ijozic Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 To my Trumpetered eyes, those recon variants externally only differ in their noses so perhaps several recon variants could be made by AMK. The PU requires another nose and exhausts and Bob's Your Uncle. But, it would be nice (and perhaps even useful to AMK) if somebody familiar with the type could specify what the differences are between those recon variants (besides e.g. the nose and some cockpit differences). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I can see differences on the inlets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Falconxlvi Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 I would ***strongly*** disagree. The KH kit isn't remotely even close to the ball park for any version, and shouldn't even begin to figure into the formula for anything other than landfill fodder. The interceptor was the reason for being for the MiG-25 in the first place, was the main production version, and is the most famous version. +1. The interceptor please 👍 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) if AMK could only do 1 and only 1 Foxbat, it MUST be the MiG-25Pd!!! so my vote is for the Interceptor! the fact that another manufacturer have screw-up on a "sort-of-MiG-25PdS" shouldn't be considered as a point against doing the interceptor Type!!! but, whether AMK choose to produce the interceptor or the recon-bomber family , it would be very very cool that AMK does the twin-seaters (Pu+ Ru) also. it's certainly one of the coolest training aircraft ever. Edited November 17, 2015 by mingwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
torchf4 Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Looking forward to the bomber and recon versions. More variety camo and users. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 It cant be just one version Martin! MiG-25 was versatile so much it has to be more... P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) I can see differences on the inlets. Ah, good point, the RBF seems to have some top intake extension plate plus probably some RWR/ECM antennas on their sides. Edited November 17, 2015 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yes, R/RB/RBK/RBS doesnt have it while RBT/RBF/RBSh/BM all have it. With the exception of BM all with the extended intake also have the side antenna. Both of these things should be very easy to solve in terms of design/production with little bit of modularity. What i am wondering and maybe someone who knows this can confirm; are the stabilizers (horizontal and vertical) the same between all the versions? (other than maybe an antenna here and there and the dark grey areas) They look the same but i am not 100% sure if i have missed some version. If so then the fuselage, landing gear, stabilizers would be common between all the version. So the different parts in sum between the versions are; noses, wings, exhaust, pylons and extended intakes and antennas. From the point of view of design it looks fairly reasonable actually, the big question is how many noses it is worth to tool. They all look sufficiently different in the R family that they would need a new nose per version, don't think modularity will help much here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) From the point of view of design it looks fairly reasonable actually, the big question is how many noses it is worth to tool. Some of the more obscure variant noses could theoretically be easily provided by third party detail set makers as well. On a second thought, they would be somewhat large and heavy in resin since it's 1/48 and not so cheap, I presume; given the potentially rather limited interest, maybe it would be deemed as too risky (e.g. I still don't see any aftermarket resin parts available for the KH model; e.g. replacement intakes). Edited November 17, 2015 by ijozic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) Yes, R/RB/RBK/RBS doesnt have it while RBT/RBF/RBSh/BM all have it. With the exception of BM all with the extended intake also have the side antenna. Both of these things should be very easy to solve in terms of design/production with little bit of modularity. What i am wondering and maybe someone who knows this can confirm; are the stabilizers (horizontal and vertical) the same between all the versions? (other than maybe an antenna here and there and the dark grey areas) They look the same but i am not 100% sure if i have missed some version. If so then the fuselage, landing gear, stabilizers would be common between all the version. So the different parts in sum between the versions are; noses, wings, exhaust, pylons and extended intakes and antennas. From the point of view of design it looks fairly reasonable actually, the big question is how many noses it is worth to tool. They all look sufficiently different in the R family that they would need a new nose per version, don't think modularity will help much here. So , hypotheticaly we could have RBx/BM and P/PD box. This would get OK with me. EDIT: The more I think of this the more it seems reasonable. RB and BM have same wings and exhausts, noses could be bone separate or with different recce panels for recce nose.And small antenae differences and ARMs.. Interceptor with diffrent engines,wings and of course nose could be done in separate box... P Edited November 17, 2015 by Petarvu Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Interceptor with different engines,wings and of course nose could be done in separate box... Plus a separate nose for the dual seater. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 So , hypotheticaly we could have RBx/BM and P/PD box. This would get OK with me. EDIT: The more I think of this the more it seems reasonable. RB and BM have same wings and exhausts, noses could be bone separate or with different recce panels for recce nose.And small antenae differences and ARMs.. Interceptor with diffrent engines,wings and of course nose could be done in separate box... P Yes if AMK decides to do recon *at all* making any other version of recon or even BM would be fairly straight forward considering how much they share. It mostly depends on how many noses AMK decides to do for recon more or less. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Yes if AMK decides to do recon *at all* making any other version of recon or even BM would be fairly straight forward considering how much they share. It mostly depends on how many noses AMK decides to do for recon more or less. Martin this is the solution!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 What i am wondering and maybe someone who knows this can confirm; are the stabilizers (horizontal and vertical) the same between all the versions? No they are not. Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Martin @ AMK Models Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 No they are not. Best regards Gabor Of course they're not Stands to reason doesn't it? Hehehe. Thanks Gabor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 No they are not. Best regards Gabor As Martin said; of course. Could you expand on their differences and whether it is just antennas/grey areas or more substantial than that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ijozic Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 But Gabor, please view it from the perspective of boxing multiple versions. E.g., one boxing could be P/PD/PDS (could perhaps a separate nose for the PU be added if other main parts are the same?) and the other boxing could be e.g. RB/BM. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Petarvu Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 As Martin said; of course. :bandhead2:/> Could you expand on their differences and whether it is just antennas/grey areas or more substantial than that? I just made quick glance on some BM and RB tails and they look the same to me. I havent checked only small scoops on te right side of the plane on fin base, on the left side they are the same . P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) I really am looking forward to this kit from AMK, the Mig-25 to me is the iconic Soviet Cold War jet, but I hope it's the P, PD, PDS that comes out first. Interceptor=Big Sales! Good on AMK for bringing us this cool model! :thumbsup:/> Cheers Brad :beer4:/> Edited November 18, 2015 by Brad-M Quote Link to post Share on other sites
galfa Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Yes, yes, yes, INTERCEPTOR first ! INTERCEPTOR, INTERCEPTOR, INTERCEPTOR FIRST !!!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
skyhawk174 Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Well I voted and Interceptor for me too Some how I thought the BM was the interceptor so voted for that too, silly me. I have always wanted to do the Algerian AF MiG 25 scheme as I think that looks cool with their national markings. Too bad there are not many camo schemes on the MiG 25, well at least for the interceptor version. With the great sales of the MiG 31, I think AMK will be the manufacturer to make a name for producing accurate Soviet aircraft models. Wonderful modelling times we live in right :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Berkut, you may be right and I'm confused. Don't have my books here at work (and please don't tell my boss what I'm doing) but I did have some scans from the Gordon book on my hard drive, and made some more comparison shots. RBV on the left, P on the right. It appears to me that the RBV wing is straight while the PD wing has slight multiple sweep angles. 1. I may be seeing it wrong; the variation is very small. 2. The drawings may be wrong! I'll have to check my refs when I get home. No actually it was my mistake. It is the P/PD/PDS family that has double angle not recon, and if you look carefully one the P drawings, this is reflected there. Closer to the fuselage there is a different angle than the rest. P/PD/PDS has 42.3 angle close to the fuselage and 41.02 for the rest. Recon and BM has 41.02 angle all the way. A projected BM boxing would also require modified air intakes. The BM inherited the longer "upper lip" first introduced with mid-production RBK aircraft. http://walkarounds.a...mig-25bm_78.JPG Already discussed. With modularity this will be piece of cake. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
punder Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I've asked Sergii at the Ukrainian State Aviation Museum to check their MiG-25RB, just to make double-sure. Last time he got back to me within a couple of days; really nice guy, super helpful. Agree, shouldn't be much of a problem adding a couple alternate intakes to the sprues! Example is recent Revell Bf109G-6, they included multiple cowls, canopies and other items. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Although not strictly relevant to the thread, going to plug this amazing build in 1/72 by Jim Barr of MiG-25BM; http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=270113&st=0&p=2558961&hl=mig-25bm&fromsearch=1entry2558961 Hands down one of the best models i have ever seen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
punder Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Although not strictly relevant to the thread, going to plug this amazing build in 1/72 by Jim Barr of MiG-25BM; http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=270113&st=0&p=2558961&hl=mig-25bm&fromsearch=1entry2558961 Hands down one of the best models i have ever seen. Wow, can you imagine that in 1/48. Martin and Sio, are you seeing this? :coolio:/> Sounds like he might be a good source of detail information too... I would really love to hear his opinion on Yefim Gordon's "720-mm plug" in the nose... 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.