Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tomcat Trebor said:

Thanks Gabor. That photo shows the wing leading edge perfectly, the way the light shines on it.

 

The leading edge is the least of the problems they have with the kit. But it seems that there is even a problem with communication and no one took the time to read through what they wrote in January/February and taken out the mistakes from it. They simply Copy C Paste V that text with few new lines about the schemes. This is all you need to produce a lengthy new Workbench article. :))

 

It is all very sad! 

 

Best regards

Gabor

Edited by ya-gabor
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

Looks to me that your taking the hard way to evaluate the kit. Probably would have taken much less time to tell us what they got right!

Gary to

 

Weeeeeell, it has two wings, stabilizers . . .  :worship:  😊   😊  😊   I shouldn’t be joking about this.

 

 

Actually the fact that you have a choice for open air brakes is nice, but to buy just for this. . .  In operational service it was an option for an aircraft on ground to have the airbrakes hang. But so were the distinct perforated flaps too, which are not part of the kit.

 

The option for those rocket pods is interesting, but it is exclusively for the Polish ground attack version! How many will they be able to sell in Poland and to those who are interested in the Polish version is a good question. Is that market big enough to support ( and return) the investment in kit R&D, production, I don’t think so.

 

The Polish option is I suppose only for a next release of the kit. Those air to ground pylons are not applicable for neither the Russian or the Vietnamese scheme in this first kit.

 

It would have been really fantastic to have a state of the art MiG-17 kit originating in a 3D scan for maximum authenticity but in this case little if anything was used from the scan in preparig the CAD. 

I am afraid that this kit will follow that flop MiG-15 kit from few years ago from the same manufacturer. Sad!  :crying2: Sad to see this while the same maker is trying hard to bring out some nice kits.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sleepy said:

Given the price of developing and tooling a kit these days, it amazes me that companies are satisfied with doing half-a**ed work like that.  It would cost little or nothing more to have done it right.


If you think this is bad, take a look at Airfix's MiG-15. It's horribly mishappen and doesn't even vaguely resemble an actual MiG-15.

The MiG-17F is a beauty in comparison, ironic though that the one bit they got mostly right on the -15 (the wings) is what they got wrong on the -17

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Some just released images of the new Airfix MiG-17F kit unfortunately confirm that absolutely NOTHING was changed / corrected on the CAD design and eventually on the actual press forms to correct wings and other mistakes.

 

People are asking what is wrong with the kit?

The leading edge kink (looking from above a change in leading edge angle) is there on the wing but apart from this it has little to do with the original aircraft. A very strange wing profile was created in “What If” category by the Airfix CAD designer. It was visible before but now the shadows show it clearly that there is a sharp ridge on top of the wing from where it is flat towards the trailing edge and in some places even concave.

 

jhWccSW.jpg

 

Where the hell did the designer get this from?

 

If he did not have a 3D scan in front of him and had to rely only on few low quality black and white images of the real aircraft (as it was back in Cold War years) I would (maybe) understand the mistake. Back 30-40 years ago better and more authentic wings were designed for MiG kits!

 

-  The leading edge cross section change shown in detail before is completely missing. OK, in 72nd scale one can say that is a “minor” problem (as a well know Czech kit Co. Boss would say). 😊

 

-  But the wing to fuselage joint cross section is also completely messed up as well.

 

-  All the other errors have been shown before in detail further up.

 

M0yqaRX.jpg

 

For comparison an Eduard MiG-15 kit is shown. I know it is not a MiG-17 but the cross section at the root has not changed much just as aerodynamic principles of wing cross section in general.

 

 

qr1ndd3.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

So what can one do? A new fuselage from resin with a pair of new corrected resin wings and many other details also corrected from either resin or photoetch. Would this be an economical and cheap 72 nd scale kit? I don’t think so!

 

 

 

 

Sad that in 2019 a company with so much behind it releases a kit with such obvious mistakes.

 

I would say Airfix MiG-17 kit is the classical example of what not to do when you actually 3D scan a real aircraft and in the end a pure fantasy CAD is made which has little or nothing to do with the original aircraft.  

 

Dear Airfix, the money spent on the 3D scan was an complete and utter waste of money!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were several comments on comparison photos. Saying they are completely distorted and don’t show real shapes of the kit.

 

I can only show the real aircraft and compare it to the kit. I can highlight certain details on the kit and look at what it is like on the real aircraft.

In 2019 I would expect that a kit manufacturer would want to make a SCALED DOWN REPLICA of the real aircraft. Copying details visible on the real aircraft and not adding fantasy items.

 

The problems were visible on CAD images in January 2019. OK let’s wait for the plastic parts. Everyone was saying.  

 

WmC54aU.jpg

 

 

bfgeI21.jpg

 

 

The first photos of REAL PLASTIC SPRUES was already shown in May 2019 this year.

 

Then images above were taken of real plastic parts few weeks ago. October 2019.

 

Just one question: So every image published by Airfix so far is distorted and the real kit will be a fantastic???

 

The May 2019 images shown that the wing has some strange shapes.

They show from a side angle of the real plastic parts that the wing profile is wrong and results in many distortions of the shape.

 

 

epF8gxV.jpg

 

jGlv2fE.jpg

 

 

I know this is not plastic parts but this is the CAD based on which the tools for the plastic parts were manufactured.

The wing fence on the real aircraft has a constant height along the wing. It is a very good indicator of the wing profile. On CAD images it is clearly visible that the height of the wing fence is not constant because of the big concave area on the wing. It is visible on CAD images and also on views of plastic parts.

 

 

HQgv5jv.jpg

 

 

 

V1l0tfw.jpg

 

Make your own judgement looking at comparisons. Fortunately it is a free world and every one can make up his own mind on which kit he wants to buy.

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

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

So which 1/72 MiG-17 kit should I buy ... at this time?

 

Gene K

 

Hi Gene K,

 

Sorry I have no idea! :dontknow:   :dontknow:  :dontknow:  The best suggestion I can make is to build something else for the moment and not a MiG-17!

 

The last ones I have built in 72nd were the prehistoric KP and the Hasegawa example (was it about 40 or so years ago). They were the only ones around then.

Have been waiting for a good MiG-17 kit for some time, I think I will have to wait for a little longer.

 

The same situation was with the MiG-15, there was nothing for so many years (decades) then eventually with the third go at it Eduard did manage to make one. It is pretty good although not what I would say “Mother of all MiG-15’s” but a good build (actually it is on my workbench at the moment). :coolio: :coolio:

 

I think I have said it somewhere here before that I was really looking forward to this kit with the knowledge that Airfix is using some of the latest 3D scan technology which has some great potential in it. Sad, really sad!!! And I don’t really understand what went on at Airfix with this project. :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:

 

If I was to build one of those Polish Lim fighter bombers (which I will never)  with missile blocks and pylons it is possible that I would consider buying this kit but only as a source of spare parts for those pylons and maybe the open airbrake but nothing more (it would be an expensive “spares box”). Add them to another manufacturers MiG-17 kit and you have the Polish version.  Even then you will have to scratch build the typical Polish brake chute housing which is not included in the Airfix kit.

 

Actually there is one puzzling thing in this kit. Parts 12 and 13 on Frame B. What is that? I could not fit them anywhere on the kit! They look like standard Oil drums. What are they for???

 

hDiZ4E3.jpg

 

 

UMlO1bD.jpg

 

 

I am sure there is a very simple explanation for this (or the Airfix guys had one of Baldrick's very cunning plans behind this ) and only my stupidity prevents me from seeing it.  😊

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

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

 

Hi Gene K,

 

Sorry I have no idea! :dontknow:   :dontknow:  :dontknow:  The best suggestion I can make is to build something else for the moment and not a MiG-17!

 

The last ones I have built in 72nd were the prehistoric KP and the Hasegawa example (was it about 40 or so years ago). They were the only ones around then.

Have been waiting for a good MiG-17 kit for some time, I think I will have to wait for a little longer.

 

The same situation was with the MiG-15, there was nothing for so many years (decades) then eventually with the third go at it Eduard did manage to make one. It is pretty good although not what I would say “Mother of all MiG-15’s” but a good build (actually it is on my workbench at the moment). :coolio: :coolio:

 

I think I have said it somewhere here before that I was really looking forward to this kit with the knowledge that Airfix is using some of the latest 3D scan technology which has some great potential in it. Sad, really sad!!! And I don’t really understand what went on at Airfix with this project. :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:  :bandhead2:

 

If I was to build one of those Polish Lim fighter bombers (which I will never)  with missile blocks and pylons it is possible that I would consider buying this kit but only as a source of spare parts for those pylons and maybe the open airbrake but nothing more (it would be an expensive “spares box”). Add them to another manufacturers MiG-17 kit and you have the Polish version.  Even then you will have to scratch build the typical Polish brake chute housing which is not included in the Airfix kit.

 

Actually there is one puzzling thing in this kit. Parts 12 and 13 on Frame B. What is that? I could not fit them anywhere on the kit! They look like standard Oil drums. What are they for???

 

hDiZ4E3.jpg

 

 

UMlO1bD.jpg

 

 

I am sure there is a very simple explanation for this (or the Airfix guys had one of Baldrick's very cunning plans behind this ) and only my stupidity prevents me from seeing it.  😊

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

 

I remember seeing pics of  parked Migs and probably other aircrafts maybe a Tornado with drums and tires stacked a little behind their center of gravity, who knows maybe Airfix accidentally scanned a fuel drum thinking it was part of the plane and included it, would be fun it that thing turns to be more accurate than their entire model 😄

 

Luigi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Luigi,

 

This is good!  :thumbsup2:   :rofl:   😊   :clap2: 

 

But . . .

 

The MiG-15/MiG-17 had a full set of auxiliary equipment including many specialist parts which were needed to operate the type. In the West it is a popular belief that the Russians are very primitive and their equipment poorly maintained and very crude in general, there is no need for anything apart from a screw driver and a hummer to maintain them. This could be so, but in real life it was very different.

 

A whole bunch of special tools and support equipment was in many cases specially designed for use with the MiG-15. This included a custom designed tail support. The reason was very simple without the pilot and minus the battery pack which was removed on ground it tended to tail sit. This is one of the reasons why it had a steel tail bumper.

 

The battery was in the very front of the nose radio compartment as far as possible, the C.G. was close to main wheels and also you had in the back a big fuel tank. So it was essential to have the tail support but the clearance from the ground is far far smaller than where a standard size oil tank could fit in even on its side.

 

Best regards

Gabor

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

Now here are two subjects that somebody like AMK or GWH should jump on with both feet! In the past we've seen several others botch the subject up, so really Airfix is not alone. I be good for a couple of each!

Gary

 

- There are some popular subjects around, which every manufacturer wants to have in his catalogue.

- There are subjects which suddenly become popular and several manufacturers jump on it, it could be due to a particular actuality, it is in the news  . . .

- There are subjects which are made by a given manufacturer only because his rival has made it too, “we will show them how to do this”!

- There are so many other reasons why a given aircraft type is chosen.

Now, the MiG-17 does not fit into any of those categories, it was always neglected, it was always in the shadows of the famous MiG-15 or the slick MiG-21. I don’t really see the so called “big names” in the kit manufacturing industry suddenly rushing to make a MiG-17. Unfortunately, but everyone have their own preferences.

 

-  It is fascinating to read the response to photo comparisons of the actual aircraft and the way the kit is made.  In countries who have manufactured, seen from close up or actually operated the aircraft and those who only have a mystical view from afar of a foe/boggy Mig. The latter are far more forgiving and can accept almost any problems with the kit, any blunder by the kit manufacturer. 

“It looks like a Mig”

Yes, it has two wings, three undercarriage and a typical cross like vertical surface. . . 😊  😊  😊

 

-  People are waiting to see the actual kit.

Well, there are several photos of the sprues already out as well as a full build and review by a Brit modelling magazine. It refers to the kit as a Fantastic.  Not surprising since the name of the publication and that of the kits manufacturer is identical.

 

Best regards

Gabor

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

 

- There are some popular subjects around, which every manufacturer wants to have in his catalogue.

- There are subjects which suddenly become popular and several manufacturers jump on it, it could be due to a particular actuality, it is in the news  . . .

- There are subjects which are made by a given manufacturer only because his rival has made it too, “we will show them how to do this”!

- There are so many other reasons why a given aircraft type is chosen.

Now, the MiG-17 does not fit into any of those categories, it was always neglected, it was always in the shadows of the famous MiG-15 or the slick MiG-21. I don’t really see the so called “big names” in the kit manufacturing industry suddenly rushing to make a MiG-17. Unfortunately, but everyone have their own preferences.

 

-  It is fascinating to read the response to photo comparisons of the actual aircraft and the way the kit is made.  In countries who have manufactured, seen from close up or actually operated the aircraft and those who only have a mystical view from afar of a foe/boggy Mig. The latter are far more forgiving and can accept almost any problems with the kit, any blunder by the kit manufacturer. 

“It looks like a Mig”

Yes, it has two wings, three undercarriage and a typical cross like vertical surface. . . 😊  😊  😊

 

-  People are waiting to see the actual kit.

Well, there are several photos of the sprues already out as well as a full build and review by a Brit modelling magazine. It refers to the kit as a Fantastic.  Not surprising since the name of the publication and that of the kits manufacturer is identical.

 

Best regards

Gabor

 

+ 1 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Airfix it is a “FANTASTIC Fresco”!   I would not subscribe to this point of view.

 

wpLrZt9.jpg

 

I know it is only a box-art, but during Vietnam war the MiG pilots were flying in black leather helmets. The new white hard helmets (ZS-3) were not used in that period. Actually the same mistake with the helmet is made by Eduard in the coming re-release of the MiG-15 kit.

 

There was a question earlier about which kit to choose for a MiG-17 in 72nd scale. I don’t really know. Unfortunately the new Airfix kit has a lot of problems and this is definitely not the one to suggest.

OK, we can go on and on endlessly about the problems but I would rather try to find some solutions to them. It does not mean that I will be buying the kit and starting a several years long build/correction program. Rather wait for someone else to do a decent kit.

 

So here are few ideas to make this new kit more authentic. It is a lot of work and lots of extras will be required to make something of it but here are few tips. 

Here is first part.

 

To help in correcting the problems apart from the usual internet sources I have in my library these publications. One I don’t have is a Detail & Scale booklet on MiG-17F, I think it was one of the very first books in this series and I have seen one copy back in late 1970’s but decided not to buy it. It was a mistake!

Anyway the 4+ Publications offering is good with lots of high quality detail photos as well as a run-down on those 12 aircraft for which excellent decals are offered, both in 48th and 72nd scale version (it is either this or that, one has to decide when buying the book). The Polish Kagero is also good but it is more about the locally manufactured Lim versions.

 

 

prqjXYf.jpg 

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

So here are few ideas to make this new kit more authentic. It is a lot of work and lots of extras will be required to make something of it but here are few tips.

 

The wings (the start)

Airfix designer Tom made the assumption that the two wings are symmetrical and so details were copied from one side to the other. Easy, simple, no hustle, just let’s get it over with really fast. He was wrong.

 

Well as usual with the real MiG’s there is only one trim tab on the ailerons. ONLY THE LEFT WING HAS IT!

So what you need to do is sand down and fill the engraved lines and trim actuator bump on the right wing (Part B1). Next a trailing edge extension would have to be added where the cut out for the trim-tab is on the kit. Sand this down/ to shape and polish the surface.

Easy! But it is time and work that should have been done by designer.

 

g7qjjqK.jpg

 

 

TUE86UG.jpg

 

The IFF antennas are fairly big items on a real aircraft and of course aerodynamically positioned in line with air stream. In case of Airfix they are small bumps and look outboard for unknown reason. (Airfix claims that the design team did look and note details, returned several times to the real aircraft apart from the 3D scan) The solution is simple, cut the antennas off, sand / polish and replace them with a suitable alternative pointing in the right direction. But why didn’t the designer do this?

 

 

Speaking of the antennas. The MiG-17 had the inverted “T” shaped RV antennas of the radio altimeter, one on each wing (inboard near the wing root on right side and outboard on left wing). They are completely missing here. The RV “T” antennas were around since MiG-15bis, basically all the way to this day on almost every Russian flying apparatus. Look at the photo they are fairly big things not only in comparison with the “undercarriage out” indicator but on their own. Airfix of course represents the very small undercarriage indicators in the kit, but the “T” antennas (about 3 times bigger) went unnoticed. (They had a very close look at the aircraft!)

 

 

ZIL6eT6.jpg

 

One can look in the spares box or some left overs on other photoetch sets for the “T” antennas or there is still the option of scratch building them from some stretched sprue. I think there is an aftermarket Co. making these specific “T” antennas in several scales. Remember you will need 2 of them.

 

 

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

"Airfix designer Tom made the assumption that...:

 

"He was wrong."

 

"Easy! But it is time and work that should have been done by designer."

 

"But why didn’t the designer do this?"

 

Best regards

Gabor

 

You leave me with the feeling there is something personal between you and this Airfix designer.

 

You made your point numerous times on many different forums, with sentences written in capital letters, bold letters, red letters, sometimes all 3 at the same time, that this kits was not at your taste.

 

I will not go that far saying "no kit is perfect then it should be accepted as is" but... I am curious as to what you want to achieve by repeating the same things numerous times here in there ("they had access to the real MiG-17 but they flawed, why, Why, WHY, etc") ?

 

I am genuinely curious.

Edited by Silver Seraph
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have no idea who this Tom is. Have absolutely nothing personal against him or anyone at that company.

 

Every designer, every kit producer company makes mistakes, there is no perfect kit! There is nothing new about this. The difference here is that a complete mess was made of the design even though a real aircraft was on hand to do what ever they wanted with it. A dream come true for a kit designer.

 

I think you are missing the point of the above post and of future instalments where I would like to help with corrections to the kit and share some details of the real aircraft.

 

There is now nothing to do with the kit as it is, it is produced, packed and will be in the shops. We have to live with it. :dontknow: I only have few ideas of what could be changed and corrected to make something more authentic from this given kit.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

The leading edge change in profile can be made with right sanding. The only problem here is that if you make the correct sharp leading edge on the inboard section then it will not meet up with the rounded wing root glove. It is not by accident that on the real aircraft the wing glove is also sharp in this area, this is the only way the wing can meet fuselage! So if you make the wing section correction you will have to make the wing root correction as well.

 

1JxOKqK.jpg

 

 

4vza2LM.jpg

 

So the wing root is next step. Here a lot of cutting and sanding to be followed by some filling at the mid and after section to give back the right wing root profile. The wing to fuselage glove is sharp at front and first third of its length after which it goes more rounded.

 

The wing top profile correction is a bit more tricky. One will have to remove the inner wing fence, it will be in the way when sanding. At least the inner fence, but I would take them all off and replace later with appropriate height and thickness ones. A fairly big area needs to be filled to give back the wing the right aerofoil cross section.  Sanding, polishing, re-scribing panel lines and making those wing fences.

 

While making wing top profile corrections one will inevitably sand down the “undercarriage down” indicators since they are in the way. Nothing is lost! Simply drill a small hole and later, preferably after all painting is complete add the indicators rods from stretched sprue. Paint it alternating red/white.

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

More tip on what one would need to change to make a decent MiG-17.

 

The engine.

 

One can say that nothing is visible of it. Yes, it is possible, but Airfix makes this even more difficult in that they have moved the turbine stage completely to the back of the fuselage so it is very much visible. Actually they positioned the turbine stage almost to the same airframe location as where the airbrake starts.

 

OK, the location of the turbine stage is wrong and it is more visible but it is also a completely wrong engine. What Airfix is giving us is basically the Russian copy of the non-afterburning WW2 era Rolls-Royce Nene engine. It has a conical centre body with four radially arranged spacers supports holding it.

 

Io19qv3.jpg

 

 

srcmxHE.jpg

 

The most important difference of the MiG-17F in comparison to its predecessors was the introduction of the first afterburning engine with the prefix of F standing for Forsirovannuj / afterburning and lending the letter F to the aircrafts designation MiG-17F.

 

 

The afterburning engine had a completely different turbine stage with centre body as well as a flame holder ring. Of course it should be much further back as well but this would be the less of our problems. Here one will have to do some scratch building as I don’t know of any aftermarket manufacturer making an afterburner version of this engine in 72nd scale.

 

 VKk4ILa.jpg

 

Best regards

Gabor

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a kit that will cost about $15 US I think this is likely blown a tad out of proportions. I realize it is likely a favourite of yours, but Airfix is trying to sell thousands to slap together builders, not hundreds to enthusiasts...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gabor.

 

Many thanks for providing us "Enthusiasts" with those very interesting and illustrated  comments about this stellar Airfix product. If we could evaluate the time you devoted to them , I am sure we would reach much more than 15$.

Keep on with this nice work , and please...give us news from your MiG-21MF...

Your comments on this little MiG-17 are worth the price of some less detailed books we could find in the "Specialised press !....

Madcop :thumbsup::cheers:

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...