[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Elmer

Any visible screw heads in this one?

Yes. One very small, but visible, screw in each gear well, plus one very recessed under the fuselage center (so deep, you really only see the small hole as if it were meant for a stand).

FVD

[John Youngs]

Originally Posted by Elmer

On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the worse model produced by FM and 5 among the best), how do you rate FM's MiG 15? Is the overall mold correct? Any glaring gaps, seams, or exposed screw heads? (looking at some pictures it looks like it has some nice detail--also, some models appear to sit correct nose high, while others appear to sit incorrect nose low... can anyone speak to this?)

Elmer - Having aquired several of Armour/FM's MiG-15's, let me say that several of them have what is essentially F-86 Sabre external ("drop") fuel tanks. This is either correct or incorrect, depending upon your point of view.
What I'm simply saying is this: Historically-speaking, the "slipper" type tank (the tank that is mounted on and just under the leading edge of the wing) is technically correct - this is the style of tank that all the so-called "Com-Block" (military) MiG's flew with.
On the other hand, however, virtually 99%+ of the MiG-15's & -17's that've been restored & are flying in this country in private hands today sport (they're fixed - not droppable - they can be removed manually on the ground, but are not droppable from the air - FAA regs...) F-86 Sabre (or Canadair CL-13A/B) external fuel tanks. The reason for this is due to simple logistics - the acquisition of the original slipper tanks is virtually impossible, since most of them are in poor shape. F-86 tanks, particularly the 125-gallon & 167-gallon ones (as opposed to the Japanese F-86F-40 200-gallon "finless" variety), are much more widely available - hence, most pilot/owners who own & fly these MiG's today utilize them. The MiG-15/17 series of fighter/interceptors utilize a centrifugal-flow compressor within their engines - hence, relatively bad fuel economy and range; the axial-flow compressor (invented originally by Germany before WWII and used on the ME-262 series, etc.) being the standard used by all of the world's jet engine mfgr's today, are much more fuel efficient, particularly at higher altitudes. Seldom will you see a MiG-15 or 17 today flying without external tanks (with the exception of airshow aerobatic demonstrations, etc.) because of extremely poor range performance.
The bottom line is this: Are you interested in "historically-correct" external fuel tank depictions, or are you willing to be satisfied with the current "restored, flying in private hands" depictions?? As you can see, since the vast majority of these MiGs today are using F-86 tanks (there's a hell of a bit of irony, eh?), technically, either depiction can be construed as being correct, unless you're looking for that "original, Com-Block military" look. Armour makes MiG-15's with either style of tank. Flying Mule's website seems to be the best source for current photos of all of the available Armour, 1/48th scale MiG models. Aside from that issue, most of the MiG-15 models are fairly nice, but seams could be better mated; but, waddya expect from assembly-line models? On a scale of "1 to 5"?? I'd give 'em a "3-1/2" to "4". Like most of Armour's offerings, there's room for definite improvement, but they're not "crap". Cheers, John

[stalag8611]

John,
I'm an active participant on this site and an occasional drop-by on the one hosted by our British friends. One theme occurs on both sites: If it ain't perfect, it's crap, and it's usually the same suspects who post such negative comments. In search of the PERFECT this type of collector is ready to sacrifice the GOOD. Or, put another way, throw the baby out with the bath water. As for me, I'm usually pretty satisfied with the issues in my 155 aircraft hanger. Otherwise, I'd probably move on to collecting New Issue stamps, or Wedgewood Egg Coddling cups. HINT, Hint.
Wayne

PS I agree fully with y\ou.

[John Youngs]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

My MiG-15 sits pretty level, so I'm happy with it and would give it a 4. It's nice although panel/rivet detail could be better (as on many FM/Armour efforts). It's a very nice complement to the F-86s I have.

The MiG-17 on the other hand is significantly nose-low and that really bothers me to no end. Too bad because otherwise it would be a nice model. I've thought about ways to modify it by shortening the main gear *that's were the problem lies), but no easy way to do it I'm afraid... For now it's relegated to a bottom shelf were the problem is not too apparent to the casual observer.

FVD

Dumb question: Why don't you LENGTHEN the nose strut, instead - wouldn't that be a bit easier... - J

[John Youngs]

Originally Posted by stalag8611

John,
I'm an active participant on this site and an occasional drop-by on the one hosted by our British friends. One theme occurs on both sites: If it ain't perfect, it's crap, and it's usually the same suspects who post such negative comments. In search of the PERFECT this type of collector is ready to sacrifice the GOOD. Or, put another way, throw the baby out with the bath water. As for me, I'm usually pretty satisfied with the issues in my 155 aircraft hanger. Otherwise, I'd probably move on to collecting New Issue stamps, or Wedgewood Egg Coddling cups. HINT, Hint.
Wayne

PS I agree fully with y\ou.

Holy Cow!! You've got a Wedgewood Egg Coddling Cup collection, too? Incredible... - J

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by John Youngs

Dumb question: Why don't you LENGTHEN the nose strut, instead - wouldn't that be a bit easier... - J

Because then the airplane would sit too high on its gear. I would be an improvement, but still not correct to my satisfaction.

Not to mention that lengthening the nose gear may in fact be more difficult than shortening the main gears (not 100% sure, though).

FVD

PS: it still boggles my mind why FM/Armour can't get this kind of detail correctly. It's not like it would cost them more, in production terms, to get it right. These guys need to get their act together in the research, design, and QC departments.

[John Youngs]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Because then the airplane would sit too high on its gear. I would be an improvement, but still not correct to my satisfaction.

Not to mention that lengthening the nose gear may in fact be more difficult than shortening the main gears (not 100% sure, though).

FVD

PS: it still boggles my mind why FM/Armour can't get this kind of detail correctly. It's not like it would cost them more, in production terms, to get it right. These guys need to get their act together in the research, design, and QC departments.

FVD: I pretty much agree with you on your final "PS:" - Armour/FM is very much a paradox in this sense... - they crank out a pretty good plane, most of the time; nevertheless, I often get the impression they get their "research" from "Billy Flies A Plane" - checked out at the local grade school library... - HA! J

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by John Youngs

FVD: I pretty much agree with you on your final "PS:" - Armour/FM is very much a paradox in this sense... - they crank out a pretty good plane, most of the time; nevertheless, I often get the impression they get their "research" from "Billy Flies A Plane" - checked out at the local grade school library... - HA! J

John,

Yes. What's frustrating to me is that they do a good-to-excellent job on many models, but then seem to go out of their way do come up with ONE serious flaw that detracts from it. And it has nothing to do with some cost-saving measure (at least not production-wise, maybe they save money by not doing the research right, who knows). I know some collectors can't tell or care that the MiG-17 shouldn't be nose-down, but why not cater to both the casual and serious collector, since it won't cost more? I just don't get it.

And then there are the quotes from their 2006 catalogue (which Armour Addict was kind enough to give me last Friday when he visited here): "At Armour Collection, we pride ourselves in creating the most authentic military models in the world" (Joe Smith, Historian). Or "We are passionate about loading our models with as many true-to-life features as possible. Each model is engineered to the highest standards" (Joe Sellari, Design and Development Manager). Great words, but please, start living up to them!

FVD

[aeroeng]

Originally Posted by stalag8611

John,
I'm an active participant on this site and an occasional drop-by on the one hosted by our British friends. One theme occurs on both sites: If it ain't perfect, it's crap, and it's usually the same suspects who post such negative comments. In search of the PERFECT this type of collector is ready to sacrifice the GOOD. Or, put another way, throw the baby out with the bath water. As for me, I'm usually pretty satisfied with the issues in my 155 aircraft hanger. Otherwise, I'd probably move on to collecting New Issue stamps, or Wedgewood Egg Coddling cups. HINT, Hint.
Wayne

PS I agree fully with y\ou.

I'm pretty much the same. I'm pretty happy with every plane in my collection, but I'm not overly picky. I really don't mind the "negative comments" from the "same usual suspects" because it is usually pretty interesting reading. I think it's just a matter of getting to know everyone on the forum and getting used to everyone individual personallities. I'm on here so often that there's a couple guys here that I could almost post their post for them because I know almost exactly what they're going to say (especially when it concerns Franklin Mint) . Of course these same guys could probably do the same to me . But if we were all the same it might get kind of boring around here.

[John Youngs]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

John,

Yes. What's frustrating to me is that they do a good-to-excellent job on many models, but then seem to go out of their way do come up with ONE serious flaw that detracts from it. And it has nothing to do with some cost-saving measure (at least not production-wise, maybe they save money by not doing the research right, who knows). I know some collectors can't tell or care that the MiG-17 shouldn't be nose-down, but why not cater to both the casual and serious collector, since it won't cost more? I just don't get it.

And then there are the quotes from their 2006 catalogue (which Armour Addict was kind enough to give me last Friday when he visited here): "At Armour Collection, we pride ourselves in creating the most authentic military models in the world" (Joe Smith, Historian). Or "We are passionate about loading our models with as many true-to-life features as possible. Each model is engineered to the highest standards" (Joe Sellari, Design and Development Manager). Great words, but please, start living up to them! FVD

YES!! YES!! I've been saying the highlighted section of your above-mentioned quote for YEARS!! Part of the problem, also, (and this REALLY pisses me off!!!) is that Armour/FM has chosen to isolate itself (phone number/email addresses, etc.) from the buying public. They tell you if you want to get a hold of them, you've got to go through a dealer... - what a crock!! What does that say about a company, as you indicated, who says they "...take pride in 'whatever'..." - and then, essentially, in so many words, says "We'll be happy to sell to you, but if you have an issue or issues with our products, oh well, too bad, so sad...." - it makes you want to really throttle somebody... - another way of putting it, I believe, is just like repeating the "motto" of the old "Ma Bell" phone company - "We don't care, 'cause we don't have to..." - J