1/72 B-17G Airfix, Released. New boxing Fortress MK.III also released. New B-17G boxing for 2021

[Graham Boak]

Or a ruler?

[IanC]

It's a great kit - which I still haven't got round to building - although I think replacing the oversized Brownings with finer resin ones is an essential improvement. 

 

 

[chuckb1]

Ever notice, no one ever gave Roy Cross grief with his box art? He had more going on than you could shake  a stick at, everything all guns blazing and aircraft in flames. The B-25 box art looks more like the pit of hell meets Hiroshima. I do think the community have got very picky over small stuff. What I would hope is that box art, brings in a young person to the hobby. If the latest Spielberg and Hanks project on the Mighty 8th Airforce/Masters of the air, brings in new young blood from the mini series or what ever format it may bring. Its watched, enjoyed and via a website or a shop they see a B-17 on a box lid and think "Know what would not mind having a go at that." we gain one more new modeller. 

 

Just sayin!

[Space Ranger]

3 hours ago, elger said:

 

Someone with the relevant software might also be able to compare these to the Granger drawings and see how correct they are.

 

 

That can be done using Photoshop by changing the transparency of one image then copying and pasting it into a new layer on the second. But both images have to be the same resolution (dpi).

[IanC]

1 hour ago, chuckb1 said:

Ever notice, no one ever gave Roy Cross grief with his box art? He had more going on than you could shake  a stick at, everything all guns blazing and aircraft in flames. 

 

They probably did, but it was far more difficult in those days to express it. A letter posted to Airfix Magazine maybe? 

 

I do actually remember - not sure when or where - someone objecting to the Fw 190 about to crash into 'A Bit O' Lace'. 

 

I like your description of the B-25 box art..😄

[fightersweep]

@Space Ranger Thanks ever so much for posting all those drawings. I printed off the nose profile and resized as suggested, and the Airfix fuselage fits perfectly. Good enough for me. Offering kits up to plans is not something I often do, but this was one of those rare itches that needed scratched. I'll post a photo up as soon as my phone is charged.

 

@chuckb1 I can certainly attest that the all action box art pulled me in as a kid back in the 70s. After all, we grew up on a diet of all action model box art and comic artwork. Then the early 80s ticked round and I remember adolescent me seeing the Airfix photo boxes for the first time and thinking "Meh!" 

[chuckb1]

8 hours ago, fightersweep said:

@Space Ranger Thanks ever so much for posting all those drawings. I printed off the nose profile and resized as suggested, and the Airfix fuselage fits perfectly. Good enough for me. Offering kits up to plans is not something I often do, but this was one of those rare itches that needed scratched. I'll post a photo up as soon as my phone is charged.

 

@chuckb1 I can certainly attest that the all action box art pulled me in as a kid back in the 70s. After all, we grew up on a diet of all action model box art and comic artwork. Then the early 80s ticked round and I remember adolescent me seeing the Airfix photo boxes for the first time and thinking "Meh!" 

 

So true, I was raised on a diet of 50's war films, Warlord, Battle and Commando Comics. HMS Nightshade led me to build the Matchbox Corvette, my best Christmas present ever!

 

[elger]

If anyone is like me and sometimes lies awake at night thinking how the Academy, Revell and Airfix kits compare this might be of interest; I've taken some pictures of comparing some of the main components and discovered some interesting things.

 

 

Overall the least tall fuselage is Revell. Here it is compared to the Academy kit. The Academy kit on the left is about 1 mm taller overall:

 

 

This photo shows that the Academy fuselage is considerably taller than Revell. Revell is on top, Academy below. Notice at the bottom how far the Academy kit extends especially in the rear section:

 

 

Below, Airfix (left) and Revell (right) are very similar - notice that I've used the Revell clear part in the Airfix nose:

 

 

Revell on top showing that the Airfix fuselage (underneath) is only slightly taller, but the difference is much less pronounced than in the Revell/Academy comparison:

 

 

Two interesting things I discovered doing this comparison that I hadn't heard about before. First, the Academy and Revell wings have the same thickness. They would be virtually interchangeable:

 

 

The wing root of the Airfix kit is much less thick; swapping the wings with either Academy or Revell would create a noticeable but small step of less than 1 mm:

 

 

The other thing I found was that the shape of the nose cones differ considerably. They all have the same basic circumference, about 19 mm, but the Academy nose is a circle with a flat bottom:

 

 

The Revell nose cone is V-shaped in the lower half: 

 

 

The Airfix nose also features a bit of a V-shape in the lower half but it's more subtle than Revell:

 

 

In conclusion, the overall least tall fuselage is Revell, and the tallest is Academy. Airfix is somewhere in between, but closer to Revell. The criticism that the Revell kit received about the nose being too pointy is not true when you look at the side profile (in fact, all nose cones have the same basic circumference of approximately 19 mm). The Revell nose, however, has the most pronounced V-shape in the lower half of the nose cone in front view, which could make it appear pointer from a certain angle I guess. Airfix also has this V-shape in the lower half, but it's less pronounced and looking at photos of real B-17s the most accurately shaped (Revell a close second, the effect looking somewhat exaggerated to my eye).

 

The thinnest wing profile is Airfix. The Revell wing is exactly as thick as the Academy wing, but because the Academy fuselage is taller perhaps the effect is less noticeable - it's more in proportion.

 

Anyway I hope this is of interest to some!

 

[Graham Boak]

I suspect that the wing root thickness is published in B-17 references - though you probably have to look for %age thickness of the section and multiply by the measured chord.  Either way, I don't think that looking "in proportion" really tells us anything about what these things should be.

[elger]

9 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I suspect that the wing root thickness is published in B-17 references - though you probably have to look for %age thickness of the section and multiply by the measured chord.  Either way, I don't think that looking "in proportion" really tells us anything about what these things should be.

 

I agree completely. I'm only making a comparison between the dimensions of these three kits, not making any statement here about which is more accurate compared to the dimensions of the real thing (except the shape of the nose cones in forward view).

 

However, what I am speculating about is that the Revell kit has been criticized for its wing being too thick, and I was surprised to learn that its thickness is exactly the same as Academy's. While the Academy kit has a range of well-documented issues, the thickness of its wing was never mentioned, as far as I know, so I think that perhaps the thickness of its wing root is not as noticeable because that fuselage is taller overall, making it look less pronounced than the considerably less tall Revell kit with the same wing thickness at the root.

[Homebee]

In box review in your favourite forum - ref. A08017B - Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress 

Source: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235099227-boeing-b-17g-flying-fortress-a08017b-172/

 

 

V.P.

[ho590hm]

Just been looking at the drawings from Space Ranger, which give all the information needed for checking the depth of the nose - and the quality of plans

The basic cross section of the fuselage is circular with a diameter of 90 inches for the centre section, with the cabin decking on top and tweaks for the bomb bay.  

The side view shows that the decking extends 58 inches above the horizontal centre line of the fuselage at the centre of the upper turret, giving a depth of 103 inches at that point.

For the nose profile the table in the fourth drawing defines exactly the nose cross sections of the basic (almost circular) fuselage back to the 90 inch section.  The two relevant columns are the R value and the r/90 degrees value.  Add these together to get the depth of the fuselage - the R value defines the depth below the horizontal centreline, and the r/90 gives the height above, so you can check the profile as far aft as the start of the cokpit.  Then its back to the side view for the upper line.

 

That's just a quick look - probably need to do the same for the rear fuselage given the discrepancies shown above.

 

Howard

[elger]

I just got the 2021 boxing of the kit and #boringobservation: the plastic is a little different - it's harder than the plastic of the 2016 edition. As a result, it doesn't have the oil canning effect on the fuselage from the ribs on the inside. The fuselage halves in the 2016 kit I had were a little warped, but the 2021 fuselage halves are very straight and feel sturdier.

[vppelt68]

10 hours ago, elger said:

I just got the 2021 boxing of the kit and #boringobservation: the plastic is a little different - it's harder than the plastic of the 2016 edition. As a result, it doesn't have the oil canning effect on the fuselage from the ribs on the inside. The fuselage halves in the 2016 kit I had were a little warped, but the 2021 fuselage halves are very straight and feel sturdier.

Thanks for the information! Now - will you build this kit in the B-17 STGB starting in August? V-P