MiG-19 3D model errors

[Zoomer]

There seem to be 2 different types of fins for the MiG-19P version. One being significantly ticker. Look at the pics below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's quite thick isn't it.

 

Now a screenshot of Razbam's MiG at almost the same angle as the second picture.

 

Thanks for that, they look pretty similar. Short of breaking out the measuring tape, it looks more or less the same. Soviet builds always had a certain amount of "leeway" in their manufacturing process. Something similar below.

 

https://www.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/geschichte/flugzeuge/mig-19-bei-der-nva/647480?skip=4#5-647490

Edited January 14, 2019 by Zoomer

[Araks]

 

Please take many pictures and share, there are a LOT of people who would be excited and happy to see them! Especially modelers!

 

 

http://scalemodels.ru/tag/%CC%E8%C3-19%2Cwalkaround

https://igor113.livejournal.com/1141071.html

 

GOOGLE --> Walkaround MiG-19

[Araks]

Soviet builds always had a certain amount of "leeway" in their manufacturing process.

 

 

 

Soviets never built tail fins of supersonic jetfighters with leading edge like valenok

[Araks]

This page from real manual. Everyone can see as leading edge looked in reality

Edited January 14, 2019 by Araks

[Christophe D]

This is why photogrammetry is now a "must".

[Araks]

Does anyone see some difference?

[Araks]

Even valenok lead edge is more sharp

[Araks]

This is why photogrammetry is now a "must".

 

Photogrammetry? Их есть у меня.

Here is very interesting picture. Leading edge in cross section. But it is early variant.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Araks

[Araks]

It is late variant

[Araks]

I don't know what else to say

[Seb71]

Not conclusive. You are comparing a close up screenshot with a drawing (which is not affected by perspective, camera focal length).

 

 

For a proper comparison, you need a section (in same place as the drawing) through the 3D model.

[Araks]

Not conclusive. You are comparing a close up screenshot with a drawing (which is not affected by perspective, camera focal length).

 

 

For a proper comparison, you need a section (in same place as the drawing) through the 3D model.

 

I can make it with my own model

Let them do it now

[Seb71]

You made it wrong (for 1 to 1 comparison purposes with that drawing). The section is too high up and the model is angled in that view.

 

In fact the full drawing from the previous page (from which you made that crop from in the image from this page) is a view from the top, not a section. Also, in that drawing, in the view from the side, the vertical fin is missing that change of angle on the leading edge (that part is removed in the drawing). And that should be above the level of the horizontal stabilizer.

 

That front section of the verical stabilizer (which is not drawn) should be like this (drawn only on the side view):

 

 

 

The vertical red line is an aiding line, to better see the corresponding points from the side view and from the top view.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Seb71

[Araks]

In fact the full drawing from the previous page (from which you made that crop from in the image from this page) is a view from the top, not a section.

 

Section has a same form only smaller. If you don't agree show me a drawing of section you are talking about.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Araks

[Araks]

Like this

[Seb71]

I don't have the 3D model from the game to make sections through it. Or projections.

 

But this image you made:

 

 

 

 

implied that the drawing was a cross section through the indicated point in the 3D model. Then I saw the full drawing and I saw that the portion you cropped is a top view, not a cross section and also the front part of the vertical stabilizer (the different angled one) is not drawn.

 

 

Those 2 points which you linked with that double arrow are not corresponding points. The encircled point in the drawing can't be seen on the real plane, because it's under that angled front section of the vertical stabilizer.

[Araks]

I don't have the 3D model from the game to make sections through it. Or projections.

 

implied that the drawing was a cross section through the indicated point in the 3D model. Then I saw the full drawing and I saw that the portion you cropped is a top view, not a cross section and also the front part of the vertical stabilizer (the different angled one) is not drawn.

 

 

Those 2 points which you linked with that double arrow are not corresponding points. The encircled point in the drawing can't be seen on the real plane, because it's under that angled front section of the vertical stabilizer.

 

Look post 41. Is it section?

[Seb71]

Yeah. So?

 

It's from a MiG-19S. MiG-19P is lower. And I can see some differences between those two.

 

Are those drawings made in 1994 and 1995? Do you know how accurate they are?

 

Also, I don't have the 3D model from the game to made comparisons with any drawings.

 

What I can say is that the screenshot you posted is not a good reference, because it is a close up image. Just stick a camera in front of someone's face and take a picture. The person's nose will appear bigger than it actually is. It's similar with that screenshot.

 

The vertical stabilizer in the 3D model from the game might be too thick or might be not.

[Akatsuki]

As i said, there seems to be two fins variants for the P version, one thicker. Sadly i can’t find solid informations on that. It may end up as both thick and narrow versions are correct depending on the variants.

[foxbat155]

ALL MIG-19 variants had the same fin, only difference is bit different pre-fin size and construction.

[Akatsuki]

You may be right, i must admit that i focused a lot on the pre-fin size... Still the pictures i posted compared to Razbam MiG does not seem that off...

Edited January 14, 2019 by Akatsuki

[Bogey Jammer]

Maybe the thickness is correct and it's only the leading edge which is too flat/round ?

Quite obvious to me too.

[Araks]

Yeah. So?

 

It's from a MiG-19S. MiG-19P is lower. And I can see some differences between those two.

 

 

:megalol:

[Dr_Arrow]

In my opinion, it is because there were two versions with ARU-3 and ARU-2, versions with ARU-3 mechanism needed more bulged front fairing, the versions with ARU-2 were more sharp/streamlined.

[Seb71]

:megalol:

That's all you have to say?