Jump to content

Trumpeter Tu-22M3 'Backfire C'


Recommended Posts

Having already made their Tu-22M2 - I just took a good look at the M3 version that I bought for myself at Christmas (thanks Santa!)

I knew that they had covered most of the differences between the two variants - but I hadn't realised they had made other changes as well.

There is a new nosecone

A new Sprue D with different shaped wing outer edges/wing fences replacing the M2's Sprue C.

A new Sprue Q with new fin trailing edge root, new wedge-shaped intakes plus a different part for the auxiliary blow-in doors. This replaces the M2's Sprue P.

What I hadn't expected was the new Sprue T - with different outer wheel halves, new gun turret, new fire-control radome and different ejection seats - replacing the M2's Sprue S.

Kudos to Trumpeter for spotting all these differences between the M2 & M3.... and then moulding them...... :thumbsup::rolleyes::tease:

The new Sprue T contains four beautifully moulded 9-part K-36 ejection seats - OK, they're still wrong (they should be KT-1 seats) but at least Trumpeter are trying.

The new wheels are better (I hadn't spotted that the M2 & M3 wheels have different hubs - but they do) - again well done to Trumpeter for noticing.

The windscreen bottom line is still wrong and they still don't have the flap on the inner, fixed wing section, the instrument panel decals are the wrong way round and the undercarriage retraction strut is wrong - but all these are fixable.

I'll do a step-by-step build of this beauty in due course - but thanks Trumpeter - it's a good kit of an important Russian bomber.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having already made their Tu-22M2 - I just took a good look at the M3 version that I bought for myself at Christmas (thanks Santa!)

I knew that they had covered most of the differences between the two variants - but I hadn't realised they had made other changes as well.

There is a new nosecone

A new Sprue D with different shaped wing outer edges/wing fences replacing the M2's Sprue C.

A new Sprue Q with new fin trailing edge root, new wedge-shaped intakes plus a different part for the auxiliary blow-in doors. This replaces the M2's Sprue P.

What I hadn't expected was the new Sprue T - with different outer wheel halves, new gun turret, new fire-control radome and different ejection seats - replacing the M2's Sprue S.

Kudos to Trumpeter for spotting all these differences between the M2 & M3.... and then moulding them...... :thumbsup::rolleyes::tease:

The new Sprue T contains four beautifully moulded 9-part K-36 ejection seats - OK, they're still wrong (they should be KT-1 seats) but at least Trumpeter are trying.

The new wheels are better (I hadn't spotted that the M2 & M3 wheels have different hubs - but they do) - again well done to Trumpeter for noticing.

The windscreen bottom line is still wrong and they still don't have the flap on the inner, fixed wing section, the instrument panel decals are the wrong way round and the undercarriage retraction strut is wrong - but all these are fixable.

I'll do a step-by-step build of this beauty in due course - but thanks Trumpeter - it's a good kit of an important Russian bomber.

Ken

It is beautiful isn't it Ken?? I was gifted one myself and the changes are all noteworthy and will make this already good kit even better. I have to say that even with the errors that are still there, it is still quite easily close to the top of Trumpeters releases to date. I am having a blast with my M2.

BTW, we have a new windscreen, bobmb bay inset and the no refuel probe nose section coming quickly!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too got it as a Xmas present and was equally impressed by the quality of the kit. Especially the crisp molding and rather fine detailing on most places caught my attention.

But, after giving the kit a second look with a help of some reference material (some books and several scalemodels.ru walkarounds), I wasn't so sure anymore. I mean it really is a nice kit. It is. The basic dimensions look very good and the surface detail looks very good and mostly accurate. Still, it has its problems. The windscreen looks poor and so do the seats (old news of course). The missiles (AS-4) look as bad as MoFo earlier had described.

The main landing gears (while looking good at first glance) have several issues, the retratction struts (as Ken mentioned) being only one thing. As I already said, they manage to look good on sprues, but in addition with the retraction struts some other braces aren't where they should be or are missing altogether or done incorrectly.

It also seems that the bomb bay interior details (walls and ceiling) are fictional. Same goes for the inner faces of the bomb bay doors. Nothing seems to correspond with walkaround photos. I wonder how accurate the rotary launcher is. Any comments on this area would be welcome since I would like to show the bay open when I'm going to build my kit.

Very nice kit anyway. One of my favourite aircraft really deserved a kit like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys we wait for your builds! i really like M3!

I cannot wait to see Kens and Jan yours build in progress!

I find some photos of bomb bay on spotter.net.ua:

0000017235_large.jpg

0000017234_large.jpg

0000003393_large.jpg

not to much, but maybe ask authors via e-mail that maybe have pictures of empty bomb bay?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well guys we wait for your builds! i really like M3!

I cannot wait to see Kens and Jan yours build in progress!

I find some photos of bomb bay on spotter.net.ua:

0000017235_large.jpg

0000017234_large.jpg

0000003393_large.jpg

not to much, but maybe ask authors via e-mail that maybe have pictures of empty bomb bay?

Hope you guys like Fab Bombs as we have several coming in the coming few weeks!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today is my official "be fair against Trump day." :(

The windscreen looks poor and so do the seats (old news of course). The missiles (AS-4) look as bad as MoFo earlier had described.

For the windscreen, trump have no excuse for making the mistake, fair enough. But Jan, how often have you seen russian ejection seat good oob? Other than Streem Su-24. :) The missiles, i don't really remember what is wrong with them, so i won't comment on that one.

The main landing gears (while looking good at first glance) have several issues, the retratction struts (as Ken mentioned) being only one thing. As I already said, they manage to look good on sprues, but in addition with the retraction struts some other braces aren't where they should be or are missing altogether or done incorrectly.

It is rather complex landing gear, and adding such details is quite usual (at least with the kits i tend to build) and not a hard task. Should Trumpeter get it right? Sure. But it isn't unsual issue in modelling world.

It also seems that the bomb bay interior details (walls and ceiling) are fictional. Same goes for the inner faces of the bomb bay doors. Nothing seems to correspond with walkaround photos. I wonder how accurate the rotary launcher is.

For me personally, that doesn't matter, since it won't be seen unless you put it on mirror or in flight. IMHO.

I am just glad the the general shape is as good as it is, and isn't full of errors ala Su-24...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Today is my official "be fair against Trump day." :(

Okay. Good cop, bad cop. You seem to be the good cop today. :D

But you're right, the basic outline is the most important thing. Still, if the Japanese (Hase, Fujimi) seem to get the landing gears right on their 1/72 kits, so should Trumpeter. Fixing the Backfire parts is not an impossible job at all, though.

What comes to the seats, well, you're right again. Still, the fact that they included *completely* wrong type of seats is utterly inexcusable and stupid waste of polystyrene in these times of global climate cha... Sorry, nothing. :) :D

Mario, great photos! Thanks for posting!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well guys we wait for your builds! i really like M3!

I cannot wait to see Kens and Jan yours build in progress!

I find some photos of bomb bay on spotter.net.ua:

not to much, but maybe ask authors via e-mail that maybe have pictures of empty bomb bay?

Great photos Mario...... thanks for sharing. :thumbsup:

It confirms the 27 x FAB-250 we have read about - I might now 'backdate' my M2 - with 27 in the bay plus 9 on the two engine pylons - and use the other MER's from the M3 kit on the wing pylons - to give me a fully tooled up M2 with 63 FAB-250's :woot.gif:

Then do the M3 with the 6 x Kh-15 on the rotary launcher.

I want to do it with the wings fully forward and 'all hanging out' - including the open main gear doors - I have a pic of an M3 being maintained in that configuration.

Although working on a Backfire with a full load of weapons in the bay is not strictly accurate - but I'm claiming artistic licence !

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh... guys.. hate to point it out, but 4x9 is not 27, it's 36. Three wide, three long, four racks deep - look at the bottom pic. That explains how they rack it up for the "there goes the neighbourhood" loading as I call it. Looking forward to getting my hands on the one in 1/144 - Especially if they give all the ordnance options - please please please, Trumpeter, hear the prayers, Give Us Full Options and Payload Bay!!!!

Thankyou, that is all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh... guys.. hate to point it out, but 4x9 is not 27, it's 36. Three wide, three long, four racks deep - look at the bottom pic. That explains how they rack it up for the "there goes the neighbourhood" loading as I call it. Looking forward to getting my hands on the one in 1/144 - Especially if they give all the ordnance options - please please please, Trumpeter, hear the prayers, Give Us Full Options and Payload Bay!!!!

Thankyou, that is all.

You're right !! - I hadn't noticed that they are stacked four deep.....

So, that's 36 in the belly, 18 on the intake MERS and another 18 on the wing pylon MERS - 72 in total :(

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://spotters.net.ua/file/?id=3393

Бомб наверное было больше - не 63, а 69. Именно столько можно прицепить к этому самолету бомб ФАБ-250М-46. 33 из них в грузоотсеке, и 36 на внешней подвеске.

Bomb was perhaps more - not 63, and 69. Именно so much you can trailer to access this Airplane bombs FAB-250-46. 33 of them in hruzootseke, and 36 for suspension of foreign.

translated with Google translator! that's only 69, but it is same for bombed on ground :(

http://spotters.net.ua/file/?id=1348

Edited by mario krijan
Link to post
Share on other sites
So please, what is wrong with X-22 missiles? Shape? Dimensions? I fund that it has sharp bottom fin instead of half-circle cross-section...

I'm not sure that I agree that it is as wrong as is made out.....

Comparing it with some 1:72 scale drawings in the Russian modelling magazine M-Hobby, shows that it is very good.....

Note that the photo is take upside down - to capture it better.

Kh-22_01.jpg

The body shape, wings and radome are just about spot on, the lower fin (which should be folded) and underbelly fairing need a bit of work.

The upper fin is OK.

The rear 'wings' are way off - but nothing that a few cuts with a sharp blade won't fix.....

(note that the canoe-shaped fairing - moulded on the bottom of the lower fuselage varies in length - on the Kh-22N it is shorter, on the KH-22NA it is longer - as Trumpeter have it.)

Kh-22_02.jpg

I believe that the M-Hobby drawings (Issues 6 & 7 of 2004) are accurate - but in case they aren't, here are the dimensions.....

Real Kh-22........

Span = 3m, length = 11.67m, fuselage dia = 0.92m

Converted to 1:72 scale, these work out to....

Span = 41.6mm, length = 162.08mm, fuselage dia = 12.77mm

As best as I can measure them, the Trumpeter Kh-22 dimensions are .....

Span = 42mm, length = 162mm, fuselqage dia = 12mm

I don't know about you, but, apart from the big rear wing and other slight shape issues (all of which are correctable), Trumpeter's Kh-22 is good enough for me. :(

Ken

PS - The Kh-22 drawings in Yefim Gordon's Soviet/Russian Aircraft Weapons book are not very good IMHO.

Edited by Flankerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to disgaree. Not to bash Trumpeter, who by the way did a good job with this kit, but just to discuss of possible inaccuracies.

The panel lines, or "bands" are inaccurate on the kit missile. Wrong shape and mostly on wrong places. Fill in and rescribe.

The shape of the nose is wrong. Even the drawings above tell it if one looks carefully. Easily sanded.

The horizontal tails are clearly too big. Again, can be corrected easily.

The fuselage doesn't taper like it should. The kit missiles seems to be tapered, but not as they should. The tapering is constant, whereas on a real missile it should start from the rear section. That's what I think anyway (?)

The cable duct is wrong as well. And so is the ventral fin on the mid fuselage.

I don't know about you guys, but all that I mentioned above makes the Trumpeter Kh-22 an inaccurate representation of the real thing. I'm just saying they could've done it better and I really hope they would have. Unfortunately that didn't happen and I'm a bit disappointed. And let's not forget that the missiles aren't the only problem. If they were, I might be more forgiving. :jaw-dropping:

Anyway, no bashing here, I still love the kit and am very eager to build it. Kudos to Trumpeter!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure that I agree that it is as wrong as is made out.....

PS - The Kh-22 drawings in Yefim Gordon's Soviet/Russian Aircraft Weapons book are not very good IMHO.

You're right. My initial inspection was based on the Gordon drawings, which are less accurate than the M-Hobby. Great case in point that scale drawings can't always be trusted. (plus, there's a difference between the Tu-22's Kh-22, and the Tu-22Mx's Kh-22, just for some added confusion!)

That being said, there's still many issues with the kit parts. The body diameter/taper IS off. The wings aren't bad in shape, but all the tail planes are oversized. Panel detail is completely wrong. Most notably in the "zig-zag" lines along the control surfaces. I strongly suspect that Trumpeter used not-very-high-res scans of the M-Hobby drawings, which display kinda like zig-zag lines, when they're actually (as printed in the original) offset rivets. They misinterpreted their references, and it looks terrible, like they were trying to replicate a hinge or something. And IMO worst of all, the fairings/cable ducts/thingamy along the bottom, is completely wrong. The front bit should have a triangular cross section, not trapezoidal. The long portion behind it is semi-circular (essentially), but the kit has what amounts to a thin fin. Very wrong.

Certainly not fatal flaws, but irritating. And they all add up to a disappointment. Probably more noticeable to me because I've been scratching some replacements, but still, wrong is wrong. Certainly better than Esci's Kitchen, but they could still use improvement.

Speaking of which (replacements, not being wrong ;))... the Twomikes Kh-22 masters are progressing nicely. The body is done. The fins are all done. I'm basically down to tweaking the cable ducts, and particularly the transition between the semi-circular and triangular sections. And then doing the back-end.

Now, if the missile were just a direct replacement for the kit parts, I don't know that it would really be worth doing, from a visual accuracy standpoint - they're partly hidden, they're not HORRIBLY inaccurate, so many modellers could probably live with them. Scribe a couple of panel lines and sand down some fins vs. a resin alternative. (to really simplify it) But there's actually two big, added benefits (besides detail) to a resin replacement. First, if you want to do a 3x loadout, you'll be able to. I've done a bomb bay insert that'll make it easy to mount a centerline missile, and you won't have to cannibalize a second $100+ kit just for the ordnance. And secondly, I can do both versions of the missile, accurately. Both radome styles. Both cable ducts/fairings. If you want to do an A, you can. If you want an N, you can do that too. So they'll give you options the kit part doesn't, AND be more accurate/detailed to boot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slightly different note .... what exactly is the "There goes the Neighborhood" load ?

Is it a maxed-out FAB-250 load ? or is it whatever you determine it to be .... seems to me a fully load -22 with whatever load will defn. take out my neigboorhood ;)

- Matt

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...