thierry laurent Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Well, before touching again that one, I need to end something I promised to one of our aftermarket guys, my wip Spitfires and possibly my Sea Hornet... The main problem stays the fact If I have the possibility to have regular looks at LSP, I have very few hours in front of my work bench... Well, I guess this will stay a common problem up to retirement time! Cheers. Thierry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Another information about VPAF PF and PFM: I have yet to see a picture of one of those planes with the GP-9 gun. Texts mentioned the possibility of the use but I never saw a visual confirmation. I guess this was possibly linked to an autonomy issue. Such marks did not have wet wings and consequently using the gun implied the impossibility to carry a drop tank! A belly tank (quite often a finless variant) and two to four R-3S Atoll missiles looked to be the common warload of the day. Too bad as I really looked the badass look of the gun and making an enlarged copy of the 1/48 Quickboost did not look so difficult, just time consuming. I guess to get the gun, a turquoise pit and the canopy with mirror, I should have chosen an Arab one to keep the exotic livery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_C Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Shoot and run was the basic tactic of the day in Vietnam for the Mig-21. The Mig-17 tended to dual as they had heavy caliber guns. Yes, but, while I know the ground control would direct them to the target's approximate position, they still had the job of actually finding the target in the sky. And the enemy pilots would often maneuver violently to get away or get into firing position themselves. It just seems to me the view in those cockpits was extremely cluttered, making it hard to find and keep the target before setting up a firing solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 To find the targets they relied on the plane radar and then on the very relative quality of the infrared missiles. Fortunately for both sides that technology was far from mature at that time and I guess this saved the life of many American and Vietnamese pilots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_C Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I have read their accounts in the Toperczer book, and some talk explicitly about finding the targets in the sky, even without radar guidance. Toperczer also states (p.8), that "The pilot of the target aircraft would be doing everything possible to shake off his pursuer, while the Vietnamese attacker would be desperately trying to keep the target in his sights sufficiently long enough to judge its range, before deciding whether to fire a missile. Flying the fighter while effectively working the radar and optical sight was a skill that could only be acquired through experience . . ." This was my point, not a big one. That the MiG-21 has a lot of stuff cluttering up the pilot's vision, which must have made it hard to track targets. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I was not arguing Mark. For sure, seeing anything through such a narrow field of vision in a mach2 plane was a tremendous achievement. I am always amazed when I see such cluttered cockpits. User-friendliness was not really the main priority of the time, for sure! To which Toperczer book were you referring? He wrote various ones about the Vpaf MiGs: Squadron, Osprey, Hikoki, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 The MiG-21 pilots were heavily reliant on GCI for interception, until at their equivalent of "punch/judy" or "tally ho". They were instructed when to knock it off too as GCI coordinated with the SA-2 SAM units. Hanging around could turn them into targets. This meant using hit and run tactics against strike packages of up to forty much bigger, and often smoky, American jets. Shoot and scoot. AFAIK the Fishbed had good forward visibility and plenty of manoeuvrability. F-105 Weasel crews I interviewed described it as a "nasty little silver mosquito" which could seemingly zoom in out of nowhere. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1 Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 The MiG-21 pilots were heavily reliant on GCI for interception, until at their equivalent of "punch/judy" or "tally ho". They were instructed when to knock it off too as GCI coordinated with the SA-2 SAM units. Hanging around could turn them into targets. This meant using hit and run tactics against strike packages of up to forty much bigger, and often smoky, American jets. Shoot and scoot. AFAIK the Fishbed had good forward visibility and plenty of manoeuvrability. F-105 Weasel crews I interviewed described it as a "nasty little silver mosquito" which could seemingly zoom in out of nowhere. Tony The MiG was very effective when used in this mode, as a GCI point-defense interceptor. Do a pop-up through the clouds under GCI control, right behind the bad guys, launch your Atolls and dive for home. This became less effective towards the end the war when USAF Phantoms started to be fitted with "Combat Tree" and (finally) got permission to launch BVR attacks. That started a trend that continues to this day for the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill M. Posted February 3, 2018 Author Share Posted February 3, 2018 As the original poster, I have no issue about the “thread creepâ€. I'm appreciating the comments about how to build a decent Mig 21 in its various forms. It sounds like building the Trumpeter F-13 kit is problematic to arrive at an accurate early NVAF Mig 21. From what I gather here, it would appear that using the Trumpeter MF kit to build a late NVAF Mig 21 is the way to go. One thing for sure, the market could surely use a new series of accurate 1/32 Mig 21's. Bill M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_C Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 Bill, I went through much the same process as you, and finally got the MF, even though I would have preferred an earlier model. Reviews of the F-13 vs the MF convinced me to go with the latter. Well, that and picking one up with a shedload of aftermarket for about $35. The AM alone was worth more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Good views of the early mark cockpit and canopy: http://www.airforce.ru/content/mig-21/725-mig-21f/?langid=4 Hth Thierry Tony T 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony T Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Good views of the early mark cockpit and canopy: http://www.airforce.ru/content/mig-21/725-mig-21f/?langid=4 Hth Thierry Very useful pics! Thierry, did the Finnish F-13s have the gunsight glass as in your link? I'm now wondering if they used the dangling smaller reflector sight as on the PF. Any idea? It's not too late for me to go either way with my own build. Cheers Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Well, very frankly I do not know but all the F13s I have seen had the classical gunsight. However, it is not impossible that situation changed later even though I have doubts about that. For instance Chinese later J7 based on the F13 showed some differences but they were made nearly twenty years later. I guess that with a little bit of research, finding pics of the Finn ones is hopefully possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 I got the magnificent resin landing gear wells from Scale Resin. However, something is puzzling me: the main wells are 3.5mm shorter than the kit ones...!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Hi Tony, this picture out of a Russian book confirms what I wrote, at least early in the life of the planes: HTH Thierry Kagemusha 1 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