Sovietwarplanes

Hi all,
there are some interesting considerations on a pair of photos of planes of 163 GvIAP.
http://ava.org.ru/iap/163g.htm (http://ava.org.ru/iap/163g.htm)

(http://ava.org.ru/iap/163g/lagg3-kulagin.jpg)

If one enlarges the detail of the plane partially hidden by the blade, one can vaguely see the distinctive markings on the tail:
(http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/lagg3/163giapdet.jpg)

that could vaguely resemble to this:
http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/lagg3/curvedarrow/curvedarrow.html (http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/lagg3/curvedarrow/curvedarrow.html).

Another interesting photo is o fa La-7 of the same unit:

(http://ava.org.ru/iap/163g/la-7_82.jpg)

the nose is painted just as planes of 176 GIAP (Kozhedub etc.) but the tail is a mystery.

Regards
Massimo

The La-7 probably has the rudder of a light color.

Hi,
enlarging the image, I have the impression of a vertical black line, possibly followed by a red area on the rear of the rudder.

Thank you for posting that first photo - by coincidence, I'm in the middle of building the Toko/Roden 1/72 LaGG-3 series 66, and the photo makes me realize just how inaccurate the kit is! There are so many VVS fighters that need new and accurate kits in 1/72; the LaGG-3 is one of them.

John

Hi John,
what errors have you noted from this photo? I'm aware about the too flat canopy and back and the pointed wings.
Regards
Massimo

- Oil cooler intake under the nose is too small and incorrectly shaped - I used a lot of putty, but the oil cooler housing from a Brengun Yak-1 (part No.5) would work with a bit of modification.
- Exhaust shrouds (part of upper cowling panel p/n 3-B) are too wide and should be both above and below the exhausts, not just above. The correct appearance of these is identical to the ones on a Yak-1b, as you can see from the photo.
- Since the Toko/Roden kit uses the same fuselage halves for all LaGG-3 variants, these have the exhaust flame protectors (which the series 66 did not have) molded on the fuselage sides. These need to be sanded off to make a series 66.
- The intakes at the leading edges of the wing roots are incorrectly shaped, too short (so they need to be extended), and lack any opening (so they need to be hollowed out, too).

Those are the main items that I've seen. When Toko designed the kit, they went too far in trying to cover all of the LaGG-3 series from 1 to 66. They included a whole lot of optional parts to try to do that (for example, 3 sets of tailplanes, two rudders, 3 sets of exhausts, 3 upper cowling panels, two pairs of upper wing surfaces, 3 different lower cowling nose panels and intake lips, etc., etc.), but they still didn't get it all right, and created a kit which is very difficult to assemble because of all the parts fitting that's required. A properly-designed, dedicated kit of the LaGG-3 series 66 (for example) would have far fewer parts and be much easier to assemble neatly.

John

Hi John,
thank you for the notes. Adding this to the too flat canopy and spine, it turns into an hard work to do. I wonder if the alternative kit (I don't remember the logo) is still available in some catalogue.
Eventually, I was wondering if the ICM kit in 1/48, that is very modular, can be modifiable into a type 66 if one can find an alternative canopy.
Regards
Massimo

Hi Massimo - that other 1/72 kit was first produced by Dakoplast and reboxed by Eastern Express. Dako did a series 35 and a series 66. They were much easier to build than the Toko kit, although if I remember correctly, the Dakoplast kits also had some accuracy problems. I'll have to take one out of storage and check it. There was also a 1/72 kit by Red Star, reboxed by Emhar, but it's very basic and represents one of the early-series LaGG-3 versions, in a crude way.

If I was determined to build a series 66 in 1/48 scale, I'd look very hard at the possibility of combining the ICM kit with pieces cut from the Modelsvit Yak-1b, particularly the cowling section. You might even be able to use the Yak-1b windscreen with the LaGG-3 canopy, but the sliding section of the series 66 canopy was extended rearwards slightly compared to the earlier LaGG-3's, so some modification would be needed there.

John

Hi John,
I think to see if I can adapt a canopy from a La-5 of Zvezda that gives a choice between two types. Yes, this would restrict by much my painting choice for the La-5, given that there is only one profile of operative early La-5.
Else, I could see if some vacuformed one is available on the aftermarket.
Regards
Massimo

This might work - Pavla 1/48 vacuformed canopy for the Zvezda La-5 kit:
https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/PAVV48013

John

Yes, this could be an option. For a perfect work, it should have a trasparent nail on the rear about 1 mm long, that is not present on La-5s. I wonder if one could obtain it by modifying the cut of this one.
Regards
Massimo

More errors in the Toko/Roden 1/72 LaGG-3 series 66 kit:
- The instructions tell you to use the wrong radiator housing - it should be part number 19-A, not 20-A. As far as I know, all LaGG-3's used the same housing, with one exception - part number 20-A appears to represent the armoured housing used on the series 34, or it's roughly the same shape, at least.
- The two tailplanes with the correct hinge line shape for the series 66 are parts number 13-B and 14-B. Both of these are supposed to have elevator trim tabs; one of them does not.
- While the instructions Step 6 correctly shows rudder 17-A being installed (you have to cut off the tip of the fin at 45 degrees to do it), the drawing for Step 7 incorrectly shows the very early rudder part number 18-A (the one with two balance weights and a straight joint line) in place!

(These comments apply to the LaGG-3 kit which is specifically identified on the box, the instructions, and the decal sheets as a series 66 - there's also a version of the kit which includes a different box, instructions, and decal sheet to cover all of the series. The instruction sheet in that kit requires careful concentration, since each step shows each of the parts with identification notes to relate them the the correct series!)

John

Hello John and all,

LaGG is one of my favorite types. Related to the accuracy of the Toko/Roden kit it is pretty good except in top of the front fuselage and canopy sliding part. In both of these Dako/EE is better. T/R nose is too rounded and canopy too angular. On the other hand Dako has too wide fuselage, misses the srs 35 liquid cooler intake and has too trapezoidal wing: narrow on tip and too side in the root which leads also to too long front fuselage.

My experience is taht both are challenging to built. Dako wing/fuselage joint was a nightmare in my case.

Basically Iäm happy with Toko/Roden accuracy but a kit of modern standard would be welcome!

Cheers,

AaCee

Hi AaCee! Even though I've built and finished four of the T/R kits (series 11, 35, and 66, and one converted to the Gorbunov 105), I still think it's much too complicated to be an enjoyable kit to build. I think it's reasonably accurate for series 1 - 35, but after studying Jumpei Temma's discussion and drawings of the series 66, I can see that it needs a lot of work to become an accurate series 66. I agree - a modern kit would be very welcome, but we still need modern, accurate kits of almost every one of the most important VVS GPW fighters!

Temma's LaGG-3 article - the series 66 part is near the bottom, just before the large colour profiles of Mironov's LaGG-3:
https://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsoyuyo.main.jp%2Flagg3%2Flagg3.html

BR,
John

Hi John,

I have built two of them. One early and one series 35 or close. I agree with you that they need more labour of love than average kit and built itself is not the most enjoyable. Fortunately the end result reflects to the time invested to the built. Trying to get all of the variants from a single mould with so many mainly small differences is not working with their technology - or was not 20 years ago!

In fact I think Toko got the masters from a company "MC" or something like that? Or was it split to two companies? I don't exactly remember. It has even more softer mouldings than T/R. Strangely the canopy cross-section is correct on it.

I completely agree that most of the WWII VVS types would be nice to get as state of the art kits. IMHO worst situation is in medium bombers in 1/72.

Cheers,

AaCee

Hi  all,
The DB-3 in particular. I suspect that the strange scomposition of the Il-4 of Zvezda derived from an ancient intention to make a DB-3 changing some parts; it would have been a bad model, but at least something to work on.
I built a LaGG-3 of Dakoplast a lot of years ago; a well visible thing is that some parts, as the propeller and the fin, are too fat. The general look of the fuselage is fat.
Regards
Massimo

http://ava.org.ru/iap/10gm.htm

Massive update of the old page, inc. some La5s . Note cool eagle painting.

A lot of interesting photos. Seems that many spinners were silver.
Regards
Massimo

I have a distinct feeling tha Zvezda Il-4 is only Maquette kit with rescribed panel lines and little cleaned up. I have Maquette DB-3 and Zvezda Il-4 kits and are almost identical.

Hi Tiso,
I had read about this. Unfortunately the DB-3 is both rare and poor. Probably the Il-4 of Zvezda could be roughly adapted to DB-3 with few pieces.
They preserved the scomposition of the wings that was thought to replace the engines (I suppose) for the DB-3, but didn't make this version.
I wonder if they thought to make a late Il-4 with arrow wings and kept the outer consoles of the wings separed for this reason.
Regards
Massimo

No, did not plan. IL-4 from the star is the good old Alpha. And the wings are made separately because Alpha was not able to shed more details.