thierry laurent Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 Saying that the size changed noticeably is an understatement as showed by this picture of the Revell part on the Trumpeter one! Zero77 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 A quick check on the plans showed that I could indeed use most of the panel lines of the Trumpeter part. Moreover, fortunately, the internal side of the parts is not hollow behind the edge. So, it is possible to cut a large section of the edge of the elevator without getting a hole between the halves. Here's a view of the cuts to make. Please disregard the two wingtip pencil lines as they were just a raw guide to help in the major cuts. Next step will show the result and how to use the Zacto parts with them . Wait and see. Zero77 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark31 Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Good work keep going Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 Hello, I realized I did not show the chosen scheme. Here's a view taken from a simulator game: I think this explains why I could not resist anymore when the decals were released... :-) Thierry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvy5 Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Nice work, I also wanted rework Trumpeter, but finally I rework Revell. If I'm not mistaken, this is one of the first 9.12, which still had the old type stabilizers and co-stabilizers for engines. Also could carry drop tanks only between engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 Yes, indeed. I wanted to show the scheme but my plane will be a little bit different. The one of the picture is not an early mark with vertical fins under the elevators and no flare launcher at the tail root. However, the camo scheme, nose and tail art as well as white canopy are fully identical. The only scheme difference will be the modex number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Hi, I'm currently having a look at the LG zone. Again, there is no comparison between the Revell and Trumpeter parts. The Chinese parts are far more detailed and accurate. Moreover, the LG is using a white metal core. Considering the probable final weight of the kit, this is also the best solution to be sure the LG will support it. Combined with the Zacto wheels and some scratchbuild parts, I shall get a correct replica. Last, here's a comparison of the external side of the external MLG front doors. Trumpeter is above and Revell below. This clearly demonstrates that the shape of the Revell part is totally off! Ouch! Zero77 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Thierry, following along very close to your build. Great job so far. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbetty Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 still have nightmares on these Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted April 8, 2014 Author Share Posted April 8, 2014 still have nightmares on these I'm not surprised! The first motive to get the Trumpeter kit was to solve this landing gear zone problem. This is surely one of the worst problems of the Revell kit. BTW, if my memory's right I saw a build on which a modeller just took the LG zone of the Trumpeter kit to add it on the Revell one. So, there are other (intermediate) solutions than the extreme one I choose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out2gtcha Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Hello, I realized I did not show the chosen scheme. Here's a view taken from a simulator game: I think this explains why I could not resist anymore when the decals were released... :-) Thierry Neat! Its like the Russian jet version of a VA-176 Sky Raider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shepard Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 fantastic! shep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Hi, While cleaning other parts and filling panel lines, I also had a look at the airbrake. Again, the shapes are not really correct. I'll explain progressively the changes to make but the main problem is the upper fairing. The airbrake upper part is flat with a short half cone with a step on the edge whereas it should be far longer without any step. Indeed, the transition between the "bump" and the left and right sides of the upper airbrake should be smooth. The lower part shows (correctly) a shorter cone-shaped fairing. As shown in the initial pictures of this thread, I had to cut the airbrake end to build the upper fuselage. This helps somewhat to do the bump correction even if this implies more work to re-attach it to the fuselage as I had to cut in the airbrake (more or less 8mm from its front end), not between it and the fuselage end. So, the seam will have to disappear completely and a new separation line to be re-scribed when I'll glue the airbrake to the fuselage end. The picture shows the upper and lower airbrake cut section as well as the resin Zacto spacer. I had to think at least twice to find an easy way to recreate the longer bump and remove the step. I finally used a section of Evergreen tube and made a diagonal cut. I removed the aforementioned half-cone and will glue the tube section on the upper airbrake. With a lot of CA glue and a lengthy sanding process, I should get a far more accurate look. Wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Ok, Now, we will have a look at the tail-rudder area. A comparison of the parts from both kits results in interesting differences (to say the least!). The following picture shows the difference in dimension. Ouch! It makes you wonder if the tail was not enlarged when they made new versions! As pointed in Chris Wilson instructions of his correction set, the upper profile of the Revell one is incorrect but the differences are far more numerous. The Revell kit also has a notoriously bad shaped flare launcher fairing. Zacto gives you a very nice part to correct this. However, my plane (an early batch one) had no such launcher. In fact, it seems they were added when the production was already launched as the Russians took the lessons of the airplane vulnerability to the SAM systems used during the Kippur war. The installation of the launchers had a side-effect: this improved the longitudinal stability of the plane and the lower fins were finally considered as being useless. This explains why they were only found on the early planes. If there is any interest, I may publish a list of the most obvious differences between the different MIG batches. Thierry, I would be interested if you published a list of the most obvious differences between MIG batches. Following along with your 9-12 build here and starting research and trying to find drawings for my 9-13 one. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peterpools Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 Amazing work. Just marvel at your ability to determine what needs to be done and how to do it - and then actually make the corrections perfectly. Keep 'em coming Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now