Jump to content

Eduard 1:72 MiG-21MF has arrived


Recommended Posts

Hi Gene K,

 

Sorry I have absolutely no intention of spending even a penny on this kit. This is a Czech version, we never had it, why should I be buying it? Sorry.

 

But I watch with great interest what Sebastijan is building! :worship:

 

One other reason is that I have worked considerable time on this project few years ago when it all started. Pan Sulc asked me directly to provide details on what should be changed / corrected in comparison to the 48 th scale MiG-21MF produced in 2011. A detailed list was compiled. Back then there was hope that there will be a nice new line of 72 nd scale Fishbed kits including a REAL MiG-21 bis kit. I am no longer sure of this. :crying:

 

Some photos have been published on different forums so I will comment them. Here is one small point, an engraved panel line was accidentally left off. I should say this is normal with any manufacturer (we had a similar problem on the G.W.H Su-35S kit, OK in our case it was an extra line added by over enthusiastic tool maker, a line which should have not been there). Just engrave the missing line bordered by rivets, takes about 2 minutes. No problem.

 

J62QmPk.jpg

 

Photo taken from veb page provided by you. Thanks for it.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, sakai said:

Can you please explain what is so fundamentally different between Czechoslovak/Czech and Hungarian Mig-21MF?

Thanks,

Mario

 That's a valid question.

 

I do know some of the MFs delivered to Czech AF were kind of semi-bis MFs although I'm not fully aware of the exact differences between them and the basic MFs. But all came from the Soviet Union as far as I know and thus were not locally produced like the first generation machines. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written about this few times already and illustrated it with many photos. I know the photos are gone from previous posts, thanks to generous PB. Anyway.

Thousands of MiG-21 MF’s which was called officially Type 96 by the manufacturer were built for export (MF was only for export in 2 versions 96A for friendly WarPac countries and 96B for friendly countries with differing, that is downgraded electronics and weapons in comparison to Soviet AF MiG-21 S and SM (the equivalents of the M / MF). They were manufactured in Moscow factory. By 1975 a new version of the Fishbed emerged the MiG-21bis (Type 75) a very different aircraft. It was now the new export plane but there were few countries who stayed with the old and less capable version MF for different reasons and they wanted to buy MF’s. Moscow was no longer producing them and so the Gorkiy factory (now Sokol in Nizhnij Novgorod) made a short run of MF’s in 1975. The Gorkiy factory was already producing bis fighters so the resulting aircraft were a hybrid between MF and bis. This applies to the airframe, while electronics and engine remained the same. Still the airframe was not a full bis just a hybrid.

 

What is needed for a real MF, the one of which thousands were made: new wing, new engine exhaust section, a multitude of engraved panels lines, vents and other fine details. The front airbrakes were different size and outline, the gun cover size/shape is different, the panels and the shape of the gun area is different, the gun access panels (the one on the top and one on bottom is different shape and position). There is difference in panels around the main airbrake.

 

The radio compartment cover in front of the cockpit has a different cover. Later in service life there were prominent reinforcement plates added to the wings, both top and bottom as well as in other areas. Some aircraft did receive a triangular shaped reinforcement around the flap actuator. Now this is shown on the new Eduard kit. The only problem is that they were reinforcement plates added during overhaul and in real life they were all different, almost never beautifully symmetrical as shown on the kit!

I know people will say the Edu kit looks like a Fishbed and they don’t care about details just as they did not care 7 years ago about MiG-21bis nose section (and multitude of other differences).

 

Of course it is possible to engrave and add all the differences listed above to the new Edu kit, but it is also possible to do a great new kit from a lump of plastic, taken you have absolutely free amount of time available . . .

 

During development together with a Czech friend we were trying to push towards a common version were options would have been available to build a real early MF the way they were originally manufactured (and so service in so many air forces) which would have given the chance to do the M version too. Remember that these M and early MF versions were closest to the Russian operated S and SM so it would have been possible to market them also for the Russians where 72 scale is more preferred.

What the new Edu kit is giving is this Gorkiy produced Czech version. Later in the year there should be a Moscow produced version but it will have many common parts with this kit and only few major changes will be catered for to produce a late service version of the MF. Some of them are already there on the sprues of the new kit.

 

Hope this answers your question. I am sorry but I will not attach photos (did many over the past years) and go into more specific details as it would fill a book and this is neither the time nor the place to do this.

 

Hi Janman,

Yes, they never produced MF's in Czechoslovakia, they were all imports from Russia.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabor, thanks for your answer. I do know you've dealt with this earlier but I'm pretty sure there are still people who are not familiar with the issue. I wasn't fully knowledgeable either. I AM fully knowledgeable on the bis nose problem though and will be very disappointed in case Eduard won't take care of it.

 

I see your point and you explained it well. I know the financial side always plays a significant part when a new kit is designed and the end product is a compromise. 

 

No matter how good the kit, I hate to be on the side where that compromise hits hardest. Obviously those doing a Czech bird will suffer less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:18 AM, janman said:

Thanks for the review! 

 

Read it, and despite of those minor glitches already mentioned, will surely get one. Although I'm naturally inclined towards the bis version.

 

With the eventual bis coming with an MF nose and these other "mistakes" on the nose area... I guess one could say they might have done it better. Even the old Zvezda comes with separate front brakes (quick photo from the couch): 

hZLRivj.jpg

 

Then again, I'm glad two types of windscreen is provided. All in all the kit looks good and surely will be the best available.

 

Will be waiting for your build!

The Revell-Germany MiG-21F also has separate forward air brakes......

1979632_10202453176883522_1426112857_n.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A strange mistake. Not by the manufacturer but by the two Eduard company’s in-house modellers who were the first to build the 72nd scale new kit. Both Martin Nademlejnský and Zdenek Sviták did not look at the instruction sheet and glued on the main gear doors (Parts D78 and D79) the wrong way around. The one on the left should be on the right side just as the other on the opposite. The mistake is strange only from the point of view that both of them made the same mistake.

 

hV1KDSC.jpg

 

CepH7fE.jpg

 

No matter how professional you are it is sometimes wise to look at the instruction sheet.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ya-gabor said:

No matter how professional you are it is sometimes wise to look at the instruction sheet.

Well even professionals do mistakes especially when time is counted (commission build).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laurent said:

Well even professionals do mistakes especially when time is counted (commission build).

 

I obviously don't have your insight or tolerance,  but if indeed they are "commissioned builds", it's unacceptable that major mistakes were made. Considering that those builds are the first impression that most of us get of this long-in-development kit, the "professional" builders should have been even more professional than usual!  Lack of time should not be an acceptable excuse under these first-look circumstances. 

 

Gene K

Edited by Gene K
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gene K said:

 

I obviously don't have your insight or tolerance,  but if indeed they are "commissioned builds", it's unacceptable that major mistakes were made. Considering that those builds are the first impression that most of us get of this long-in-development kit, the "professional" builders should have been even more professional than usual!  Lack of time should not be an acceptable excuse under these first-look circumstances. 

 

Gene K

 

 

It is not really a “commissioned build” in a traditional way! They are employees of Eduard, just as many within the company are modellers too so the work and hobby is the same for them. What they have made on those kits is a very basic and simple mistake that anyone of us can make. It is NOT a fault of the kit or a mistake of the kit manufacturer and does not make the kit "unbuildable"! 

The only thing is that it is strange that both made the same mistake.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ya-gabor said:

 

The only thing is that it is strange that both made the same mistake.

 

 

Has anyone looked at the instructions to see if these parts were possibly mislabeled or numbered incorrectly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, habu2 said:

 

Has anyone looked at the instructions to see if these parts were possibly mislabeled or numbered incorrectly?

 

Bingo! Error in the instructions - parts 78 and 79 are switched, causing this mistake!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sebastijan said:

 

Bingo! Error in the instructions - parts 78 and 79 are switched, causing this mistake!

 

Since I don’t have the kit, nor the instructions it was difficult to see what they made wrong in the first place. This is why I was asking Sebastijan to show us the instruction sheet a week or so ago.

 

Based on the instruction sheet it was clear that the drawing shows the gear doors in the right way. I could not make out the part numbers on the photos so did not suspect that this was the cause of the problem.  Eduard has made the mistake of numbering them the wrong way around when making the design of the instruction sheet! D 79 should be on the Left gear and D 78 on the Right side.

 

I believe only the numbering on the instruction sheet are switched not the actual plastic parts!

 

So the company modellers were after all looking at the instruction sheet but did not question how right it is, even if it was obvious that the doors should be the other way around. Good soldiers never question orders even if they are told to jump off a cliff.

 

You can also see parts D 76 and D77. They are the same gear doors only with a small change. There is a "Cut-Out" panel (in Russian ВКЛАДЫШ) on the gear door (the official design part number is 76-4801-240 ) which can be removed with just 2 screws. When FAB-500 bombs, ZB-360 (Napalm container) or the UB-32 unguided launcher is used on the inner pylon. The cut out is needed to give clearance for the weapons. We have carried out this few times.

 

To represent this on parts D 76 and D 77 the cut-outs are removed. The cut-out is always on the outer side of the gear door! This is a simple way to know if you have put the gear door up the right way around.

 

Best regards 

Gabor

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

So here is the mistake illustrated on the plastic parts as well as on the instruction sheet. This is the new Profipack illustration which is coming in May. The photos are from the IPMS Nymburk page, hope they don’t mind me using them for illustration. If yes I will delete them.

 

3gfnTKD.jpg

 

h5gLteV.jpg

 

Since it is all printed and ready to go to the shops I don’t think they will reprint all the instruction sheets just because of this mistake.

 

So when building the kit keep this change in mind!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sebastijan said:

 

Bingo! Error in the instructions - parts 78 and 79 are switched, causing this mistake!

 

Let this be a lesson to all those who rushed to judgement. It is better to build than to criticize. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Eduard is to release a new aftermarket set for the MiG-21MF kit in 72nd scale.

It is all very nice, but . . .

 

It is here:

 

 

 

n5gRzk3.jpg

 

But . . .

 

I love the detailed discussions on the precise location of a given airframe panel / panels, colour shade differences on aircraft or subtle  changes between different marks of aircraft. It all results in an authentic reproduction of a given aircraft.

 

But do you also go into such meticulous details when presenting the given aircraft and adding all the external extras. In this case the FOD covers? How AUTHENTIC they are for the type and for a given situation???

 

What we get in this new aftermarket set is the front and rear end covers (Part R46 & R47) for the MiG engine as well as the small auxiliary intake covers on the sides of the aircraft. The later are open basically only if the engine is running and they open up due to pressure difference. They are free hanging doors and on the ground a slight gap (of few centimetres) will be visible which is perfectly sufficient for anything to get inside the engine intake duct. This is why for long term storage or in the evening after flight a permanent cover is fitted to this intake just as well as the intake and exhaust covers to close down completely the engine from any outside bits and pieces (FOD).

 

This is all OK.

A very different situation on the side covers in the new set. Now for pre-flight running up the engine or for ground engine trials it is essential to have a cover on the auxiliary intakes too to avoid sucking in anything that would / could damage the engine. For this every aircraft is provided with its own set of auxiliary intake covers. They are made with a mesh to allow air in whilst protecting against FOD. This is what we get in this aftermarket set.

 

The two sets (long term ground covers and the running engine cover) are NEVER mixed since they are for principally different tasks.      

 

Actually the standard ground protection set of each MiG-21 has many more covers for protection! There are protectors for the IFF antennas, the AOA vane, one for the vent on top of the nose in front of the windscreen, undercarriage bay covers. . . 

Of the auxiliary intake covers there are 2 sets: one for running the engine (with the mesh) and the completely closed one for long term storage. I think this new set should have included both types for authenticity. 

 

qXfV61R.jpg

 

Let me explain and show a Western analogue to this.

On the F-18C for ground engine runs a mesh type of intake cover is used to avoid ingesting foreign objects and protect the engine.

 

U2NWl6T.jpg

 

This is not the same as the actual intake cover used at the end of the day after flights or for longer term storage!!!

 

 

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...