Jump to content

Zvezda Mig-29SMT - Underway, but not without some doin'!


Recommended Posts

A challenge is one thing, but sometimes you just run into something that’s just difficult for no reason, and it seems as if the designers can be heard sitting in their conference room snickering “Hah! Let them figure THIS out!”

 

Sadly, the Zvezda Mig-29 SMT is one such kit. Don’t get me wrong; it’s a nice enough looking kit, and all the weapons and features it has still make it cool. However, there are some design choices that break the “questionable” boundary and spin off into the void of unnecessary complexity. A perfect example of this latter kind of design are the intakes on Zvezda’s lumpy Fulcrum.

 

I know a lot of people were eager to see this one built, so I thought I’d best warn everyone that this is one Fulcrum that might push YOU past the tipping point! Check out my build report below, and don’t say I didn’t warn you about this one!

 

https://adamrehorn.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/mig-29smt-update-more-work-than-it-ought-to-be/

 

mig-29-smt-039.jpg?w=400

Edited by Faust
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh,

 

Sorry to say but to me your article is quite monotone in complaining... 

 

Ok if you want a seamless intake you'll have to do some surgery, however i think the breakup of parts is well thought. The weird seam on the outside of the intakes was minimal, something what a small blob of surfacer 500 would solve immediatly. 

 

I gleud the top wings on the bottom with the top fuselage only dryfitted. Which only benifitted my approach at that time, but afterwards the top fitted nicely with nearly no seam to touch up.

 

The only thing is that the should add some more detail to the cockpit. So it's possible to paint all detail without working with decals only... 

 

In the end, to me it's a very willing model and certainly will buy more...

 

Sorry you had a hard time but not all of your criticism is appropriate if you ask me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's your take. You've seen mine. 

 

My feeling is though, given that this is a pretty modern and relatively expensive kit, that there's a lot of ways that Zvezda could have done the intakes better. With such a long seam and no real positive location, getting things to line up right is not that easy. I've built a tonne of kits, and this is the only one I've seen that had intakes that were this odd. If you can do those intakes with a little spot of Mr. Surfacer, then I applaud you. However, I am building this kit, not you, and I found the intakes rather tricky. You can see from the pictures that it took more than "a blob" of Mr. Surfacer. Now, they look fine when done, but it's getting there that's a pain in the burner cans...

 

I don't disagree that the parts breakup is well thought out, but again, it conveniences Zvezda, not the builder. A good kit can do both. A perfect example, as I cited, is the Hasegawa Valkyries. They have lots of different variants, some catered to by different wings, or noses, or whatnot. However, in those cases, the applicable assemblies are either given as new parts, or extra parts. the integrity of the Super Ostrich/Elint Seeker wing isn't broken up by just making the wingtips different pieces. Hasegawa gives you whole new wings that are appropriate. Same for the 1 vs 2-seaters; It's not just a bit of a stretch, it's a whole new nose. The SMT could have been engineered the same way. 

 

When a company makes life hard for the modeller because it's easy for them, I take exception to it. I take more exception on a newer kit that clearly is great in many ways, but disappoints where it shouldn't. You wouldn't want to hear my take on things like Kittyhawk kits where you have a seam on the canopy glass that has to be sanded down. That's equally inexcuseable. 

 

See, for me, the cockpit detail doesn't matter. At 1/72, I don't think you can see much, and I close my canopies. So, I don't care if the interior is great or not. I do care if the kit fits together well and makes sense. To me, an old Matchbox makes more sense than this thing. But again, that's my call, not yours. 

 

Criticism is like beauty, don't forget; it's a personal thing. 

 

To me, their Yak-130 is even worse. It's a friggin' puzzle. You'll really hate it when I write that one up! 😉

 

At the end of the day, it's as simple as this: It looks like a Tamiya but builds like a mid-'80s MPC. It's still the only game in town, I think, for this airframe, and I'm glad I've got it, but I was surprised it was as tough as it was. Since I figured others might want to know these pitfalls about it, I wrote it up. If others have better luck, then I'm very glad that I'm the one who had trouble, rather than someone else. 

 

Edited by Faust
Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, Faust, I've got the Zvezda Yak-130 in my stash, to be done next.  Now you've got me wary...

 

Having said that, and having read your blog and posts here, I can relate to a manufacturer designing slip-shod parts and executing infuriatingly slack engineering.  Kitty Hawk, are you listening?

 

Case in point, take the new beautiful Tamiya P-38 F/G.  Just superb engineering, hyper-logical build processes and execution. I'm no expert on any aviation, nor have I served in the military.  I just like to build models and this Tamiya offering is an amazingly well designed kit and worth every penny it's sold for.  Like others have said, it literally falls together, and once it's together, it's solid.  After I had the whole thing built but not painted I accidentally dropped it onto the floor.  It survived the ordeal without a single part falling or breaking off!

 

So, imagine going from that precision and dedicated thoughtfulness to my current build, the Yak 28P Firebar by Bobcat Models.  Granted, it's a relatively new company from China and has not yet established a comparable depth of catalog, like Tamiya but a few other online know-it-alls made it sound like it was a pretty decent looking, at least in box-opening reviews so I figured, why not?

 

Now that I'm about a third of the way along with the Firebar it's clear that this kit is far from Tamiya-level accuracy, mold quality, or fit.  The styrene is coarse, rough, and thin, although the surfaces of most of the larger pieces has nice rivet details.  Connecting points are weakly designed and almost non-existent in some areas. I can't comment on scale accuracy, but that doesn't really matter too much to me. The instructions are flat and two-dimensional, very basic and seemingly put together as an afterthought with a goofy fold-out section at the back.

 

I agree with Faust that sometimes manufacturers seem to be gleefully deriving sadistic pleasure from making engineering so-called 'solutions' on some parts that are idiotically complex or paradoxically ill-fitted and sloppy.  I mean, it is that hard to have an editor on hand to review and correct parts labeling mistakes or omissions? Does anyone actually build their models before they leave the plant?  

 

Tamiya is an industry standard that is hard to beat in most cases;  it's too bad many other manufacturers don't follow suit and aim for building clarity rather than expediency and mediocrity.  If your product is second-rate, revise it and make it better, or get out of the biz. Life it too short to be saddled with crappy models

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Yak: I haven't written it up yet, but it does NOT brook any change in the order of assembly. Which sucks, because to me, it's illogical. There are too many things that go inside other things to fit around other things. It reminds me of a  really badly executed MG Gundam (although I'm not sure there is such a thing). It's amazing engineering, but what's the point when it makes the build tedious and difficult? I know you know what I mean!

 

I love the Firebar as a plane, and I have an old A-Model of it. I'm going to stick with it, because some A-Models are total garbage (Anakonda... that's you I'm staring at) and some (like the Firebar) look okay. well, sorry, mine's a Brewer, the "PP" version. I definitely won't bother with the Bobcat! By the way, wasn't "Bobcat" the name for the super-simple Heller kits, like my Harrier T.4 (you can find it on my site)? Seems to bode ill.

 

I don't mind a crappy fitting kit. I know what I'm in for when I bust out a Matchbox or a Heller, and I'm good with that, because that challenge is part of what I'm looking forward to: Can I make a silk-ish purse out of this sow's ear?  However, if I get a nice-looking new kit, I expect it to behave as such. 

 

I agree, life is too short to have models be crappy when you don't want them to be! :)

 

(Let's face it, a good MPC kit would just make me question the entire fabric of reality!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say it like that but judging by all the glue marks on your Mig-29 I dont think the problem is the kit.

I have build one of Zvezdas Mig-29s (not the SMT version) but I can not remember it being difficult in any way. Some shapes just require multiple parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see where you're coming from, Ventris, and I know exactly what is implied. I don't disagree that, indeed, the evidence woudl point to a certain ham-fistedness on my part!  There were folks who said the same when they saw the underside of the wings on my Spitfire F.22. 

 

However, you can see from my website that I build a lot of different kits, and not all of them are very good kits right from the get-go (although that Academy Stuka was amazing!). Still, while I'm no IPMS Nationals winner, I do think I'm a competent modeller. My range of experience (especially in 1/72) from Farpro to Matchbox to Academy, (new and old) Airfix and now Zvezda, gives me,  I would say, at least sufficient credit to be able to be given the benefit of the doubt on some things. And, I do think I can get some pretty good results from some rather poor and dodgy kits. So, while I may appear to be all thumbs to some in this case, I think it's fair to say that I actually do know what I'm doing. 

 

Not everyone has had the trouble I had. I'm glad of it. I'm in total agreement that some shapes need multiple parts, too! However, for me, it's just HOW the intake is split up that made it difficult to deal with. Again, they tend to get fancy when it's not necessary; the Yak-130 is proof to me of that...

 

That's the good (and bad, sometimes) thing about modelling, or any art, really: Everyone is going to be good and bad at different aspects of it. I've built some kits that others have said were unbuildable and that they abandonned (my Monogram GTA is one such, and the Ford Probe gave a lot of people issues, too, it seems), but I was able to complete. It just so happens that I'm not on the same page as Zvezda on how to get this thing assembled easily, and I think they could have done a better job making it behave more like the Tamiyas and Hasegawas they're trying to compete with. 

 

I have no doubt all this will clean up fine and will look good when I'm done. I just wish I, personally, hadn't found it so pointlessly complicated. I wanted to put my impressions up here because they were so different from what I expected, and I wanted others to get a less-than-ravingly-positive perspective. I'm not going to believe I'm the  only person on this planet that found parts of this kit needlessly tough. 

 

 

Edited by Faust
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I find this article rather amusing. Even more so, because you build a rather big number of models per year and I would expect "approach" with a little more skills. Thing is, There's at least two good reasons why Zvezda decided to split the intakes in such way (and IIRC they did the same with their Flanker models). One is, that with two piece intake, you can mould intake walls much thinner if you would make them one piece. OK, you're right, they could be made out of two halves with the split down the middle but what would that solve? Nothing. What it would add, would be a nasty seam quite visible down the middle of the interior while the current solution practically hides the seam from the prying eyes. And truth be told, it is completely easy to glue those intakes together. The fit is really good and all you have to do, is fix one piece to lower body of the aircraft with some tac material (like Blue or UHU Tac) so they will hold steady and then attach the other half and glue and let it settle in the desired position. And that if, you're clumsy. I haven't used Tac on any of my two MiGs that I've built so far.

 

You're mentioning you've lost a lot of detail, but simple truth is, there are just a few straight panel lines in those areas, so again an easy rescribing job if you mess things up.

 

The cockpit side parts, while you correctly defined are designed to cater for different subversions, while not perfect, don't require much putty if you glue them correctly alligned. And with water soluble putties on the market, it's an easy and clean fix.

 

I really don't understand what your take on this kit is? I think it's a great kit and best MiG-29 on the market in 1:72 scale. You are complaining about things, Zvezda designed so to improve the kit and might need a little bit of modelling skill to overcome and at the same time wish for Matchbox thickness??? I bet you can still find cheap Italeri and ICM Fulcrums models on the market and maybe build those and leave the accurate ones to us?

 

And if you're not convinced, here's my take on the build:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's fine. I'm glad yours went easily and apparently I'm an idiot. 

 

However, I really did find it very difficult to get the intakes to hold together, and that's just how it was. I agree it does give nice thin pieces, and I'll try the blue tack thing on the Su-33 I have.

 

I agree the Mig is a nice kit, and I do agree that it's likely the best one on the market, especially as value for weapons and decals goes. You cannot, absolutely not, beat Zvezda there. I will always support Zvezda in that regard. 

 

But, like I said, I just found the unconventional way of putting the intakes and nose on to be jarring and caused me problems. Like I also said, I can't believe I'm the only one on Earth who had this trouble. I'm just here to warn people about it. Now I know it's like that, and I've got hindsight, there are a couple ways to jig the intakes quickly to get them to stay while I glue them, but I was on a schedule with the MiG and needed to get things underway. I still don't like such thin surfaces as locating surfaces though. 

 

I think part of what confuses people is that my desire for what a model is is different than most. I don't care if things are "scale thickness" or not. What I want is a model that has a good profile and looks good finished, on a shelf. I really don't care if every little bit is finely reproduced. Most 1/72 models are seen at a couple feet away, and that's what I like a kit to focus on. That's why I love Matchbox and Heller stuff. It helps they're also built like tanks, because they're stronger and easier to transport. To me, "modelling skill" is taking something crappy and making it look good. I find it disconcerting when a kit makes me walk on tenderhooks to try and assemble it. 

 

I don't know what else to say. I've worked on far cruder kits with no problem, and I've worked on even finer kits with no problem. This one just gives me heartburn, and the Yak-130 does to. 

 

It's not a debate, it's a perception, and for me that's reality, so that's really all there is to it. 

 

If people aren't put off by the intakes or the (to me totally unnecessary) wingtip additions and the cockpit doesn't bug them, then good-o for them. If people see my article and think "Okay, gotta watch for that" and are forewarned, then I've done my part. 

 

When you see it done, you'll see none of this stuff is a show stopper. It's just annoying, like something I'd expect from an old AMT car kit; it's complexity that I can't personally see was necessary, and you'll never convince me it was. 

 

So, in conclusion:

 

a.) It's a good-looking, generally good-fitting kit.

b.) It has lots of cool stuff with it. Definitely A+ for that.

c.) It has good detail on and in it, even if some is a bit fiddly.

d.) There are parts I find oddly and problematically engineered, like the intakes, wingtips and cockpit sides. I feel these are unnecessarily complicated and could have been engineered better. 

e.) Even with the issues in d.), you can get this kit looking very nice, and every inch an SMT. 

f.) I wanted people to see that it's not flawless, even though it looks like it in the box. There are hidden challenges for some. If you're not challenged by it, good on you.

 

Hope this makes things clear. 

Edited by Faust
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

From a to f, If they are all shake and bake, where would the challenge be then...

 

I just think if you start critiqueing kits online, and even more when (to me) there were more negative things than positive, you should take in account that you damage someones bussiness reputation. What's your gain? You want to point out that... what's the gain? Nothing...

 

Then you mention the Yak-130 is even worser. In this thread alone where only a couple of people reacted, there is at least one person losing it's mojo to build that kit because of your comment. Crudely now I think your opinion is of no value as you only point out what in your view is wrong If you had a positive mindset, you had taken the effort of adding your ingenious way to conquer the drawbacks you encountered...

 

Maybe I'm too judging now, and it could also be that you jumped to fast into it and came out frustrated, but then again maybe also to fast with critiqueing it online...

 

Anyhow I'd like to say that I don't want to give you a negative feeling with this writing, but want to point out that you should think before smudging a model compagny online... if they were matchbox like in these times, you might have been rightious to speak 😉

 

Greetings!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, this is getting out of hand. 

 

Firstly, I'm not here to ruin anyone's "mojo" or wreck any company's reputation. I am a single modeller. I write reviews for (what's supposed to be) fun. Remember how opinions are like the final sphincter in the digestive tract? Yeah. 

 

So, just a few things. 

 

1.) I put up the info I have in case someone finds it useful. If someone doesn't that's fine. If someone disagrees, that's fine too. I DON'T CARE. I'm not trying to win anyone over to anything. 

 

2.) It's a perception of mine these things on the MIG are bad. Others don't find them such. Cool. 

 

3.) What's the point of critiquing something if you don't point out what you find bad? That's what a lot of reviewers I've seen do. They only say good stuff. Life is good and bad. Nothing is perfect. There's no point wasting everyone's time with just another rehash of what's good about something when there are pitfalls I feel should be pointed out. In fact, you contradict yourself: You mention that I'm too negative, but then say "if they were all shake-and-bake, where would the challenge be then". I agree, but you're saying some challenge is good, but I shouldn't point it out? What?

 

I will never back down and I will never be beholden to anyone when it comes to critiquing something. EVER.

 

4.) If Zvezda's reputation is irrevocably harmed because I didn't like their intakes, then a.) I'm a God, which is scary or b.) they were really shaky to start, which I doubt. Oh, c.) They could have done it differently, maybe. 

 

5.) If someone "loses mojo" because I say a kit is difficult, then they shouldn't be building it in the first place! I have kits that are challenging (The Mig and Yak both) and in ways I consider unnecessary. I still fought through them and they both look good. If someone decides to do something on the say so of a stranger, that's not my problem. Nor yours. That's theirs. 

 

6.) You say my being negative is serving no point. No, I disagree. Counterpoints are always valuable. If you don't like something, and you don't make it known, how do you expect any change? How can you expect others to know that perhaps what they feel is bad isn't just them? No... counterpoints and "negativity" is how humanity grows, learns and improves. All of us. 

 

7.) You say not to damage reputations or say negative things, then slag on Matchboxes, saying criticism is warranted there. However, I have old modelling columns in Air Enthusiast magazines from back in the '70s that praise the Matchbox kits of the day as amazing. So, you see, what's good and bad is a function of the reviewer, the times, the competition. I think people are unfairly mean to Matchbox kits, but I don't whine about it. I build them, slag on their bad points and show you can make them look nice. That's more valuable, in my mind, than just saying they're old and bad and ignoring them. 

 

In my perception, I'm the one being attacked here, for offering a dissenting opinion about a model. I've seen this from British folks when you dare speak ill of an Airfix, even when warranted. It's dumb. I've had people essentially say that I'm a bad modeller who can't handle this kit, that my skills are poor, and that I'm a threat to companies' reputations. That's rubbish. 

 

At the end of the day, we're talking about a small, plastic TOY airplane. It's a hobby. If it's so life and death that you can't brook a dissenting opinion, then in my mind maybe you take it too seriously. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize if I may have offended you but yeah, you are right - everyone is entitled to their opinion. I much prefer reasonable "scale thickness" than a clunky piece of plastic - same goes for a visible seam against invisible seam. If that means I have to use my brain and skills to solve the problem, even better. I love such challenges and building many short run kits has made love the challenge. Maybe my point that intakes are ok is wrong because of that?

If you'll read my review, you'll notice I have exposed a few problematic areas as well - for example, Zvezda's QC  failed to notice they forgot to engrave the over exhaust fairings, which they've beautifully rendered on their first released 9.13 version.

 

But reading your last post, I see a contradiction to your claim.

17 hours ago, Faust said:

So, you see, what's good and bad is a function of the reviewer, the times, the competition. I think people are unfairly mean to Matchbox kits, but I don't whine about it. I build them, slag on their bad points and show you can make them look nice. That's more valuable, in my mind, than just saying they're old and bad and ignoring them. 

 

I perfectly agree with you, but contradiction is, that in case of this MiG kit, you provided only a complaint and haven't looked for, or posted for solution. Simple dry-fit of those intakes immediately shows they may be tricky to assemble. I have, in response to your complaint, provide a solution that I didn't even try yet but should reasonably work. And I think this is one of the main reasons why your post triggered such a response as it did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sebastijan said:

I apologize if I may have offended you but yeah, you are right - everyone is entitled to their opinion. I much prefer reasonable "scale thickness" than a clunky piece of plastic - same goes for a visible seam against invisible seam. If that means I have to use my brain and skills to solve the problem, even better. I love such challenges and building many short run kits has made love the challenge. Maybe my point that intakes are ok is wrong because of that?

If you'll read my review, you'll notice I have exposed a few problematic areas as well - for example, Zvezda's QC  failed to notice they forgot to engrave the over exhaust fairings, which they've beautifully rendered on their first released 9.13 version.

 

But reading your last post, I see a contradiction to your claim.

 

I perfectly agree with you, but contradiction is, that in case of this MiG kit, you provided only a complaint and haven't looked for, or posted for solution. Simple dry-fit of those intakes immediately shows they may be tricky to assemble. I have, in response to your complaint, provide a solution that I didn't even try yet but should reasonably work. And I think this is one of the main reasons why your post triggered such a response as it did.

 

See that is different. I prefer something clunkier but more able to withstand handling and/or modification. That's one think I like about Matchboxes - you can mod them and they'll take it easily. 

 

I prefer to use my "modelling brain" (which, as we know, is a special thing it seems is unique to modellers) to figure out ways around crappy engineering altogether. I use it a lot on older Gundam kits (and sadly some new ones) where there are "built-around" assemblies. I'll spend hours figuring those out. However, I don't like having to do that; again, it's just laziness on Bandai's part; shoddy engineering. 

 

Again, what people like or not is up to them. However, I don't like puzzles (save crosswords). I like something I can re-engineer or do out of sequence and still have work. The intakes, and indeed the Yak-130, are not like that for me. 

 

I spent 2 hours screwing with those intakes - the most time I've spent on anything on a non-short run, non-modified plane. If it's a short run kit, okay, I get it and I'm fine with it. I think my frustration was because it ISN'T a short run kit, and I expected less "short-run-ness" from it! 

 

This isn't an engineering review. I didn't figure I had to present a solution. I still don't have one. This was just a review of the kit as I found it. The only good solution I'd found to the problem (after hours of pondering) was to just "do it" and clean the mess up afterwards. 

 

I still don't get why I "triggered" any response. I post lots of reviews of kits that aren't great. Check my Aoshima/Farpro reviews! Of course, those are straight dogs, but still, you expect that, I guess. I will never get why my posting what I find to be bad/hard/disappointing should "trigger" anything other than a polite "thanks for the warning" or "Oh, here's how I did it". I thought we were supposed to help and support each other, not tear one guy down because you didn't like his opinion on something. 

 

Regardless, all I can hope is that my pointing out these (to me) difficult areas helps someone not be taken by surprise and either try your method or come up with another they can share here so we can all benefit! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faust said:

 

 

Regardless, all I can hope is that my pointing out these (to me) difficult areas helps someone not be taken by surprise and either try your method or come up with another they can share here so we can all benefit! 

 

I can say I'm thankful for this particular hint. I too hadn't heard about any problems on this area and after having fiddled with my kit for several times during the years (but without really starting to build it) I wasn't expecting anything like this with the intakes. So, always good to know there might be a problem!

 

People have their preferences and perceptions and sometimes it's hard to understand what they are based on. Having "your" kit criticized isn't always taken lightly either. As a model kit I really do like this particular Fulcrum kit and could never return to say Italeri one. Also, I know I really can't understand why some prefer HB's 1/48 MiG-31 over the AMK one (a lot of this has to do with my past experiences with Trumpeter kits and bad shape issues on many HB kits). Still, ironically perhaps, it seems I've found some problematic areas on the said AMK kit that nobody other had found before me. And I still like it! 

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...