Jennings Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Great looking decal, antennas appropriate to the NATO compatible aircraft. It also has all of the retooled parts (engine fairings and missile rails) from the 9-13 kit. For a 9-12 this is the kit to get. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DarkKnight Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Great looking decal, antennas appropriate to the NATO compatible aircraft. It also has all of the retooled parts (engine fairings and missile rails) from the 9-13 kit. For a 9-12 this is the kit to get. so it has more parts than the 9-12 early? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Not sure what you mean. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DarkKnight Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 (edited) The 9-12 early has the updated corrected parts and enough parts to build a 9-12 late, I presume the new boxing has all those parts plus NATO IFF antennae?, or the same parts as the 9-12 early but with different instructions and decals Edited June 22, 2014 by DarkKnight Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I don't have the 9-12 early so I can't compare the two. This kit has parts to build a 9-12 late (with flare launchers), plus the NATO antennas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The 9-12 early has the updated corrected parts and enough parts to build a 9-12 late, I presume the new boxing has all those parts plus NATO IFF antennae?, or the same parts as the 9-12 early but with different instructions and decals According to what I have read from GWH any Mig-29 kit that you buy has the same sprues regardless of the box designation. You can build any Mig-29. I read this over at Britmodeler earlier today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 You cannot build MiG-29 9.13 from 9.12 boxing. I looked into it before, but i think 9.12 early boxing lacked something to build 9.12 late. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The 9-12 boxing is a 9-12 (hence the label). The entire upper fuselage half on the 9-13 is a different tool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 My mistake, the thread I read states any 9-12 can be built from the more recent 9-12 releases. I read all had the new parts and the newly tooled bottom fuselage. I thought I read exactly what I stated here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy Snap Captain Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Hi guys, I've tried contacting GWH to get the corrected pylons with no luck. I've read that a few of you have received these. Can you tell me who can help out in this case? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BOMI21 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 You cannot build MiG-29 9.13 from 9.12 boxing. I looked into it before, but i think 9.12 early boxing lacked something to build 9.12 late. 9-12 early has everything that 9-12 late had + additional sprue with parts for early version. Missiles are different. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) Necroing the thread, but I've noticed a problem with the 9.13 kit. There are small bumps on the bottom side of the wing behind the middle pylons and I presume they were located in relation to to the initial undersized pylons. Now, they've extended the pylons, but didn't retool this part of the lower fuselage/wings part, just adjusted the pin locations on the new pylons (which is incorrect as these are not all the way in on the rear connection point). Thus, these bumps are positioned too forward (I've checked the plans and on the real thing they are half way over some panel line, while here they just reach it) and are actually making it impossible to fit the new wider pylons. They should have moved these bumps outwards (and I guess move the outer panel line circles representing the pylon connection points outwards as well) when retooling the lower fuselage, instead of just lazily adjusting the pin location on the pylons not really caring if they could be fitted at all. I'll have to check if this was perhaps corrected on the SMT kit as it has AKU-170 pylons. I considered getting it as I like its looks. Edited October 21, 2018 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 On 1/5/2014 at 2:00 PM, ya-gabor said: The story of the Great Wall Hobby MiG-29 is not finished and I would say it is only starting now. It is a fascinating comparison to the approach by manufacturers to things they produce and the afterlife of their products. I don’t remember seeing a “box opening” type of thread on this version, but I would also like to add a few comments, see the pros and cons for this kit as well as try to help in finding the way around all the early MiG-29’s, believe me there were a lot of things that one should be aware of. Hey Gabor, which are the differences between the L4814 (9-12 early) and L4811 (9-12 late) boxes? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Matt Foley Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 31 minutes ago, ijozic said: Necroing the thread, but I've noticed a problem with the 9.13 kit. There are small bumps on the bottom side of the wing behind the middle pylons and I presume they were located in relation to to the initial undersized pylons. Now, they've extended the pylons, but didn't retool this part of the lower fuselage/wings part, just adjusted the pin locations on the new pylons (which is incorrect as these are not all the way in on the rear connection point). Thus, these bumps are positioned too forward (I've checked the plans and on the real thing they are half way over some panel line, while here they just reach it) and are actually making it impossible to fit the new wider pylons. They should have moved these bumps outwards (and I guess move the outer panel line circles representing the pylon connection points outwards as well) when retooling the lower fuselage, instead of just lazily adjusting the pin location on the pylons not really caring if they could be fitted at all. I'll have to check if this was perhaps corrected on the SMT kit as it has AKU-170 pylons. I considered getting it as I like its looks. Which 9.13 kit are you referring to? Is it the latest one for the DPRK? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 14 hours ago, Mr Matt Foley said: Which 9.13 kit are you referring to? Is it the latest one for the DPRK? No, the regular 9-13 release. L4813 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Alpagueur said: Hey Gabor, which are the differences between the L4814 (9-12 early) and L4811 (9-12 late) boxes? I presume one of the differences is that the 9.12 Early had Flanker-style ventral fins which were later removed. Hmm, already answered by Gabor on another forum. https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234947753-gwh-mig-29-9-12-early-vs-late/&do=findComment&comment=1431602 Edited October 22, 2018 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alpagueur Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) thanks ijozic Edited October 22, 2018 by Alpagueur Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, Mr Matt Foley said: Which 9.13 kit are you referring to? Is it the latest one for the DPRK? I've posted a photo in a GWH 9-13 build thread showing my problem. Edited October 22, 2018 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Dude Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) My 9-13 i built had the little bump too by the center pylon. fortunately I didn't install that pylon so it was no problem for me. I've built 3 of these kits and loved them all. The first one i had fit issues with the intakes as well but the next 2 I assembled the intakes and rear engine cover as a separate assembly then attached it to the lower fuselage and only had to fill the inner part by the external fuel tank. It is much easier that way IMHO. As for the GWH kit it's the best mig-29 out there in any scale for accuracy as far as I am concerned. Therefor I picked up a few over time... Edited October 24, 2018 by The Dude Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) ^^^^^ Crazy modeler alert!@!@ 🙂 Edited October 24, 2018 by foxmulder_ms Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, The Dude said: My 9-13 i built had the little bump too by the center pylon. fortunately I didn't install that pylon so it was no problem for me. I've built 3 of these kits and loved them all. The first one i had fit issues with the intakes as well but the next 2 I assembled the intakes and rear engine cover as a separate assembly then attached it to the lower fuselage and only had to fill the inner part by the external fuel tank. It is much easier that way IMHO. As for the GWH kit it's the best mig-29 out there in any scale for accuracy as far as I am concerned. Therefor I picked up a few over time... I did assemble the intakes and the covers beforehand as well, but still they wouldn't fit. Had to slash the locating tabs plus sand some parts and I still had to use some putty afterwards on the inner side as well. The intakes are the worst part of the kit, IMHO. Not only regarding the fit, but also the insides are not done detailed enough to leave them open. With the amount of detail elsewhere and the high price, they should have at least provided the intake tunnels, plus perhaps a representation of the auxiliary air intakes system. It still is the most detailed and accurate MiG-29 out there, but there's not that much competition. 1/72 scale is too small to compete IMHO, the Trumpeter 1/32 didn't get the basic shapes quite right IIRC (e.g. the LERX, the top engine humps and the canopy) and the Academy kit was pretty lacking in many ways. I see from the photo that your local LHS also stores Trumpeter 1/32 kits. How would you compare those to GWH? Edited October 24, 2018 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Dude Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, ijozic said: I did assemble the intakes and the covers beforehand as well, but still they wouldn't fit. Had to slash the locating tabs plus sand some parts and I still had to use some putty afterwards on the inner side as well. The intakes are the worst part of the kit, IMHO. Not only regarding the fit, but also the insides are not done detailed enough to leave them open. With the amount of detail elsewhere and the high price, they should have at least provided the intake tunnels, plus perhaps a representation of the auxiliary air intakes system. It still is the most detailed and accurate MiG-29 out there, but there's not that much competition. 1/72 scale is too small to compete IMHO, the Trumpeter 1/32 didn't get the basic shapes quite right IIRC (e.g. the LERX, the top engine humps and the canopy) and the Academy kit was pretty lacking in many ways. I see from the photo that your local LHS also stores Trumpeter 1/32 kits. How would you compare those to GWH? Agree 100% about the inside of the intakes for lack of detail, if I had any complaints that would be about it. However unless one is doing and flight model (or a maintenance scene) the front covers are usually closed on the ground. As for the comparison between the two, the GWH is better IMHO. The fit on the trumpeter is pretty good but there are some shape issues such as the LEX, cockpit area and rear upper engine bulges are the first things I noticed. It still looks good after its done though. However the trumpeter UB 2 seater is better shaped around the cockpit since there was a new fuselage. I generally don't gripe about these issues, heck I've built 3 of the 1/32 revell fulcrums lol, but since I had the opportunity to crawl all over and study a few of these over the years, I got pretty in tuned with the details and shape of these planes. Shape wise I think GWH nailed it. Here is a couple of shots of my 1/32 trumpeter A model ..and a quick shot of the front lex area of my 1/32 UB I am currently working on sorry for the thread hijack with trumpeter kits. Edited October 24, 2018 by The Dude Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Matt Foley Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 32 minutes ago, The Dude said: ..and a quick shot of the front lex area of my 1/32 UB I am currently working on sorry for the thread hijack with trumpeter kits. You sir are a Tamiya 1/32 F-16 Thunderbirds Hoarder!! As such, I honor your collection...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ViperZero Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 14 hours ago, The Dude said: Il mio 9-13 che ho costruito ha avuto anche il piccolo dosso dal pilone centrale. fortunatamente non ho installato quel pilone quindi non è stato un problema per me. Ho costruito 3 di questi kit e li ho amati tutti. Il primo ha avuto problemi di adattamento anche con le prese, ma i successivi 2 ho assemblato le prese e il coperchio del motore posteriore come un gruppo separato, quindi l'ho collegato alla fusoliera inferiore e ho dovuto riempire solo la parte interna del serbatoio esterno. È molto più facile in questo modo IMHO. Per quanto riguarda il kit GWH è il miglior mig-29 disponibile in qualsiasi scala per la precisione per quanto mi riguarda. Perciò ne ho presi alcuni nel tempo ... WOW! That seems you have a awesome Fulcrums herd, and more other birds in your stash. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Dude said: Agree 100% about the inside of the intakes for lack of detail, if I had any complaints that would be about it. However unless one is doing and flight model (or a maintenance scene) the front covers are usually closed on the ground. As for the comparison between the two, the GWH is better IMHO. The fit on the trumpeter is pretty good but there are some shape issues such as the LEX, cockpit area and rear upper engine bulges are the first things I noticed. It still looks good after its done though. However the trumpeter UB 2 seater is better shaped around the cockpit since there was a new fuselage. I generally don't gripe about these issues, heck I've built 3 of the 1/32 revell fulcrums lol, but since I had the opportunity to crawl all over and study a few of these over the years, I got pretty in tuned with the details and shape of these planes. Shape wise I think GWH nailed it. So, they've messed up the shapes somewhat, but not disturbingly so (like e.g. the Revell kit), got it, thanks. Though I'm more into the late Cold War era myself than the later stuff, I need to get an SMT as that huge hump gives it a pretty cool appearance, IMHO. Perhaps even more so on a 1/32 kit, so given a good eBay deal, I might consider the Trumpy one instead. What about the R-27 missiles, pylons and the exhausts? IIRC, there were some serious issues with those on the Su-27 kit, but I have the MiG-29M kit somewhere and IIRC the pylons and R-27 missiles looked more or less pretty good to me (certainly not requiring replacement by Zactoman's parts). Thus, I'd expect they reused them on the A/S/SMT kits, but I've read some complaints regarding the missiles and that the exhausts are a step down from those provided with the 29M. I didn't really study the 1/32 kits, but looking at your photo of the Fulcrum A, I do get an impression that the exhausts might be undersized in diameter? Edited October 24, 2018 by ijozic 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.