B-17 model kits 1/48

[craigmason1971]

Hi i am looking for a B-17 model kit in 1/48 scale i have seen this one Revell memphis belle at wonderland models is this a good kit are there any other Boeing B-17 kits in 1/48 ???

[Gorby]

As you can see from Scalemates there are lots... but they are all based on the same Monogram tooling from 1975.

 

https://www.scalemates.com/search.php?fkSECTION[]=Kits&q=1%3A48+b-17*&fkTYPENAME[]="Full kits"

 

I haven't built it, so I can't comment on the quality of the kit.

[Troy Smith]

18 minutes ago, Gorby said:

but they are all based on the same Monogram tooling from 1975.

The Revell tooling is a matter of controversy,  as it came after the Mongram B-17G,   but parts are pretty much interchangeable, Monogram said "don't let it happen again..."

the Revell B-17 F lacks interior detail, the Mono B-17G has various guises with extra bits.(bomb bays, clear fuselage, Cheyenne tail turret)

There used to be a really great breakdown of the kits on Swanny's models but that's gone (try the wayback machine)

found it

https://web.archive.org/web/20151231163710/http://www.swannysmodels.com:80/B17G.html

should tell you all you need to know.

 

What you may find more useful is to work out what B-17 you might want to build and pick a kit  based on that, as there are lots of changes depending on block number etc.

HTH

T

 

 

 

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, Craigmason1971

I have both kits in my stash and I built Monogram's Chow Hound more than three decades ago. Unfortunately, the kit came with a four pages prospect of superbly built diorama of battle-damaged B-17G, complete with very realistic shrapnel and bullet holes, and crew figures with aircraft's nose art on backs of their jackets. I decided to do the same, but did not quite succeed to say the least ... Monogram's kit was great when it had been first released but shows its age these days. As Troy said, Revell's F model interior is a bit on a bare side, but there is plenty of AM stuff around for both kits. Still, even B-17F OOB built can produce very good results, if one keeps everything buttoned up. Cheers

Jure

[Troy Smith]

16 minutes ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Unfortunately, the kit came with a four pages prospect of superbly built diorama of battle-damaged B-17G, complete with very realistic shrapnel and bullet holes, and crew figures with aircraft's nose art on backs of their jackets.

 ta-dah..

see http://sheperdpaine.atspace.com/b17g.htm

 

all the Monogram dioramas are here, these were inserts in the kits and inspired many a builder.

http://sheperdpaine.atspace.com/

 

with more photos and notes on each,  and lots of good tips to be had even now.

cheers

T

[Don McIntyre]

You could even use Monogram parts to detail the Revell kit. I think that Squadron has vacuform clear parts that allow you to convert the Revell B-17F to a B-17E version.

[bentwaters81tfw]

The G is a better kit than the F. I have built both. The G does not come with a Cheyenne tail or staggered waist guns. It's no great shakes to convert though. As with all kits, know your subject before you begin. Plenty of aftermarket bits and decals to be had. A useful point is the wings are a slide fit, and if space is a problem, they can be detached for storage.

http://village.photos/members/Frank-Bell/My-Photos/299022/IMGP2126

http://village.photos/members/Frank-Bell/My-Photos/299027/100_0451

 

Incidentally, don't make the mistake shown in the Wonderland pics. The slots on top of the wings are fuel tank vents, and do not have oil streaks coming from them. Any streaking flows from the engine cowls and either side of these vents, and is not a thick black streak as shown.

http://village.photos/members/Frank-Bell/My-Photos/299086/384188

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

The G does not come with a Cheyenne tail

 

No,  some boxings do,  as the link I provided shows, (which is why I hunted it out)

  the Promodeller and reissue of visible fuselage kit specifically

Quote

Pro Modeler B-17G 
        When the Monogram G molds were set up for modification in 1996 most details stayed the same with a few exceptions. First the tail end of the fuselage was replaced with a Cheyenne tail turret and the clear parts were updated to include the correct glazings. This clear piece was added through an addition to the clear sprue where all the original G parts were retained including the original tail gun clear part. In addition to the Cheyenne clear part two new waist gun window panels were added to allow for the removable type of panel verses the earlier G that had gun mounting pins and of course the original pieces are still there. Now these were the only changes made to the existing molds but a new small sprue was added to the box, this sprue included five crew members in high altitude gear, the pilot, copilot, two waist gunners and the bombardier. On this sprue are also the detail pieces for the Cheyenne tail gun station and a few interior detail pieces for the waist guns. Lastly, Monogram included a small photo etched fret from Eduard that had wiring harnesses for the engines, a nice dash, belt buckles and a few other small detail pieces. 

 

which is why I put the Swanny's link in, as it  says what boxings have what,plus a partial round up of aftermaket.

 

I think the only available new 1/48 B-17 kit is the Revell, but there are  loads of the Monogram kit available, I've just noticed that there is a Revell  boxing of the G  kit

 

be interesting to know what version is in this.

 

Craig,   read the links,  have a ponder,  it's a big kit,   so you might want to think what scheme or version you wish to do, there are loads of decal sheets available as well as AM

see

https://www.hannants.co.uk/search/index.php?product_category_id=&product_division_id=&manufacturer_id=&code=&product_type_id=&scale_id=955&keyword_search=b-17&setPerPage=100&currency_id=

 

which does no  include OOP items.

 

When you get to 100 posts, I'd suggest asking in the wanted section,  as there are loads in stashes unbuilt,  I know I have 3 of them myself.... 

 

cheers

T

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

Incidentally, don't make the mistake shown in the Wonderland pics. The slots on top of the wings are fuel tank vents, and do not have oil streaks coming from them. Any streaking flows from the engine cowls and either side of these vents, and is not a thick black streak as shown.

 

good detail point

just about visible here,  note how the vents actually deflect the oil from the engines,  leaving clear spaces

 

 

there  was a better one here but it's been PB...

 

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=47569

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Troy Smith
add details and pics

[Britman]

I built the Monogram B17 not long after it came out and I thought it was outstanding. It had everything you might need to make a nice model. Scrutineers may disagree , but it had lovely thin glazing and just looked every inch a B17.

[Johnny_K]

Hi,

 

I built the Chow Hound a couple of years ago. It may not be 100% accurate but I  think that it is a good representation of a B-17G. It I an old kit so there is a lot of flashing to deal with. Regarding the vents on the upper wings behind the engines. Theses vents were for the supercharger's  intercoolers. Leaking oil should not be coming out of those vents. Stains from leaking oil is usually visible behind the cowlings.  Photos of my B-17G:

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, I should have taken more time to deal with the long seam between the two sides of the fuselage. 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Its very good work 👍 as they say Hindsight is always 20/20. Its not that big really its on the bottom of the plane where it is less visible.

[Johnny_K]

I tried to make the plane look like it has been on one too many bombing runs. notice the repaired panels on the top and the brand new aluminum panels on the bottom. The model was painted with rattle cans.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Its impressive work hopefully will see more like it.

[Nachtwulf]

On 9/21/2017 at 2:36 PM, bentwaters81tfw said:

Incidentally, don't make the mistake shown in the Wonderland pics. The slots on top of the wings are fuel tank vents, and do not have oil streaks coming from them. Any streaking flows from the engine cowls and either side of these vents, and is not a thick black streak as shown.

 

I was under the impression that those were exhaust vents for the turbo inter coolers and oil coolers. But I am frequently wrong, just ask my wife.

 

[bentwaters81tfw]

I have heard this quoted elsewhere. If you look at photos of the airframes that were fitted with 'Tokyo tanks', you will see there are two more of these vents chordwise in each wing tip. No intercoolers there, so I will stick to my story . The 1/48 kits lack these vents, which means more research, as not all airframes had them. Chose your markings or make your own vents. 

[nickhenfrey]

I built the Revell F for the recent Revellogram group build (with a lot of help and advice from the posters here) 

 

I did add some detail in the nose and waist positions, but the cockpit, turrets and radio station are fine as they are imo

 

I also added Master gun barrels

 

It turned out quite nice (I think)

Build log is here 

 

 

 

[Arniec]

There are also a F and G version from Hong Kong Models. They are quite new 2019 & 2021. I haven't seen them personally, but heard that they are OK. I think the price will be twice of the revell/monogram range. 

 

Cheers, 

[Bozothenutter]

15 minutes ago, Arniec said:

There are also a F and G version from Hong Kong Models. They are quite new 2019 & 2021. I haven't seen them personally, but heard that they are OK. I think the price will be twice of the revell/monogram range. 

 

Cheers, 

Don't the HK Models -17's have shape problems?

I remember something about the top of the nose being  too rounded. 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

8 minutes ago, Bozothenutter said:

Don't the HK Models -17's have shape problems?

I remember something about the top of the nose being  too rounded. 

 

On the 1/48 there are two things hard to unsee.

Source: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/310017-148-b-17-series-from-hk/page/3/

 

One is the fuselage behind the wing which is substantially fatter than the real thing.

 

 

The second is the outer engine thrust lines on the wings - they're set too high which may seem trivial but it also means the nacelle behind the engine is much too bulbous before it tapers into the wing on top and is lacking contour below.

 

It's a real shame, as it's hard to unsee once seen and would be a huge task to correct and reinstate all that surface detail. More, in my judgement, than just scribing and riveting the Monogram kit which isn't perfect but is much closer in shape.

[Bozothenutter]

51 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

 

On the 1/48 there are two things hard to unsee.

Source: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/310017-148-b-17-series-from-hk/page/3/

 

One is the fuselage behind the wing which is substantially fatter than the real thing.

 

 

The second is the outer engine thrust lines on the wings - they're set too high which may seem trivial but it also means the nacelle behind the engine is much too bulbous before it tapers into the wing on top and is lacking contour below.

 

It's a real shame, as it's hard to unsee once seen and would be a huge task to correct and reinstate all that surface detail. More, in my judgement, than just scribing and riveting the Monogram kit which isn't perfect but is much closer in shape.

Just went throughthe thread....oof, that is a hard pass!

The faults are so fundamental, the Monogram seems a better option indeed!

Could the HK be an (expensive) detail parts donor?

[WrathofAtlantis]

1 hour ago, Bozothenutter said:

Just went throughthe thread....oof, that is a hard pass!

The faults are so fundamental, the Monogram seems a better option indeed!

Could the HK be an (expensive) detail parts donor?

 

  I've looked hard, and the only detail part that is an improvement on the HK are the waist windows, which have the correct center window "skewing" to see better to the rear...

 

  Other parts that might be useable are the propellers, which have a little more blade twist, but that is reaching... Hard to say if the HK cowlings are better, but they do have engraved panel lines in an area where raised lines look poor.

 

  The big difficulty with the Monogram B-17G are the wings, the left one making things worse by being moulded slightly warped (not on mould exit, but in the mould itself), and also not helping things by having quite thick wingtips...

 

  The biggest problem is that the real wings have a very unusual amount of detail right along the long joints of the leading edges, including not one but two large landing lights (their kit glass is just barely useable, and not great), numerous leading edge intakes, and an unusual amount of joint-crossing panel lines (and even raised strips!), all of it made worse by being raised in a convex area. This carries on in the nacelles, where the join is "heavy" to say the least, and carries through a lot of nearby detail. By the time the surfaces are smooth, your nacelles will tend to have flattened out of round...

 

  To be fair to Monogram's valiant but doomed effort, on the HK all the engraved leading edge detail is completely mismatched, and this even carries into the intakes!!! This is what made the modeller below abandon the kit, and for good reasons. (Never mind that the overall accuracy is just pathetic, which he usually ignores):

 

  

 

 

  Overall, shape-wise I think the Monogram B-17G is one of the greatest kits ever offered (incomparably better than their awful B-24 and B-29s, and it also has the only accurate symmetrical tear drop wing root profile in any scale!), certainly the best 1/48 WWII aircraft kit of the 1970s (imho, unlike in other subject areas, I think this is not saying much), but the reality is that the technology of the times could not handle the complexity of the subject when going into its details. I have seen incredible builds of it, but the scale of the commitment must have been that of joining a Monastery... The problem with raised lines could be side stepped by making a metal finish (I think raised lines can look passable in metal), but that is precisely where this kit's fit will absolutely doom you to fail... All the good builds I have seen where engraved lines with Olive Drab. I have seen one good metal build, but there the modeller had foiled the whole thing with hundreds of panels...

 

  With the possible exception of their Me-262 (which was puttied in real life), the problem with most Monogram airplanes is that the current minimum standards (given high resolution cameras) have become too high for them to offer a satisfying result, especially if you make the dire mistake of taking close up pictures... I'm resigned to waiting for the upcoming ICM B-26B (in December) for my big 1/48 WWII bomber fix, and the B-17 bandwidth unfortunately has been polluted by the HK kit for many years to come.

 

  

 

  

 

   

Edited May 21, 2023 by WrathofAtlantis