Sovietwarplanes

I've received this kit and book a few days ago, then started familiarization with the kit immediately.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-iX3YlARosfU/T_QFaBWXcYI/AAAAAAAAJpM/p9V54CSSLDM/s800/DSC_1703.JPG)

First nice impression is the surface itself. Not the usual smooth as glass Tamiya surface, but a barely sensable textured. This picture published on Hyperscale make the effect quite visable:

(http://www.hyperscale.com/images/tamiya61113reviewbg_1.jpg)

The panel lines are somewhat different than the usual Tamiya type deep and narrow channels, in this case very fine but definite lines. the rivets and hinges are simply gorgeous, almost forcing the modeler not to cover all these with a dull single tone paintwork, instead during the finishing steps make the final apperance more detailed. 

(http://www.hyperscale.com/images/tamiya61113reviewbg_2.jpg)

The loctaion of the ejector pins are very well thought over. A fine example of this is the lower wing area:

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6aZPapj8lHU/T_nWKkGk7KI/AAAAAAAAJpc/qvC0xZpQOBs/s800/DSC_1732.JPG)

the areas marked with an arrow are extra sprues that don't connect to the parts, instead the function of these is to facilitate the sprues leave the mould spotlessly by accommodating four ejector pins.

Dry fit test

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-J3Tx0BG8PHU/T_nWLUgWe4I/AAAAAAAAJpg/VYQzGGjN1M0/s800/DSC_1734.JPG)

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-QKz30FHdZpM/T_nWLxLDbTI/AAAAAAAAJps/N2pgwQ0FZcM/s800/DSC_1738.JPG)

We've pretty much got used to Tamiya parts are not splitting when removing off the sprues, but here there is another invention. On the major parts (fuelage,wings etc.) the attachment points are rectangular shaped instead of the old round type, and what is more important: these don't connect to the exterior surfaces of the model only to the glueing edges thus making it impossible to ruin the visible surfaces. The positioning pins are also rectangular shaped instead of the formerly used round ones.

The fit is fabulous. This particulary true when looking at the combined air intake + nose cover part:

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-LhjgZf5LgzE/T_ncJtz4SXI/AAAAAAAAJq4/IUsNV5Qk8ZQ/s800/fuselage%2520halves.jpg)

This is a very difficult shaped part and connects to other kit part at several places, however it looks like the Philippine company done their homwework just perfect.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-jkQ9jhUjf6U/T_nWMjlk15I/AAAAAAAAJpw/POGZ0uQUVzg/s800/DSC_1736.JPG)

Armament

I was very curious of the gunners machine gun, in my opinion in deed nicely detailed, especially built together with the holder and and ammunition:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QGigFtikx40/T_neXAJFqYI/AAAAAAAAJrA/Vaw5oVONAuE/s800/DSC_1747.JPG)

This is supposed to be a 12.7mm UBT machine gun, but what the heck is the extra rod on top of the gas drainer chamber? Me personally never saw anything like this on any photo before, for example:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WfK48HL45Bo/T_neX-ma8MI/AAAAAAAAJrE/PBU7ri_GjYU/s800/UBT%2520machine%2520gun.jpg)

There are two different wing mounted guns included in the kit, that surprised me quiet much.

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-A40-ReGgd7M/T_nWQo6pcOI/AAAAAAAAJqo/rxzsjhw1FRE/s800/DSC_1746.JPG)

You can see on the left is the late type Il-2 specific, wing mounted Volkov-Yartsev 23mm machine gun, to right is the ShVAK machine gun. At this point I've started to became very curious, since this type gun was used in the early type straight wing Il-2s. And what even more interesting is the large fairing, that I've never seen before.

Paint & marking options

Tamiya offer 3 painting options for the kit:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-yB6QXiEsdeg/T_nWNLPX7FI/AAAAAAAAJp4/pXxW5cGOC54/s800/Tamiya%2520profiles.jpg)

First aircraft bearing a Kremlin type (two tone) red star, pilot is the Kazakh origin Ivan Pavlov, two times Hero of the Soviet Union (HSU) decorated, flown 237 mission. The aircraft was donated by the people of his native village together with 3 other airplanes. This states the script on the starboard of fuselage. This a/c is well documentated and photographed. The kit box art depicts the same.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-lXGcWw-k4IY/T_nWPzrsFFI/AAAAAAAAJqg/H1j5KZ9wQd4/s800/DSC_1743.JPG)

The camouflage pattern reflects the #2 pattern, described in 1943.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Q6wEKq2Fip0/T_nktukCm5I/AAAAAAAAJrU/Y2gk6oub47k/s800/paint-%25231.jpg)

The second option is also a famous aircraft:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-HvREFQ2JKfU/T_nWOzSOgwI/AAAAAAAAJqQ/9w7sBz6G0b4/s800/DSC_1741.JPG)

Pilot was Vasiliy Michlik squadron leader, 309 mission flown, 2xHSU decorated. The fuselage script says: "Revenge for Krishtenko" and with "Za Leningrad" (for Leningrad) badge. More curiosty of this a/c is the 20mm ShVAK wing gun.

This camouflage pattern reflects the #1 pattern. In my opinion the fuselage pattern could be questioned, usually behind the gunner position used to be a larger dark grey (AMT-12) patch, that is shown as brown by Tamiya:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-BeCH-LzwSa8/T_nkur9Y4-I/AAAAAAAAJrc/VVreh1NuvRM/s800/paint-%25232.jpg)

You can find this a/c in many publications (for example 4+), but me personally can not distungish the ShVAK guns nor the camouflage pattern clearly

Third option:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-lCi-cenvddw/T_nWOM0vSWI/AAAAAAAAJqM/Cf4Ox10zazg/s800/DSC_1740.JPG)

This is also based on #1 camouflage pattern.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-z9r3e0plBUM/T_nkvegYWKI/AAAAAAAAJrg/dc979DGJJaY/s800/paint-%25233.jpg)

The ID number on the wings and white markings on the tail fin makes are remarkable, but that's all. There hundred times more interesting options in this matter.

Decals and others

Overall the markings are looking all right, the red could have been a little more orangish in my opinion. Finally there is a canopy mask included in the box that is a worthy extra to me!
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-UF3NZlh4DTc/T_nWNnMhIEI/AAAAAAAAJqA/TpTCFC8wKf4/s800/DSC_1739.JPG)

to be continued..

That does look beautiful, but I guess that's what we should expect from Tamiya! Between this kit and the Ark 1/48 I-16 mentioned elsewhere, I'm starting to feel my loyalty to 1/72 scale weakening... ;)

John

With Richard's kind permission, I might post some of my impressions of this kit, including some inaccuracies.  No point in duplicating threads.  Despite some aforementioned inaccuracies, it is a very nice kit, and definitely the best kit of the Shturmovik in any scale.

Regards,

Jason

The kit looks really nice.  It looks like the fit is near perfect in the photos.  I am a bit disappointed with Tamiya's decal choices.  I don't understand why they included the "Leningrad" markings since every Accurate Miniatures boxing of the 2 place Il-2 has those same markings.  The other 2 choices are available on Aeromaster and Superscale  sheets issued several years ago.  With tens of thousands Il-2s built you would think they could of found some markings not covered before.  Hopefully the kit will be available at the local hobby shop soon.  I can't wait to get my hands on it.

TD, I'm sure someone will come out with some aftermarket sheets soon.  I'm also certain that Eduard are working on their aftermarket sets for this kit right now.

Regards,

Jason

Tamiya's machine gun is a strange hybrid - front half (barrel) is UBS and rear half (breach, handle etc) from UBT.  Something like that did not exist.

Following photo explains various UB:
(http://weapons-of-war.ucoz.ru/_pu/1/92808.jpg)

top: UBT = Turret UB
middle: UBK = wing (Krilo) UB
bottom: UBS = Synchronized UB

Synchronized UBS was used on varios Yak fighters. Not on Il-2s.  :)

UBT at http://iz-article.narod.ru/berzin_ub_1.html
(http://iz-article.narod.ru/images1/pulemet_ub.jpg)

UBT at ADD museum  http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/341
(http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/Long-Range-Aviation-Museum/LongRangeAviationMuseumpart205/1087036551_MF3Ds-500x333.jpg)

Rear half of Tamiya's UBT probably represents
(http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/AiKOut09/IL2Expl/IL2Expl052.jpg)

HTH,
KL

Jason,

feel free to point out any flaws of the Il-2.

KL,

thanks for the picture of the UBT. I never saw a clear picture of it.

Michel

Hi,
the machine gun reflects well what one can see on monographs on Il-2s. The upper cylinder (I don't know its use) is visible on few late production planes, but it should be removed in the most of the cases. I think the weapon is called simply UB, while the UBT utilized in the turrets of Il-4 and Li-2 or on Il-10s has the gas recovery pipe on the left side of the barrel instead of above it.
Regards
Massimo

I believe that third barrel was an automatic recharger that replaced the manual recharger on some late UBT's.  You can see the manual recharger lever with the wooden (or Bakelite?) handle sticking up in the photographs that Konstantin has posted.

Regards,

Jason

2009 Il-2 recovery from Zhukovskii museum website:  http://aviagrad.ru/zhukmuseumm/finder/2009/11/24/2009-11-01-01

UBT now displayed at the museum
(http://www.aviagrad.ru/pics/news/p1030458-300.jpg)

Rear end corresponds well to Tamiya's UBT.  Gas cyllinder is missing again and there is again manual recharger lever.

in the photo of the cannons...they are both 23MM VYa
there were two different styles of covers for them as illustrated in the photo.
the one on the left should have a vertical weld seam from the top to the bottom
(welding together a left half and a right one)
the other one is an "aerodynamic" cover made as one piece.
at present I do not know if there is a way to determine where or when each type was in manufacture.

DGM, you're correct that both are for the 23mm's.  The rectangular fairing sometimes had the prominent weld seam, but sometimes it didn't.  As so often happens with the Shturmovik, it differs between individual aeroplanes.  Perhaps it was tied to the particular factory; I really don't know.  As far as the streamlined cannon fairings, they appear to have been introduced later in the arrow's run (although by which factory and when, again I can't determine), and often appear in combination with the streamlined rocket fairings.  The Il-2 preserved in the Belgrade museum has a nice example of these streamlined fairings (both cannon and rocket).

Regards,

Jason

UBT mystery solved!!!

1.     the purpose of the lever/cylinder was to clear jammed machine gun, it wasn?t a recharger or a cocking lever.  Wing UBK and synchronized UBS were cleared remotely ? there was a cylinder which worked on compressed air from the pneumatic system.  Turret UBT was cleared manually ? pneumatic cylinder and its piping were too large and complex for the turret.  Probably the same reasons why wartime Il-2s had manual system.

2.    1945 UBT machine guns were produced with the pneumatic cylinder.  Following photos illustrates this change:

(http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/yuri_pasholok/ubt_aircraft_machinegun/images/ubt_aircraft_machinegun_1_of_7.jpg)
top is UBT with manual clearing lever, lower is UBT with pneumatic cylinder

(http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/yuri_pasholok/ubt_aircraft_machinegun/images/ubt_aircraft_machinegun_7_of_7.jpg)
Note embossed production year:  top is 1945 UBT with pneumatic cylinder, lower is 1944 UBT with manual clearing lever.
From:  http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/yuri_pasholok/ubt_aircraft_machinegun/

Tamiya?s UBT with pneumatic cylinder is OK for Il-2s made in 1945.  Pneumatic cylinder should be removed on Il-2s made in 1942-1944.
UBT were also made with handle and trigger at the rear end of the machine gun. It would have been nice if Tamiya included this as an optional part.

Tamiya?s UBT is actually very crude, especially for 1:48 scale.  Micro-mir makes better UBT in 1:72 scale
(http://plasticmodels.com.ua/attache/foto/13aa9d80ddc826a14f847c7123606dd9.jpg)
(http://plasticmodels.com.ua/attache/foto/74b922c2a3d599e891ef623a70eed389.jpg)

from:  http://plasticmodels.com.ua/cat-1-99755.html

Thank you for the clarification, Konstantin!  I was wondering if that might be some manual device for clearing jams - obviously wing guns and nose guns couldn't be unjammed that way, but a gun with a gunner could.

Regards,

Jason

Correct names for two parts/devices are:
Recharge pneumo-cylinder in UBS and UBK
Recharge lever in UBT

Normally, the gun was ready to fire automatically.  For various reasons it was sometimes necessary to cock/reload/unjam the gun.  This was done using two devices, depending on machine gun model.

Explanation from http://www.airpages.ru/ru/ub127.shtml

For those who want to learn how to disassemble and assemble UBT, instruction is available at http://depositfiles.com/files/fywgqjc15
Some usefull drawings in this 1941 book, for example back handle and trigger at pg 32.
(http://img10.tr200.ru/image2/0205/95/02059550.jpg)

For those who want to buy a real UB it is available for 160 000 rub at http://milart.ru/catalog_ros_imp/186/614/
(http://milart.ru/upload/iblock/6a6/1.jpg)

Thank you for the further information, Konstantin!  And yes, I do want the Berezin, but only if it's a real UBT from an Il-2 (what I really want is a full VYa-23!).

Regards,

Jason

Hi Richard,
I have the Accurate Miniature IL2-M3 in 1/48, what do you think about the comparation between the two kit? What do you think is the better? I would be interested in opinions from other forum members...

Ciao.

Marco

Here is Brett Green's comparison of the two kits on Hyperscale:

http://www.hyperscale.com/2012/features/il2amtamiyacomparison48bg_1.htm

I have the two kits, and I can say that the Tamiya kit is better, with beautifully-done surface detail, and is the best Shturmovik kit available in any form.  However, both kits suffer some inaccuracies/omissions - the elevator trim tabs should not be extended beyond the elevator trailing edge (the Prague-Kbely Il-2 has this feature, but it may have been limited to late/postwar Shturmoviks), the lever attached to the round object on the starboard side of the pilot's seat should be mounted on the aft wing spar, not forward as it is, both kits are missing the emergency manual gear retraction mechanism (most kits miss this), and the square ejection chute on the undersides of the wing should be pointing to the port wingtip, on both sides, and are not mirror images of each other (the AM kit gets this correct, almost alone among Il-2 kits; Tamiya gets it wrong).  Perhaps the weakest point on the AM kit is the spinner; it's much too rounded and should replaced with the Vector spinner and propeller set.  The Tamiya version is much better in this respect.  I'll post a more in-depth analysis of the rights and wrongs of the Tamiya kit in another thread, complete with photographs, but I'm still putting that together.

Regards,

Jason

Possibly a specific feature of the Czech-built Avia B-31? I haven't searched very hard - Wikipedia says: "Original Il-2m3 at Military aircraft museum in Prague,Czech republic", but Wikipedia is not always authoritative.

John

John, this feature may be specific to Czech Shturmoviks; the Czechs, however, never built the Shturmovik (unlike the B-33 version of the Il-10, which they did build).  Only the Soviet Union ever built the Shturmovik.  The B-31 designation was a postwar designation for the Czech Il-2's which were all Soviet-supplied examples.  The Prague-Kbely example is a restored example, but looking at the earlier version (which is present in the picture book on this particular aeroplane and the Il-10 at the Prague-Kbely museum) it had the extended tabs even before its most recent, extensive restoration.  Looking at the Yugoslavian example in the Belgrade museum, I don't see these extended tabs, yet this definitely appears to be a late, possibly unrestored, but well-preserved arrow, with the streamlined rocket railings, cannon fairings, and metal wings.  It is interesting to note that the 1942 Flight Manual and the currently flying Flying Heritage example, both show flush elevator tabs.  I can't rule out their usage during WWII, as it is usually difficult to impossible to tell, but I don't think it was the usual configuration.  If anyone has photographs that can show the usage of these extended elevator trim tabs, especially during the GPW, I would love to see them.

Regards,

Jason

Oops - my mistake!  Thanks for your reply, Jason! ;D

John

Hi Guys, many thanks for your explanations!  :) It is very hard to resist buying the Tamiya's Shturmovik !!!!!! When I saw it I...am in love whit it!!!
Ciao.

Marco

Give in to the temptation, Marco!

Regards,

Jason

No problem, John!  I'm just about ready to do my post talking about the Tamiya kit in more detail.

Regards,

Jason

Hi Jason,
yes, I know, at the end will yield to the temptation...maybe for Christmas... ;)
Ciao!

Marco

Did any already seen the Brassin UBT gun from Eduard for the Tamiya kit? :P

http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/ED648079

I've seen where Eduard have come out with some aftermarket sets for this kit, but I hadn't seen this.  Very nice!  Thank you for the link, Michel!  I just wish they'd come out with some Brassin sets for the Hobby Boss kits (as opposed to just the etched sets).

Regards,

Jason

Hi Jason.
I'm looking forward to your analysis, and I'd still really like to know what you think about the Tamiya windscreen. There was some rather contentious debate on another forum, started by that Gaston fellow, but it apparently died out without any particular resolution.

Best,
Pip

Pip, my analysis is posted now.  As far as the windscreen "controversy", I'll take a look, but it sounds like much ado about nothing.  The real problem with the Tamiya windscreen is the inscribed lines on the side panels should be at 90 degrees to each other (I checked many wartime photographs to confirm this).  However, that's something only someone as terminally obsessed with the Shturmovik such as yours truly would even detect and/or care about.

Regards,

Jason

Probably is Gaston person not a builder but a complainer. ;D

Michel, he does seem to be a bit of a professional complainer.

Regards,

Jason

Hi Jason.
Yes, I realized after posting that your analysis was already there (and I had already looked at it some time ago). As I recall, Gaston Marty's complaint (posted to Aeroscale) was that the dimensions of the center panel of the Tamiya windscreen were off, being too wide. Subsequent discussions at HyperScale led to suggestions that there probably were different configurations on various real planes, and the topic faded away pretty quickly. It's really academic to me since, for space reasons, I'm unlikely to build another 1/48 Il-2 in the foreseeable future.

Best. Pip