Jump to content

From Revell's freak to a proper model (1:72 B-17G)


Recommended Posts

It's finaly done! Let's hope that Airfix will make a proper one, because this Revell toylike monstrosity is good for kids only. I haven't seen many good ones on the internet and it's no wonder.

Exhaust stains may seem odd, but I've used photos of wartime Forts as a refference. Ah, and the wheels are Brassin resin ones and they can't be deflated:-(

Josip

031.jpg

001.jpg

004.jpg

006.jpg

008.jpg

010.jpg

019.jpg

026.jpg

027.jpg

029.jpg

030.jpg

  • Like 33
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's very nice indeed Josip, very very nice.

You'll get many different answers to your question Paul and it depends upon which B-17 you want and when as some kits make very specific models and modification states. In short, in 1/72:

Hasegawa, -G is generally well liked, personally I like it best but it isn't perfect. They make the best -F model too I think.

Academy, for early models, the only real game in town. All of their types build well and their -G has 'in the box' flexibility for several states of modification. Some like their -G best, but again it's not perfect.

New Revell, I've not seen one close up, but some people have said it is the best available, others disagree.

In general there are issues between the different kits over (I seem to recall) scale length, dihedral, overall width, wing intakes, superchargers etc etc...

So all in all, not much of an answer!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I happen to had all 3 and they differ quite a lot. Hasegawa is from 70s, has raised panels, nil interior and wrongly angled windshield etc...Academy is a bit screwed up and clunky, while this one has trenches of a die cast model, impossibly thick nose blister, wrong engines and is full of movable features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're complaining about the panel lines and yet asking Airfix for a new tool? :P

That said I think your model is absolutely stunning. Perhaps it's a size issue but couldn't say anything bad about the panel lines from those pics.

BTW am I the only one intrigued by Revell's total lack of consistency in the quality of their tooling? Some have super fine lines and rivets, others have trenches and no rivets...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're complaining about the panel lines and yet asking Airfix for a new tool? :P

That said I think your model is absolutely stunning. Perhaps it's a size issue but couldn't say anything bad about the panel lines from those pics.

BTW am I the only one intrigued by Revell's total lack of consistency in the quality of their tooling? Some have super fine lines and rivets, others have trenches and no rivets...

if you are talking about different kits, that's because Revell sells alot of kits who originate from other molds... revell actually

had alot of monogram kits reissued... but they also exchanged sprues with italeri, hasegawa etc...Hasegawa no more tho, sadly.

I just recently got their Spitfire Mk IXc 1/48 for 9 bucks at a local store. It's actually the hasegawa tooling, hence an excellent model

for a friction of the hasegawa pricing :)

Kits engineered by Revell themselves...well... I'm not a fan. The newer ones sometimes manage to come up with really nice details (1/72 tornado) but I think

their own kits most always lack a good fit and annoy me. Especially when you consider what other asian companies come up with these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're complaining about the panel lines and yet asking Airfix for a new tool? :P

He's probably compared the Revell engraving with the current Airfix engraving, instead of taking a cheap shot.

Shane

Edited by Shane
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The model is modified quite a bit. The fuselage is covered in tape, the wings have a lot of putty to fill the trench like panels and both are riveted according to technical drawings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Josip,

Your B17 is great, the metalwork especially is noteworthy. I see what you mean aboutthe wheels, they do look a teeny bit balloon like, but then they did on the B17. I think you've made a fab model!

Cheers,

Viv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your NMF done by dry brush. I was trying this technique but result was not so good as yours. I will keep trying, then...

Regards

J-W

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you are talking about different kits, that's because Revell sells alot of kits who originate from other molds... revell actually

had alot of monogram kits reissued... but they also exchanged sprues with italeri, hasegawa etc...Hasegawa no more tho, sadly.

I just recently got their Spitfire Mk IXc 1/48 for 9 bucks at a local store. It's actually the hasegawa tooling, hence an excellent model

for a friction of the hasegawa pricing :)

Kits engineered by Revell themselves...well... I'm not a fan. The newer ones sometimes manage to come up with really nice details (1/72 tornado) but I think

their own kits most always lack a good fit and annoy me. Especially when you consider what other asian companies come up with these days...

No, I'm not talking about their re-pops, I'm talking about their own molds. There seems to be such different consistencies that it almost looks like two separate companies are doing them. Take a look at their Tornado, or Luft '46 kits, all have very fine panel lines, a good amount of rivets. Now look at their WW2 heavies, or the recent Gripen. Thicker panel lines, no rivets. Then there's monsters like their F-14 that make Italieri's panel lines look fine in comparison.

If you look at most other kitmakers there's a general consistency in their molding quality which can indeed vary over the years/decades but at any given point in time is roughly similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a B-17 fan, but by no means an expert on all the subtle shape nuances.

From most angles this model looks good shape wise to my eye, but i heard the wing is too thick in cross section. How does it compare to the Hasegawa kit ( which i always thought had something amiss with the fuselage shape)?

Not a criticism. Just an observation. Beautifully done model considering what you had to start with.

david

Edited by David H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The criticism in this regard is needless because I have taken care of the wings before. Revell kit has wings of equal thickness. I have sanded and thinned them accordingly

On the other hand, the tailplanes are too thin. And that can't be remedied.

Hasegawa fuselage in the nose area is in cross section a perfect circle, which is also wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not talking about their re-pops, I'm talking about their own molds. There seems to be such different consistencies that it almost looks like two separate companies are doing them. Take a look at their Tornado, or Luft '46 kits, all have very fine panel lines, a good amount of rivets. Now look at their WW2 heavies, or the recent Gripen. Thicker panel lines, no rivets. Then there's monsters like their F-14 that make Italieri's panel lines look fine in comparison.

If you look at most other kitmakers there's a general consistency in their molding quality which can indeed vary over the years/decades but at any given point in time is roughly similar.

we've been talking about that too and considered it might be a lack of interest in certain objects, considering their pricing policies .... on the other hand, the Tornado is a german plane and after all,the company is from germany. maybe there were contacts to better source material

(blueprints) etc, compared to F-14 or Gripen...

But, this is all just wild guessing... no definite answer for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...