Finally made my mind up and decided to go with the Backfire. I wanted to build one with the original MiG-23-style intakes and it didn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility that a few of these early Backfires might have been supplied to Iraq to replace their aging Blinders. (I also had a nice Iranian scheme in mind but I don't have any decals).
However, now that I've started, I'm not sure that I've made the right choice. I've built this kit before (with the wedge shaped intakes) and my memory was of an inaccurate but relatively simple kit that should provide a quick build for its size. What I hadn't remembered was the absolutely appalling fit of the parts, poor moulding and the amount of PSR required. :banghead: Very frustrating, especially as this kit is one of the original Esci boxings, bought on its first release, so the mouldings should be fairly sharp. :angry:
The photos show where I've got to so far. I've inserted plastic beams across the rear fuselage to give some rigidity to an otherwise flexible join and I've done a major filling and sanding exercise - the photos show all the filling and puttying required. I've since sanded all this down and have now detailed the cockpit, added the canopy and done some more filling to deal with the areas needing further treatment.
It might be ready for an initial coat of paint by tomorrow evening, but don't hold your breath - - -
That is like building the Constitution in one week...I've been working on a Backfire for months now, still incomplete. You, sir, have really taken on the inconceivable!!!! :cheers:
Dude, I've got one in the top of my closet at home, now I have nightmares. . .
Shas 8)
Awesome ! Love the new intakes...what did you use to accomplish that ?
:wub:
Quote from: Captain Canada on March 03, 2008, 06:30:36 PM
Awesome ! Love the new intakes...what did you use to accomplish that ?
They came with the kit. When Esci first issued this kit in the Eighties it came in three versions, two of which had the original style of intake. I know that AMT reissued it in the USA and Canada, but the only AMT boxing that I've seen was of the Backfire-C with the wedge intakes, so it's possible that the version with the early intakes never made it beyond Europe.
The recent Italeri reissue was also just of the Backfire-C. This is a pity because, while it's still too short and slightly too deep, the nose, wing and fin are more accurate for a Backfire-B.
The PSR is now finished, but I've had to remove the canopy as some gloop found it's way in during the wet sanding :banghead:. Still, it doesn't seem to be a big problem, so I should be back on course tonight.
A 1:72 Backfire in a week. Heh, heh. I'm surrounded by people who are just as crazy as I am. Heh!
Looking very promising already!
Terrific.....Backfire in a week?
Cool :mellow:
Looks like a good project. I'm curious how the vacuform floats in the first picture are related to the Backfire?
Ed
I was just wondering the same thing, Ed !
:o FLOATPLANE BACKFIRE!!!!!! :o
Do I detect a CFT project in the works?
Shas 8)
If anyone can pull this off in time, it's you McG!
Brian da Basher
Quote from: Ed S on March 04, 2008, 08:17:31 AM
I'm curious how the vacuform floats in the first picture are related to the Backfire?
Sorry everyone, the Aeroclub floats are interlopers and red herrings :wacko: and have nothing to do with the Backfire.
I had four projects in mind for the GB - a Maverick-inspired Turbo Il-10, a Revell Rufe seaplane fighter, a floatplane Il-2 and the Backfire. I couldn't find the parts that I needed for the Il-10 and the Rufe was discounted because (ironically, given the Backfire's problems) of poor moulding and fit. This left the Il-2 floatplane and the Backfire and, when the photo was taken, I hadn't finally decided against the Il-2 and its floats were still on my workbench.
Although there were genuine proposals for seaplane versions of the Bison and Bounder, so a flying boat Backfire is a possibility. But not for a one week GB - - - - :o
Quote from: Shasper on March 04, 2008, 10:34:40 AM
Do I detect a CFT project in the works?
Not this time, but that's a great idea that hadn't occurred to me. I've got several Blinders and Backfires in my stash and CFTs might be an interesting way to alter their appearance - - -
The marathon PSR session is now over and these pictures show the Backfire on its undercarriage legs, ready for painting. Since taking the photos I've masked off the canopy and sprayed the underside. This has shown up some minor touch up filling and sanding that needs to be done, but finishing inside the one week target is now looking more realistic.
This looks like an absolute belter.
Superb.
Still think this is one gutsy subject for a speed-build. And you're doing such an excellent job of it, too.
Can't wait to see you hit it with paint.
Why did I start this???!!! :banghead: My original thought process was: "Simple kit - not may parts for its size - just like a big fighter - ideal for a one week build."
Hah!!! Not only did I seriously underestimate the PSR required, I also forgot that a large aircraft would have a much larger surface area and that using my Badger airbrush to cover several acres of plastic was not going to be fun. >:( And it wasn't, especially as it required several coats to cover up the variation in tone caused by the PSR. And the connector fixing my airline to the compressor broke and I'm running out of sand coloured paint and - - - OK, so that's not the fault of the Backfire, but even so - - -
Anyway, I've now painted the underside and applied the base sand coat to the top, but some light sanding and touch up is still required. Then it will be on to the rest of the camouflage and the final details (like the fourteen wheel undercarriage - - -)
You've made some wonderful progress, McG! The top coat looks great! We're all pulling for ya!
Brian da Basher
Camouflage now basically completed - just the details, touch up and undercarriage to do now before I can varnish it and apply the decals. And on experience to date, this will probably take twice as long as planned - - -
Quote from: McGreig on March 07, 2008, 06:16:14 AM
Camouflage now basically completed - just the details, touch up and undercarriage to do now before I can varnish it and apply the decals. And on experience to date, this will probably take twice as long as planned - - -
I hear
that. Still, you're the only one pulling off an entire Backfire on a one-week build----I salute you!
Whoa! Striking camo, and nice seams ! You are insane.
Excellent camo - suitable Soviet *and* Arabian :ph34r:
You totally nailed the camo McG! Outstanding!
Brian da Basher
Oh yeah.....sweetness for sure ! Love that camo ! My LHS guy built a Tu-16 in Iranian colours, I should really get a pic of it someday, it's a frigging masterpiece !
:wub:
*jaw hits the floor* DAAAAAAMMM! I think I'm gonna need a shot just to sober up, thats hot!
Shas 8)
Quote from: cthulhu77 on March 07, 2008, 07:05:49 AM
You are insane.
A conclusion echoed by my Partner, although I suspect that she didn't mean it in any complimentary way - - - ;D)
Anyway, we're almost there. Construction and painting are now complete and the model has had its first coat of Klear. Since the photos were taken I've added the Iraqi decals (from a Revell Blinder) and all that I have to do now is add the aerials etc and apply a coat of matt varnish.
The kit has been built pretty much out of the box and there are a couple of things that I should have changed but didn't notice in time - for example, the wing weapon pylons are too far forward as moulded, the Backfire doesn't have an under-fuselage entrance hatch and the weapons look vaguely like KAB-500 TV-guided bombs but, if so, they should be a bit shorter and have small forward fins.
The good thing about this GB is that it forced me to make a decision on how to build this kit, which is seriously inaccurate. There is a whole series of inaccuracies but the main outline problems are that the wings need to be moved back 10mm, the fuselage needs a 10mm plug and a 4mm reduction in height and the nose and intakes need to be reshaped for the C version. I could do this but I don't think that I'd feel like doing it more than once and I have about a dozen of these in the stash. The GB has convinced me that, regardless of the problems, it still looks like a Backfire and that, if I'm to have any hope of getting any more done, I should probably forget about extensive modifications and build them as supplied. I'm hoping to take this to Southern Expo next weekend, so it'll be interesting to see if it generates any comment.
Stunning camo..... might steal that sometime soon !
Ian
Have to agree with you on that one....looks like a Backfire to me !
:wub:
Absolutely beautiful...a sleek bomber in a cool colour. :wub:
Looking really good - and still like a Backfire!
Finished!!
And thanks for all the positive feedback, which helped a lot -_-. When I started I was convinced that I'd made the wrong choice but, now that it's finished, I feel quite pleased with it. Roll on the next one week GB - I've got this Trumpeter Blackjack in the stash - - -
A few more photos.
Yowsa McG outstanding work! The camo is a natural with those Iraqi markings!
Congrats on getting in before the deadline!
Brian da Basher
Outstanding work and a beautiful finish! This is really enjoyable to look at. :wub:
Eddie
Awesome!!! I had to reread your writeup because I missed where you called out the ordinance. I thought you'd come up with some sort of mutated Brahmos or something :lol:
Very nice!
That really looks the part - could probly fool a fair few people at shows with that one :ph34r:
Quote from: McGreig on March 04, 2008, 02:08:38 AM
They came with the kit. When Esci first issued this kit in the Eighties it came in three versions, two of which had the original style of intake. I know that AMT reissued it in the USA and Canada, but the only AMT boxing that I've seen was of the Backfire-C with the wedge intakes, so it's possible that the version with the early intakes never made it beyond Europe.
The recent Italeri reissue was also just of the Backfire-C. This is a pity because, while it's still too short and slightly too deep, the nose, wing and fin are more accurate for a Backfire-B.
Hi McG,
Love the build, very nicely done.
I'd be interested in more details of the modifications that need to be done to this kit as I just picked one up from a second hand webstore (influenced of course by these two builds that's going on right now). I've already got the AMT 'C' version in the stash, do the mods need to be done on this version too? If you don't want to go through it all here, drop me a PM.
Robert
Wow, did she ever come together nicely !
:wub:
Great job ! Now, I have to admit to feeling sorry for all the other suckers in the 1WGB.....oh, did I say that out loud ?
:wacko:
Very nice, makes a change from grubby grey!
Are you sure that's a WHIFF? It looks pretty convincing.
Nice Job
Ed
I know what you mean Ed, reminded me of the Libyan Blinders.
Quote from: kitnut617 on March 11, 2008, 06:26:51 AM
I'd be interested in more details of the modifications that need to be done to this kit as I just picked one up from a second hand webstore (influenced of course by these two builds that's going on right now). I've already got the AMT 'C' version in the stash, do the mods need to be done on this version too?
Robert,
The following is a brief summary of the main changes that you would need to make to the Esci kit to make a really accurate Backfire. To see a detailed, step by step conversion, go to Ken Duffey's website www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/modl_tu-22.html (http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/modl_tu-22.html) and look at his model.
For all variants:
1) insert 10mm plug in fuselage and intakes ahead of wing
2) reduce depth of nose section by 4mm
3) reduce fuselage depth of main section in a wedge shape - 4mm at leading edge of wing reducing to nil at the tail
4) move wing back by 10mm (this will prevent the sweep mechanism from working and mess up the undercarriage bay alignment, so an alternative would be to remove 10mm from the fuselage behind the wing and add a 20mm plug instead of the 10 mm at point (1)
5) the window for the rear cabin is too low and should be further back
6) the main wheels are not evenly spaced - there is a bigger gap between the front and middle pair than between the middle and rear and the middle pair have a wider track than the front and rear set.
7) a strengthening strip should be added about one third of the way up the fin where the taper changes
8 ) from a point approximately 1/3 of the way back from the wing leading edge all the way to the afterburner cans, the fuselage has a distinct "double bubble" appearance as it curves out over the intake trunking and engines
For the Backfire-C specifically
1) the intakes need to be modified to show the distinct downward slope of the top surfaces
2) the nose needs to be lengthened by approximately 20mm and reshaped to show the distinct upturned shape of the radome and its flat lower line
3) the rudder, gun turret and wing gloves are OK for a Backfire-B but, for the "C", the rudder hinge line needs to be rescribed, the gun turret replaced with a flatter version and the wing glove enlarged with the fence moved outboard.
Ken is a member of the IPMS UK Soviet Aircraft SIG and we've often had his model in our display. However, while it's undeniably more accurate and sleeker looking, I'm not sure that it's really worth the effort required - I suppose that it depends what you want to achieve and how much time you've got. If you build from the box (and don't sit it next to Ken's model!) the Esci/Italeri kit still looks like a Backfire. I think that, if I was to build a Backfire-C, I would probably extend and reshape the nose and modify the intakes to show the downward slope, as these are very visible, but leave the rest alone.
Thanks McG, I will print this off and really study what has to be done.
This came out awesome!