Jump to content

Su-27 vs. MIG-29?


Bill Cross

Recommended Posts

Now that I've settled on the F-16 Falcon, I'd like to have an "opponent" for it on the shelf. I've been looking at the Trumpeter SU-27 Flanker B and MIG-29M Fulcrum. There are variants like the MIG-29K that looks to be more in theory than actuality.

 

The SU-27 seems to have some "issues" like an incorrect nose, canopy and intakes, but I can't find much on the Fulcrum, so I thought I would see what those who've built these kits might have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mig-29M, from what I've been told, was an export verion and I don't believe any were sold/built. Others may know more and prove me wrong but nonetheless, the Su-27 is, in my opinion, the better choice. FWIW, I don't believe F-16's would be engaged with Su-27's or Mig-29's unless the OPFOR broke through our MigCAP. While it has the capability, I don't believe it is used in the air superiorty/supremacy role any longer (if it ever was). I think it's AIM's are more defensive than offensive. The Raptor has taken over the air superiority/supremacy role from the F-15C and while low in numbers, the Raptors are more than capable of the mission. Your best opponent for the CJ would be a SAM site or other ground target. Boring I know but that's the way the Electric Jet fits in today's ATO's.

 

On second thought and since I'm not a tactician for air ops, I might be way off base but... Since the CJ's are hunter/killers of SAM sites (Wild Weasels), they usually go in first and come out last, which might put them in the line of fire of the OPFOR. Their AIM's are still defensive though. I still think the Su-27 is a better choice, B or UB. The Mig-29M is not a currently operational aircraft as far as I am aware.

Edited by TimC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Tim, for the great overview of tactics.

 

Wikipedia(I know, hardly a definitive source) says the Mig-29M continues in service with numerous air forces, including Russia, while the K was intended for a carrier arm that was stillborn (IIRC the flat-top was sold to the Chinese navy).

 

I'm most concerned about which is the better kit. Trumpeter's success rate is sometimes hit-or-miss. The AM pits for these kits are REALLY EXPENSIVE. Not that I won't buy them, I just like to know what I'm getting myself into. It's why I went for the Falcon over the F-15 Eagle: I'd need another $100 to fix its various problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia(I know, hardly a definitive source) says the Mig-29M continues in service with numerous air forces, including Russia, while the K was intended for a carrier arm that was stillborn (IIRC the flat-top was sold to the Chinese navy).
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.

 

 

:beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Su-27 a lot. I have an older version of the kit with all the correction sets by Flankeman and Aires detail sets, so that corrects all "issues". The only problem with that is that it works out too expensive. I believe that the two-seat versions corrected many of these issues so there is no more need for some expensive correction sets. But this raises a moral dilemma because these "corrections" were made by using Flankerman's R&D without any due recognition (never mind reward) to Flankerman.

I had the MiG29M, but I sold it because it is a version I have no interest in. It looks OK in the box, but it is the biggest mistery why Trumpeter chose that version instead of the version used by so many nations. They were given a licence to print money and chose to print Albanian Leks. ;)

Radu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Su-27 a lot. I have an older version of the kit with all the correction sets by Flankeman and Aires detail sets, so that corrects all "issues". The only problem with that is that it works out too expensive. I believe that the two-seat versions corrected many of these issues so there is no more need for some expensive correction sets. But this raises a moral dilemma because these "corrections" were made by using Flankerman's R&D without any due recognition (never mind reward) to Flankerman.

I had the MiG29M, but I sold it because it is a version I have no interest in. It looks OK in the box, but it is the biggest mistery why Trumpeter chose that version instead of the version used by so many nations. They were given a licence to print money and chose to print Albanian Leks. ;)

Radu

 

Radu, replace "Flankerman" with "Zactoman", and I reckon you've got the right guy...

 

Kev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man! You are right!

Of course, I meant Zactoman. :sorry:

 

I have been a fan of Ken "Flankerman" Duffey since the very early-nineties ;) when he was writing for SMI. So is true what they say... you turn 40 and your brain goes on a downhill slope... this is only two days after my 40th birthday! :D

 

Radu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is true what they say... you turn 40 and your brain goes on a downhill slope... this is only two days after my 40th birthday! :D

 

Radu

 

Welcome to the club, er, er...What did you say your name was again?:lol:

 

Derek

 

(Who is just off to see what the differences between an Mig 29M and K are?...)

Edited by Derek B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

 

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.

Hmmm, you're right, very confusing article, and I clearly missed the meaning. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Can the Trumpy kit be back-dated or whatever it would be in this case to the standard 29?

 

If it's updating the Revell, I think I'll pass. I have so many kits in my stash with extensive upgrades (ME-262, 2 P-47s, 2 FW-190s, not to mention trying to backdate the P-38L to the Yamamoto mission). I was looking for something like the F-16 that would build well OOB (except for the resin wheels I want to replace Tamiya's vinyl ones). If I were going to build a jet that needs THAT much TLC, I would go for Tamiya's Bunker Buster F-15 Strike Eagle. :BANGHEAD2:

 

But I do appreciate all the hand-holding and opinions, Gents. You guys are the best!

Edited by Bill Cross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really isn't practical to backdate the Trumpeter MiG-29s into the earlier version. Basically, the M and K are to the Fulcrum A or C what the F/A-18E is to the F/A-18A or C. Different cockpit, wings, fuselage, intakes, spine, speedbrake, etc. It's a lot more practical to upgrade the Revell kit with Zactoman upgrades than try and convert the Trumpeter kits.

 

Not sure about the comment about the F-15E Bunker Buster needing a lot of TLC. It's basically a good kit and most of the issues can be fixed with just the Wolfpack update set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a lot more practical to upgrade the Revell kit with Zactoman upgrades than try and convert the Trumpeter kits.

The Revell upgrade from Zactoman is $128 plus shipping. The kits (vanilla 29 and UB/GT) are OOP. Greatmodels has the UB/GT version for $62, which says it has markings for the German and Russian air forces. I would prefer one in Russian service, but sometimes the better choice is to let the available kit make the choice for me. eBay has one of the "vanilla" kits for $95 plus $10 shipping, so they are around. What about other goodies like a resin pit, PE, etc.? I presume that would be another $75-$150? I would think it's crazy to put $225 into the kit and resin fixes and not go the rest of the way with the detailing....

 

 

Not sure about the comment about the F-15E Bunker Buster needing a lot of TLC. It's basically a good kit and most of the issues can be fixed with just the Wolfpack update set.

 

I asked earlier about whether the F-15 or the F-16 was the "better" kit in terms of buildability, the need for fixes, upgrades, etc. and got comments to the effect that the F-15E, being an older kit, needs more upgrading. I realize that words makes some here burst into flames, but again, I see no point in spending $100 for a kit and then not attending to detailing if available. The Wolfpack set is only $38, but I'm figuring resin 'pit, PE, Aires exhaust nozzles ($30)....

 

I'm not poor and I'm not afraid to spend money when justified, but there are excellent kits that require little or no upgrades (the Tamiya 'Stang from what I can tell), while others are a money pit when done "right."

 

And, please, those of you whose hair catches on fire at the mention of after-market upgrades, let's not hijack the thread for a discussion about modeling "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts." Thank you in advance for your consideration. I'm a rivet counter and I like it.

Edited by Bill Cross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked about converting the Trumpeter MiG 29s into an earlier version. No, it's not practical in my opinion. There are no conversion parts so everything would have to be scratchbuilt, and that's a lot of work. Are you looking for something that you can make OOTB or something to dump tons of money and/or time on to make accurate? Yes, you asked earlier which is better OOTB, the Tamiya F-16 or F-15E, and yes OOTB the F-16 kit is more accurate. But here you are asking about backdating the Trumpeter kit instead of building it as-is, so I answered your question. And, no this isn't a hair catching fire comment or a thread hijacking. You were the one who brought the F-15 into this thread. I was merely asking what you felt was so wrong with it that it needed a lot of TLC? I also made no comment about how much money you might spend, so if you are offended, I did not intend for that, nor do I think I said anything that should have offended. I merely empressed my opinion that if you want an early MiG-29 it's more practical (never said or implied anything about cost) to make one out for the Revell kit than try and backdate the Trumpeter kits.

Edited by Dave Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a rivet counter and I like it.
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...

Mig_front_med.jpg

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...