Laurent
-
Content Count
4,595 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Laurent
-
-
2 hours ago, Niels said:
... and Sidewinder/Mica missiles.
There was no outer wing station on the IIIR and IIIRD so no missiles. The diagram I talked about comes from a Dassault manual. 5BR (https://www.airliners.net/photo/Belgium-Air-Force/Dassault-SABCA-Mirage-5BR/6569971) and IIIRS (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dassault_Mirage_IIIRS,_R-2108,_Swiss_Air_Force.jpg) versions did have outer wing stations but not the IIIR and IIIRD versions.
-
4 hours ago, Mustang381 said:
Bombs? Mk.82...etc?? 🙂
Zilch. I've looked at this book (https://modelingmadness.com/others/books/poi/poim3v2.htm) and there's no photo of a Mirage IIIRD carrying weapons. In the Mirage IIIR payload diagram the JL-100R hybrid rocket+fuel tank could be used but the rest are fuel tank and recce pod. I assume the IIIRD could also carry the JL-100R but there's no photographic evidence to back this up.
-
About wings and stabilizers geometry. Vladimir Klimov did good MiG-21 drawings used in Yefim Gordon books. The MiG-21bis drawings are interesting because there are two types on front views in it:
- fuselage axis perpendicular to drawings plane
- aircraft on it landing gear so ground plane perpendicular to drawings plane
The second drawing helps to understand the RFM silhouette: stabilizers"dihedral" and wing cross-section come from the nose-down attitude. The angle between fuselage axis and the normal axis is smaller in the RFM silhouette than in Klimov however: front landing gear fully compressed in Klimov because of the deployed breaking parachute ? This view expains why the wings vortex generating tabs are visible.
What makes the silhouette weird is that it represents an aircraft resting on its landing gear when the landing gear isn't represented.
-
On 10/31/2023 at 1:50 PM, ya-gabor said:
- things like reinforcement plates on top wing above the outer pylons
It is not reinforcement but the vortex genarator plate in front of the aelorns!
I didn't notice these until today.
In the silhouette I think they should be hidden by the wing thickness.
-
Thank you Inquisitor for the illustration. Some comments though:
- stabilizer: the CAD designer did the stabilizer mechanism fairings on top and bottom near the root. They have the same height and this suggest that the stabilizer isn't tilted but perpendicular to the screen plane
- fuselage tank: the projection used in the CAD seems to be orthographic (the radio-altimeter antennas under the wing tip are just vertical segments) but if you look at the fuselage tank it doesn't correspond to your drawing (tilted cylinder of elliptic cross-section)... in the CAD you see two ellipses and I don't think the tank was area-ruled
- wings: assume that the CAD model is tilted down. If it was the case then the wing incidence would be positive and pretty big
Anyway I'm going to way for profile and top views now.
-
1 hour ago, Spruemeister said:
All this speculation over a black silhouette that is probably just a drawing and not actual parts.
It comes from a CAD render: there's a shadow.
-
I had some spare time so I played with Paint.
-
1 hour ago, habu2 said:
I thought the MiG-21 wing had a slight anhedral, I don't see that in the silhouette front view?
Google agrees: 2°.
-
RFM has posted a teaser on their Facebook page.
It's a 3rd (S, R, SM, M, MF) or 4th (bis) generation MiG-21 but the scale isn't specified. The K-5 missiles are surprising but I believe they were still used in training at the time of the 3rd generation versions.
What doesn't look quite right to me:
- stabilizers: I think anhedral should be 0° and they seem placed a little high on the fuselage
- canopy: I think the cross-section should be semi-circular not parabolic
- things like reinforcement plates on top wing above the outer pylons
Another botched-up MiG-21 kit to come ?
-
3 hours ago, JohnEB said:
But given their really bland paint schemes
Murican ones sure but...
-
15 hours ago, habu2 said:
Honestly I am more concerned about the fit than I am about the price, based on my previous experience with Kinetic kits.
They changed the mold maker starting with the M-346.
-
9 hours ago, Curt B said:
You have given me some great ideas here, Gabor, thank you! You're correct, being in Las Vegas does have its advantages in many ways...never really thought about that! Actually, one of the reasons I moved here almost 25 years ago, now, was that LV is close to so much, within itself, but also proximity to southern California (Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, etc.) which we can get to in about 4 hours in the car. Plus the weather...I'd had enough of freezing cold, shoveling snow, and overcast skies for a big percentage of the year when I lived in Chicago.
I'm not a big fan of the exaggeration of some of the recently espoused painting processes, though as a break from my typically desired ultra-realism (not that I do a great job of meeting that most of the time), it might be okay. I will see what I can find. One thing of interest. I've watched a few videos on YouTube showing a flyable MiG-17F from Planes of Fame, and that plane looks like it was dipped in paint, too. Of course, I'm sure they just want that plane to look 'good' for air shows, not necessarily looking like it came off the Soviet assembly line.
If you want to learn about the metal colour shades I think you should look for photos of airframes made while they were being restored like http://www.ratomodeling.com.br/references/mig17F/
-
18 hours ago, Buckmeister said:
As we have seen in this thread, and as someone who had studied the real airplane very closely, the wing in the Hobby Boss kit is very wrong. They completely missed all of the subtle shape changes that Gabor has pointed out. I was able to do a very thorough examination and walk around of a MiG-17F (actually a J-5) many years ago, and noticed all those shapes. Very disappointed when the HB kit came out, as it is one of my favorite early jets. Also as noted, the windshield is wrong. If you don’t know much about the aircraft, the HB kit is fine, but you can say the same about a lot of HB and Trumpeter kits that are really awful.
Jet aircrafts often have wings with subtle shape features. Airfoil of inner wing is often different to outer wing airfoil. I'm neither an aerodynamicist nor an aviation engineer but I guess that it's because of spanwise airflow which leads to different stall speed for inner and outer parts of the wing. CAD designers or master makers aren't aerodynamicists or aviation engineers either. AFAIK neither OEZ (or SMER... I don't know who did the mold design), HB, KP (1/72), AZ (1/72), Hasegawa (1/72), etc designed accurate wings. Unless the model kit producer has access to full manufacturer blueprints the only way to design an aerodynamically accurate wing for a kit is to scan a real aircraft. The 1/72 Airfix case is peculiar because the designer used a LiDAR scan but for some reason the CAD designer ignored the subtleties of the real aircraft wing. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of jet aircraft models proved to be aerodynamically inaccurate... well the model isn't expected to fly anyway.
-
On 7/27/2023 at 3:56 PM, clumsy said:
Then may be I got tricked with lighting of the museum.
It seems to me something is indeed happening starting from about the middle of the two fences to outside of the outer fence
According to https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/aircraft.html, the inner wing is based on TsAGI S-10 airfoil while outer wing is based on TsAGI SR-3 airfoil. I wonder where the transition area is. Anyway perhaps the airfoil is the same on the middle and outer wing but the incidence slightly more negative on the outer wing. Twisted wing.
-
14 hours ago, Buckmeister said:
The Hobby Boss MiG-17 is basically a work of fiction. I don’t have the Ammo kit in my hands (picking it up next week when I visit my friend in Europe, where I got free shipping), but from what I’ve seen here and elsewhere, the Ammo kit is not even in the same universe as the Hobby Boss kit. Far more accurate in every way. Maybe not perfect, but orders of magnitude better than HB.
Could you please explain what's wrong with the 1/48 HB kit ?
-
Funny thing is that Eduard is a Czech company and Czechoslovakia had MiG-17Fs. Oh well the designer probably doesn't know what a Fowler flap is and intricate details are the only things that matter.
-
17 hours ago, ya-gabor said:
But it is there in my opinion!
It's a fact not an opinion and you've illustrated that.
2 hours ago, The Dude said:Very nice! I'm in for 2 or 3!
One or two for me... more if PF and/or PFU versions come around. I love the (in)aesthetics feature brought by the addition of the twin-antennas radar. For the same reason I prefer the MiG-19P/PM over the MiG-19S.
-
There was this but it's 17yo so good luck finding it. The drawings do not include cross-sectional views: https://modelingmadness.com/others/books/poim2k.htm
-
On 7/16/2022 at 4:43 AM, TheGloriousTachikoma said:
And has there been any whisper of anyone doing resin/3D printed corrected intakes?
The Kinetic Kfir was released nine years ago. My guess is if there was a market for such a correction it would have been done already.
-
47 minutes ago, Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy said:
Cautiously optimistic. I had HIGH hopes when RV released theirs and was bitterly, bitterly disappointed.
RV master parts were handmade. ClearProp is CAD/CAM so I'm more optimistic on the parts fit.
-
If you want to design a geometrically accurate 3D model of an airplane you need the most reliable reference material. In particular you need loft and station lines drawings. Scale drawings may be nicely detailed but it doesn't mean they are accurate because you don't know how they were made. Search on Ebay "1970's General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark Jet blueprint plans tech drawings DETAIL. Someone in the UK seems to be selling a drawings archive CD-ROM/DVD-ROM that you'd probably find interesting (check the previews).
-
The article doesn't talk about the nose shape. It just says that Azur and Matchbox fuselages are both to short compared to the scale drawings (*) especially the Azur one. It's said that the end of the fuselage is worst on the Azur kit.
The nose profile of neither kits look good to me. Matchbox nose is purely conical. There might be a slight curvature on the intake side of Azur nose. The issue might be that the angle of the cone is too big on Azur and Matchbox and that the intake area profile isn't curved. Ref:
*: Yeah but are the scale drawings actually accurate ? Scale drawings are like a scale model: an interpretation of a real subject. I don't own the following book but it might contain actual Dassault drawings: http://www.aerostories.org/~aerobiblio/article6087.html
-
I'm no Mystère IVA expert but I see no solution. The Matchbox nose looks weird to me. It looks conical to me.
-
The Scaleworx Mirage F-1AZ conversion set incudes a whole new front fuselage and a vacuformed canopy. The wide windshield of the Esci/Italeri kit is corrected.
http://spring-air.com/scaleworx/home/8-148-mirage-f1az-conversion-italeriesci.html
There's also a conversion for the Kittyhawk kit but I don't know its content.
http://spring-air.com/scaleworx/home/11-148-mirage-f-1az-kitty-hawk.html
Su-17M4 / Su-22M4 Modelsvit
in Jet Modeling
Posted
Just an educated guess. I think it was because of engine fleet maintenance rationalization. Hungary had MiG-23s that used the Klimov engine used in the Su-22M and Su-22M3. Using the M4 would have required maintaining also a Lyulka engine fleet. Gabor could probably confirm or infirm.