Berkut Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Most 9.12's can't even carry the wing tanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Most 9.12's can't even carry the wing tanks. I would not be so sure of that! On paper our 9-12's can't carry R-60's and the P-60-ID pylons were not included with them. BUT still we used them regularly on live missile firing exercises! The 9-12 wing has the plumbing for the fuel tanks, it is possible that to some users they were not supplied as part of the package but this dose not meant that they are not capable to carry them. Still it is very rare to see 9-12's with them. Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Depends when the 9.12 was made. As i said, most can't. Later in series they got updated, but originally they couldn't. Germans updated theirs themselves (with MiG assistance) to carry them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chomper Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 How's this grab ya? http://www.had.hu/ma...2102_48102.html **drool!!** Quote Link to post Share on other sites
musangpulut Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Malaysian MiG-29N 9.12 with wing tanks. Mostly used for long range deployment & exercises. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K-5 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Malaysian MiG-29N 9.12 with wing tanks. Mostly used for long range deployment & exercises. They aren't exactly plain vanilla 9-12s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) They aren't exactly plain vanilla 9-12s. Exactly. They are more like 9.12S and one of the features of it are the fuel tanks.. I would not be so sure of that! On paper our 9-12's can't carry R-60's and the P-60-ID pylons were not included with them. BUT still we used them regularly on live missile firing exercises! It's not really the same thing. R-60M missiles (as the type probably predating the R-73 on the MiG-29 during development testing) are probably supported by the weapon control system by default so no modifications are required which is not really the case with the wing fuel tanks. I don't have any references handy to check exactly what modifications are required for the wing tanks - obviously, the main question is whether the wings already contain the plumbing or just provide the installation space for it. Edited January 28, 2013 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sharkmouth Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 And here is the final version for printing, much better? /> My knees got weak! Regards, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
haneto Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 Hi guys Thanks again for all of your inputs. I'm sorry that it seems they forgot the power throttle in the cockpit. (well not so difficult to build one right? my joke.) The instruction sheet of 9-13 wil have much more detailed informations especailly paintings. I would suggest the maker to upload PDF version for everyone to download. Please feel free to leave any comments! Thanks. Yufei Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tolik30s Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 haneto where can see 9-13, PDF version? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Seems I haven't made any comments on this subject yet. Actually, I haven't even followed this thread very carefully - if at all! Excuse me for that. I guess it's the 1/48 scale that just doesn't turn me on - again, at all! I had the same feeling for the recent 1/48 Eduard MiG-21 kits. I mean they looked exquisite but since I just don't build in 1/48... And that's it! :D/> (I do have two Soviet WWII tanks from HB in 1/48 though... Oh the blashemy!) Great to see such detailing though! I really like the crispness of the moldings and the amount and the delicate accuracy of the riveting. Those engines look great too. Great job! I'm eager to see one build by you, Yufei! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 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 Got my replacement. No warp. Now the question is, where to order one more to avoid new warp problem... P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
One-Oh-Four Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 This might be a nice decal option? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galileo1 Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Got my replacement. No warp. Now the question is, where to order one more to avoid new warp problem... P I purchased mine from Squadron when they had their sale and there was no warp (that I could tell anyway). Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
F4DPhantomII Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 This might be a nice decal option? I love that digital camo.But then I would need another kit to go with my Ukrainian SU-27 splinter camo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The Ukrainian one is a 9-13. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The Ukrainian one is a 9-13. This is no problem, since the GWH 9-13 is around the corner and should be released soon. The Ukrainian new camo is called the "modellers killer", it is a nightmare to do! How about it in 144 scale???? :D :D :D Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Just shame GWH forgot about the second big 9.13 specific thing, other than the spine. Wingtips are thicker as they contain ECM. I did mention it very early in the thread but i guess it was buried underneath all the "I want XX!" stuff... Oh well to late to change it in the molds apparently, but builder is free to fix it himself with sprue + putty. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-dako- Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Which other countries than Russia and Ukraine use Mig-29 9-13? Sudan? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vodnik Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Just shame GWH forgot about the second big 9.13 specific thing, other than the spine. Wingtips are thicker as they contain ECM. Like this?... Edited February 1, 2013 by Vodnik Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dmanton300 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Just shame GWH forgot about the second big 9.13 specific thing, other than the spine. Wingtips are thicker as they contain ECM. I did mention it very early in the thread but i guess it was buried underneath all the "I want XX!" stuff... Oh well to late to change it in the molds apparently, but builder is free to fix it himself with sprue + putty. What evidence do you have for that? Correct me if I'm wrong but I though the bulge was mainly evident on the underside of the 9-13's wingtip. The picture that Vodnik shows of the 9-13 test shot shows different wingtip detail to the 9-12 I'm currently building, and you can only see the topside in those pics so you can't tell what's been done to the underside. Seems your single reason for thinking they have ignored it is that you pointed it out as a difference and Haneto hasn't acknowledged you. In fact, looking at this head on of the upper side of a Ukrainian 9-13:- Makes me think that the available conversion kits such as this:- Have actually exaggerated the contour on the upper surface at least, and led us to think it;s more pronounced than it really is. Looking around at any number of photos of 9-13's online it's difficult to see the thickening in all but the very closest of them from an ideal angle, so saying that GWH have missed this detail from one shot not ideally placed to see contours is a stretch at this point, especially when it's clearly evident that the actual detail is different between the two models. Edited February 1, 2013 by Dmanton300 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedStar Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The outboard profile changes (which it looks like they got right), but the underside is "thicker" too. That said, given where the part stops on the 9-12, It looks like they intentionally included the changed part of the windtip in the upper fuselage, so that they could change only the one part. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Booga Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Which other countries than Russia and Ukraine use Mig-29 9-13? Sudan? Most ex-Soviet Air Forces use or have used the 9-13, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova etc.. And some have been exported outside of the CIS to Sudan, North Korea, Algeria, Peru from the top of my head. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Seems your single reason for thinking they have ignored it is that you pointed it out as a difference and Haneto hasn't acknowledged you. I am sorry, but why this tone exactly? I talked with Haneto through PM about it after CAD pictures of 9.13 were shown, and he did confirm that detail was missed. Yes, the bulge is on the underside, and it is rather large: http://data.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle/mig-29/005-mig-29_leftunderwing.jpg Worse shot but one can kinda see it: http://scalemodels.ru/modules/photo/viewcat.php?id=9454&cid=294&min=60&orderby=dateA&show=12 I never said Haneto ignored the information, did i? I simply said it was buried... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madcop Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Like this?... Hi Vodnik I am quite sure that a with good pictures and a little milliput this can be easily fixed. Just finished my external tanks. As I said earlier , I didn't correct the cross section as my tanks were already glued. I hope to do better with my 9-13. I have Evergreen tube of the right diameter, so next time i'll use them from start. Longing for this 9-13. Madcop :D/> Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.