Italeri Tu-22M Backfire C

Well, I got it yesterday at Hobbytown in Mobile. Man did they have the stuff...

The subject is a re-issue of the AMT/ESCI version. What a bummer. I have been looking at the real pictures and it does not comprehend with the kit. Does anyone know if there is a correction kit for it? if so, e-mail me.

William snipped-for-privacy@gulftel.com

Reply to
William Powell
Loading thread data ...

It's not a fantastic kit, but there were three versions of the Tu-22M - the M1, M2 and M3, all significantly different - I believe the Italeri kit is an M3, so make sure your reference pictures are of the right varient!

Reply to
Matt

As is well-known, the kit has more than its share of problems due mainly to very little data available to ESCI on the real thing. I was hoping at least that Italeri would add the correct nose radome to the re-released kit. The best info I've seen regarding this kit is here:

formatting link

I'd sure like to see a new-tool kit come along. Good luck with your project!

formatting link

Reply to
Bubba Moose

I made this kit (the Tu-22M2 version) many years ago when it first came out.

I have been meaning to do the Tu-22M3 - correcting it as I went - for some time, so this thread has inspired me to have a go.

I have some good drawings - from an old copy of a Russian magazine - so I got a friend to scale them up on his photocopier to 1:72 scale ..........

Comparing the Esci kit (mine is an old kit stashed away) with the drawings reveals that some major surgery is required to make an accurate Backfire.

I have already started chopping and cutting - here's what I have done so far.

The wings are 10mm too far forward - so I have removed the wing fixed glove portion from the lower rear fuselage section. I will have to re-attach them mounted further back later.

The fuselage is 4mm too deep at the point where the front and rear sections join - it is OK at the jetpipes - so I removed a wedge-shaped section 4mm deep at the front, tapering to zero at the stabiliser. When the top and bottom rear halves are joined, this takes care of the fuselage depth.

I have also had to remove a corresponding section from the front fuselage

- by cutting the front part in half - top and bottom - and removing plastic to reduce the height.

The shape of the canopy opening is incorrect - it has a sloping rear in side profile.

I will have to insert a 10mm plug between the front and rear halves before they are joined - and add about 25mm and totally reshape the radome.

I will probably have to scratch-build new intakes - I don't think I can use the kit items - they are way too deep and the top surface should slope down.

The good news is that the fin, wings and stabilisers are OK !!

I am taking photos - and making notes - as I go along, so I'll write it all up and let you know the results.

Of course as soon as I have finished this major conversion, Trumpeter or Amodel will release an accurate model of a Backfire !!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast Flankers Website -
formatting link
Reply to
Ken Duffey

I have just posted some pics to abms showing progress with the Esci Backfire.

I have managed to use the kit intakes - suitably cut down.

I'm off now to do some major sanding.............

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast Flankers Website -
formatting link
Reply to
Ken Duffey

Ken - You, sir are a brave soul! those kits might be too much work for me! I've got both Backfire-B and -C kits and they may continue to collect dust while I wait for something better to come along.

I'd like to ask you - is the old ESCI Blinder kit just as bad? Thanks...

Patrick

formatting link

Reply to
Bubba Moose

The ESCI (Italeri) kits of both Backfire and Blinder need some reworking. Check out more details at:

formatting link
regards, Meindert

Reply to
Meindert

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.