say on Ebay, it might be the older tooling. Unfortunately there's no way of telling from the outside of the box. I'm also assuming that all of the new Flanker B kits have all of the 're-tooled' parts included in the Su-27UB kit and not just the intakes. Those re-tooled parts include the canopy, nosecone, intakes and exhausts. Comparison pictures of all of these can be seen on this Su-27UB thread: http://s362974870.on...dpost&p=1547234 (see post #46). Comparison pics of the original parts to my parts can be found in the giant Flanker thread on ARC: http://s362974870.on...showtopic=39249 Or if you want to save some time check the Su-27 folder of my Photobucket account: http://s79.photobuck...u-27/?start=all Now, if you get the new tooling, here is the order I would personally recommend upgrading (Decals are a given unless you want the schemes included in the kit): 1. Canopy - Though they 'fixed' the canopy, they only did so by straightening the bulge/bubble of the windscreen portion. Overall the canopy is still too bubbled and looks slightly animated. My canopy corrects the shape and also includes lots of internal framing detail. 2. Cockpit - This is a personal choice as I am drawn to cockpits. The kit cockpit is mediocre but OK if you're not a cockpit buff. Aires, Blackbox and Eduard all blow the kit pit away. 3. Wingtip pylons - The kit ones are just so wrong... Lots of people do build it with stock pylons and the kit still looks impressive. 4. Nosecone - Though the re-tooled nosecone has a better profile, they didn't fix the panel lines behind the cone. The dielectric panel on the kit part is much too narrow and should be more square. This wouldn't be a big issue but that panel is going to be painted either white or green and really stands out. Rescribing would be difficult as the cone line is in the wrong spot and would need to be rescribed as well. 5. Missiles - As with cockpits, I'm drawn to weapons. The missiles that Alexander created are simply awesome (Comparison pics here: http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=181932 See posts #84 and 112). The kit missiles could be used but I'd at least recommend modifying the Alamos as the span on the front fins is about 1/2" too long ( http://s362974870.on...ndpost&p=475605 see post 796). 6. Intakes - The 're-tooled' intakes have the correct shape but the surface detail is weak. The louvered vents on the sides are a prominent feature of the Su-27 in my eye and the kit parts just fall short. The extra, more accurate detail of the aftermarket is also a big plus. 7. Exhausts - The re-tooled exhausts are a big improvement. The kit exhausts could be re-worked to be nice but would take a lot to match the aftermarket. I'd at least remove the big raised warts/rivets. The Aires exhausts are very nice. 8. Pylons - The full set (which does include the wingtip pylons). The kit pylons are weak, especially the centerline pylons. The aftermarket are sweet. Comparison pics here: http://s362974870.on...pic=192896&st=0 (see posts #118 and 125) 9. Wheel wells - The Aires wells are awesome. The kit parts could be detailed with lots of wire and stuff. As I said previously, I'd recommend at the very least replacing the canopy. The other items are discretionary. Note that I included items the are most visible from the top without picking up the model and put the intakes, pylons and wheel wells further down the list. If by chance you get the early tooled kit, I'd put the canopy, intakes and nosecone tied at #1, all mandatory... Cheers, Chris

J/N/P is on the list. I've just been too busy with other stuff to get to it yet.

This really limits your choices if you want a really accurate modern Russian build.The Trump MiG-21 is a nice kit as is the MiG-23 but both are older airframes if you want an "opponent" for something modern like the F-16. Personally, I'd put a MiG-29 next to an F-16 and an Su-27 next to an F-15 if I were matching them up for size and role. Yes the MiG-29 gets expensive if you want anything remotely accurate. I'm still proud of my OOB Revell kit though. If you just look at it from the front and don't pay too much attention, it's still an impressive model... More pics here: http://www.zactomodels.com/html/Mig/Mig.htm If you don't want to spend a whole bunch and are willing to overlook some accuracy issues, the Su-27 Flanker B might be your best bet. They can be found for around $90 (Ebay or Hobbystuff Depot) Just how much you accurize it is up to you. I would at the very least replace the canopy. $32 +S&H I'd also leave the missiles off unless you are willing to replace them or invest a lot of time modifying them. HTH Chris

I've seen better...

You may want to re-read that Wikipedia quote. They say that the MiG-29 " remains in use by the Russian Air Force as well as in many other nations.", not the MiG-29M.As far as I know there were only a few Ms built and nobody bought them (including the Russian Air Force). India bought some MiG-29Ks. So, there's not much you can do with a MiG-29M other than the prototype paint schemes or 'what-if's. That being said, the Trump MiG-29M is a better OOB kit than their Su-27. It's a newer kit with better details and surface detail done by their 'A team' rather than the 'B team' (read "Mad-Riveter") that got ahold of the Su-27 tooling. Despite this, the Su-27 makes for a very impressive build especially if you give some aftermarket TLC. If you really want to do a production MiG-29 and have a choice of markings you are best off using the old Revell kit and throwing some Zactomodels upgrades at it.

What a sweet, sweet build....... Intense, awesome, mind-blowing, etc., etc. etc. Congratulations!

Yes, they tweaked the original but I wouldn't say they made it more accurate but possibly 'more presentable'. I'll start by saying that both kits have drastically undersized exhausts. That is the big problem. How to transition from accurate sized intakes to the undersized exhausts is where both kits made compromises, both inaccurate. The original tooling had engine tunnels that were almost accurate when viewed from the side but included an exhaust adapter piece at the rear of the tunnel that stepped down from big to small, with big and unsightly steps. That rear piece with the small exhausts threw the whole look of the rear off. What they did on the 'corrected' tooling was to taper the entire the engine tunnel from just behind the front intake part and include a rear exhaust adapter that was closer to the real thing. In doing so the entire side of the engine tunnels view became inaccurate. The following picture is a bit misleading in that the top picture, labeled 'old tool' is only original between the intake and the rear tunnel piece. It has my corrected rear engine tunnel attached. The lower picture has an underlay of the retooled Revell kit compared to my correction. Neither of the pics show the complete original kit with the stepped adapter piece. You can see the 'corrected' adapter piece in the lower underlay. Picture that adapter stepping all the way from the outer profile of my correction to the small exhaust. When I started my correction I wasn't aware of the retooling and was using the old tool. That is why the above picture is labeled as it is. I ended up including the forward portion of the engine tunnel as well and recently combined a corrected intake assembly with that froward tunnel part: It's a lot of resin... HTH Chris

Let me again say that I don't know Ra'anan and would have defended you if the shoe was on the other foot. I sincerely believe that what you are doing is very wrong, unethical and most likely copyright infringement. Gluing together his parts and making a few small changes doesn't change the fact that he created the original patterns. If you are claiming that he didn't and they are just modified kit parts then you should have taken the same route. I have thoroughly explained my feelings on the differences between modifying a plastic kit part to enhance that kit vs. 'borrowing' parts from competing aftermarket companies. Enhancing plastic kit parts doesn't harm the sales of that company. In many cases I have had people buy a plastic kit only after the corrections became available. Borrowing aftermarket parts harms the company you took it from by either reducing their sales or undercutting their investments in their tooling. I didn't think that my business practices were being disputed. Why have I used some modified kit parts? Of the few parts that did start out as plastic, mostly to insure that the aftermarket parts would fit the original kit. The vast majority of my products were completely scratchbuilt because that was the best way to create more accurate parts than those in the original kits. If you are interested you can see in-progress pictures of almost every aspect of all of my products in the various threads in the Zactoforum on ARC: http://s362974870.on...p?showforum=176 Or if you just want to see the pictures you can surf through my Photobucket account: http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j145/Zactoman/ I certainly do hope that you and Ra'anan come to an equitable agreement and share the outcome with us. I also hope you will consider the thoughts I tried to convey about using your competitors patterns for future products and avoid doing so. Just put yourself in their shoes... That said, assuming issues like this don't occur in the future, I wish you the best of luck in your venture. It's a tough way to make a living.

I have used a few modified plastic kit parts as the basis for some of my products. The vast majority of my products are completely scratchbuilt. None of my products have used any competitive aftermarket parts. I agree that this topic deserves a thread of its own, I also think there should be a link provided in this thread with a brief explanation of the dispute. After all, it was pointed out that this entire thread is essentially an advertisement for E-Resin. While I agree that it shouldn't be up to the public to decide the outcome, they should be aware and be able to make a comparison to decide for themselves and with their wallets. First the Isra parts: The E-Resin part: "Templates"? I think the pictures speak for themselves...