hemspilot Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Looking into adding this to my collection of models. I know that the original molds are from ESCI. Someone had a pretty accurate review but I cannot seem to find it at this time. L&M Models also had a conversion/correction set and there's one now available on EvilB, any word on these? Thanks in advance, roberto. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
4scourge7 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I was doing one and couldn`t find a review (which doesn`t mean that it doesn`t exist). Average kit, some areas are pretty basic such as the undercarriage, but it goes together okay and looks mean. Dropped mine just before decalling, and don`t know when repairs will begin, if ever. If I do repair her then she`ll have to be `gear up` which would be no bad thing! Cheers, Ian (PS- by all accounts Iraqi camo was grey/green not sand/green as per Italeri instructions. Other versions are USSR and Libya) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
meindert Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 This is how I made my Blinder model, got some improvements too... http://www.xs4all.nl/~designer/models/blinder/blinder.htm regards Meindert Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 MoFo had a good list of the kit's shortcomings in >>>THIS<<< post. If you're not worried about the inaccuracies, though, it builds up into a pretty impressive model. I've seen a couple of them at shows. It's big! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 ^ That's the Backfire, not the Blinder. I haven't really looked into Blinder issues... yet... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bavarian Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 You could find the reviews HERE: http://www.cybermodeler.com/index.shtml Just scroll down a little bit.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 (edited) There is a review of the Italeri boxing, a review of the Revell boxing and a build article on the German site Modellversium.de. The reviewer of the Revell boxing is the same person that built the kit. He identified two major short-comings. The first is the barely noticable "wasp waist design" (I'm sorry, but the correct term eludes me) of the fuselage. The other one is the too sharp sweep of the wings. They're too pointy! (Gee, this is hard work doing this in English ) (EDIT: I found out: the angle is too acute!) That's why the main gear containers on the wings are not parallel to the fuselage. He suggests gluing the leading edge to fuselage, then aligning the wheelbays and filling the now obvious gap with plastic sheet. Minor issues are the shape of the engine cowlings, the panel lines on the wings and the somewhat skinny boundary layer control fences... Hope, this was of help! Edited July 25, 2006 by ChernayaAkula Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vesper Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Wasp waist? Oh yeah, Area Rule. Ves Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bavarian Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Wasp Waist = Means = looks like a Coca cola bottle shape. Bottle, not can! :D Yes, the Area Rule- Fuselage and Wings together.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mandrake Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 By far the biggest problem with the Esci/Italeri/Revell Tu-22B is that it has Tu-22K nose!!!! For those unware wth the variants the Tu-22B was essentially a conventional bomber version whereas the Tu-22K was the missile carrier, with a centreline semi-recessed bay. Now the Esci/Italeri/Revell Tu-22B features the conventional bomb bay of the Tu-22B but has the much larger and very distinctively bulged nose of the Tu-22K. Now I have read it was in theory possible to convert a Tu-22K back into the conventional bombing role overnight if required , but in practice I'm not sure this was ever really done and evidence of the semi-recessed bay would still be vissible. So basically if you build it OOB you get a rather obscure and not really plausable (certainly not in Libyan markings) sub-variant. Apparently there was a mix up with the noses in the orignal Esci toolings so that their Tu-22K (actually labelled as a Tu-22B, check the box arts) which was is not the one re-issued by Italeri/Revell has the smaller conical nose of the conventional bomber! I should point out I don't have this early boxing so cannot confirm this for sure. Speaking of the nose area, the bomb sight canoe fairing should be moved backwards to be in line with the side windows, which may also require modification. This means you have to cut off/reshape the rear of the fairing otherwise it encroaches into the nose gear bay, though if your rarely going for accuracy they whoel bay should probably be moved back anyway! Oh and if you do move the fairing be sure to rescribe the downward ejection seats panels in the appropriate positions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flanker Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 LM produce Tu-22B conversion (and correction) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 The Esci/Italeri/Revell Tu-22 kit looks as much like a real Tu-22 as I look like Robert Redford :lol: All the parts are there - just not necessarily in the right proportions !! B) Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Yuri Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 (edited) Wasp Waist = Means = looks like a Coca cola bottle shape. Bottle, not can! :P :lol: Yes, the Area Rule- Fuselage and Wings together.... But why did Coca cola apply area-rule to their bottles? Are they expected to fly past mach 1? :) No, seriously, where can LM conversion sets be found in western Europe? Edited July 25, 2006 by Yuri Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flanker Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 sorry dont know this but you can ask Mr LM (Tihomir Likso) find his email on his site http://www.lmresin.com/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 (edited) ^ That's the Backfire, not the Blinder. I haven't really looked into Blinder issues... yet... ...right, now that I *have* taken a closer look at the kit, here's my thoughts on the deficiency list. Note that this is after a cursory examination and comparison with scale drawings (essentially the ones from the Russian drawings site). I'm not suggesting it's exhaustive or conclusive, and I'm not convinced the drawings are entirely accurate (haven't done comparisons with photos yet), which means some of the issues may be overblown. But it'll give an idea of the fundamental faults. I'll also refer to three photos. This view of the real thing: Fanakit's build of the kit in quiestion (OOB, AFAIK): And the Strim/Stream/Streem master: In doing so, I am in no way disparaging anyone's previous builds (and particularly not Fanakit's), it's just an easy way to illustrate shape issues with the kit. Lastly, if you want to do an OOB build, stop reading. Honestly, the kit looks pretty decent OOB (it's a better representation than the Tu-22Ms, IMO), and while I may do an all-out accurization of one, it'd look just as good on the shelf box-stock. A lot of the issues probably aren't worth fixing, and some of the more major ones are probably too serious to fix, so a straightforward build is a worthwhile option. Now all that said, starting with the fuselage in plan view: - Radome shape may be off. Drawings suggest a more bulbous bulge, but I think they may be a little too bulged, and the kit is close enough. . -DEFINATELY the wrong shape for export/bomber versions, though. - Fuselage is about an inch short. Plug between the fore/aft fuselage sections. - Wing too far aft (tip of the leading edge needs to move about 1cm forward) . -the sweep of the wing root/fairing is off too. Needs more sweep, which means entirely revising the fairing. Compare the Esci kit's wing root with the real thing or the Strim kit - the Esci root is much shorter. - Wing Leading Edge sweep is wrong. Again, needs more sweep - you'd need to rotate the edge at the tips back about 1cm. - Inboard flap at wrong angle (too swept). - Wheel nacelles may be too wide. . -also, if you're playing with the wing sweep, this will cause problems with the nacelles. Angling the wings back will make the nacelles toe-in, so they'll have to be removed/re-located. And they seem to toe-in a bit as-is. IMO, because of this it'd be easier to remove a triangular strip from the middle of the wing to fix the sweep, than to cut it from the root. - The nacelles are the wrong shape. They should be highly blended and aerodynamic; the kit is more like a box with two triangles at either end. (compare model with real thing) - No area ruled fuselage. This is the biggie (compare the almost parallel fuselage sides on the kit with the noticeable indentations on the real thing, and the straight line wing join on the kit vs. the curved one on the Strim master) . -The fuselage needs to be 'scooped' about 1 - 2cm total (half on each side) in the middle of the wing. This would also require mods to the wing fairings. . -Don't know if it's fixable without scratching a new fuselage (or large sections thereof). . - Ironic - the Tu-22M kits should have a bulge, but don't. The Backfire shouldn't have a bulge, but does (sorta). - Missing the prominent re-fuelling points(?) and radar bulge on spine. - Spine may be too wide as well (or too tall?) - Wing fences in the wrong location, and the wrong shape (far too short) - Engine Nacelles... another biggie. . - too long at front (essentially you'd need to cut off the NMF portion seen here) . - too tapered at rear - they should be more of a tube than a cone . - lacks the 'dip' in profile view (you can sort of see it here . - details are entirely wrong. . - exhausts are entirely inaccurate (diameter small, details wrong...). I wonder if some F-100 exhausts would work? - Wheel bulges on nacelles are too small (too skinny) - Tailplanes the wrong shape - sweep wrong, shape of tips off. - Tailplanes the wrong location. Move about 1cm aft. - Engine pylons entirely wrong. . - they should essentially mount to the root of the tail, with a large bulge at the leading edge; the kit has aerodynamic fairings on the sides of the tail. . - the pylons are also too wide-set, and would need chopped down to mount the engines closer together (compare kit shot with the real shot - note distance between nacell and aircraft centreline) Moving to the undersides... - Bomb aiming window/ejection hatch fairing looks too narrow. - Entire tail area too wide, not 'waisted' enough under engines. . - probably part of the area rule problem - basically, because the fuselage is too wide through the wings, the tail is too wide as it expands out. Instead of being a tube, front to back, with scooped out sides along the wings, it's a tube, through the wings, that bulges out around the tail. . - not a huge problem though - less visible than the area ruled fuselage. And in profile... -Bomber's side windows inaccurate shape (too short in length) - Pilot windows off (geometry's just a little out of whack) - entire clear section may be off - looks like it should be a little wider/deeper/more angled. - Main wheel pods (nacelles) wrong . -they're too tall above the wing, and too short below the wing. Essentially, you'd have to push them down. . - they're also the wrong shape in profile. - ECM radome on tail too small. - Gun too high/too tall? Also, if you want to do a later K-series plane, you'd need a replacement ECM tail. - End of engine fairing wrong (the other antennae above the radome) - Tail RWR too high, too long (should be set just below the tip of the tail) - Tail itself may be too tall. C'est tout. Now, looking through all of that, as I said, it'll look decent OOB. It looks more like a Blinder than the Backfire looks like a Backfire. If you want to fix things, plugging the fuselage and re-working the engine area will yeild the biggest results. I don't know that the wing geometry issues are serious enough to fix - I'll probably just extend the leading edge glove/fairing, and maybe revise the flaps. I don't think the sweep is worth the hassle. Otherwise, there are a number of relatively simple, relatively straightforward corrections/revisions you can make, and it's just a matter of how many you want to carry out, and how big you want the project to get. The lack of area ruled fuselage is the single biggest issue, and I don't know that it's fixable, or feasible. With what would be involved in correcting this area, you'd be better off scratchbuilding a new kit completely - you're essentially cutting the middle of the fuselage out and scratchbuilding a new one anyway. I know I'm not going to bother with it. And because the single biggest fault can't really be corrected, you could make a case that none of the other issues are worth doing, so if you want a Blinder, why not go OOB. Edited August 13, 2006 by MoFo Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Yuri Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 MoFo, you forgot another point: the relief tube is missing No, seriously, thanks for explaining all the problems of the kit. Btw, I knew there was a russian company working on a new Blinder, but I think they ran out of money. However if they went so far to build a master is there any chance we will ever see the kit? The master looks great! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 Btw, I knew there was a russian company working on a new Blinder, but I think they ran out of money. However if they went so far to build a master is there any chance we will ever see the kit? The master looks great! Oh, I really didn't know! Shame, if it will never materialize. Any similar rumours about 22M? Still would like to make one, but I've decided not to accept the s**t Italeri's offering us with its ex-ESCI kit. Trump, please give us the 22M!! And I don't mean the guy with the supernatural hairdo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Yuri Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 Any similar rumours about 22M? Still would like to make one, but I've decided not to accept the s**t Italeri's offering us with its ex-ESCI kit. I know what you are talking about! I started a "major surgery" process to bring the Esci Tu-22m2 to an almost accurate replica: plug here, cut there and so on. I think that instead of building it, I'm "rebuilding" it Most of the heavy work is done, but it's now months it's laying in a corner until I find again the will to finish it (maybe in a couple of years :) Anyway I'd be happy to set it aside for ever if Trumpeter makes a better kit! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 I started a "major surgery" process to bring the Esci Tu-22m2 to an almost accurate replica: plug here, cut there and so on. I think that instead of building it, I'm "rebuilding" it. Yeah, I recall talking about this subject with you and with some other guys already once. But not for the first time in ARC's history... Here we go again! Anyway, nice to hear that you tackled with it even this far. Just push it man, you'll get it finished! Such a beautiful bird! Such a crappy model in 1/72... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 Oh, I really didn't know! Shame, if it will never materialize. Any similar rumours about 22M? Still would like to make one, but I've decided not to accept the s**t Italeri's offering us with its ex-ESCI kit. That's the Stream master pic I posted above. Basically the guy who runs (is) Stream produced the patterns to do a 1/72 Tu-22, but lacks the funding or resources to produce the kit. Last I'd heard, they were casting around on the Russian web-sites for investors to bring it to market, but I doubt anything will come of it. Maybe it'd be marketable as a vac-form kit.... Interesting to note, I've taken a quick look at some pics of the Nova vac-form kit, and they seem to be closer in a couple of key areas than Esci were - the wing gloves are longer and more pointed, and the fuselage is waisted (slightly - may not be enough). So it MAY be worth considering bashing the Esci and Nova kits for an accurate Blinder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Yuri Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 (edited) Yeah, I recall talking about this subject with you and with some other guys already once. But not for the first time in ARC's history... Here we go again! :( Anyway, nice to hear that you tackled with it even this far. Just push it man, you'll get it finished! Well, I usually work this way (mainly when dealing with such long projects). Sometime, usually when most of the airframe is complete, my interest in the kit drops. Maybe because I worked too much on that kit or, as most of the more difficult things are done, the bigger "challenge" is over... Anyway, instead of forcing myselft to finish the kit (running the risk to ruin it with a hurried paint job) I simply put it aside (trying to keep all the smaller bits) in a place when it can't be damaged and move to something else. Then, when I finally get again the will the finish it, I retrieve it from the "boneyard" :blink: My record is an Italeri MiG-29 started when the kit first came out (around 1991) and 80% completed in a couple of months that I took again and finished in 2002 Yuri P.S. Now I have another Italeri MiG-29 (converted to a Fulcrum C, already painted and decalled) that's waiting since April the missing landing gear, canopy and some other smaller bits Edited August 15, 2006 by Yuri Quote Link to post Share on other sites
172flogger Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Hi, i have question about the original Esci Blinders. I googled and know there were two different kits. First kit was Esci no.9100 Tu-22 Bomber: boxart: http://www.toremmodellismo.it/images/MIEI%...CI/122_2259.JPG finished: http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/mod/krauseblinder.htm This kit is still available reboxed by Revell and Italeri: Revell instructions: http://www.revell.de/manual/04371.PDF Italeri parts: http://www.model-making.eu/italeri-1245-tu...p-1-113507.html and http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/it/kit_it_1245.shtml Second kit was Esci no.9098 Tu-22 Blinder B. It was a "Raketonosnyi", Ch-22 Missile Carrier: boxart: http://www.toremmodellismo.it/images/MIEI%...CI/122_2261.JPG preview: http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/korean/p...ci/esci9098.htm finished: http://www.xs4all.nl/~designer/models/blinder/blinder.htm and http://hsfeatures.com/tu22bd_1.htm The main differences are clear, there is an alternative sprue: Bomber variant have lower fuselage with bomb bay and bombs: http://www.cybermodeler.net/hobby/kits/it/...1245_parts2.jpg Blinder B missile variant have Ch-22 missile and lower fuselage without bomb bay: http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/korean/p.../esci/9098a.jpg But both versions has different nose cones. Is the only fifference deleted refueling probe, or is also different shape of the nose? Thanks Lukas Quote Link to post Share on other sites
4scourge7 Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 WOW...thread re-boot! I can only help with pics of my Blinder that finally got finished, Italeri re-boot. HTH Cheers, Ian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
modelmax Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 This is how I made my Blinder model, got some improvements too... http://www.xs4all.nl/~designer/models/blinder/blinder.htm regards Meindert Greetigns Sir, Just wanted to let you know that I ran across your build article a long time ago, and was immediately inspired to start work on my tu-22. Unfortunately for me, I ran accorss conflicting drawing references, and eventually gave up on the project. I still hope to complete it someday. the blinder is one of my favorite aircraft. I have wondered for the longest time how you build those ejection seats. Glad to see you're a fellow ARC'er. Thanks, Ernie A. 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.