B-17F in 1/72 - options?

[Smudge]

I found reading through this thread very interesting. For several reasons I favour the Academy kit myself. I wasn't really aware of any issue around the dihedral of the main wings. What is the generally accepted 'easy fix' for this?

[Wm Blecky]

On 1/15/2018 at 2:30 PM, Ratch said:

Don't get the new Revell B-17F mixed up with the old one

 

A bit rough now

Oh no, I am quite aware of the new Revell B-17 kit and honestly, I'd much sooner run with the original / old one.  The new Revell B-17 kits have a look about them that is off and I am not the only one to be saying this.  I have read it elsewhere. 

[Wm Blecky]

5 minutes ago, Smudge said:

I found reading through this thread very interesting. For several reasons I favour the Academy kit myself. I wasn't really aware of any issue around the dihedral of the main wings. What is the generally accepted 'easy fix' for this?

As for "fixing" the dihedral, I would just insert a narrow strip on the top of the wing at the fuselage and then a little filler.  That would alter it enough.  Mind you, one might have to do a little sanding on the bottom of the wing where it meets the fuselage as well.  I have come across other modeller's comments for addressing this.  A little Googling should net you some more suggestions.

[Wm Blecky]

Hi Smudge, so the shim idea seems to be the way to go and not much is required.  Have a read here.  The thread is from the ARC and speaks to your very question!

Edited January 17, 2018 by Wm Blecky
correct typo

[J.C. Bahr]

I have always preferred the look of the Academy fuselages over Hasegawa as there's just something wrong with the Hasegawa cockpit area...

 

That being said and recognizing the problem of the Academy wings dihedral and lack of leading edge openings... anyone given thought to cross-kitting the Academy F fuselage with the wings from the new Airfix G?

[Bedders]

Good point JC. And (showing my ignorance here) I was wondering how much of the Airfix G-model fuselage you would have to junk & replace to get to an F? Tail gunner's spot certainly, waist windows would need a look, chin turret of course, but how much else forward of the cockpit would need to be done?

 

Justin

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, Bedders said:

Good point JC. And (showing my ignorance here) I was wondering how much of the Airfix G-model fuselage you would have to junk & replace to get to an F? Tail gunner's spot certainly, waist windows would need a look, chin turret of course, but how much else forward of the cockpit would need to be done?

 

Justin

a 'it depends'  question.

 

B-17's are pretty complex in detail,  the F went through less block numbers than the G,  and  the G is really complex.

 

Which means pinning down what kind of G  the Airfix kit is.....and what the F model kits represent..

 

A better solution would be to pick a B-17F you wish to model,  and then pin down the details.

 

why....

 

I don't know of a decent online source with pictures,  but I found this  here

http://www.b17queenofthesky.com/variants/prototype.php?id=12&tle=B-17F

 

I have added bold to a couple of relevant paragraphs

Quote

It wasn't long before the shortcomings of the B-17E were addressed. With the introduction of the B-17F, over four-hundred changes had been made over the B-17E. Most of these changes were internal and very minor. However, all of them improved on the Flying Fortress's combat worthiness.

This is not to say there were not major changes to the aircraft. Externally one of the most noticeable changes was to the front nose cone. The metal framing was removed and was replaced with a single, molded Plexiglas nose that was longer than the original. The lower section of the nose cone retained the flat panel for bomb aiming. The longer nosecone gave the bombardier a better field of fire with his nose mounted machine gun and freed up some room in the nose compartment.

Another major innovation was the fitting of Paddle bladed propellers to the new Cyclone R-1820-97 engines. The propellers were 1 inch longer for an overall diameter of 11'7 inches. The blades were also widened through their cord letting them take a larger 'bite' out of the airstream and giving them their 'Paddle Bladed' look. Because of the wider propeller blade, the engine cowlings hand to be shortened and reshaped. This was necessary to allow the new propeller blade to fully feather unobstructed.

As was mentioned these were fitted to more power versions of the Write Cyclone engine. The R-1820-97 engines were rated at 1,380 horsepower under emergency wartime setting.

Part way through the production additional tanks were fitted to the outer wing panels of the B-17F. These tanks, most commonly referred to as Tokyo tanks, increased the B-17's fuel payload from 1,730 US gallons to 2,810 US gallons giving the B-17F tremendous range. These tanks appeared on B-17Fs starting with the B-17F-80-BO, B-17F-25-DL and B-17F-30-VE blocks.

It is important to address these block numbers and what they meant. With Boeing, Vega, and Douglas all building B-17s in different locations (Boeing was in Seattle, WA while Douglas and Vega were both in Southern California) it was impossible not to have differences in aircraft built on different production lines at different times and in different locations. It was thus decided to come up with a system to determine what model of B-17 the aircraft was along with when it was built and where it was built. Block numbers would begin with the model of the aircraft such as B-17F. Next would be the Block number itself and would be started with the number one. For example: B-17F-1 would be the first block of B-17Fs. These numbers would be increased by five per block so that the second block of B-17Fs would be numbered B-17F-5. The reason for this is so that if changes were made at the field modification centers that the planes were shipped too following production that these modifications could be tracked as well using the block number. Lastly, the plant ID was incorporated into the block number as well. BO was Boeing in Seattle, DL was the Douglas plant in Long Beach, CA, and VE was the Vega plant in Burbank, CA. With the B-17F, there were 27 line blocks from Boeing, 17 from Douglas, and 11 from Vega. So, B-17F-80-BO was the 12th block from Boeing, B-17F-25-DL was the 6th block from Douglas and B-17F-30-DL was the 7th block from Vega.

Other improvements to the B-17F were made to the landing gear, brakes, oxygen system, bomb racks, ball turret, bombsight/autopilot link, astro-compos, and a nose bubble in the upper nose section.

The armament changed in the B-17F as well. Side nose guns were added at the plants. These cheek guns had previously been fitted at modification centers. These were added in the B-17F-55-BO, B-17F-15-DL and B-17F-25-VE blocks. These guns also became staggered. The right side gun was moved forward while the left side gun was moved back. This allowed the Navigator (who usually would use the left gun) and the bombardier (who would operate the right) to keep from getting into each other's way. Later, these positions were bubbled out to allow the guns a greater forward field of fire against head on attacks. This bubbling out of the windows was carried out at modification centers on the F model.

Unfortunately, nose armament remained unchanged from the factory. The B-17F was still fitted with the small .30 caliber machine gun. However, combat in the Pacific and later in Europe showed that the enemy knew the front firepower of a B-17 was lacking and her crews decided to do something about it. Maintenance crews, at the request of the combat crews, fitted one, two, and sometimes three .50 caliber machine guns into the nosecone of the B-17F. The nose couldn't handle the recoil of a single .50 caliber machine gun much less three of them so additional bracing had to be provided to handle the additional recoil. Soon, some of these modifications started being done at modification centers in the states before the planes went overseas. While these temporary modifications were being made, the factories were trying to fine a more effective solution to the B-17's lack of forward firepower.

This solution was the Bendex Chin Turret. This turret had originally been used on the XB-40 gunship project. While this experiment proved unsuccessful, the chin turret was found to be a major improvement to the B-17's forward firepower. This turret was fitted to the last eighty-six B-17Fs to come off the Douglas assembly line starting with block B-17F-75-DL. Many times these last B-17Fs are mistaken for B-17Gs which were all equipped with this turret. The chin turret was fired by the Bombardier using a sight that hung from the top of the nose and protruded out into the nosecone. It was controlled by a yoke that could fold away to the right of the nose compartment in order to make room for the bombardier to use the Norden bombsight or was otherwise not in use. The turret housed two .50 caliber machine guns and was a welcomed addition. When Douglas and Boeing began to produce B-17s with this feature, the aircraft was re-designated as the B-17G.

The B-17F had some major performance differences over it's predecessors. Top speed was 325 mph. This was faster than any other production B-17 and was due to the new paddle bladed propellers and more powerful engines. Range, when equipped with Tokyo Tanks, was increased to 4,220 miles. Its surface sealing was raised to 38,000 feet again thanks to the new propellers. Max bomb load, using new external bomb racks on some B-17Fs, was 9,600 pounds though the average bomb load in the European theater was around 4,000 pounds.

In all, 2,300 B-17Fs were produced by Boeing while Douglas built 605 and Vega built 500. Douglas built Fs had stronger wing spars than their Boeing counterparts. Vega had similar wing structures and also featured reinforced fuselages. Because of this, Douglas and Vega built B-17Fs were slightly heavier than planes made by Boeing and thus had slightly different operational altitudes. Vega built B-17Fs had fuselage problems. They suffered stress constrictions where the fuselage was joined at the radio room. Wings from Douglas and Vega B-17Fs could not fit Boeing B-17Fs because of these production changes. Also, wings built in the higher temperature climate of Southern California were different from wings built in the cooler temperatures of Washington state. Because of their inexperience and thus lower efficiency at building the B-17, Douglas and Vega built aircraft were generally more expensive to produce than the Boeing versions.

 

 

so, the nose layout of the B-17F can vary a lot,  from a basically an late E to early G in appearance.

which is way i suggested picking a subject (or subjects, ) and seeing what you need and what various kits contain.

 

Hyperscale Plane  Talking is a good place,  as they have a bigger US membership.

 

Disclaimer,  I'm dimly aware of the variations,  and that there are lots,

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1204438245

Quote

"Fortress in the Sky" show 9 variations of the nose.

March 2 2008, 9:14 AM

From placement and style of all "clear parts" to the variation in armament.

 

 

HTH

 

 

[Bedders]

That's great info Troy, thanks very much. As ever with a project, it all has to start with the research.

 

Justin

[Wm Blecky]

22 hours ago, J.C. Bahr said:

I have always preferred the look of the Academy fuselages over Hasegawa as there's just something wrong with the Hasegawa cockpit area...

 

That being said and recognizing the problem of the Academy wings dihedral and lack of leading edge openings... anyone given thought to cross-kitting the Academy F fuselage with the wings from the new Airfix G?

I am intrigued by J.C.'s question and would like to add another angle to it.

 

Could anyone confirm if the engine nacelles between the Academy kit and Airfix kit share the same diameter?  Unlike J.C., I am willing to make do and adjust the dihedral of the Academy wing, but Eduard has a really sweet looking resin engine and nacelle set that I am tempted to see if I could fit to the Academy kit.  It's a touch pricey, so I'd like to be sure before I invest in it.

 

[72modeler]

Wm,

 

FWIW, I've always held the opinion that the cowlings, engines, and props on the Hasegawa B-17F/G are much better than the ones that come in the Academy B-17F/G kits, and I have multiples of each. The new-tool Revell B-17G cowlings and engines are also better than the Academy ones, and the props are very nice, as well.

 

JC,

 

Is the issue with the Hasegawa B-17F/G windscreens that they are too upright and need to have more of an angle? I can't seem to find any written reviews on that issue, but it does look more upright in photos than the w/s on the Academy and Revell kits.

[Wm Blecky]

5 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

Wm,

 

FWIW, I've always held the opinion that the cowlings, engines, and props on the Hasegawa B-17F/G are much better than the ones that come in the Academy B-17F/G kits, and I have multiples of each. The new-tool Revell B-17G cowlings and engines are also better than the Academy ones, and the props are very nice, as well.

Thanks.  Can you confirm if the diameter at the front end (where the engines and cowlings attach) of the nacelles is the same on the Academy and Airfix kits?

[72modeler]

45 minutes ago, Wm Blecky said:

Thanks.  Can you confirm if the diameter at the front end (where the engines and cowlings attach) of the nacelles is the same on the Academy and Airfix kits?

Wm- Good question! Just happened to be able to get to all of my B-17 kits, so I measured the inside and outside diameter of the cowlings, not including the cowl flaps; I also made some personal observations of each, for what that's worth. Hope this helps you or any other modeler contemplating a 1/72 B-17F/G. There was a lengthy discussion on B-17F/G kits and detail differences between the manufacturers and block numbers elsewhere on this site- do a search and see if they are helpful- lots of good information there from several very good modelers!

 

Academy:

13mm ID; 20mm OD (no cowling panel lines; lip of cowl is too blunt, lacks  rounded edge of the real item0

Airfix n/t:

15mm ID; 20mm OD (no cowling panel lines; lip of cowl is too sharp- lacks the rounded edge of the real item)

Revell n/t:

14mm ID; 20mm OD (cowling has panel lines and the lip is rounded like the real item)

Hasegawa

15mm ID; 20mm OD (cowling has panel lines and the lip is rounded like the real item)

 

Hasegawa and Revell kits have the best props- good blade profile and hubs are OK, but slightly underscale (like almost every 1/72 prop kit- why can't the kit makers get the hubs right?)

 

Airfix props OK, but hubs slightly underscale; blade profile simplified compared to the top two contenders; Academy props have the poorest blade profile for their F/G kits; narrow chord props and cowlings for their B-17C/D kits are better. Quickboost makes replacement resin cowls and props for the Academy F/G kits, but the cowling lips aren't as good as the Hasegawa and Revell kits. In my opinion, after comparing it to the other kits and drawings, the new-tool Revell kit is useful for its outstanding detail parts, but has too many shape and dimension issues; it does look good when built, however....but those wings and that nose!

Mike

[Wm Blecky]

11 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

Wm- Good question! Just happened to be able to get to all of my B-17 kits, so I measured the inside and outside diameter of the cowlings, not including the cowl flaps; I also made some personal observations of each, for what that's worth. Hope this helps you or any other modeler contemplating a 1/72 B-17F/G. There was a lengthy discussion on B-17F/G kits and detail differences between the manufacturers and block numbers elsewhere on this site- do a search and see if they are helpful- lots of good information there from several very good modelers!

 

Academy:

13mm ID; 20mm OD (no cowling panel lines; lip of cowl is too blunt, lacks  rounded edge of the real item)

Airfix n/t:

15mm ID; 20mm OD (no cowling panel lines; lip of cowl is too sharp- lacks the rounded edge of the real item)

Revell n/t:

14mm ID; 20mm OD (cowling has panel lines and the lip is rounded like the real item)

Hasegawa

15mm ID; 20mm OD (cowling has panel lines and the lip is rounded like the real item)

 

Hasegawa and Revell kits have the best props- good blade profile and hubs are OK, but slightly underscale (like almost every 1/72 prop kit- why can't the kit makers get the hubs right?)

 

Airfix props OK, but hubs slightly underscale; blade profile simplified compared to the top two contenders; Academy props have the poorest blade profile for their F/G kits; narrow chord props and cowlings for their B-17C/D kits are better. Quickboost makes replacement resin cowls and props for the Academy F/G kits, but the cowling lips aren't as good as the Hasegawa and Revell kits. In my opinion, after comparing it to the other kits and drawings, the new-tool Revell kit is useful for its outstanding detail parts, but has too many shape and dimension issues; it does look good when built, however....but those wings and that nose!

Mike

Perfect, thank you!  You have more than answered my question.  Based on this information, I think the Eduard set should work well.  Interestingly, it seems all manufacturers have come up with the same outer diameter - 20mm  A bit of a surprise I must admit.

 

It also looks like both the Airfix and Academy kits share similar shaped nacelles - "(no cowling panel lines; lip of cowl is too blunt, lacks  rounded edge of the real item)".  Another plus as this further suggests that the Eduard set should work.

 

As for the props, I had planned on using the Quickboost B-24 set (I have read that the B-24 and B-17 used the same prop) and I also just saw that QB also does a set for the Revell kit - guess that is covered either way now.

[k5054nz]

After reading this thread I'm amazed the definitive (or very very good) 1/72 B-17F kit is yet to be produced. It's stunning to read of what bits from Kit X you need to add to Kit Y!

 

To further muddle things: what would be the best kit to build a 1990 movie Memphis Belle B-17?

[dalea]

Quickboost produces replacement  cowlings for the Academy (QB 114) which are allegedly appropriate for all B-17s from the B to the G.

[72modeler]

51 minutes ago, dalea said:

Quickboost produces replacement  cowlings for the Academy (QB 114) which are allegedly appropriate for all B-17s from the B to the G.

Not quite. The B-17B/C used a cowling that had no cowl flaps and were fitted with narrow-chord props. The B-17D/E cowling was the same except cowl flaps were added; they used the same narrow-chord props as the previous two variants. Beginning with the B-17F, paddle blade props replaced the earlier narrow-chord props to take advantage of the increased power of the R-1820's fitted to it and the G. Because of the increased chord of these prop blades, the lip of the cowling was shortened and had a rounded edge so that the blades would clear them when fully feathered. It's a very subtle contour and is a very distinguishing feature of the F's and G's; hard to describe, but if you look at photos of the real thing, you will see what I mean. The Quickboost cowlings, at least in the photos I have seen, ( I don't have a set.) look better for a D and an E than for an F or G, as the front doesn't have the curvature quite right. See if the links below help. The first shows an actual B-17G cowling; the second shows the Eduard Brassin resin set, which looks very, very good; the third shows a comparison of the Academy and Quickboost cowlings.

Mike

 

https://img.rcgroups.com/http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/101-200/walk164_B-17/part3/images_Greg_Wise/02_B-17_engine_No3.jpg?h=RltYITNUqOm6BRCIDUO4qQ

 

https://www.eduard.com/store/out/media/gallery/3179/zoom/b-17g-engine-1-32_06.jpg

 

http://www.ipmsusa.org/reviews/Details/Aircraft/quickboost_72/b17_cowl.htm

 

 

 

 

[Wm Blecky]

Excellent info and some great pics to illustrate what you have said.

 

Interestingly, I think that front of the original Academy cowling looks about right (or at least better) when compared to the Quickboost set, but then you are still left with the problem of the missing cowl flaps.

 

 

I wonder if the reviewer on the IPMS USA website didn't just sand off more than he should have?  If not, I suppose one could add a strip of plastic around the lip there, sort of defeats the purpose of the aftermarket set though, doesn't it? 

[72modeler]

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 2:03 PM, Michael51 said:

And a 1/72 Manchester.

 

I mean, really, how significant is another Me262 nightfighter over a Manchester?

 

Michael

Hear, hear! You got that right! I would literally kill for a new-tool Manchester!

Mike

[LotusArenco]

On 1/14/2018 at 5:54 PM, 72modeler said:

the antenna in the close up photo was angled forward, and I wasn't sure how that could be.

A bit late to the party, but couldn’t that just be the wind?

 

Mart

[occa]

On 2/8/2018 at 9:45 PM, 72modeler said:

Airfix n/t:

15mm ID; 20mm OD (no cowling panel lines; lip of cowl is too sharp- lacks the rounded edge of the real item)

But it does have cowling panel lines, at least if you mean the new tool B-17G / Fortress III kits.

Also it has a rounded lip, dunno how accurate the curvature is tho, haven't compared it to photos of the real thing yet.

 

[k5054nz]

On 2/9/2018 at 2:25 PM, k5054nz said:

To further muddle things: what would be the best kit to build a 1990 movie Memphis Belle B-17?

I was about to start a new thread, but my forum search found this one with my question yet to be answered...

 

I'd like to build the main movie Belle, N3703G, in 1/72 - would it be best to start with a G and backdate (like the real machine) or an F, and which kit would be the most accurate for this airframe as depicted in the film?

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

There are photos of N3703G in the ancient Warbirds Worldwide, taken during filming of the Memphis Belle flick. Her cheek windows look like those on last series of B-17 Fs, which had already been equipped with chin turret, but still lacked cheek machine guns. Since there is no kit of B-17 F-75-DL available my suggestion is to go down the backdating G model path. There are probably AM B-17 F top turret and late B-17 G bombardier transparency with horizontal seam (I think last Vega built models had them) available, but you will have to scratch-build cheek and waist gunners' windows. Cheers

Jure

[72modeler]

See the link below to a very nice photo collection of N3703G, which was used to replicate the Belle in the movie. She appears to have been fitted with two different nose caps at various points in time: one is a very shortened, bulbous example (I think there was a batch of these made for postwar restorations.) and the other is more elongated and curved, like an original B-17F nose transparency. I have also attached a link to a beautifully restored original B-17F "Boeing Bee" located in Seattle, WA for comparison. IMHO the F was the prettiest of the bunch, and was also the fastest! You should use photos of the original Memphis Belle for the configuration and location of the nose windows and gun mounts, and an internet search for the AF Museum's restoration will get you excellent detail photos and some in-progress and rollout videos.

Mike

 

https://www.jetphotos.com/registration/N3703G

 

https://447.insidetrackmagazine.com/b-17-list/b-17f-boeing-bee/

 

[tomprobert]

5 hours ago, k5054nz said:

I was about to start a new thread, but my forum search found this one with my question yet to be answered...

 

I'd like to build the main movie Belle, N3703G, in 1/72 - would it be best to start with a G and backdate (like the real machine) or an F, and which kit would be the most accurate for this airframe as depicted in the film?

You’d be better off getting hold of an E-model kit and use that as the starting point.  The nose window arrangement of N3703G is the same as the E-model with the three small windows either side of the nose. You can easily source an F-model clear nose piece from various after-market providers to complete the look. 

 

If you can find the Academy E-model, you’d have the correct waist gun arrangement (although N3703G is a late G-model it’s been modified with opposite waist guns like the E/F/early Gs), the correct ‘stinger tail’, top turret and the Coastal Command version of the kit has the ball turret too. As I said all you’d need to source would be the larger nose cone and decals - which KitsWorld do. 

 

The only thing you do have to watch with the Academy kits is the excessive wing dihedral, but this can be easily sorted with a shim of plastic card. I’ve never built an Academy B-17,  but I’m sure those who have will chime in with the correct procedure to fix the wing. 

 

This would be far more straightforward than back-dating an F or G kit. 

 

Tom

 

EDIT: Forgot to add that the E-model has narrower props than the F/G model so you may need to source some paddle-blade propellers (I can’t recall if these are in the Academy E-model kit). I think I have a spare set of the props you need should you require them. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by tomprobert

[Jure Miljevic]

Choosing B-17 E would solve cheek windows question, but then one would have to find paddle-blade propellers, late model cowlings, blank out windows on the top of the nose and scratch-build G type astrodome instead, add fuel vents on wing tips ... It is hardly worth it. Cheers

Jure