thierry laurent

Exactly. And this I why I prefer knowing as well what makes sense to do even if I'm finally deciding to leave the kit as it is. There is nothing worse than allocating time to modify, detail or correct things to get a result that is not even better than the start point! To me, this is one of the things that is not part of the modelling pleasure and is surely the worst case of AMS.

I will try to have access to my MiG-15 books to compare all these plans and profiles as it is confusing to see so important differences.

And to complete what Andy posted, here's the set of Eduard instructions for their 1/48 MiG-15 UTI: https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/3/8/945338-31-instructions.pdf Thierry

Some food for thought even if few things can be seen: https://www.scale-models.co.uk/threads/yaks-cross-kitted-mig-15-uti-midget-in-1-32-scale.18918/ An interesting part is what the guy is explaining about the canopy and cockpit length. However, knowing he essentially relied on the 4+ plans, I would be very cautious before copying that! Hth Thierry

This makes sense. However, the molds would need to be quite large! To me the time consuming issue will be the canopy. For the rest, you cannot really assemble it without cutting/grinding/drilling. The exhausts are a good example of that. So, improving the kit will just mean going a little bit further. Your remark about the original recipients is interesting. This would at the same time explain why the kit somewhat looks like a desk model but with a landing gear and why it was a one-off from Preiser. By the way, I've never seen anywhere the additional sets, nor seen anyone mentioning having seen them. In any case, even if the kit is basic, I'm quite happy I finally found one as, to me, the Alphajet has exquisite lines. Thierry

Indeed! With regard to the shapes, I did not study them very closely but pictures of different assembled kits capture the shapes and sit of the full-scale plane. The challenge here will be the strategies intended to improve the model as the very basic kit design does not really help. This will not be impossible but clearly time-consuming. You're considering selling yours? Why not make a Qinetiq one with Brit markings? None was ever made in large scale. Personally I was tempted by a Top Aces one but removing the gun will be a long job and ... I recently found pictures of Belgian ones with the SEA&type camo, a Defa gun and a training bomb launcher! There are differences between the Mauser and Defa gun pods but modifying the former will still be easier than removing it. So, a Belgian one is another option as they also used the Mk.10 seats.

Indeed. This makes sense because in that case light is going through one single fabric coat whereas wings have the top and bottom ones.

Thanks Richard. Actually I got the same results when I looked after MiG-15 and 17 information as I wrote the Fresco tweak list. I found many bad reviews but close to none of them really gave useful information to identify and correct them! I just found one interesting thread where a guy showed how to add plastic card to get a seamless air intake. Otherwise, the rest was limited to the use of Eduard parts and the Squadron canopy.

I found that picture that shows a close to perfect profile and I'm afraid I was right: 4+ scale plans are another time... wrong! Enlarge the picture and compare with the kit tail. You will see the kit one is not fully correct but not really worse than the resin one! What a pity!

I just made an interesting finding! Actually the Trumpeter tail is perfectly copying the shapes of the following Japanese plans: I think I need to assess who is right and who is wrong! 4+ plans may be very questionable for some planes (e.g. the MiG-29 ones are not very accurate). So, before cutting I think it is better to check...

Alas, to my eyes, ground instruction airframes are not really relevant as they are intended too have young mechanics climbing over them all the time! The Seafire is a far more useful example but we have to look at the time service length. My point is that we can in many cases find some pictures demonstrating that something was possible. However one or two trees do not make a forest. I looked at many BoB Spitfire pictures (actually there are not tons of them) and also checked the service time of multiple airframes for my Mk.I kit. Before doing that exercise, I was also convinced the planes were quite battered because of the intense use. However, this did not correspond to what I saw and to the service time of a lot of them. No problem seeing someone doing a BoB Spitfire model with oil canning and wing root damaged down to metal. Personally I won't do it and will not recommend doing it even if the artistic license may result in a more attractive model.

Actually, this is logical from a physics perspective. Adding varnish on a white tissue allows light to go through it because the liquid is clear and filling the small gaps in the weave. Do the same with dark colored paint and this is the opposite. With regard to dyed fabric, this depends how tight is the weave of the fabric. But the ones made for covering wings were very tight. And, last, that essentially depends on the sun light strength. At noon in the middle of the summer, there is no doubt the probability to see top markings or wing stringers was far higher than under a cloudy winter sky!

True but you did not get my point. Obviously the wing root damage is made by the boots. However, damage is not the same when the shoe soles are in the grass or in a rocky/dusty/sandy environment. I'm convinced that many pictures are showing paint scratches with damaged paint possibly down to the primer rather than metal in far more cases than we use to think. Black and white pictures do not help for sure. I already wrote it two times in that thread: I'm not saying this was not possible but I'm convinced this is not quantitatively representative for a BoB scheme Spitfire as depicted by Kotare. This is different.

Indeed! The Mig-17 had the same wing aileron issues but also added others (out of my memory: wing chord and root trailing edge shape issues). I cut the offending sections out of the wings to lengthen the aileron parts.

Hi Derek. Thanks for the clarification. Actually, to me, this depends on the weathering type. I'm sure there were many small scratches, oil and fuel spills or soot marks because they were intensively used during weeks. However, if aging such as oil canning or scratches going down to metal was possible, to me, this was rare and hence not really representative. That was my point.