Gav0909 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Hi, sorry if this has been asked before, I had a quick search but couldn't find anything. In my previous modelling guise as a young teenager I built a B-17 in 1/72, but I can't for the life of me remember what make the kit was, and if it was any good. So my question is what is the current best offering of a B-17 available in 1/72? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEMPESTMK5 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Hello Without questions Revell they released the F and G models kits are very detailed and not very expensive .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Yes the new Revell of course, actually the older Academy and Hasegawa versions are not that bad, especially shape and proportion wise the Hasegawa looks the best to me tho ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Personally I still consider the Hasegawa the best in 1/72. I much prefer the surface appearance to that of the Revell one, and I am not convinced of the contours of the Revell kit around the cabin area. Edited February 7, 2013 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don McIntyre Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 If you can live with (or fix) the dihedral issue with the Academy kits, I think they're the equal of the Hasegawa B-17s and you can usually find them much cheaper. You can also find more variants with the Academy kits. IIRC, they've got the B-17B/C/D/E/F and G. Including some kits with RAF markings, again, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfqweofekwpeweiop4 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The Revell kits B-17F and G are impressive kits with a very detailed interior but I've no idea how much of that will be hidden! I have an Academy B-17F in my stash and I think it looks nice enough and should be an easier build as it doesn't have anywhere near as much interior parts and details as the Revell kit. No kit is perfect as they're are correction bits for this, that and the other parts of the Revell, Academy and Hasegawa kits. To me it sounds like all 3 kits are pretty good overall but as people say Hasegawa are expensive - for me it's a choice of Revell or Academy, depending on how complex a build you want. thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heraldcoupe Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I like the Academy kits, though there is an issue with excessive dihedral. I've not built Revell's newer B-17. I have read some criticism of the wing's airfoil though, and agree that there seems to be something amiss at the wing root. Best make your own judgement on this by comparison of photographs. Just don't assume that the latest state of the art kit is more accurate than it's predecessors, Cheers, Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theplasticsurgeon Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 There's been other threads on this subject. I'll respond later with some photos - I'm off out to shoot some arrows now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gruffy Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The new revell kit ! The Academy one is very acceptable too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The wings are the problem area for Academy. From a discussion ARC: The wings have a few other issues as well. The large rectangularsupercharger intakes are molded as shallow depressions, and need to beopened up. The smaller oil cooler intakes between the nacelles aremissing entirely, and also need to be carved out. There's a smallteardrop-shaped bulge on the underside of the inboard nacelles justbehind the engines which needs to be removed..this is supposed torepresent the oil cooler intake for the earlier B-17B/C/D, which wasdeleted on the E/F/G when the oil coolers were moved inside the wing.The outboard superchargers have a weird wedge-shaped thing on the pipe,which needs to be removed..I believe this is supposed to represent acooling scoop, which was only an experimental installation briefly triedout on one of the early prototypes.SN The complete thread is here: http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=259968 The Revell kit is funky WRT the upper turret, it sits way too high. This seems to a problem shared with the Revell Fw 200 as well. It has also gathered some complaints for heavy panel lines. Perhaps the biggest plus for the Revell B-17G is that it has the option for early of late tail turrets, although there is at least one boxing of the Academy kit that also has both options. The Hasegawa 'G' only provides the later Cheyenne turret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ta152e Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The early versions have the most appeal, in my opinion. I do like the B-17C used by the RAF, Academy and Italeri do them. They might need a bit of work (as mentioned above), but they do look pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 If you're talking overall accuracy, then Hasegawa's F is the best. The G is almost as good, but has a few problem areas (the depth of the unfixable Cheyenne turret glass being most egregious). The new Revell kits have some serious shape issues, and trench-like panel lines that should be rows of raised rivets on the nose. And the airfoil profile of the wing is completely wrong, throwing the proportions and relationships of everything *on* the wing (like the nacelles) out of whack. Not one of Revell's more stellar efforts, and entirely let down by having relied on the utterly rubbish drawings by Shigeru Nohara in the Aero Detail book (100% fiction). The Academy kits are okay, but not great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theplasticsurgeon Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 For an early B-17 mark Academy is the only game in town.There's not much difference between the E and F other than nose glazing.Here's my Academy model. As others have said - this kit can build with excessive dihedral.I think the engine cowlings need opening up a bit more.The F is very similar - here's an Academy that i converted to a YB-40Here's the Hasegawa B-17F. Good - was my favourite build until the YB-40. I think this has raised panel lines.G versions will be similar. My only quality offering is an Academy SB-17G lifeboat plane so perhaps unrepresentative.Also I've built 3 ancient Airfix B-17Gs - they're definitely not contenders for title of best! I've got both Revell B-17s unbuilt in my stash. They've each got loads of detail and offer alternate parts for loads of options (without always explaining which to use). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I've built the Hasegawa and got the Revell to build. I think the Hasegawa is the only one who's engines look right in all the kits out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daryl J. Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Remember the Hasegawa wind screen is too vertical and does not protrude forward enough at the midline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elger Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) The only 1/72 B-17 I ever built was the Matchbox B-17 G in my early teens. In my opinion there's not a single 1/72 B-17 that I've seen built up that really captures the look of the real thing as well as the 1/48 Monogram/Revell options do. According to Phil Marchese the Hasegawa fuselage is too short between the cockpit and the ball turret by "a scale foot", which makes the front of the wings and engine too far forward. However, I have to say that the Hasegawa G posted by Theplasticsurgeon above here looks very good. I particularly like the nose (in front of the windscreen) and the wings and engine. All other 1/72 B-17 noses look too pointy to me somehow (especially the new Revell). Having built the Matchbox B-17 as a kid I've always liked it. The only real problem I see with it shape wise (other than the raised panel and non-existent details) is the front windscreen which looks too steep. Somebody finished one a while ago and posted it here: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234933398-172-matchbox-b-17g-flying-fortress/ I've played with the idea of kitbashing a proper B-17 using the Matchbox kit as a basis and using the Academy windscreen and Hasegawa wings but that's so much work and I'm not that good so that's probably not going to happen :-) Long story short, I think that that Academy is the best compromise: acceptable shape, acceptable surface detail, plenty of aftermarket options (including Quickboost to replace the terrible engine cowls). Dihedral can be fixed I guess. Edited February 9, 2013 by elger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clift Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I'm partial to the Academy B-17 family of kits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPNGROATS Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 Some great looking B-17's in this thread........ Cheers, ggc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammasphee Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I have got a couple of quick questions with regards to the Academy kits... I picked up the B-17F cheap, but want to make it into a B-17E/IIa, in particular this aircraft (my grandfather was on one of the test flights, and AFAIK it is the only plane he actually flew, being an observer on Swordfish usually); I believe that I have to make a couple of alterations as quoted above, use the props that the instructions say to leave off, get a new nose glazing and the Quickboost replacement cowlings - correct? Anything else? Thanks in advance for any help. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammasphee Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Bit of a sneaky bump for this, but I also have a couple of added questions to ask. First, there are two sets of tailplanes in the kit, am I right in thinking the E and F had the same, and the spare ones are A/B/C variant? Second, does anyone do generic coastal command decals in red? I've found old sheets in light grey, but I need red for FK212 V- Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theplasticsurgeon Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I have got a couple of quick questions with regards to the Academy kits... I picked up the B-17F cheap, but want to make it into a B-17E/IIa, in particular this aircraft (my grandfather was on one of the test flights, and AFAIK it is the only plane he actually flew, being an observer on Swordfish usually); I believe that I have to make a couple of alterations as quoted above, use the props that the instructions say to leave off, get a new nose glazing and the Quickboost replacement cowlings - correct? Anything else? Thanks in advance for any help. If you can find one - the Academy Coastal Command kit gives what you're looking for. This one is unmodified apart from: Astrodome above the nose, Corrected dihedral. You'd need to find decals for the specific aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomprobert Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 To make an early E model from an F, an important job would be to reduce the size of the larger cheek gun windows to the same size as the two next to them. As you mentioned the nose glazing is also the heavier framed type rather than the frameless blown plexiglass examples on the F and G. The props would be the narrower bladed examples, as used on the earlier Forts (most E models included) but when fitted with these props they also had a slightly longer, more pointed front to the cowlings. When the later paddle blade props were introduced, seen on late model Es through to the G, the cowlings were modified slightly and became more blunted to allow the wider prop to go to the full feather position. If you're using an F kit, theoretically it'll have the later cowling, but how noticeable this would be to the casual observer is open to debate. Again as you said it may be a case of purchasing after market replacements if you feel inclined. The stabilisers are the same on the E, F and G models. I don't know the exact decal sheet numbers, but Hannants' Xtradecal range of serials are excellent and red or grey codes are available which should cover all options. HTH... Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Bob Stitt's book on Coastal B-17s is a delight. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Lime Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Bob Stitt's book on Coastal B-17s is a delight. Agreed! One of the most useful and informative references I own and very definitely worth seeking out. Mark. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammasphee Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Fantastic guys, thank you very much for the help. Will see if I can find that book too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now