21st Century Toys MiG-15

eddie372 · Post by **eddie372** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:55 am

A great addition to the fleet, for sure. Now my F-86s will have boggies on their sight. Overall, the shape of the airplane looks very realistic, and the guns and movable surfaces gives it that extra realistic touch. I'm excited about it and looking forward to release date.

Tinman · Post by **Tinman** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:27 am

Another must-have!

Moth · Post by **Moth** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:15 am

Anyone notice that the Sabre is a basicly a copy of the Mig?
Or was the Sabre first?
I think the Mig was first, but I am not sure.

I think the Mig is a better looking plane though

KAGNEW · Post by **KAGNEW** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:59 am

the Mig 15 was a stolen ( war prize) German Kirk Tank design with British jet engine stuffed up tail
the F-86 Sabre was a P-51 Mustang with German swept wings and a British jet engine stuffed in tail
so they had a lot in common

Moth · Post by **Moth** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:27 am

Thanks for the information

Post by **aferguson** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:04 pm

yes both the Mig and the F-86 owe a great deal to german wartime research, hence their similar apperances...

Website · Post by **Teamski** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:59 pm

They look similar???

-Ski

Post by **aferguson** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:35 pm

they do....same lay out, same wing sweep angle, same fuselage air intake. Remember at the time these were brand new ideas, so for both to come out at around the same time one could easily look like a copy of the other.

Website · Post by **Teamski** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:53 pm

Yeah I know. I just joshing ya. For being of the same configuration, they are quite different in design philosphy.....

-Ski

scbvideoboy · Post by **scbvideoboy** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:47 pm

That's always been the case with russian vs american aricraft or weapons

ala Ak 47

Russian= cheap and reliable, easy to build, rugged to land on farm fields

American = super expensive, heavy maintance, need highly skilled training and fragile

The F-16 was a effort to reduce the above, and look how many were sold abroad

DH

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:09 pm

it's interesting to compare the two design philosophies of the Russia (specifically the Soviet Union) vs. the US.

As stated above cheap/rugged/easy to build and maintain vs technologically leading edge/superb build quality.

Their design philosophy won the war for the Soviets as they overwhelmed the German technological superiority. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if nuclear weapons didn't exist and the therefore inevitable WWIII had taken place in Europe. Would Russia's numbers have overhelmed the West's (mostly the US's) technical edge, as they had the Germans?

The West probably would have destroyed russian tanks at a rate of at least 5 to 1 and aircraft at maybe 7 to 1 but the russian's could have afforded that loss rate and still triumphed.

In vietnam the technically very disadvantaged NVA and VC were more than able to hold their own against a technological giant in the US. Of course there are extranious factors involved, chief of which was the politicians of the day tieing the hands of the military to such an extent that they were not able to take full advantage of their superiority.

It would seem, though, that rugged numbers of competent machines is better than small numbers of highly technical and excellent ones...albeit very hard on the soldiers and crews in the field, due to the inevitable high loss rate.

That said, it is one of the most technologically sophisticated machines developed in the 20th century, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, that is credited with ending the cold war almost single handedly.

The cost for Russia to defend against it would have been so high that it would have virtually bankrupted the Soviet economy. This fact awoke reformists, like Gorbachev, who gained a foothold and eventually was able to bring about changes that lead to the fall of communism in Russia (although that wasn't his original intent).

Website · Post by **Teamski** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:11 pm

Andrew,

Are you referring to right after WWII or later??

-Ski

digger · Post by **digger** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:19 pm

that lead to the fall of communism in Russia

I thought Russians were still Communists?

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:14 pm

Ski, i was thinking of late 40's through to 1990...what is typically thought of as the 'cold war era'.

There is still a communist party in Russia but there are other parties as well and there are free elections now. They elect a president for a four year term..

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:15 pm

I just realized this thread is getting pretty off topic now. So......how 'bout that 21c Mig, huh!

Sabrefan · Post by **Sabrefan** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:34 pm

Anyone have any idea when the 21st Century toys Mig-15 will be on the market? I am really looking forward to getting one.

Post by **aferguson** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:02 pm

I'm guessing late fall...don't think there's been a definite word yet.

Morian Miner · Post by **Morian Miner** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:06 pm

Still optimistic they'll announce these, with Platoon figures, for ComicCon

tko211 · Post by **tko211** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:33 pm

FYI-

This comes from Roy Sutherland at 21st. He wanted to weigh in on this thread. Roy knows alot about aircraft and lots of weeks are invested in the research needed to provide top notch products.

I personally like to get these tid bits as I feel it adds more interest and value to the products!

-from Roy Sutherland at 21st Century Toys-

I would like to clear up a few misconceptions about the MiG-15 and the F-86 Sabre. The MiG-15 has been often reported to be a WWII German Ta-183 fitted with a British Engine. The MiG-15, while obviously inspired in layout by the Ta-183, bears little more than a passing resemblance to Kurt Tanks design. A side by side comparison will reveal the MiG to be much larger and quite different, with only the swept wings and high mounted horizontal tail looking similar. The Klimov VK-1 engine was an unlicensed copy of the Rolls-Royce Nene engine, but the Russians made a lot of modifications and improvements as well.

The F-86 was not based on the P-51 at all. It was a totally new design based on the experience gained producing the Mustang. It was not fitted with a British jet engine, which were all centrifugal flow at that time. The Sabre had an axial flow jet engine of American design and manufacture. The F-80 Shooting Star, which saw combat in the first few months of the Korean War was fitted with a British engine, however. The MiG-15 had the edge in performance until the advent of the F model Sabre, but the better trained and more aggressive US pilots were what made the real difference in actual combat.

tko211 · Post by **tko211** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:53 pm

This came in from Roy as some additional information on the MiG-15. Also he wanted me to let everyone know and apologize in advance that Roy is pretty busy right now working on some new stuff and he might not be able to respond for a little while.

-Roy Sutherland's comments-

One last note on the MiGs. The MiG-17 Fresco is very different from the MiG-15 Fagot (a name we will not be using on our packaging for obvious reasons!!). The fuselage was lengthened to eliminate the serious handling problems of the MiG-15, and both the wings and tail were much more highly swept back. The VK -1 engine was fitted with an afterburner from the Fresco C on. There were also 3 wing fences on each wing as compared to the single fence on each wing on the MiG-15. Admittedly, they do look similar at first glance, though. And yes, I am aware that some will be unhappy that we will not be using the proper NATO designation for the MiG-15, but sometimes you have to make concessions to operate as a business in the real world. Happy collecting!

Post by **aferguson** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:55 pm

so no Fagot?

It's just a bundle of sticks tied together is it not? (not that there's anything wrong with that..)

Moth · Post by **Moth** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:03 pm

Why not use the Russian designation for the Mig-15, sorry I forgot what it is though

Morian Miner · Post by **Morian Miner** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:26 pm

tko211 wrote:
One last note on the MiGs. The MiG-17 Fresco is very different from the MiG-15 Fagot (a name we will not be using on our packaging for obvious reasons!!). The fuselage was lengthened to eliminate the serious handling problems of the MiG-15, and both the wings and tail were much more highly swept back. The VK -1 engine was fitted with an afterburner from the Fresco C on. There were also 3 wing fences on each wing as compared to the single fence on each wing on the MiG-15. Admittedly, they do look similar at first glance, though. And yes, I am aware that some will be unhappy that we will not be using the proper NATO designation for the MiG-15, but sometimes you have to make concessions to operate as a business in the real world. Happy collecting!

But at least we have the front end to start with! Not and easy conversion, but I can't wait to give it a try!

tko211 · Post by **tko211** » Wed May 10, 2006 10:07 pm

Keep an eye on AREA-21 tomorrow! An update on the MiG-15 project is on it's way. With even more to come. Time to dust off this thread for some new discussion.

vulgarvulture · Post by **vulgarvulture** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:16 am

Check out Area21. The new paint scheme looks good!