Jump to content

ijozic

Members
  • Content Count

    720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ijozic

  • Rank
    Step away from the computer!

Recent Profile Visitors

5,548 profile views
  1. There were quite a few variants if one includes prototypes, but the early version mentioned here would be the initial production MiG-31 (without the refueling probe which came later with production standard 01-DZ). B/BS came in the early 90s.
  2. It depends on what are you trying to collect here. If you're going for a "herd of modern Russian planes", 9.13 is a Soviet era plane as well as Su-27UB, though the latter is still in RuAF service, of course. SMT 9.19s were returns from Algeria so only saw limited service in RuAF and will be moved to Armenia IIRC. Perhaps a Kitty Hawk Su-30SM would make more sense (but it would require another Quinta set as the stock cockpit is wrong for that variant)?
  3. It's somewhat confusing that it's more expensive than the similar KH Su27UB which at least includes A2A weapons. What's the excuse for no weapons included AND higher price? Smaller production numbers perhaps?
  4. Ah, that's too bad. There is this sprue included with the B/BM or BM w/Kh-47 kits which I suppose they forgot to include in the M kit. Interestingly enough, the 1/72 kit seems to have two of those provided, but on a different sprue next to the engine faces part.
  5. If I've been following well enough, the actual nose/radome piece doesn't have any internal details, right? IIRC, KH split theirs into two parts so that they can provide some ribbing detail on the internal side when it's in the open position.
  6. Glad to hear it's going to be included, thanks for the info. I don't mind painting the cockpit myself if the raised detail provided is good enough, but the instrument faces are impossible to paint convincingly for me, hence why I wish more kits would came with individual instrument faces when they already go through the extra cost of desinging detailed instrument panels.
  7. Will there be tiny instrument decals provided for the instrument panels like in the MiG-29 kit? I certainly hope so as it was less of a hassle then expected and it worked out great.
  8. IIRC, the nose was usually replaced with aftermarket in case of Academy Su-27 (though, it's not absolutely necessary I guess). The whole kit had some dimensional issues as it ended up 1.6 cm too short. But, the weapons in the original kit are horrible (especially the R-27 missiles). The updated boxing (e.g. in Eduard kit or the Academy Su-30) comes with new Kh-31, R-77 and R-73 missiles at least.
  9. Interesting, kudos to you then, but I'm glad such options are gaining track as I'd even prefer to buy such aftermarket sets if available (given extra detail on the insides of the canopy frame), rather than to mask the canopy inside and out manually.
  10. On the other hand, I can't understand why would anyone argue against this approach. If made well, the transparent parts will be thinner and might even fit without any glue required. If not, a bit of Clear will glue it while leaving no marks. I'd say it's incomparably easier to paint the frame this way both inside and out as you avoid the pain of manually masking the frames for painting its outside side, while masking and painting the insides of a single piece canopy seems almost impossible to me. But, OK, 5 people, 10 opinions. At least GWH is providing both options so
  11. But it was surely expected that they wouldn't stop at releasing the less popular two-seater only? That would be a complete waste of investment into research and CAD plans.
  12. Was there perhaps some noticeable difference in the rear cockpit compared to the UB? IIRC, the Russian Su-30 was developed from the Su-27PU which had a tactical situation screen in the rear cockpit and I can't find any cockpit photos of those Indian Su-30K's.
  13. Looks quite impressive to say the least with all those pipes/cables parts.
  14. The loading cart set looks great, I'll definitely get one. Care to post some photos of the contents? The trucks are also very much needed, though it's somewhat strange they included both in the same box instead of having them as separate and cheaper kits. E.g. not sure I feel like assembling two variants of the same truck, especially if one of them is the regular cargo 4320 variant. A tanker variant would make much more sense in this set, IMHO. Not that it matters, but I believe Yak-41 should be mentioned in any Kitty Hawk thread in the hopes of them making one in the end (though,
  15. I'll be sure to keep that in mind next time I'm assembling the wings with such connections.
×
×
  • Create New...