Jump to content

1/48 Eduard MIG-21 MF Bis SMT


Recommended Posts

December 1 st

Eduard's BIS is now on sale on their webstore

there is also interesting Overtrees

Eduard has the Mig21bis at 795 Kc. I did a conversion to Euro and gives about 31 Euro. But the same kit seen at the english version of the webstore is 44,95 euro???

They have different prices for the local market?

Any idea on the US prices of the kit and the overtrees kit?Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DSC_01662.jpg

DSC_01672.jpg

DSC_01682.jpg

DSC_01692.jpg

DSC_05902.jpg

DSC_05922.jpg

DSC_05932.jpg

:woot.gif:

Boy that is a BIG difference in the nose. The real question is; why even do this model since it was such a lemon to begin with, and there is such a need to do a MiG-21F in 1:48 I would much rather seen one of those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone get any good comparison shots of the pitot fairing? I'm not sure if the difference I think I see is because of the way the bigger Bis nose blocks part of the fairing from view in the pics I see or if, at the front end, the fillet between the pitot and the fuselage is smaller on the Bis to maintain the same orientation/angle of the pitot relative to the MF. . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy that is a BIG difference in the nose. The real question is; why even do this model since it was such a lemon to begin with, and there is such a need to do a MiG-21F in 1:48 I would much rather seen one of those.

Otto- your beating a dead horse. I see you've started another topic on the F, for the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After some 47 pages it's about time to build some kits. For my part I have started a parallel build of the MF and the bis. Let's see what I can build. Hope they will look like the Hungarian aircraft if not it will be a grey Trabant and a camouflaged Skoda :D :D ones from the years past. But seriously, the Eduard kit is an excellent base from which to start. It is up to everyones own desires, ideas and possibilities of what they want to make of it. Many people said that they dont see any difference and it is good as it is for them, Thats no problem, let it be for them. I want a little more, that much extra and a pinch of authenticity with both the MF and the bis. A kit that looks like the real aircraft as I have got to know them.

The build is here:

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=241176

Hope I did it right? :blink:

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really looking forward to the new Eduard newsletter, that will probably be online tomorrow. I haven't ordered any MiG-21bis kits yet, and if the newsletter is having a dig at all the critics I won't order any either........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stencils are made by us. The main decal sheet is made by Cartograf.

Libor,

When I check the Modelimex website they show the main sheet with the MiG-21bis as being 'Made in Czech Republic', while the one on the Eduard site is made in Italy.

Are there boxes with different main decal sheets?

See here:

http://www.modelimex.com/1-48-mig-21bis-profipack

Edited by pollie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Libor,

When I check the Modelimex website they show the main sheet with the MiG-21bis as being 'Made in Czech Republic', while the one on the Eduard site is made in Italy.

Are there boxes with different main decal sheets?

See here:

http://www.modelimex.com/1-48-mig-21bis-profipack

Hey Pollie,

I'm not sure where did this error happen. We usually do note that the decals are made in Italy. Guess we'd somehow forgotten this time...

I can assure you that the main decal sheet is made by Cartograf in Italy. The stencil decal sheet is printed by us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, the editorial focusses not he dimensions, not the shape to justify the decision.

Yes. The "it looks like a Fairey Fruitbat to me"s always talk "blah millimeters blah blah this is not what modelling is about blah blah get a life blah millimeters blah blah".

Reaction to the newsletter

Editorial

There were some flames around this one on some of the internet forums, even before the kit was released, which is quite unique.

The amount of communication done during the development of the MF+SMT+bis was unique. And it was initially said that the fuselage sprues would be common for the

three kits. Eduard received warnings, Eduard said they'd take the remarks in account in the beginning of the year, but in the end they stepped back. This is also unique. Communication is a double-edge sword. One can't only get the (positive) buzz.

The reason in doing so is that the difference of the truly accurate scaled nose and our kit nose is

very marginal. When measured, the difference is only 0.38mm of the entire diameter at the top point of the curve, when the difference is split between both halves of the fuselage. I will explain how we made this decision more in depth, in a separate article. I feel certain that even with this small 0.38mm difference, we captured the nose very well.

The millimeters don't count. Shape does... for some people.

You can be sure that we will not do a Brassin correction nose for BIS, and if anyone here at Eduard comes up with such an idea, he will be told to find another job!

Eduard does detail sets, not correction sets. No Brassin nose for the Academy MiG-29 rebox, no "fat ***ed fuselage" for the Peruvian Su-22M3. No Brassin nose for the incoming Academy Su-27 rebox I suppose.

"What's changed, what's not" section

1. The difference itself is marginal when scaled; less than 0.38mm in the diameter of the nose section at the top (see picture). The difference is asymmetrical; 0.20mm on the bottom and 0.18mm on the top of the nose. What's more, the actual spot where the difference on the top of the nose is located, is under the pitot tube base, making the optical identification of any difference very tough, regardless if you are looking at the model or the real aircraft. The same idea applies on the bottom of the nose, if the RSBN antenna of the POLYOT OI ILS is mounted, because it is located on the top of the 'difference

The reader can compare himself the German bis and the Czech MF left nose views that are kindly provided. I thank Eduard for doing this but the speech is about millimeters again...

2. Actually, the stainless steel nose intake ring is the most important aspect for the optical identification of the BIS and MF nose difference. The BIS front intake ring is about 0.833mm wider on the leading edge in 1/48th scale than the MF ring, where the MF ring is deeper by about 0.4mm, also in 1/48th scale. Our BIS intake ring is correct in its leading edge diameter as well as in depth. These dimensional differences are quite marginal too, however, when you compare the BIS with the MF, the ring difference is optically recognizable, thanks to the usual stainless steel color of the ring. If the ring carries the fuselage color of the plane, or if you see one version of the aircraft only, it is not easy to pinpoint what version you are looking at

... yet AFAIK nobody noticed that the 1mm shortened intake changed anything. Perhaps because the intake ring panel line wasn't visible ? or perhaps that the intake ring isn't really the "issue" ?

It is also necessary to note, that our 1/48th scale MF fuselage is not absolutely correct in the nose section, because it is a teeny bit fatter in this section than it should be. It is interesting to note that no reviewer, especially those so passionately griping about our BIS nose, has picked up on yet, which confirms to me, that such dimensional deviation is frankly marginal at best, and is in fact invisible without exact measurement verification.

Perhaps the reviewers didn't say anything because the nose profile curvature evolution along the nose looked good for an MF/SMT ?

What are the the AoA vanes photos "game of 10 errors" here for ? a "tribute" to Gabor comparing the AoA vane blister of the 75A and 75B subversions ?

Edited by Laurent
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I'll try to be more constructive now. How to fix the nose (for the people who care obviously) ? Adding a plastic card strip would be messy (plenty of puttying, sanding, reconstruction of lost details). Would it be possible to cut horizontal slits equally spaced around the nose and insert thin plastic card in the slits to reshape the nose without having to reconstruct the AoA vane blister and the top vent ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. The "it looks like a Fairey Fruitbat to me"s always talk "blah millimeters blah blah this is not what modelling is about blah blah get a life blah millimeters blah blah".

Reaction to the newsletter

Editorial

The amount of communication done during the development of the MF+SMT+bis was unique. And it was initially said that the fuselage sprues would be common for the

three kits. Eduard received warnings, Eduard said they'd take the remarks in account in the beginning of the year, but in the end they stepped back. This is also unique. Communication is a double-edge sword. You can't only get the buzz.

The millimeters don't count. Shape does... for some people.

Eduard does detail sets, not correction sets. No Brassin nose for the Academy MiG-29 rebox, no "fat ***ed fuselage" for the Peruvian Su-22M3. No Brassin nose for the incoming Academy Su-27 rebox I suppose.

"What's changed, what's not" section

The reader can compare himself the German bis and the Czech MF left nose views that are kindly provided. The speech is about millimeters again...

... yet AFAIK nobody noticed that the 1mm shortened intake changed anything. Perhaps because the intake ring panel line wasn't visible ?

Perhaps the reviewers didn't say anything because the nose profile curvature evolution along the nose looked good for an MF/SMT ?

What are the the AoA vanes photos "game of 10 errors" here for ? a "tribute" to Gabor comparing the AoA vane blister of the 75A and 75B subversions ?

They really are missing the point aren't they? IT'S NOT ABOUT DIMENSIONS, IT'S ABOUT SHAPE!!! And the final volley about their MF nose being slightly inaccurate says it all. Point missed. Still, I expected to be called a whinger, and I'm only a griper. I'm so happy!

Edited by Dmanton300
Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew there was something a little "off" about the MF nose as well. I just asked Gabor the other day about it, he agreed it wasn't a major error but he noticed it as well. The Eduard comment about not making a brassin set for the bis showed they are quite unhappy about all this outcry from the forums.

Brett,

Link to post
Share on other sites

A list of errors was provided for the MF kit to Eduard in May, there is confidentiality about such information and at the time it was ment as a help to Eduard, warning for future kits. It was written up exclusively for Eduard. Of course this list was not published by me either in reviews of the kit or on forums contrary to a lot of pressure from different sources including here on ARC. On the other hand I use it for my work in building the MF and the bis kit in parallel. As a reviewer one has to take into account a lot of different points of view including the priorities of a manufacturer. I would not post all the mistakes, omissions, plain lack of knowledge of the given subject by the manufacture to bring him or her into a very embarrassing situation. The strange shape of the intake section for the MF was one such thing. At the same time showing the important points that are of interest to a modeller is a duty of a review which could bring to surface some embarrassement for the manufacturer. Based on the present communication the wrong shape of the MF intake (if brought to light at the time) would have been brushed away by the manufacturer as a "marginal" difference, not really visible by anyone.

Now the only question is how accurate were the original measurements on which the company has based its MiG-21 kit if they admit that they did the nose wrong in the first place???

One small note: the photos and details on the three different AOA (DUA-3) sensors was provided in time to Eduard and they could have been a way to make them and there was place to put them on the J sprue. The RSBN antennas came out beautifully so it would have not been a problem to do the AOA housing too. But this is only a sidetrack there are lots of other differences which were left out. It is sad to see that while on the fuselage of the MF there are such tiny details on the surface (seen under a magnifier, some amazing enginering and tons of research has gone into the development of the kit which are a tribute to the truly great work of Ladislav) which in most cases will disappear under a single layer of paint or varnish, at the same time far bigger differences are now left off as "marginal" or "invisible".

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...