Jump to content

Hasegawas Mig-23 Flogger studied in detail


Recommended Posts

hiya

while this kit is often lampooned as inaccurate, and sighted as poor next to Zvezdas MiG-23MF kit, I decided I would dig a little deeper, heres what i found, working back over the airframe:

*The nose is too conical for an M, and not conical enough for a true S

*The ILS antenna back from the nose is correctly placed for an early MiG-23M.

*The canopy is correct for an early MiG-23M: featuring a rearview mirror molded into the canopy, but lacking the centerframe.

*Intakes are correct for mig-23M, but too wide to be used for a MiG-23S.

*ILS antenna is located just infront of the tail, which is correct for a M

*Wings feature correct dogtooth for MiG-23M

*Underfuselauge pylons correct for Aphid missiles

*Underwing pylons are suitable for Atoll Missiles - again, verry common to early MiG-23Ms

*Speedbrakes are incorrect, though feature correct reinforcements

*Features correct single tailplane hinge for early MiG-23M

*Tailplanes correcty do not feature trimtabs as on early MiG-23Ms

*Exhaust is incorrect for either varients, being a tad too long

conclusion: Suprise! this kit is actually a pretty spot on representation of an early MiG-23M! :cheers:

A varient which is quite different to late model MiG-23Ms/MFs and MLDs. This kit turns out to fill a valuable gap for anyone who wishes to build a family of Floggers, and is far more suited than the later Zvezda kits.

Funnily hasegawa is correct in calling it a Flogger B, just not a MiG-23S! :lol:

:thumbsup:

Raymond

Edited by Raymond
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another take on the Hasegawa MiG-23 that was part of a review I did of all the 1/72 MiG-23 kits on the market for our club news letter, the main problem is the whole nose section, not just the radome.

To me it's not that the Hasegawa kit can not be made into a very nice looking model, other here have shown that it can be done, or that the Italeri / Zvezda is a "shake and bake" and free of problems, it's that there are so many inaccurate areas (especially the forward fuselage section) compared to the Italeri / Zvezda one that it is not the way to go. Now to be honest I was comparing it to late ML / MLD plans, was the forward fuselage on the M / MF (from the radome break back to the fuselage mating point) really shorter?

"Hasegawa – Released as a Mig-23S, Flogger B, which is not correct, as the S was the Flogger A, the pre-production fighter used for evaluation. The kit is a Flogger B, which equates to a Mig-23 M/MF, the M was the first production fighter, the MF was given to the export version. It is one of Hasegawa’s older, simpler kits and what panel lines are there, are raised. The cockpit is very crude and consists of a floor that is the top of the nose gear wheel well, a very crude seat and a completely inaccurate instrument panel with the details (ha) supplied by a decal. There are no side consoles or stick but they give you a pilot that was a stand-in during the filming of ‘The Blob’. Now the good news / bad news part. Good news - when compared against several set of plans from different Russian publications, starting at the front of the rear fuselage assembly on back, it is very close dimensionally. The wing outline is almost dead on and the horizontal stabilizers are also very close, the area where the trailing edge meets the fuselage extension requires some sheet styrene to fill it out. Now the bad news, the forward fuselage assembly that includes the radome is wrong in shape having too much of a taper to the radome that makes it look under size. Now the really BAD news, there are 12 scale inches missing in the area were the forward fuselage assembly mates with the rear, which in turns effects the length of the engine inlets. Speaking of which, the splinter plates are off in shape and have four intake flow “fences†molded onto them when it should be two, located on the inside of the outer wall of the inlet. But more serious is the inlets are off in shape when looking at them from the plan view, not having enough of the “coke bottle†effect. The vertical stabilizer is under size also but not to the extent that plagues the forward fuselage, it comes up about 3 inches short in height, 3 inches short in cord and 8 inches short at the tip of the root extension. The speed brakes are molded into the fuselage but are wrong in shape, especially the top pair. The speed brake actuator supports are also way out of scale. The two very prominent air scoops on top of the fuselage, forward of the speed brakes, are molded into the body and are crudely done. Armament consist of two R-23R (AA-7) Apex missiles and two (what I can only guess are suppose to be) R-60 (AA-8) Aphids. There is also a fair representation of the 23mm gun pack. The complicated landing gear is ok but the main gear tires are way under sized. Clear parts include a two-piece canopy; the rear section comes up 3 inches short and when combined with the other problems in this area there is a feeling of “stubbiness†to the whole front end. They do give you the two landing lights located in the bottom of the engine inlets. The sensor located under the nose, forward of the nose gear well, is of the small version that was fitted to a few of the early production aircraft but is undersize and not well represented, when I first was going over the kit I did not recognize the “lump†for what it was."

Regards

Jim Barr

Edited by Jim Barr
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're quite right about the overall dimensions that really do match well with the drawings. I'm now talking about the MiG-27, but I noticed these features in this kit as well. As we all know these aircrafts are closely related. The wings, the horizontal stabilizers and even the vertical tail are very close to the actual dimensions. That was a surprise for me, as I know how old the kit is. Also, it lacks lenght just where you said: between the front and back part of the fuselage and this was evident also in the 27 resulting that the intakes just seemed to be in a wrong place. That can be corrected though and so can the wrong shape of the airbrakes too. Not to mention many other issues I've tried to solve in my Flogger J modification.

I still argue that the Hasegawa kit is a nice starting point. IF you wanna do some scratch building... At least when talking about MiG-27, the Zvezda kit just seems more - like Andrew said - toylike. The pics I've seen of the constructed Zvezda MiG-27s just don't impress me much. There's something in the nose part, canopy and many detail parts, that don't work for me. In Hase kit many of detail parts are better made and if not, easy to modify. And I bet the fit is far more nicer in these Japanese kits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not address the MiG-27 issues as I have not researched that kit ( I have one but it is far down the build list)

Here is the Italeri / Zvezda that as I said does have "issues" and is not an easy build, but does (to me) capture the "look" of the 23 more then the Hasegawas kit.

Regards

Jim Barr

dsc005121fn.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any drastic mods here?

While I did add a ton of small detail bits there was only one real mod required. Here is part of my review of the Italeri / Zvezda MiG-23 MLD that cover it, (a pulg behind the radome).

"As to the kit, dimensionally from the radome break back it lays down almost to the nut on the plans, the radome is the correct shape but is 12 scale inches short so a plug is needed at the break line. Gee, also missing 12 inches, as did Hasegawa, but at least this one is easily fixed. The only real problem with the outline is the rear of the fuselage tapers too much from the back of the speed brakes to where it meets the exhaust nozzle which means the nozzle is also a bit too small in diameter. There is just no way to fix it, but IMHO this is only noticeable to the really anal of the rivet counters."

Regards

Jim barr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread really was about the MiG-23 M / MF here is my complete review of the Italeri / Zvezda MLD, and the differeces found in the Zvezda MF kit; (both are needed to honestly compare the Zvezda and Hasegawa offerings)

Zvezda – Has released two different Mig-23 kits, one a Mig-23 MF, the other a MLD. The MLD is the last of the line and can be identified externally by the “dogtooth†notch on the leading edge of the wing where it joins the fuselage, it has the smaller vertical stabilizer of the ML, and two small vortex generators on each side of the pitot tube. It is also the only version that carries the external mounted chaff/flare dispenser. It was reported that the outer wing panel pylon stations had been modified to swivel, but some Russian sources say that was never incorporated. This version saw a lot of action in their Afghanistan War. As to the kit, dimensionally from the radome break back it lays down almost to the nut on the plans, the radome is the correct shape but is 12 scale inches short so a plug is needed at the break line. Gee, also missing 12 inches, as did Hasegawa, but at least this one is easily fixed. The only real problem with the outline is the rear of the fuselage tapers too much from the back of the speed brakes to where it meets the exhaust nozzle which means the nozzle is also a bit too small in diameter. There is just no way to fix it, but IMHO this is only noticeable to the really anal of the rivet counters. Most of the panel line are there and are accurate, but they are of the dreaded raised variety. The cockpit is, if possible, even more crude in some areas then the Hasegawa kit, the seat is worst, (I mean they are both terrible), once again the top of the nose gear wheel well serves as the floor, there is a passable stick and the instrument panel is the approximate shape but there is no detail, they don’t even give you a decal. The two circular A-031 altimeter antennae bulges that first appeared on the ML are molded on the bottom of the fuselage and the two top fuselage scoops are separate parts and of the correct shape. The speed brakes are also molded as individual parts with nice in-scale actuator supports, and while they look good if positioned open, when closed the fit is poor requiring a lot of scraping and sanding to get them to fit into their openings and then puttying to fill the gaps. The inlet splinter plates are very close in shape and the intake flow “fences†are correct in number and location although they are on the “thick†side. While the inlets are correct in shape they are canted down at too mush of an angle, this can be corrected by a .015 shim at the bottom seam. Armament is the same as the Hasegawa kit, two R-23R (AA-7) Apex but with the more up to date APU-23M launch rails, plus they give you four of the R-60 (AA-8) Aphids along with the APU-60 launchers that hold two missiles each, the chaff/flare dispensers are there, along with a centerline drop tank, a nice 23 mm gun pack and four FAB 250 bombs and pylons. The landing gear is well done and the tires are the right size. The clear part include a one piece canopy that is a little thick, sits a little too high, and the front section is a little too short. Also there is the infrared sensor that is located under the nose, and a HUD, but no landing light as in the Hasegawa kit.

"The MF kit (same variant as the Hasegawa/Academy kits) has the proper large vertical stabilizer and the wing leading edges blend into the fuselage as they should. Everything else is the same as the MLD kit; even the chaff/flare dispenser is included but should not be used. There is one big problem (at least to me) with this kit; in order to portray this as a MF they replaced the bottom fuselage part with one that does not have the A-031 altimeter antennae bulges, which is as it should be, but one prominent feature of the bottom is the “crease†that is formed by the engine inlets merging into the fuselage that runs to a point behind the gear well, on the MF kit part the crease stops abruptly at the back edge of the gear well which is incorrect. And since the gear doors have the crease (as they should) they do not “fit†at the back edge as the fuselage crease has been eliminated at this point and the profile of the two do not mesh. To be accurate that crease needs to be there. ......so to get a correct bottom pop for the Italeri MLD for the fuselage bottom, you will have to sand off the A-031 altimeter antennae bulges but that is easy and you get good decal and instructions."

I still believe that Zvezda is the way to go for the most accurate Mig-23 M / MF kit out of the box, but you have to buy two kits to get there. So several things need to be considered as to which is the right kit for you: budget, ease of assembly (Hasegawa gets the nod), and accuracy. As I said earlier, you can get a nice looking model from the Hasegawa kit, it is just not the most accurate way to go IMHO.

Regards

Jim Barr

Edited by Jim Barr
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel vindicated! :D With work and some parts replacement, it's a good kit that I've always loved!

Hase was the basis of my kitbash in the gallery, where I spliced the basic airframe with lots of goodies from the Italeri kit (radome, tail, weapons pylons, etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya interesting info jim! :crying:

with the hasekit i wassnt to worried about comparing to scale plans, admittidly im far more concerned with shape errors over dimencional ones.

despite the kits flaws, i was delighted to find this kit is a better starting point for a MiG-23MS or early miG-23M than backdating the Zvezda MiG-23MF

for my hasekit in the progress forum i used a zvezda mig-23MF nosecone and exhaust which, mated pretty easily...

cameracrap016lc9.jpg

though if u place the hase nosecone upsidedown to whats reccomended, it can be made to look fine aswell:

for me the zvezda kit contains 2 glaring errors that annoy me alot more than the hase kit: the intakes are far to small, and the canopy is oversized and of wrong shape.

the zvezda mig-27 also suffers from incorrect intakes, and a redicusly small windscreen, and abnormally large canopy...which throws off the model alot more than the hasegawa one

Edited by Raymond
Link to post
Share on other sites
for me the zvezda kit contains 2 glaring errors that annoy me alot more than the hase kit: the intakes are far to small, and the canopy is oversized and of wrong shape.

Hmm......I can agree on the canopy but the intakes lay down right on the plans and as I mentioned have more of the proper 'coke bottle' shape then Hasegawa’s and to me it is the Hasegawa ones that are too short as they incorporate the missing inches that plaque the front section of the fuselage. Guess we will just agree to disagree. :)

the zvezda mig-27 also suffers from incorrect intakes, and a redicusly small windscreen, and abnormally large canopy...which throws off the model alot more.

Have just now started looking at the MiG-27 so will look into those areas, I do know that the Italeri kit is mislabeled as it is a K and not an M as stated on the box.

All the Best

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, see what you mean about the canopy on the 27. :bandhead2:

If you look at the photos you posted (especially the first set) you will see what I am talking about regarding the intakes. Compare the length on the ones on the Zvezda and Hasegawa kits starting at where the wing leading edge joins the fuselage and go forward to the front lip, I think you will see how stubby the Hasegawa ones look, IMHO.

Regards

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya

yep i can see that, also the hase cockpit shoudl probaby be back a bit.

..suppose its a tradeoff really! ::laugh

i agree zvezda is generally the more accurate in terms of dimensions and all the details, but the canopy and intakes really throw me.....so when i look at it, it stands out more

the hasekit to me generally looks better overall as in the pic (bar nose), though has lots of little errors are present.

personaly in my long tearm goal of having a flogger family of models...ill probaby endup using hase for the earlier varients, and zvezda for tha latter!

btw ur mig-23 is impressive, and the nicest result ive seen from zvezda :bandhead2:

Edited by Raymond
Link to post
Share on other sites

I originally bought the Zvezda/Italeri MiG-23 with very high hopes, and ended up VERY disappointed after a short time. Okay, so general outline was good, but everything else...all the details were so toylike...the landing gear, wheels, gear doors, cockpit, everything! Plus just something just rubbing me TOTALLY wrong about the scribing on the airframe. I took what I felt were the only redeemable parts and kitbashed them to a Hase kit, and the result is my MLD.

Yes, one man's trash is another man's treasure, and for some reason I just can't take the Zvezda at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What it really boils down to is we REALLY need a new state of the art MiG-23 / 27 family in both 1/72 and 1/48, sorry the 1/32 crowd can just wait, the other scales have been waiting a lot longer :cheers:

Regards

Jim Barr

The money would leap out of my wallet for several really good 1/72 Floggers. Maybe one day ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I took what I felt were the only redeemable parts and kitbashed them to a Hase kit, and the result is my MLD.

Hi Andrew,

I've seen your 'MLD, and it is very nice indeed. I think you used the Zvezda radome on the Hasegawa kit? How was the fit? I have a few spare ones from my Zvezda / Italeri MiG-27 kits...

Cheers,

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, one man's trash is another man's treasure,

That is very true and seems to apply especially well to this discussion; there are those who absolutely love the Hasegawa 23, even with all its problems and another group who are convinced that Zvezda is the route to take, warts and all.

I got to thinking about this after your post as to why the Hasegawa guys feel this way (as you can tell I am one of the Zvezda crowd) and I think I might have come up with a reason. I have seen some really good models made using the Hasegawa kit and one thing they seem to have in common is the remark "and I used parts X, Y, & Z form the Zvezda kit" yet I don't believe I have ever seen the reverse, "Yes Zvezda is the way to go but you need parts A, B, & C from Hasegawa". Let's look at you remarks on why you don't like the Zvezda kit:

Okay, so general outline was good, but everything else...all the details were so toylike...the landing gear, wheels, gear doors, cockpit, everything! Plus just something just rubbing me TOTALLY wrong about the scribing on the airframe.

Cockpit - from reading my take on both kits you can see that both kit have reached the cutting edge of crude, I mean there is just nothing from either kits cockpit that I can think of that anyone would use, no advantage to either.

Panel lines - both have the dreaded raised type and while Hasegawa’s are (to me) just a bit finer, they are very few and what ones are there are for the most part flat wrong. Zvezda on the other hand gives you most of the panel lines and for the most part accurate if not quiet as 'crisp' as the Hasegawa one. In the end it really doesn't matter as most that go to the trouble to really do the Flogger right will sand off the kit ones and re-scribe, so maybe Hasegawa has a small edge as they have less line to sand off :cheers:

"all the details were so toylike" - this one left me scratching my head, was I looking at different kits, to me it was just the opposite, this is one of Hasegawa’s early kits with not a whole lot of detail, the missiles were very crude, the rails were very basic, the speed brake actuators were way out of scale, the two prominent scopes for the engine were molded on and a very poor rendition of the real things, the gear doors were pretty basic, etc., etc. yet when I looked at the Zvezda counterparts, to me, they are almost always better and the ones I would use.

So what is it about the Hasegawa kit that endears it to its following, well I will concede that building right out of the box that there is no contest on how easy the build is compared to the Zvezda kit, but most go to so much trouble to improve the kit that that can not be the reason, and then it hit me holding both kits, maybe it’s the look and feel of the plastic. Yes Hasegawa’s plastic just feels and looks right, there is firmness to it, crispness to it, it does not have that funky look and feel you get with the Zvezda styrene with it’s off beat surface texture that does come across as toy like. I to would rather build using the Hasegawa styrene if all things were equal, be interesting to hear others take on this.

Regards

Jim Barr

Link to post
Share on other sites
I to would rather build using the Hasegawa styrene if all things were equal, be interesting to hear others take on this.

Regards

Jim Barr

The prettier box and Hasegawa's reputation don't hurt either.

Regards,

Murph

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...