Page 7
MiG-21 BIS - WHAT´S CHANGED, WHAT´S NOT
COMMENT:
The fuselage spine seems to be most important
area for type identication, and represents
type-specic basic shape changes between the
real aircraft, as well as in the kit. We have com-
pletely redesigned this part, adding details spe-
cic to the BIS, such as the small fairing on the
left side behind the canopy, or the large rectan-
gular one on the right side. We also redesigned
the top of the vertical tail in the UHF antenna
cover area. It is difcult to identify, but we deci-
ded to modify it, because it is apparent on the
real aircraft. However, although it is apparent,
we did not identify it at rst, and didn’t make
the connection (and the resulting problem in this
area in our MF and SMT kits) until later. There
is a symmetrical quality to the prole of the en-
tire tail of our 1/48 scale MF, but the prole is
a little bit baggy in the UHF antenna cover area.
When we rst noticed that this area is different,
we were quite surprised, but actually, it is just
another marginal difference, interesting as it is,
quite invisible in 1/48th.
The only detail change was not limited to the tail.
There are two large screws on the top of the spi-
ne immediately behind the canopy. If you need
them, you have to create them yourselves. Sorry.
FUSELAGE
WINGS
AERIALS
FUSELAGE, YES:
NO CHANGE ON THE PLASTIC PARTS
FUSELAGE, NO:
1. CANNON LOADING DOOR.
2. CANNON
3. AIRBRAKE
COMMENT:
There are no changes to the fuselage section. The
question is, what needs to be different, or what
is really wrong for the BIS, and what is wrong
for the MF.
1. Cannon loading door wasn´t changed, be-
cause there is a late MF door on the fuselage,
which is probably the same or similar to that used
on the later BIS.
2. The cannon is modied by a photo-etched
part, except for a specic Croatian variant,
which is remedied in plastic. It has to be applied
after the removal of the original piece. Our ca-
nnon well itself represents a late MF and BIS ver-
sion, so it is correct, but I saw a review saying it
is the wrong version.
3. Airbrake – we deem the difference to not be
signicant enough to warrant a new design.
4. Exhaust trailing edge represents the BIS ver-
sion, so it is incorrect for our MF kits. However,
not many comments have come to light over this
marginal discrepancy, which is in the order of
tenths of a millimeter.
WING YES:
1. WING FENCES
WING NO:
1. SPOILERS FRONT OF WINGLETS
COMMENT:
Wing fences are another sample of the extre-
mely subtle changes in these aircraft. Compared
to the MF, the BIS fences are composed of three
sections, with a small enlargement on the leading
as well as on the trailing edge of the fence. Our
fences are absolutely correct, but this design -
nesse is also rather invisible. At least the noted
enlargements are unfortunately invisible, but, to
Photo: Gábor Szekeres
be absolutely honest again, it doesn’t block me
from being proud of them! I am also, and maybe
even more so, proud of the top of the tail, and
especially of the RSBN antennae, which I will ex-
plain later.
The winglet spoilers were not incorporated into
the design because it represents another tech-
nical problem, and in this case not only applies
to plastic, but also to photo-etching. It is simply
beyond our technical ability. It was just a peace
of thin plate on the real aircraft, and what we
could do, would be too fat, or very difcult to
apply if made as a photo-etched part because
of its extremely small size.
There are plenty of various aerials in the BIS kit,
created for various local air force variants, and
I do not doubt that others are missing. The mi-
ssing ones are surely signicant, but probably
a theme for another article. Some of the avai-
lable aerials are created in plastic, some others
are photo-etched, some others could be made in
resin, if necessary. You know we can be exible!
And nally, just a few words about the RSBN
antennae and why we are so proud for them.
The RSBN antennae of the POLYOT OI ILS are
the two antennas, one located under the nose,
and the other on the top of the tail trailing edge,
that look like a trident. We suspected that these
parts are too ne to be injected in 1/48th scale,
but we decided to try it, but with an alternative
version without the two thin side parts, with the
base rod to be completed with photo-etched.
We simply expected that it could be real pro-
blem to get a complete plastic injection with such
thin parts. I am sure you know the situation, when
something doesn´t work, and after hours spent
to nd a way around the problem, all you can
do is mutter ‘damned thing‘s buggered!’ Well, in
this case we were just plain happy, immediately
after the rst tool trial, when we got a comple-
te and beautiful plastic RSBN antenna. Never
mind, that the side ats are a tad fatter than
they need to be, and that the difference from
the optimal thickness is probably bigger than
BIS
BIS BIS
BIS
BIS
BIS
BIS BIS
BIS
BIS
that damned nose difference, these antennas are
simply beautiful! WHICH IS WHAT WE ALL NEED
AND WANT, GENTS!
eduard
7
Info Eduard - December 2011