B17 1/72 props

[daggerphil]

Having messed up the Revell kit props I bought some Quickboost replacements (intended for a B24 but the same thing) but, apart from the blades being too long (easily sorted) the hubs are noticeably larger in all dimensions. Any comments please?

[Jennings Heilig]

Honest answer: I'd lay good money that neither of them is actually the same scale size as the real HS prop.

[Steve N]

Here's a pic of a B-17 engine/prop.

As Jennings says, neither Revell nor QB is probably 100% accurate, but the QB hubs look far better the the Revell kit parts, which are noticeably undersized and lacking in detail (one of many things about the Revell kit that left me rather underwhelmed.) For some reason, the Hamilton Standard propeller has been one of the most difficult things for kit makers to get right, even though it was about the most commonly used American prop in WWII, and there are plenty around for reference.

SN

Edited June 22, 2013 by Steve N

[Jennings Heilig]

(one of many things about the Revell kit that left me rather underwhelmed.)

Indeed. A spectacularly mediocre effort. They used the Model Art drawings by Shigeru Nohara as a basis, and as a result, the profile of the airfoil section is ***totally*** incorrect, which leads to all kinds of things being wrong with the way the wing interfaces with the fuselage and the engine nacelles. HK did the same thing with their 1/32 kit, and fortunately some of us proved to them how bad the MA drawings were, so they essentially redesigned the kit before metal was cut. For my money, the early 1970s Hasegawa B-17, with all its faults, is still the most accurate one out there, especially the F. The Cheyenne turret on the G is wrong, but if you swap it for the F tail turret common to many Gs, you get a nice model.

[Steve N]

Yep..I would agree. The only real improvement by the Academy/Minicraft B-17s are the engraved panel lines and open bomb bay option, but those advantanges are offset by other issues (excessive dihedral, poor engines and cowls, etc.)

SN

[elger]

are b-17 props the same as those on b-25s?

[Work In Progress]

I can't prove they aren't without resorting to research, but since the B-25 engines are around 50% larger and more powerful than the B-17 engines I'd be very surprised if the props were the same. A DC-3 prop is more likely to be the same or very similar, as the B-17 and the civvy DC-3 both used the Wright 1820, and the C-47 although it uses a different engine (P&W 1830) is of the same power class.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Work In Progress

[daggerphil]

Thanks for your answers guys - I'll be making up the QB props tonight.

[Steve N]

are b-17 props the same as those on b-25s?

I think the hub is the same, but the B-25 had longer blades. I don't know the specific lengths offhand, but the figures shouldn't be hard to find online.

SN