Great Wall Hobby 1/48 MiG-29 all new tooled

[madcop]

Now if you did those red lines on 10 or 15 photos from similar but slightly different angles and came up with an educated average and the kit still didn't look good, I might listen.

Some things to consider when doing analysis like this are camera focal length, parallax,distortions, etc.

Note that even though that photo is a pretty good side view, you are looking from the rear at the nose area and front of the intakes. Also consider that the canopy is on center-line where the intakes are outboard AND that the intake (and that edge you highlighted) is not vertical but canted outward.

The end result is what you have shown.

I could do the same with the lines you've shown on the tail section but have work to get done...

This looks like a pretty great kit to me.

Great job Yufei and congrats on being a Daddy! :beer4:/>/>

:cheers:/>/>

+ 1

Madcop

Hello Robertson,

I think you can not compare the GWH MiG-29 and Eduard MiG-21.

It's like trying to compare TAMIYA and R.V. Aircraft.

GWH and Eduard don't play in the same pool ( for the time being at least ! ).This MiG-29 from GWH is a first (I think Eduard missed this opportunity and I am still asking me why !), and I don't think Yufei has got a plethora of Mig-29 back in Shangai to inspect from nose to tail , like the Eduard Team had for the MiG-29. Eduard are now backed by years of "savoir faire " and use of modern technology that GWH has not yet acquired.

Read the post from Yufei.

For a first I still keep thinking that this scale model is a very good one.You can feel that this MiG-29 is a matter of love for Yufei.

Remember also that no one of the major makers has till now managed to master a subject as well documented and accessible as the Spitfire ( With the exception, maybe , for the 1/32 Tamiya one.).

We still have to turn ourselves towards the "cottage industry" like CMR to get a spot on 1/72 representation of the different Spitfire marks.

So, you shouldn't throw stones at newcomers but give them time to grow up.

P.S. Did you compare your picture with the Academy kit ?

No offense.

Madcop :cheers:/>

[AlexP]

As good as the Eduard MiG-21 kit is, it still doesn't compare to the beauty of the GWH Fulcrum imo

[dehowie]

Chris hit the nail right on the head.

A couple of red lines does not a conclusion make...

Even looking at the red lines and assuming that even though its taken with a relatively wide lens creating much distortion the errors you see are so insignificant as to defy even the most ardent critic.

Your lss for missing out on a stellar piece of the model makers art..

[K-5]

To me the kit is not that high class: I know, the detail is ground-breaking (for aircraft kits), but the rest of the outlines are hit and miss: Even allowing for some leeway, there are many things in the outlines that are not that impressive:

I was thinking of getting a jet, and I remember being much more impressed with Eduard's Mig-21...

Robertson

IMHO, it's got very nice detailing, but nothing ground breaking; it's in the same league as Tamiya's F-16C. You shouldn't compare dead-on side view with no perspective effects from CAD to a single photo, which by the orientation of Pitot and trailing edge antennae doesn't look like strict 3/9 view to me.

Edited January 24, 2013 by K-5

[Zactoman]

The photo is NOT a pretty good side view - it's taken with a wide-angle lens which TOTALLY distorts the image. The fact that you can see both the right forward canopy frame and the right vertical stab is clear evidence of that - the photo "pulls" the center toward the viewer and pushes the nose and tail away - major parallax problem. It's a bogus criticism.

I think that's what I was trying to say while being a little less harsh so as not to completely discourage Robertson.

Perhaps if I had phrased it more like:

While at first glance that appears to be a good side view, upon closer examination...

Photos like that do however have a place in analyzing shapes but not so much for overlays.

I don't have the GWH kit yet and have only glanced at the pictures I've seen online, none of which are a fully completed kit. There is nothing that caught my eye as being terribly wrong. On the contrary, most everything I've seen looks really good...

[mario krijan]

Kit is fantastic, in many aspects best in 48th class, only shortcoming for me is a bit complicated instruction sheet. I take pictures of GWH kit pylons with Eduard resin, which came with their missiles! There is obvious length difference, but to me GWH- ones are under scaled...

There is a prominent difference on R-73 rockets, that longitudinal reinformcement on body, on GWH is much much thicker than eduard one. everything else is same.

Here is a little warp on my upper fuselage, but that is OK :rolleyes:/>

those photos are only for pointing out what can GWH can improve on next kits, i think that Gabor can say something, and Yufei will forwar all those informations to constructors of kit!

Edited January 24, 2013 by mario krijan

[madcop]

Kit is fantastic, in many aspects best in 48th class, only shortcoming for me is a bit complicated instruction sheet. I take pictures of GWH kit pylons with Eduard resin, which came with their missiles! There is obvious length difference, but to me GWH- ones are under scaled...

There is a prominent difference on R-73 rockets, that longitudinal reinformcement on body, on GWH is much much thicker than eduard one. everything else is same.

Here is a little warp on my upper fuselage, but that is OK :rolleyes:/>/>/>

those photos are only for pointing out what can GWH can improve on next kits, i think that Gabor can say something, and Yufei will forwar all those informations to constructors of kit!

:wave:Hello Mario

You 're right about the pylons , I already stated they were underscaled.

It's a question of 4 to 5 mm in the length, so easy to fix without loosing details .As long as the cross section is concerned I will live with it.

By the way , This APU 470 from Eduard doesn't look quite right either :unsure:/>

Madcop :)/>

[mario krijan]

:wave:Hello Mario

You 're right about the pylons , I already stated they were underscaled.

It's a question of 4 to 5 mm in the length, so easy to fix without loosing details .As long as the cross section is concerned I will live with it.

By the way , This APU 470 from Eduard doesn't look quite right either :unsure:/>/>/>

Madcop :)/>/>/>

I am not expert, I dont know all details which is better . Gabor please help and provide some good pictures :woot.gif:/>

Edited January 24, 2013 by mario krijan

[ya-gabor]

I am not expert, I dont know all details which is better :coolio:/> . Gabor please help and provide some good pictures :woot.gif:/>/>

Measurements of the real missile pylons are available. Will make comparison and measurements tomorrow. For the missiles themselves there are official manufacturers documentations publicly available.

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

Now if you did those red lines on 10 or 15 photos from similar but slightly different angles and came up with an educated average and the kit still didn't look good, I might listen.

Some things to consider when doing analysis like this are camera focal length, parallax,distortions, etc.

Note that even though that photo is a pretty good side view, you are looking from the rear at the nose area and front of the intakes. Also consider that the canopy is on center-line where the intakes are outboard AND that the intake (and that edge you highlighted) is not vertical but canted outward.

The end result is what you have shown.

I could do the same with the lines you've shown on the tail section but have work to get done...

This looks like a pretty great kit to me.

Great job Yufei and congrats on being a Daddy! :beer4:/>

:cheers:/>

I second that! To make conclusions just from one photo is a bit silly!

Best regards

Gabor

[Vodnik]

There is a prominent difference on R-73 rockets, that longitudinal reinformcement on body, on GWH is much much thicker than eduard one. everything else is same.

In this case GWH got it more correct:

http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/weapon/r-73.jpg

And I believe that it is a cable conduit, not reinforcement.

[mario krijan]

And I believe that it is a cable conduit, not reinforcement.

i can agree because later i found picture of r-73 wich that part slightly damaged, but on aircraft ready to use ;-)

i know that Gabor will help ;-)

Edited January 24, 2013 by mario krijan

[Petarvu]

Big fan of their sales but that kind of response is what I am afraid of when I have an issue...

-Jim

I have great respect for Sprue brothers service too, but their customer support is a let down. I recieved dry unsigned answer that importer is informed ending with this sentence regarding wing warp and my comment that this issue was mentioned on ARC by others:

"FYI - neither us or the importer have had any reports of this and I was not able to find any post about this either".

Unpolite....? And I spent money on their site.

P

[longmc]

I have great respect for Sprue brothers service too, but their customer support is a let down. I recieved dry unsigned answer that importer is informed ending with this sentence regarding wing warp and my comment that this issue was mentioned on ARC by others:

"FYI - neither us or the importer have had any reports of this and I was not able to find any post about this either".

Unpolite....? And I spent money on their site.

P

I received a similar message from Dragon-USA initially that they had not heard of this problem. They then responded again with a request for photos showing the warped part. I sent them and got a replacement part within the week. I would stay on it.

[andyperiam]

I had a warped fuselage so I contacted Sprue bros and they asked me for a picture, which I duly sent to them, they passed onto someone and within about 8 days I had a package with a new upper Fuselage, in the plastic holder and wrapped in lots of bubblewrap.

No warping on the new piece.

Excellent service to from all involved.

[Uncle Rich]

did any one got over the Oo-Ah, compare & checking drawing; and start building it?

[mingwin]

did any one got over the Oo-Ah, compare & checking drawing; and start building it?

instead of using sarcasm, use the search engines! here is one...

[ch9862]

here is one...

And I'm getting back to it soon - I was sick since the weekend

[haneto]

Hi guys

Here I'd like to declare some issues of the coming MiG-29 9-13.

1. The box art

Maybe some of you guys have found the number "29" on the intake looks very odd.

I'm sorry that it seems GWH staff mistook the older version to show on Internet.

And here is the final version for printing, much better? :woot.gif:/>

2. The 3D CAD pictures shown on Internet

Again you may find some errors on the CAD picture, yes the very early type of mud guard on the front landing gear.

It's just another mistake so don't worry, in actual kit there will be only the late type ones which is the same in 9-12 late version.

3. The shape and other accuracy problems

The kit was designed by using the most comparatively believed to be most accurate plans drawn by Mr. Alexander Drannikov a.k.a. "Skylark", and also compared with plans are from Zlinek publication and the one by A. Mikheev/Karpenko.

I can assure you that the overall shape will be 90% accurate according to the result, which thinks to be acceptable by most modellers.

And the pylons and wing tanks, I have no idea if they are really underscaled, but the research work in just under way and we will get the conclusion very soon.

Thanks a lot again for all of your comments/advice/critiques.

:thumbsup:/>

Cheers,

Yufei

Edited January 26, 2013 by haneto

[AlexP]

That is a great looking box art.

[madcop]

Hi guys

Here I'd like to declare some issues of the coming MiG-29 9-13.

1. The box art

Maybe some of you guys have found the number "29" on the intake looks very odd.

I'm sorry that it seems GWH staff mistook the older version to show on Internet.

And here is the final version for printing, much better? :woot.gif:/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

2. The 3D CAD pictures shown on Internet

Again you may find some errors on the CAD picture, yes the very early type of mud guard on the front landing gear.

It's just another mistake so don't worry, in actual kit there will be only the late type ones which is the same in 9-12 late version.

3. The shape and other accuracy problems

The kit was designed by using the most comparatively believed to be most accurate plans drawn by Mr. Alexander Drannikov a.k.a. "Skylark", and also compared with plans are from Zlinek publication and the one by A. Mikheev/Karpenko.

I can assure you that the overall shape will be 90% accurate according to the result, which thinks to be acceptable by most modellers.

And the pylons and wing tanks, I have no idea if they are really underscaled, but the research work in just under way and we will get the conclusion very soon.

Thanks a lot again for all of your comments/advice/critiques.

:thumbsup:/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

Cheers,

Yufei

Hi Haneto

Nice move , and thanks a lot.

If the Zlinek plan are O.K. , then the pylons and External tanks are underscaled. Missiles and central tanks are all spot on. I think something went wrong sowehere...

Well hope that I didn't do all that work for nothing.

Still have to correct the size of the stabilisators , but I'll wait till the Milliput work has been done .!

And while at it , could you help some pilots who are crying because they can't fly their MiG without a throttle in the cockpit :thumbsup2:/>/>/>/>/>

Madcop :wave:/>/>/>/>/>

Edited January 26, 2013 by madcop

[Uncle Rich]

I have been waiting for BUILDING comment. Did any one start building the kit yet?

I do not care about accuracy or anything else, just building this model.

I just want to know if it is me? or?

Try to put the two intake halves to fit onto the bottom housing of the engine and fit it onto the bottom of the fuselage. I want to hear some comment/advice please.

[Inquisitor]

I have been waiting for BUILDING comment. Did any one start building the kit yet?

I do not care about accuracy or anything else, just building this model.

I just want to know if it is me? or?

Try to put the two intake halves to fit onto the bottom housing of the engine and fit it onto the bottom of the fuselage. I want to hear some comment/advice please.

If you cared to read the thread. Someone already replied to your previous post and even provided a link to a build in this forum.

did any one got over the Oo-Ah, compare & checking drawing; and start building it?

instead of using sarcasm, use the search engines! here is one...

Check post #70, #72 and #75 of that build which have some info and tips for the intakes and engine covers.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Inquisitor

[dryguy]

when I get this kit, I am going to have that box art put in a frame!regarding the under-scale drop tank, how commonly did the mig29 use these; most photos have them armed to the teeth with archers etc?

[ya-gabor]

when I get this kit, I am going to have that box art put in a frame!regarding the under-scale drop tank, how commonly did the mig29 use these; most photos have them armed to the teeth with archers etc?

The PTB-1150 (as it is called) is used for long range deployments almost exclusively. No surprise that you have not seen too many photos of it. It is a standard Russian fuel tank used on many types (Su-17, Su-25. . . family of aircraft) and it is of modular design, there is a 800 liter version of it too which looks exactly the same, the only difference here that it is missing two 800 mm extensions in its structure.

The PTB-1500 between the engines, under the centre of the the fuselage is on the other hand an almost constant part of the aircraft in any missions.

Best regards

Gabor