New 2D toy: Mig21 Lancer!

[ccc]

Aeyes brings us new toy again!

http://www.simnet.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lancer.htm

[Hunter]

OH MY ...!!!

[Widowmaker]

Aeyes for President..

Widmak

[Tazz]

Even when they're just Fishbeds!

[Aeyes]

Apparently some guys in the F4UT are making a Mig 21 Lancer too based on the same material. So I may discontinue this one to avoid double work, but not sure yet, let's say quality has to be as good.

[Hunter]

[quote]quote:Aeyes for President..

[RP]

OK Aeyes! I've had it. What is your secret to those detailed cockpit shots

Good job...as usual!

[ccc]

What? I suppose its part of F4A Mig21 Lancer package!!

Since its in early stage, i wont comment on that perspective view of HUD device, viewpoint higher than usual level.

my 2c, I prefer a classic pit for fishbed, which could be widely used in Vnam and middle east theaters. After all, upgraded fishbed like lancer or mig21-93 are seldome seen in current theaters.

[Snake Man]

quote:Originally posted by ccc:
my 2c, I prefer a classic pit for fishbed, which could be widely used in Vnam and middle east theaters. After all, upgraded fishbed like lancer or mig21-93 are seldome seen in current theaters.

Dont worry. From what I know, it will be Vietnam friendly version... MF or something. Dunno, havent paid too much attention to the discussion

PMC TFW
Snake Man

[ccc]

na na na, classic pit IS totally different from this Lancer pit!!

you can check my test sample in threads titled "Cockpit for fun".

[Aeyes]

As far as I know there is work done for both versions, the MF and Lancer.
CCC, perspective isn't right in the screenshot, i know . heavy tilt is needed, and this is a downwards view. Anyway, have to see if it is necessary at all to continue the Lancer version.

[ccc]

[quote]quote:CCC, perspective isn't right in the screenshot, i know !! it seems you just lean forward and raise from the seat!

na, na, im not pushing you to complete it. just my humble 2c. Since you ever sit in Typhoon, you know what i mean.

[Aeyes]

quote:Originally posted by ccc:
no offense. even at downward view, you cant see that HUD projection lens in this way !! it seems you just lean forward and raise from the seat!

Mmm, well, that's what I thought too at first, but some other pics showing a typical looking forward out of the pit angle, proves that you can see the projection lens. I do agree that the pic I showed above has some angle that is exagerated. The pilot obviously stretched a bit to get it all at once.
Have a look at this one:


Now if this is taken from a too high angle, how much view would there be left looking forward?

[ccc]

Oops!
i've no idea about your solid real pic but, imaginarily designer wont let pilot have adirect look at that lens, the strong projection light could hurt his eyes?

now look at this russian upgrade.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... ig212.html

I'll check Lancer links later.

[ccc]

Arrrrgh...Aeyes you could be RIGHT. though i dont think its a good design..
http://www.deltawing.htmlplanet.com/lancer.html
http://www.army.cz/noviny1/clanky/mig21/lanc2.jpg

other shots
http://www.army.cz/noviny1/clanky/mig21/mig21.htm http://www1.huali-cn.com/~airshow/photo ... dex_3.html http://www.army.cz/noviny1/clanky/mig21/kab.jpg

[Tazz]

I'd almost think that the original photograph was taken from a position *HIGHER* than the pilot's "eye-level".

I mean, if the pilot would really sit in the Lancer like this, it doesn't make sense to tilt that ICP panel forward, does it?

[Aeyes]

quote:Originally posted by Tazz:
I'd almost think that the original photograph was taken from a position *HIGHER* than the pilot's "eye-level".

I mean, if the pilot would really sit in the Lancer like this, it doesn't make sense to tilt that ICP panel forward, does it?

That's what I thought too at first, untill I saw some other pictures.
The one here shows that it's angle is not necessary in a bird's perspective, but more horizontal or even a little looking up. The first pic I showed above does indeed come from a position a little higher than normal pilot's eye position. The second is lower.

Re the ICP panel tilting making sense, actually it is positioned quite aergonomical

[ccc]

hmm..Eblit try to fill their product into that slot

[Aeyes]

Since there is a team within F4SP working on this plane I will no longer develop a pit for it. They are using the same base material wich was provided by Froglips, and wish them good luck with it.

[brewskie]

This will be a nice addition to F4. Rugged, and they made thousands of these. Glad to see Aeyes is doing what he does "best".

[Tazz]

How about a F-14 pit.. or an A-4M pit?? CCC was working on a great model for it.. and a pit would be awesome! Hauling iron over Vietnam with your Marines Skyhawk.. or fighting to liberate your country in Operation Desert Storm with your "Free Kuwait" A-4! Just a thought.

[Aeyes]

I would place bets on a F-14 once I have gathered enough and good enough material for it. Anyone with highly detailed cockpitpics let me know pls

[krfrge]

Aeyes,

All I can say is job well done. Awesome work!

[Tazz]

F-14 pit would be *awesome*

Now if CCC or Ripper would provide us with a better F-14 3d model...Oh boy!

[Hunter]

Aeyes, i have 5 pics of F-14 cockpit, WSO and pilot front views, A and D versions but... they're quite small.
I'll send them over to ya.

[Hunter]

Tazz, if ya want cockpits for Falcon maybe you need to take interior aircraft shots as well.

[Tazz]

"Hi there, I know you're busy starting up that MiG-21MF there but I would really like to ask the pilot to step out so I can sit in the cockpit to make some cockpit shots.. yes the MiG-21MF in 'live weapon' area, where you've just loaded some live R60's onto."

Hmm I don't think so

[ccc]

I mailed Ken Duffy a while ago.
His album shows he ever stayed in pits of various Migs and Sus.
Dunno if he can provide some reference material..no reply yet.

[Tazz]

Well I can imagine that getting shots of museum aircraft is hell of a lot easier than operational aircraft. I normally don't do museums though. Especially not when the aircraft get fake serials or painted canopies.. Brrrrr.... How can they do that??

[ccc]

Well, Museum wont let you sit in their collection. I've been rejected for times.
You must be museum insiders, volunteers, or have good relation with them.

[Tazz]

Oh, well there's a large Royal Netherlands Air Force museum close to my town and they even have "open cockpit days" where people can actually sit in (certain) aircraft. They're very reasonable too. If I would ask them if I could make pictures of the cockpit of.. a F-15A or MiG-21, I don't think they would reject it. Sitting might be difficult but with some good communication back and forth I think I could push the request through. I just don't have time at the moment at all.

[Aeyes]

Tazz when are those days? Also I don't think they are gonna be really happy if you ask about the F-15. My latest info id that the canopy is taped and sealed up and that the museum is not very willing to open it.
Anyway, would still be intresting to visit that particualar day. For me not for the Mig-21 anymore as you know, but whatever they have opened up.
I believe I saw some nice oldies last year I visited.

[Tazz]

I wouldn't have a clue. I totally forgot that they taped the canopy. The F-15 they have is as fake as fake can be. It *is* a real F-15A but it never flew with the 32nd FS. I think they serialled it 77-0100 or 77-0132. Which is not true because the real 77-0100 is flying with the 102nd FW/101st FS (MA ANG) at Otis ANGB, MA. I have no idea where the real 77-0132 is now but that F-15A in the museum is not it.

I haven't been in the museum in *years* so I'm not sure which one of the BDRT (Battle Damage Repair Training) Airframes it was. The 32nd FS had two BDRT F-15A's:

F-15A 73-0091
F-15A 74-0083

If I recall correctly, 0091 was a former Hawai ANG machine and 0083 came from the Louisiana ANG. Both were in quite bad shape when I saw them in 1992 and 1993. 0091 was parked at the photoday in 1992 and looked badly patched up and I came across 0083 in a lonely corner in a hanger when I was on base in 1993 with it's canopy missing, ejection seat gone and lots of parts (rudders, panels etc) on a pile.

I guess it's the 0083 they used in the museum because 0091 still had a working (and properly fitted and sealing) canopy. Atleast when I saw it in 1992. I can't imagine much BDRT classes were done after 1992 when the axe dropped and the 32nd FS went into gear to deactive.