Kittyhawk 1/48 Mig-25

[RedStar]

So, honest question, is the implication that the plans are that wrong? I had always been told (and yeah, you can't believe everything you read on the internet) that the AiV plans were amongst the best available.

I was just trying to report what I was finding in my hands on evaluation of the kit.

It's almost like there's no middle ground here, if you report anything other than it's awful....

[Koen L]

The fact that they line up with plans nicely doesn't mean the shape is correct. For instance the underside of the KH fuselage aft of the wheelbays doesn't look rounded enough when you compare

(Borrowed from BM's review)

with:

Seen side-on, put on top of some plans, it would appear correct but shapewise it clearly isn't.

Koen

[Laurent]

So, honest question, is the implication that the plans are that wrong? I had always been told (and yeah, you can't believe everything you read on the internet) that the AiV plans were amongst the best available.

Again I'm no MiG-25 specialist so perhaps the AiV are great. I honestly don't know. It's just that I'm very cautious about drawings. I've seen many drawings (MiG-21 drawings among other things) that look very good and detailed but that aren't particularly accurate.

[RedStar]

Understand the cross-sectional issue. I haven't been able to do all of that comparison yet - but will. I made several copies of the plans so that I could actually cut out cross sections to compare.

I already noted an issue with the cross-sectional curvature of the nose - just what I've found so far.

All of that said, and as I've noted in the past, we need to turn down the rhetoric a tad and come up with an objective list of issues - keeping in mind that everyone approaches these things differently, and has different value judgements on what makes or breaks a kit.

[Laurent]

Understand the cross-sectional issue. I haven't been able to do all of that comparison yet - but will. I made several copies of the plans so that I could actually cut out cross sections to compare.

I already noted an issue with the cross-sectional curvature of the nose - just what I've found so far.

I find a little puzzling that the AiV drawings include fuselage cross-sections (so yes I think now that the drawings are at least pretty good if not great) but that apparently these weren't used.

All of that said, and as I've noted in the past, we need to turn down the rhetoric a tad and come up with an objective list of issues - keeping in mind that everyone approaches these things differently, and has different value judgements on what makes or breaks a kit.

I agree but facts are facts. Each one of us decides if they are important to him or not. Nobody's right or wrong.

[Petarvu]

The fact that they line up with plans nicely doesn't mean the shape is correct. For instance the underside of the KH fuselage aft of the wheelbays doesn't look rounded enough when you compare

with:

Seen side-on, put on top of some plans, it would appear correct but shapewise it clearly isn't.

Koen

I was aware of round MiG-25 rear fuse cross sections. And I was trying to figure out from photos if it is correct, now I see it is wrong. Bummer.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Petarvu

[Jennings]

Having excellent plans and gobs of photographs does not guarantee an accurate model kit. The experience and skill of the person doing the CAD work is the key. If that person isn't *intimately* familiar with the subject matter (or can't be bothered to learn), the result is going to be inaccurate.

[Jay Chladek]

Good grief, with the back and fourth going on here I am starting to wonder if this is a discussion about Mig-25s or Spitfires.

As I've understood it, Russian aircraft aren't necessarily built to quite the same tolerances as something from a western factory. Granted that might not be an excuse for EVERYTHING potentially wrong with the KH kit, but it certainly does provide a bit of "fudge factor" in my mind. I personally will likely get one of these, especially if they do one of the two seater trainers. But as for what is "right" or "wrong" about it, that comes down to if I am bothered enough by what I see to attempt a fix of it. And there are PLENTY of things a modeler can do to fix "sins" on a kit which are far more productive than just griping about it.

[Raptor01]

Damn, mine arrived yesterday from SB, it looks like I will have to paint it Air Superiority Blue with LA tail codes and call it an Eagle. Hope Tamiyagawa gets roundtoit pretty soon.

John

[ya-gabor]

The first time I seen the drawings they were in a Polish book by publisher ALTAIR on the MiG-25 and the authors: Jefim Gordon and Oleg Putmakow. It is the later who is responsible for the drawings. The same drawings were scaled up by Aviatsija i Vremja. The only problem was that they got the scale wrong for the drawings and they were not to 72nd scale unfortunately.

Before the Polish book I believe that the drawings were published in Russia too, but have no copy of them.

Close examination of the drawings show that they are still the best even after more than two decades! One problem is with the shape of the radom when compared to photos of the original aircraft.

Here is the Polish book cover

It is a small book but had some great information, previously unseen photos and excellent drawings in comparison to when it was published.

And here are the drawings of the MiG-25P interceptor. The PD/PDS was shown only in side views! So the kit should be a P version!???

Best regards

Gabor

[Jennings]

That Polish book is far and away the best single reference on the MiG-25 yet published.

[Laurent]

That Polish book is far and away the best single reference on the MiG-25 yet published.

Since Yefim Gordon is a text recycler, aren't the Aerofax and Red Star books basically translations of the Altair booklet ?

Edited October 17, 2013 by Laurent

[Jennings]

From what I understand yes, to an extent. The Altair book is tiny by comparison.

[ya-gabor]

Since Yefim Gordon is a text recycler, aren't the Aerofax and Red Star books basically translations of the Altair booklet ?

Hi Laurent,

Yes, in some form. This was the original one. All the later books are based on this original material, the same drawings appear in every one of them. Fortunately the latest books are full of additional information, and some excellent new photos. Still the original Polish book was revolutionary in its time!

Best regards

Gabor

[pookie]

As someone who has worked with solidworks (3D modeling) for many years, I can say that if you have the cross sections and you know how far apart they are spaced, there is no excuse to get the overall shape wrong... none. You simply draw each cross section on a plane and you repeat that plane on the axis you have chosen X distance apart. The software will extrude the part for you along the edges of the sketches on each plane connecting the surfaces into one solid object.

How that translates to machining the molds, I don't know.

[ya-gabor]

How that translates to machining the molds, I don't know.

The machining tool is a dumb thing in comparison to the CAD computer. It just executes what the CAD program tells it to do. So if it is there on the CAD then it will be there on the mold and in the end on the plastic parts!

I think some time ago Haneto was talking about this concerning some of the mistakes on the GWH MiG-29 kit. The CAD operator there had a problem in understand some of the shapes and forms. After all he is just a CAD operator and not a rocket scientist.

The problem here was the lack of research and "understanding" the aircraft itself. Sad that a great aircraft should get this treatment!

Still it is much better than the Revell kit. . . :D :D :D

Best regards

Gabor

Edited October 17, 2013 by ya-gabor

[randypandy831]

my god..........

[pookie]

Still it is much better than the Revell kit. . . :D/>/> :D/>/> :D/>/>

Best regards

Gabor

Revell at least got the shape of that side of the fuselage right. I have been comparing Revell's kit with calipers and a calculator to drawings and it is not way out like I have read here before. The surface detail is fantasy, but the shape is not the absolute disaster I was led to believe by the posts here.

Edited October 18, 2013 by pookie

[foxmulder_ms]

Come on... comparing this to Revell one is not fair. :)/>

I will order the kit but still it is really silly that it doesn't have a intakes open. I don't know what happen during the design stage but it is weird. I am even thinking somehow someway they forgot to design the engine fan or smt... I hope someone makes a resin intake.

Edited October 18, 2013 by foxmulder_ms

[Scooby]

The fact that they line up with plans nicely doesn't mean the shape is correct. For instance the underside of the KH fuselage aft of the wheelbays doesn't look rounded enough when you compare

(Borrowed from BM's review)

with:

Seen side-on, put on top of some plans, it would appear correct but shapewise it clearly isn't.

Koen

I'd like to see the kit fuselage at the same angle as this image and not compared to the Monogram kit. I think the cross section looks good when compared to the Polish book. But it does look wrong in this post but it isn't angled the same.

[ya-gabor]

The photo of the kit fuselage is interesting and it shows several issues apart from the shape. Here are some:

On another kit photo on Britmodeller it is visible that the top fuselage was handed over to the "rivet team". Please note that most of the airframe was welded and as such has nasty weld lines all over it and not panel lines with rivets around it as shown on the kit. There were some panels which could be removed and of course they have fast release screws on them. But this was not the case on the top of the aircraft.

There are rows of round pressure relief doors on the underside, they are closed on a static aircraft and as such should be represented with an engraving and not as a circular indentation in the surface. They are very primitive things, a round panel which closes under its own weight and are guided on an axis in the middle. On ground, without internal suction they are flat with the surface.

And here is that Kiev based fuselage which shows a lot of detail.

Best regards

Gabor

[ya-gabor]

Digging into my photo archive, here are a few details of the MiG-25 to show what it is like on the real aircraft and what one will have to do, if he wants his kit a bit more authentic.

Here is the engine bay cover with the pressure relief doors as they are on the real aircraft. They operate under pressure differential, when the engine is on the pressure inside the bay drops and the doors move inwards on the axle and are held in place by the "cage".

Note that the after end of the fuselage is dark steel colour starting from the main undercarriage bays.

When the MiG-25 is in front of you, one will have to get on top of it. :D This is what you find. About 80% of the aircraft was built by using welding, the surface panels have a spot welded internal structure for reinforcement. The different panels are welded together with not so nice looking weld lines all over the surface. The removable service panels have fast relaeases or screws attaching them. The MiG-25's that were at one time on show in Moscow have shed their grey paint scheme and revealed the metal surface, the spot welded panels and the weld lines.

Now, this is what you should not do to your kit (manufacturers should make a note of it too!!!). The riveting madness is evident at modelling shows but there is a place and time for it. The MiG-25 is certainly not the one where you should do this! Here is an other ways beautifully built kit but the maker lost sight (or just received a new riveting tool) and run all over the surface with a riveter. :bandhead2:

Best regards

Gabor

[Pep]

I just got mine in the mail today.

Maybe i don't have the high standards other have here, but i'm very pleased.

And i don't think the $70 is an unreasonable price.

It a was a nice surprise to find some interior detail on the canopy frame!

something rarely seen on any kit!

thanks KH well done!.

[Jennings]

...compared to the Monogram kit.

There is no Monogram kit. The 1/48 MiG-25 is a Revell kit. Revell and Monogram were arch-enemies in 1977, and I don't think the kit ever appeared in a Monogram box after the marriage.

[ya-gabor]

As a bit of help to anyone wanting to build the kit here is a "fairly" good walk around of a MiG-25BM (construction number 66005425) which is on show in Borovaja. It is one of only two MiG-25BM "Wild Weasel"'s that remain of the few dozen manufactured ones. There are 563 photos in this walk around with almost every centimeter of the airframe photographed. Less of the top but of the bottom almost everything. Good thing about it is that the airframe was never repainted and it has all the original stencils still visible on it. There are thousands of them. Kotey will you do it in 48th scale????

Excellent material, worth having a look and perfect help for modelling. The walk around is from the Russian modelling sight Scalemodels.ru Photos by Andrey "avcooper" Bondarev :worship:

It is here:

http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/avia/after_1950/MiG-25BM_Borovaya_avcooper/?g2_page=63

Hope this clears some points.

Best regards

Gabor