B-52 Question

[GordonD]

I've treated myself to the Italeri B-52G, in the Gulf War 25th Anniversary rebox that came out last year. All the reviews warn that the aircraft pictured on the box lid cannot actually be built with the kit, because the parts are for a cruise missile carrier.  A recent issue of Airfix Model World goes further and says that two out of the four marking schemes included are wrong, but doesn't specify what the other one is! Does anybody know which is the other ringer?

 

The decal schemes included are these:

• 1708th Bomber Wing, King Abdul Aziz Airbase, Jeddah, March 1991 (this is the one everybody says is wrong)
• 81st Bomber Wing, Moron Airbase, Spain, February 1991
• 4300th Bomber Wing, Diego Garcia AFB, January 1991
• 379th Bomber Wing, Wurtsmith SAC AFB, Michigan, 1977

 

Can anybody who is familiar with this kit help out?

[snapper_city]

There is something to do with the wing roots that are wrong for the options.

[Creepy Pete]

Can't say for certain if the first option didn't have the strakelets, but if everybody says so, I guess it's true. The second option (57-6515) did have them, so you can build that one from the box. The Diego Garcia option (57-6473) also didn't have the strakelets, see here. The ALCM entered service in 1982, and the SALT II talks continued untill 1979, so no strakelets on the Wurtsmith one (58-0251), even in 1985 it didn't have them: Clickie.

 

I wish Italeri would do some better research on their decal options.

[GordonD]

I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking at, to be honest. The second option flagged up a warning from my virus guard so I only managed a quick look before it blanked out the photo and I didn't have time to see what the difference was between that and the fourth option. You seem to be saying that options two and three are the only ones that would give an accurate model, which is a pity because they're the boring all-over grey ones. I'm tempted to ignore accuracy and build it as the Wurtsmith aircraft, which has a nice three-colour camouflage scheme with white undersides. It's not as if I'll be entering it in any shows - I'm building it for me!  

[Creepy Pete]

I'm saying that the only option that can be built reasonably accurate from the box is the second one. But hey, as you say, it's your model, and if you want to build the more colorful one from Wurtsmith, who am I to argue? Go for it!

 

Also, strange that your virus guard blocked the second link. The site is owned by a friend of mine, who is in the IT bussines, and I never had any problems with it. I find it a great reference for anything Desert Storm.

[72modeler]

IIRC, the 1st boxing of the kit by AMT allowed you to build a B-52H, but the boxing that you have was revised by Italeri, who acquired the AMT molds, and can only be built as a B-52G cruise missile carrier, as it has the large leading edge extensions/strakes fitted to the inner wings, which would involve some major surgery to correct in order to backdate it to a B-52H. I have attached a link to an IPMS USA kit review that has photos of the completed model, so you can see how it differs in appearance from a B-52H. Maybe you could find an original AMT kit- but beware, as the plastic AMT used was very soft and the wings were said to droop horribly over time, if some sort of carry-through spar wasn't used. Hope this helps!

Mike

 

http://www.ipmsusa.org/reviews/Kits/Aircraft/italeri_72_b52/italeri_72_b52.htm

[hairystick]

21 hours ago, GordonD said:

I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking at, to be honest.

It is where the wing joins the fuselage.

Earlier models were almost a "T" join (well, apart from the swept back wing...;-) .

Aircraft modified to carry nuclear missiles had to be verified by reconnaissance satellites, so were fitted with curved wingroot join fairings. These are much easier to identify from above.

72modeler's link shows a good example at the bottom of the page.

[e8n2]

5 hours ago, 72modeler said:

IIRC, the 1st boxing of the kit by AMT allowed you to build a B-52H, but the boxing that you have was revised by Italeri, who acquired the AMT molds, and can only be built as a B-52G cruise missile carrier, as it has the large leading edge extensions/strakes fitted to the inner wings, which would involve some major surgery to correct in order to backdate it to a B-52H. I have attached a link to an IPMS USA kit review that has photos of the completed model, so you can see how it differs in appearance from a B-52H. Maybe you could find an original AMT kit- but beware, as the plastic AMT used was very soft and the wings were said to droop horribly over time, if some sort of carry-through spar wasn't used. Hope this helps!

Mike

 

http://www.ipmsusa.org/reviews/Kits/Aircraft/italeri_72_b52/italeri_72_b52.htm

The G and H models of the BUFF also had different engines.  The Gs had the J-57s, the same basic engine as all the previous models.  The H went to the TF-33 for lower fuel consumption, among other things.

Later,

Dave

[GordonD]

Thanks for all the replies. Now that I know what to look for I can see a major difference in the wing root. It's not something that anybody without the inside knowledge would notice but now that I'm aware of it, it is quite a biggie! I will put off any decision as to which aircraft I build until I start work on it - which isn't likely to be anytime soon!

 

As for the virus warning, I suspect my virus guard is erring on the side of caution (which is of course better than it shrugging its shoulders and saying,'Yeah, not sure about that site, just go ahead and see what happens!) I remember not all that long ago when it was flagging up Britmodeller itself as dodgy! That might just have been the bull detector...

[72modeler]

13 hours ago, e8n2 said:

The G and H models of the BUFF also had different engines.  The Gs had the J-57s, the same basic engine as all the previous models.  The H went to the TF-33 for lower fuel consumption, among other things.

Later,

Dave

Thanks for the added comment to my post, Dave; after I posted, I forgot about the engine change, and didn't get back to edit my original post! A real team effort!

Mike

[e8n2]

On 4/2/2017 at 11:34 AM, 72modeler said:

Thanks for the added comment to my post, Dave; after I posted, I forgot about the engine change, and didn't get back to edit my original post! A real team effort!

Mike

As they would say in the Philippines, either walang problema (no problem), or walang anuman (you're welcome)!

Later,

Dave

[72modeler]

9 hours ago, e8n2 said:

As they would say in the Philippines, either walang problema (no problem), or walang anuman (you're welcome)!

Later,

Dave

Suisin? Are there any WW2 naval ships left at Suisin Bay?

Mike

[e8n2]

14 hours ago, 72modeler said:

Suisin? Are there any WW2 naval ships left at Suisin Bay?

Mike

The last time I drove over the Martinez bridge (last fall) I looked and didn't see anything there.  Most have been shipped out to be scrapped now.  The USS Iowa of course is now in southern California down around Long Beach.

Later,

Dave