Jump to content

Welcome to Large Scale Modeller: The home of the large scale military model builder. 

Sign in to follow this  
Sir Desmond Glazebrook

MiG 21 is 61 years in service. Thoughts on the MiG 21?

Recommended Posts

Mach 2 aluminium death trap. lol

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iconic and in some ways it still out performs it's successors. However, it's had it's day now.

Always felt it looked like the bastard offspring of a Starfighter and an EE Lightning!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a cool plane well worthy of a decent, non-Trumpeter rendition.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GazzaS said:

I think it's a cool plane well worthy of a decent, non-Trumpeter rendition.

 

Don’t discount the Trumpeter Migs, most are pretty good, there are definitely “A”, “B”, and “WTF” teams. The Mig 19 and 21 are really, really good. And I have proven you can even vastly improve the 15 and 17, and while the 23 and 29 have a few accuracy issues, I personally don’t consider it a deal breaker. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 1to1scale said:

Don’t discount the Trumpeter Migs, most are pretty good, there are definitely “A”, “B”, and “WTF” teams. The Mig 19 and 21 are really, really good. And I have proven you can even vastly improve the 15 and 17, and while the 23 and 29 have a few accuracy issues, I personally don’t consider it a deal breaker. 

I have three donor kits.  Donors because shit didn’t fit or because dealing with the mad riveter made them unpalatable.  Two of the three are Trumpy.  I’m a bit gun shy at this point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts on the MiG-21?

Full AB takeoff, suck up the gear, and congratulations, you’re now Bingo fuel.   Either tank or RTB.

Plus, it was, is, and will always be a CG sensitive little death trap.  

But, I guess if you only have pennies on the dollar to buy fighters, the Soviets were once giving them away like candy.  I suppose they were ok as a point defense weapon, if used exactly according to the book.  Veer one bit out of book numbers, you die a flaming death or learn parachuting skills.

I’d rather walk.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, GazzaS said:

I have three donor kits.  Donors because shit didn’t fit or because dealing with the mad riveter made them unpalatable.  Two of the three are Trumpy.  I’m a bit gun shy at this point.

I felt like the mad riveter, my Mig-15...

E424F048-491B-4F18-856D-A5017837050B.jpeg

2EF675E7-7A15-4126-A89F-20CD50DD7B51.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 1to1scale said:

I felt like the mad riveter, my Mig-15...

E424F048-491B-4F18-856D-A5017837050B.jpeg

2EF675E7-7A15-4126-A89F-20CD50DD7B51.jpeg

You did a great job on that.  I've heard a few horror stories about that kit. 

It's not just the depth and width of the rivets.  It's the ones that aren't perpendicular to the aircraft's skin that anger me the most.  They look oval once painted.

 

Gaz

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Clunkmeister said:

Thoughts on the MiG-21?

Full AB takeoff, suck up the gear, and congratulations, you’re now Bingo fuel.   Either tank or RTB.

Plus, it was, is, and will always be a CG sensitive little death trap.  

But, I guess if you only have pennies on the dollar to buy fighters, the Soviets were once giving them away like candy.  I suppose they were ok as a point defense weapon, if used exactly according to the book.  Veer one bit out of book numbers, you die a flaming death or learn parachuting skills.

I’d rather walk.

We spent all of that time and money worrying about the Reds.  Yet, everything they came up with was crap.  Though...  I'm glad we never had to find out how well their ICBM's worked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, GazzaS said:

We spent all of that time and money worrying about the Reds.  Yet, everything they came up with was crap.  Though...  I'm glad we never had to find out how well their ICBM's worked.

Agreed. Half of everything was always psyching out the other side. Mig-25 Mach 3 speed runs, MiG-21s to half the world, Reagan’s Star Wars programme, it always worked, up to a point. 

But I’d rather be playing mind games than throwing 147 grain pieces of lead at each other. 

I’d say the Kalashnikov rifle is the best utility rifle ever built. The MiG-31 is an amazing interceptor, the Tu-95 is the equal of the B-52, An-124s are moving all of the world’s oversized freight, and Soyuz was, is, and always will be the least expensive, most reliable man lifter in the world.   I actually admire Societ engineering. They made things that worked, not things that worked and cost gazillions to develop.

When the Soviets wanted to write on paper in space, they used a pencil, when Americans wanted the same, they spent millions developing a zero G ballpoint pen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was one for sale a few years back for something like 70k. It needed a bit of work, but man was I tempted to try and find some cash.  I woulda had a blast running the airshow circuit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clunkmeister said:

Agreed. Half of everything was always psyching out the other side. Mig-25 Mach 3 speed runs, MiG-21s to half the world, Reagan’s Star Wars programme, it always worked, up to a point. 

But I’d rather be playing mind games than throwing 147 grain pieces of lead at each other. 

I’d say the Kalashnikov rifle is the best utility rifle ever built. The MiG-31 is an amazing interceptor, the Tu-95 is the equal of the B-52, An-124s are moving all of the world’s oversized freight, and Soyuz was, is, and always will be the least expensive, most reliable man lifter in the world.   I actually admire Societ engineering. They made things that worked, not things that worked and cost gazillions to develop.

When the Soviets wanted to write on paper in space, they used a pencil, when Americans wanted the same, they spent millions developing a zero G ballpoint pen.

Oh, they've engineered some great things...  but during the Cold War, their gear was woefully inadequate as is shown in many combats in the Mid East and SEA.  The AK 47 has it's positive points... it's rugged for sure.  But I think I'd still rather have an M-16.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TJTX said:

There was one for sale a few years back for something like 70k. It needed a bit of work, but man was I tempted to try and find some cash.  I woulda had a blast running the airshow circuit. 

One of the ultimate 1/1 scale projects! I always wanted to volunteer at an air museum and help restore old warbirds. Alas the closest one is 4 hours away from me. :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh, they've engineered some great things...  but during the Cold War, their gear was woefully inadequate as is shown in many combats in the Mid East and SEA.  The AK 47 has it's positive points... it's rugged for sure.  But I think I'd still rather have an M-16.

I never could make a Kalashnikov run right. M16 was great, but sensitive to dirt. We used the inch version of the FAL. C1A1 ours was, Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis had a kissing cousin they called the SLR or L1A1.  I’ve tried and tried, but I never once could stop one of those. Heavy, but they worked every single time. 

I was shocked to see how taken we were by what we thought was the state of readiness.  We were terrified of their tank force, but it turned out that the vaunted T-72 was fresh meat to our Leopards. That big German gun on the Abrams and Leopard made believers out of us all. And turned T-55s and T-72s into big Bic lighters.  What were we told? Something like if we penetrated the hull above the bogies, the crew had 15 seconds to bale out before the the stored ammo cooked off. That certainly wouldn’t inspire trust in your equipment  

But as to the MiG-21, who knew it was such a fatally flawed design. You can’t fight the enemy well if you’re always fighting your own equipment. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TJTX said:

There was one for sale a few years back for something like 70k. It needed a bit of work, but man was I tempted to try and find some cash.  I woulda had a blast running the airshow circuit. 

That would have been something, Tony. The one I always wanted for display purposes was an Argentinian Pucará.  Talk about a cool pocket rocket!  

2845C18E-302D-44B4-9D31-AB2FF148D923.jpeg

3A4A2D0C-AE78-4A34-A8A1-DEB2171B1617.jpeg

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2020 at 1:45 PM, 1to1scale said:

I felt like the mad riveter, my Mig-15...

E424F048-491B-4F18-856D-A5017837050B.jpeg

2EF675E7-7A15-4126-A89F-20CD50DD7B51.jpeg

That looks stunning.  I can’t even imagine how much work that the dog of a Trumpeter kit could be massaged into that. I’ll just start with the HPH kit, a very, very nice kit, although I realize it’s not everyone’s bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when I hoofed it all over Western Europe, the A-10 was an unproven design. 

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...