MiG31

It is exactly an apples-to-oranges comparison. You're comparing a space taxi with a jack-of-all-trades craft: a heavy-lift vehicle designed to be a delivery truck and a mobile science and construction platform. Given all of the requirements and capabilities that were instilled in the STS system, it's no small accomplishment on NASA's part that there weren't more serious accidents. Soyuz is a venerable workhorse, and has a proven, reliable record despite early failures. That said, it is no Space Shuttle. On the subject of comparisons: 110 crewed Soyuz flights over 44 years (two of those

So they're going with a length in the 69-72-foot range? Has anyone seen an official, published set of dimensions for this aircraft?

Assuming you're using a digital camera, does it have a macro function? You should be able to take sharper photos using that, if you're not already. How did you build your interstage truss?

A late reply, but I had a word with a friend who picked up a recent copy of Airfix Model World, which includes an article on building the RSM 1:72 Vostok. In it the author mentions the heat shield composition, noting the white hex pattern was covered by a silver tape. That might be where the confusion comes in. In any event, that applies only to the spacecraft, and won't be visible on the assembled launch vehicle. Speaking of R-7s, Squadron's selling the R-7 Semiorka, Sputnik, and Luna 1 kits for $32 apiece. The Vostok kit's still at $90 unfortunately.

Here is Sven's review of the Rho Models kit. Given that it's cheaper than Anigrand's separate Energia and Buran kits, I'd purchase from RSM. The Energia is broken down in a much better way, and appears to have more detail. From my experience with Anigrand, I would not necessarily trust the quality of their cylindrical castings. On that note, does Anigrand combine shipping when purchasing multiple kits?

If his 1:72 and 1:144 Space Shuttle main engines and decals are any indication, the kits you listed ought to be good. I'm eyeballing his 1:72 Mercury Redstone and Atlas kits, personally, and the reviews on Sven Knudson's site look promising.

Only one of those was relevant to the OP's request. I've built the Arii kit with a few improvements, and it turned out okay. It takes a lot of work to resemble an actual 172, but it is a 172, more or less. A better kit would be the Minicraft 1:48 Skyhawk. It really depends on what you're looking for.

Since I picked up the Mach 2 Vostok kit I've been hunting for drawings and other reference material. I think I've effectively scoured Sven Knudson's site, along with some more general web searching. What is known for certain is that the upper stage block E booster, and the payload fairing, are inaccurate. The upper stage is far too long and out of proportion, while the payload fairing is too long and too narrow. The cutout on the fairing's side for capsule access is also improperly shaped. With that in mind, some questions: -Do there exist any photos showing, specifically, Gagarin's Vost

I'm looking forward to this. Since the Anigrand kits were announced I've been curious to see how accurate they are, including the Energia. While we're discussing 1:144, I know that Real Space Models has re-issued the older Rho Models kit. Do you know anything about it?

It may be flatter in profile, but that alone would not make it ideal for a Buran conversion. Consider the width of the flight deck windscreen section, especially the spacing between the two inboard windows. They're bad enough for an American Shuttle. Then do the conversion from meters to feet, or better still, do a direct conversion to 1:72 using metric. It makes things a lot simpler, given you don't have to multiply by twelve to get inches when doing standard measurements. 100 centimeters to a meter, or 1,000 millimeters to a meter. Brilliant stuff, metric.

Not really. Aside from what you mentioned, the rear and forward fuselage are different in shape. The nose appears subtly flatter in profile than its American counterpart, and I wouldn't be surprised if the mid-fuselage is different in cross-section, as well. I provided you a link to RKK Energia's page in this thread. The linked page notes basic length and diameter measurements for the core and Zenit stages.

Try the Starship Modeler Store.

Stunning. Needless to say I'll be copying these to my file for my future builds. I need to have another look at the Tango Papa line, since I didn't recall that it included that stenciling.

Indeed.

Here is a page on RKK Energia's site that provides some general data on the Energia.

I caught wind of this over at Brit Modeller. This has me excited, although I'll wait a while to see if they release an FAW.2. Also, the announced Buccaneer and Sea Venom from Dragon means a good time for building FAA subjects.

This was the major reason I chose the Monogram kit over the Italeri version: Note that, while it is the YF-12 kit, the same problem exists for the SR-71. That said, the Italeri Blackbird seems like it should build at least as easily as the Monogram kit. Should you choose the latter, I cannot say with any certainty that the Eduard photo-etch will fit. The Monogram cockpit is much wider than its Italeri counterpart, so instrument panel and console bits might be an issue.

I went the masochistic route and chose the Monogram kit as a basis, using the exhaust petals, cockpit section and canopies from the Italeri YF-12 kit. As has been mentioned, the Monogram kit really is the best starting point, but it is not perfect. The canopy cross-section is completely wrong, which is why I chose to use Italeri parts for a substitute. I also scratch-built the exhaust interiors, using the YF-12 petals since they look better than their Monogram counterparts. See the build here. For the Italeri kit the only aftermarket I'm aware of, besides decals, is the Eduard photoetch s

The early test flights, to my knowledge, were carried out without camera viewports, so it really depends on what you're modeling: one of the early test flights (hence the all-bare metal finish), or something later. As an aside, I've never seen or heard the term "Titaniumbird" used for the A-12. It was either Oxcart or Cygnus, the latter being its name given by the test pilots.

The Revell-AG kit seems to be the best. I built it in 2009, and it turned out pretty good.

The nose profile of the Revell F-13 certainly looks off. Not even the Quickboost intake fixes the problem. You'd have to build up and re-sculpt the upper part of the nose, at least, to improve the profile. What are the issues with Zvezda's PFM? Is the nose misshape difficult to correct?

People who build 1:72 models, perhaps?

Read the discussion here.

I'm usually against thread necromancy, but my search is still ongoing. Assuming there are no AASMs in 1:72, would modifying the Hasegawa GBU-12s with seeker adapter extensions work for an Armee de L'air aircraft, or would other changes be required, such as a different bomb body? What about the AT730 pylons? Who makes a Damocles targeting pod? On a slight tangent from weapons discussion, what 1:72 markings are available for the Rafale C that would be relevant to the current Libya campaign? Would the set from Skyraider Model Designs work?

Good grief those turned out gorgeous. I can't wait for the Airfix stack to hit shelves again. I only hope it comes with a proper stand this time, or I'm likely going to have to recycle my old Minicraft stand.