[b-huj]

Herpa has been announcing very promising new moulds, but consistently giving us very nasty toys instead of models. I already talked about the now old Herpa F-104...quite a nasty model honestly, but the bad news continue: their latest releases, the US Marines "Death Angenls" F-4J and the subject of this thread, the Russian Strizhi aerobatic team's #5 MiG-29 (type 9-13).

To begin with, the overall model looks flat, I mean, the model seems to be designed in a simplified X/Y axis, only vertical and horizontal planes. I cannot find the right words to explain how flat this model looks to me. Another thing that jumps to me is the thick and wide panel lines, which by the way are mostly imaginary. On the contrary, the auxiliary air intakes on the sides of the cockpit, in the "open" position, are way too shallow and simple, meanwhile, the main intakes are...CLOSED!

The model has a pronounced nose-down pitch, which contradicts the usual stance of the MiG-29, which is always nose up, engines sitting low. The gears are all quite simple, reminds me of early 1/500 herpa's, with silly sticks and rolling wheels. There is an imaginary extension to a nose gear strut, and they forgot to add the door to enclose the strut. The main gear doors are completely wrong, nothing like those of a MiG-29 whatsoever. The weapons pylons, left on the model for some unknown reason, are way oversized, overthick and hanging too low.

The pitot tube is, like in the F-104, as thich as a Air to Air missile, and pointing upwards probably to compensate visually for the nose down attitude?
The rudder is way too shallow, the panel line was printed almost at the border of the trailing edge of both taifins, meaning there is close to no room for rudders. The airbrakes, located between exhausts, is only a flat portion of 1/200 real state and doesn't seem to be molded at all. Which brings me to the engines...they are also flat, or ignored in the model, so where we would expect to see 2 bulges, just like in the F-15, there is barely any elevation whatsoever, and worse, it flattens near the exhaust, while it sould become rounder! The engine exhaust cones are also weird-looking: there is a huge step between the metal and plastic parts, and in the real plane that gap between the fuselage and the actual exhaust feathers is probably around 1cm or so...expanded 200 times, the gap in the model would be around 120 cm or more!

A more technical detail is the fact that the model seems to be a 9-12 (very early MiG-29), while the actual Strizhi #5 is a 9-13, the main visual difference is the larger dorsal on the 13.

Overall, the model looks decent inside the box, but once out, you will wish you had stayed away from it, coz it looks worse than Japanese candy toys (made of resin, but with more consistent panel lines and more details than this one). The paintjob is neither the best part of the model, there are particles trapped inside the paint around the wings, and somehow near the radome, there are two parallel panel lines that look stained, weathered, like 1/72 hobbymaster or century wings models (but in their cases, with much better results).

You be the final judge:

[b-huj]

Now let's look at what the competition is offering: images of a frist test-shot model in primer, plastic parts still unpainted, cockpit using recycled plastic. I must point out these are images of an ongoing project and the final results will be improved based on our imput, (sample model is not mine).

Notice that only control surfaces have been "carved out". Some may miss the panel lines, especially when it comes to the Fulcrum, usually a dirty bird and not as flush and sneaky as the shinny Raptor. The most prominent dorsal antenna is there right behind the cockpit, the pitot tube is also too large, but there is a hint they tried to add some lateral details to it, sth. that Witty omitted in their 1/72 effort.

The overwing auxiliary air intakes are nicely molded, with doors "opened" in the right angle and not simple rectangular holes seen on the Herpa. Inside the cockpit, the ejection seats are as detailed as they can be in 1/200 scale.

Moving backwards, we'll immediatly notice that the engines are correctly molded, so are the tailfin extensions, instad of a curvy approximation seen on the Herpa, the three different angles from fin to flare dispensers are visibly there, like the tail airbrake, which is molded both up and down. I am aware of the similarity in mold construction between this model and the Herpa effort, but the exhaust cones are more accurately shaped, although the step between the metal and plastic parts is also seen in this mold, probably the plastic exhaust should be reworked so the two joints are flush

Moving to the belly: the landing gears are quite detailed, and made of metal, except the wheels themselves. Unfortunately, the nose down attitude is there, not as pronounced but needs to be reworked, the nose gear should be longer and the main gears shorter, to get that characteristic nose-up look of the Fulcrum. The hydraulic actuators underwing and on the rudder are all there (1/200...), but there was 1 mistake with the starboard tailfin, the actuator is outward, while in fact, in the Fulcrum, they're always on the portside, meaning the port fin gets it outside, the starboard fin gets it inboard. The ordnance is (hate to use the word) "exquisitely" molded, they're as thick as an average needle, but have all the fins and details you would want...my Hogan Russians could use some "weapons packs" with these new missiles!! What's troubling me is the looks of the nose gear doors, they seem to open in two lateral halves, and I am not sure the UB trainer version is any different in this area to the single seat fighter.

Again, these images show a ongoing proyect and the final outcome will be the fruit of our imput.

[Gambit]

I complained to Herpa in Germany about panel lines.

Also some parts have to be glued back on.

Herpa did respond but said they thought everything was OK.

I have started switching over to the 1:200 Gullivers as their F-14 swept wings work and arrive in one peice.

Haven't bought any of the Hogans yet.

[Big Stick]

When Herpa brought out their SU27 and the F16,the pitot tube was exactly to scale.Then later on when they brought out the F104 and recently the Tornado, which had such thick pitot tubes and is therefore totally inaccurate! Why can't their R & D department scrutinise these models more?? Instead of maintaining a good product and keeping the model's details in check, they're letting their accuracy down, which is a huge disappointment!! Let's hope B-Huj has a better product in the pipeline! Herpa needs the competition!!

[Tapemeister]

Originally Posted by Big Stick

When Herpa brought out their SU27 and the F16,the pitot tube was exactly to scale.Then later on when they brought out the F104 and recently the Tornado, which had such thick pitot tubes and is therefore totally inaccurate! Why can't their R & D department scrutinise these models more?? Instead of maintaining a good product and keeping the model's details in check, they're letting their accuracy down, which is a huge disappointment!! Let's hope B-Huj has a better product in the pipeline! Herpa needs the competition!!

The early Su-27s and F-16s released by Herpa were actually developed and produced by Hogan. The toolings were developed in-house by Hogan with no outside input. Since mid 2007, Herpa started working with the manufacturer for HobbyMaster to develop their own 1/200th scale military aircraft tooling. In late 2007, Hogan decided to launch its own brand for the micro scaled military range, M-Series, to continue the R&D efforts for new military aircraft types while maintaining the same level of quality which is characteristic of Hogan's product in both commercial and military series.

[Big Stick]

Thanks Tapemeister for that info!

I cannot wait for the future Hogans to come out! I was really impressed with my Angolan AF Su27 aswell as my Israeli and UAE F16's.If this was originally a Hogan mould, then we know who the Kings of the 1/200 scale are!

[b-huj]

Maybe I should take this chance to point out that I do not represent any manufacturer, unlike Williman Liu, who talks on behalf of Hobby Master in this forum, I am just a private collector, and I wanted to share information that may be of interest to others. As I said at the start of the thread, the sample model is not even mine, and I can only claim credit/guilt for the review. Also, I don't have info on dates and liveries on this model yet.