Jump to content

Su-33UB Flanker-D - 1/72 scale


Recommended Posts

It arrived this morning - and it's one of thos 'Drop everything and start it' kind of kits (at least for me it is ! :thumbsup:/>/>/>/>

So, what do you get - completely new upper and lower fuselage mouldings - with straight wheel bays !!

su-33ub_002.jpg

New, bigger wings - with folded or non-folded option....

su-33ub_003.jpg

New, bigger, non-folding horizontals stabs and canards, two-man cockpit tub....

su-33ub_004.jpg

The rest of the sprues are exactly the same as in the Su-33 kit - which means that the fins are incorrect - the rudders on the Su-33UB have increased chord - not too difficult to fix.

Trumpeter have obviously used the drawings from Aviatsiya i Vremya (Aviation and Time) magazine - the kit matches the drawings exactly....

su-33ub_015.jpg

Is it accurate ??? - this is the best I can do before building it....

Forward fuselage compared to AiV drawing.....

su-33ub_019.jpg

.... and compared to a 'doctored' photo......

su-33ub_020.jpg

The front canopy arch may not be vertical enough - but apart from that, it looks OK to me.

Please chip in with opinions....... I can't wait to get started.

Nice one Trumpeter :worship:/>/>/>/> :worship:/>/>/>/>

Ken

Edited by Flankerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thanks for the pics Ken! I was just thinking about getiing one for myself ahead of schedule. I'm off to place my order now :)

The radome does look off unfortunatly. I doubt resin nosecone could fix this, unless one would beef up the front fuselage.

Or You could just do a trick - cut off and shorten the radome and just pretend it's ok ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that radome is just nowhere close to the real thing. Clear parts on windscreen are too long and the hump behind cockpit is not matching either (sharped downwards on the real thing). Conflicted about this release.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow "I told you so just doesn't seem to cut it, does it?".

They used incorrect drawings as a reference.

Anyway I am going to modify the exhausts for the TVC and the kinked canard foreplanes.

Edited by hemspilot
Link to post
Share on other sites

They used incorrect drawings as a reference.

The other possibility could be that they didn't ensure that they sticked to the drawings. Take the Kitty Hawk Mirage F1. I may be wrong but I think that the CAD model was based on the AiV drawings. The drawings feature the "rounded cornered" intakes but the kit doesn't. At all steps of the design (from documentation to final CAD model), there should be a validation process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They used incorrect drawings as a reference.

I'm not trying to be adversarial hemspilot - just trying to add to the discussion.....

Who says that the AiV drawings are 'incorrect'? - is there a definitive answer - or is it just someones opinion ??

In the meantime - can this thread be moved to 'Work in Progress' - I've started it in the wrong place.

How do I get it moved?

Cheers

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little progress..... the rudder chord has to be increased.....

su-33ub_021.jpg

The cockpit is perfectly adequate considering that the canopy is closed - the instrument detail is raised for those who like to paint - but Trumpeter supply decals, which I used....

su-33ub_022.jpg

The K-36 ejection seats are simplified - there is no firing handle - but Trumpeter include a clear plastic HUD and the whole cockpit looks OK to my simple tastes....

su-33ub_023.jpg

With the cockpit section in place, the fuselage can now be closed up...

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the one hemspilot - wherever I got it from, IIRC, it was captioned as being a test wing from the Su-33UB.

Dunno about the access door - not enough info to go on - plus I forgot all about it (it's an age thing!)

It must be quite narrow though - and a tight squeeze when wearing an immersion suit :woot.gif:

I might try to add a door made from thin plastic card - purely speculative as to shape and size though.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute! - just looked at the kit's rear bulkhead to see how I might install a door - and there is a slight raised detail in the middle section - could be a door handle?

No outline shape though - just that raised detail, offset to one side.

I suppose the four 'ribs' are meant to be the seat rails ?? - if so they are way off.

Onward....

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were the seat rails they should be in the same plain as the seat back. Which is aprox. 17 degree angle and based on your photos they are far off. Unfortunately I am not surprised with Trump. I dont think apart from me anyone else would care about this. :(

There is little info on the back wall of this aircraft as far as I remember. There could be some factory assembly photos of the cockpit section where it could be visible.

I am sure Nazar or Kotey will fill in on this if there is anything about it.

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gabor - I'm not too worried about the lack of detail on the back wall - you can't see much when the canopy is in place.

Be nice to see some interior photos though......... :thumbsup:/>

Here's a comparison photo with a Trumpeter Su-33 (which I am also building)..... note the wing fold further outboard on the Su-33UB (on the left).....

su-33ub_024.jpg

I've also made a crude attempt at adding a rear door.......

su-33ub_025.jpg

Ken

PS Photos of the Sui-30K2 that Berkut linked to show a large ladder-like structure for the seat rails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progress.......

Trumpeter provide an 'unfolded' outer wing panel (left) - and a 'folded' panel with drooped flaperon (right).

They also include a wingtip launch rail (L) and a 'Sorbtsya' ESM pod (Right) - with detailed wing fold inserts (top)......

su-33ub_026.jpg

Unlike the Su-33, the Su-33UB wing fold is said to be vertical - so thats how I'm doing mine....

I used the 'unfolded' outer panels without the drooped flaperons (because in the vertical position, the drooped flaperons make the folded span greater!) - they are temporarily in place with brass rod supports......

su-33ub_027.jpg

su-33ub_028.jpg

I'm trying to maximise the differences between the Su-33UB and its progenitor, the Su-33 (which I am making with everything folded - wings, stabilators, tailcone and nose pitot - plus a retractable boarding ladder.)

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

No - it's straight out of the box.

Both models (Trumpeter Su-33 and Su-33UB) are exactly the same length (which is as it should be).

I am going to 'shorten' the Su-33UB radome by moving the white paint demarcation line forward - I think it will look OK.

I still cannot see the 'bigger' radome mentioned by others.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger - you mean bigger diameter of nose radome cone, than on standard Su-33s?

It has a explanation - two of pilot seated near, so all part of nose section Su-33UB have bigger diameter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good question! Unless someone has direct access to the real airframe and can go up to it, winch the nose up and measure the diameter . . .

The chances are???

You will not find information like this available in any official and what is more important published documentations. Unfortunately, I have to add but military aircraft are not there for the likes of us modellers.

While the 33UB is a one off aircraft, even for the standard mass produced Su-27 it is hard to find a precise information for the diameter of the nose cone or its length unless one has an example in the backyard. (Come to think of it I have seen a small private collection / museum somewhere in Russia where all sorts of nose cones were standing along the fence) :woot.gif:

Just as well the Su-35 also has a very different nose cone in comparison with the standard 27 nose and still there is no info on it.

But you never know . . .

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as well the Su-35 also has a very different nose cone in comparison with the standard 27 nose and still there is no info on it.

But you never know . . .

Best regards

Gabor

Thanks Gabor.....

FWIW, many years ago (back in the early 90's on one of my first trips to Moscow) - I tried to measure the circumference of the Su-27 radome.

I didn't have any accurate measuring devices, but I did have a ball of string - so I added a weight to one end (a plastic film container filled with local stones) - taped up and attached to the string.

At the time, the easiest Flanker to get at (ie no guards about!) was the T10-20 at Khodinka -

day_01_020.jpg

..... so I threw the weighted string over the nose and adjusted it so that is was looped around the radome at the white painted junction.

This isn't easy, given the size of the Flanker - it towers about ten feet above you :woot.gif:/>

Anyway, the measure of the circumference on the T10-20 was ......3043cm - which converts to a diameter of 968.61cm.

With the help of my friends and risking life and limb, we did the same to the Su-35 prototype at Monino - the T10M Bort 701 (whilst keeping an eye out for the local 'matushka')......

day6_041.JPG

The Su-35 radome was 20cm greater in circumference - 6cm in diameter.

I know that this isn't very scientific - for one thing the string can stretch - and on a windy day, taking the two measurements wasn't easy - but it does at least confirm that the Su-35 radome is greater in diameter than the vanilla Su-27.

I can't find my published refs for the Su-27 radome diameter (isn't the scanner about 900cm ?) - so 968cm seems about right.

Anyway - make what you will of my weighted piece of string - which I still have rolled up in a drawer and have just re-measured).

Ken

PS - Thinking about it, a better, more accurate method would have been to drape the string over the top of the radome and let both ends dangle vertically down to the ground. The distance between the ends would give the radome diameter - allowing for wind and rain etc.... :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ken,

It is good to know that I am not the only one to go around air bases and museums with measuring tape, strings. :rolleyes:/> I also take a note pad (the conventional pencil and paper) with some scale drawings if possible, have a pair of strings with special turned metal pointer weights on the ends, black insulating tape, chalk to make marks, some cello tape, a caliper and a special metal diameter measuring “thing” for taking data of bigger diameter parts like wheels. . .

To measure the circumference is a good idea for fuel tanks and the sorts. For fuselage diameters, nose cones the string with weight at the end is used, just as you described it. Yes, I use it just as you described and yes the weather could be a problem. A flat surface under aircraft is something that helps, the weight has a very sharp point at its end making fairly precise measuring possible. It is around plus/minus 1-2 mm. A chalk mark is made on the flat surface. As to the wind and weather several (3-4) measurements are made, an average is calculated.

The best thing is a scrapyard where the aircraft are in parts revealing details which are never visible on an active airframe. I spend days there. It is really fun!!! :woot.gif:/> :woot.gif:/> :woot.gif:/> Here even more precise measurements could be made. And I have to admit that an even better and almost 100% idea is to have bits and pieces from the real aircraft in a collection. B)/> It’s almost as good as having the original production blue prints! :D/>

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...