Jacarre Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) Hi all, i've read some comments here and in other forums about some shape issues about the wings and top fuselage area of 1/72 Revell B-17s. Have any of you guys know more about these problems, or have a good set of drawings and kits to compare? Thanks a lot in advance Javier Edited August 25, 2016 by Jacarre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Assuming you mean the B-17G and later F released in the last 3-4 years, not the B-17F originally released in the 60s. the biggest issues in my view are the top turret that sits way too high if assembled according to the instructions, and overdone panel lines on the forward fuselage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jure Miljevic Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Hi, Javier Depends on which set of drawings one chooses for comparison. Still, comparing Revell's B-17G fuselage against several of them shows that nose in front of windshield is curved down too steeply, resulting in not being deep enough and in too small bombardier's dome. Also, model's wing has about 1 mm to 2 mm too thick an airfoil. IIRC something about too thin an airfoil of horizontal tail has also been mentioned, but I cannot confirm this as my otherwise considerable enthusiasm for that Revell's kit (its engines are just beautiful!) had been somewhat curbed after discovering above mentioned issues and I stashed the kit away, though not without regrets. Cheers Jure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DennisTheBear Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If you want to build a MODEL of a B-17G it is just fine! If you want to build a exact miniature REPLICA of a B-17G what the others have said, until someone comes along and argues that those bits are fine but these other bits are wrong. Personally I think it is great! DennisTheBear 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 The engine cowling so don't look right to me either, the front opening looks too small. The Hasegawa ones look more accurate, although I use the words look referring relative shapes rather than measured dimensions. I started work on mine by opening the holes up and they looked much better when compared to photographs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Housesparrow Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 I am surprised that kit developers don't get details right. Surely kit devs must know that they can't just rely on some random drawing they find on the internet. Best thing is proprietary drawings + looking at relevant photos. I used to like modeling stuff in 3D on a computer, but I got burned out, too difficult finding good drawings of airplanes, and the drawings that look nice, might as well be horribly wrong for all anyone know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil32 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 To me, as a non B-17 expert, the only bit that looks a little off is the slightly too slender nose. Its also a very enjoyable build! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenshirt Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 I used to like modeling stuff in 3D on a computer, but I got burned out, too difficult finding good drawings of airplanes, and the drawings that look nice, might as well be horribly wrong for all anyone know. This may be why model companies get the details wrong. If one's vocation is also a passion, they tend to be quite good at it. If it bores them, or becomes a slog, then they'll take shortcuts to finish, or quit altogether. Human nature really. My impression of the Airfix designers, and of Eduard, AZModel, and others is their design teams are passionate about their products...as though they were modelers n the model making business (what we as consumers want). When a manufacturing business has a focus on bottom line, not quality at all points, then the product suffers, the consumers quit buying, and the company struggles. We don't have to look far to find examples. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacarre Posted August 26, 2016 Author Share Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) Thanks to all for the comments! I think - after seeing a lot of pics - that the new Revell kit is buildable, and if the Hasegawa one has a better shape, in some areas, Revell has strong points, like the interior detail and the shape of windshield and cabin windows. Panel line "trenches" can be smoothed. Also, is more available and cheaper than the japanese one. Oh, and according to Phil Marchese, the Hasegawa fuselage is too short between the cockpit and the ball turret... Definitely, no one is perfect... Regards Javier Edited August 26, 2016 by Jacarre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hacker Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 l got one sitting in the stash. looked at it and yep looks like a B-17G with stagger waist gunner positions......end of story and quit being picky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Maybe wait for the new Airfix one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 The dorsal turret and nose transparency are the two problems that stick out.....Quite literally in the case of the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfqweofekwpeweiop4 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 I heard the Academy kit is superior in overall shape but someone would probably say that's wrong! thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 For questions on US types, I usually try Hyperscale http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1425561596 by Phil Marchese, mentioned above The Revell is by far the worst 1:72 B-17G on the market. The nose is an incurable abortion; the surface detail is awful, and the wings appear to be either the wrong chord or in the wrong place or both. The top turret sits ridiculously too high. It has a lot of interior detail that is barely visible in a completed model and misses the the bigger picture... a nice model. The Academy wing issue is legendary yet correctable. I think there may be problem with the bulkhead locations , not sure. good options espically in the Airfix boxing for external variations. The Hasegawa kit is from the mid-1970s and has nice detail parts where it matters and the wings are generally cclaimed to be the best of all. The fuselage is a different story. The tail gunner's position and its canopy are distractors. The upper decking is mislocated and it results in problems in the relationshipp between the wings, top turret and cockpit. Bottom line :a good parts kits. The Matchbox kit is always overlooked. I ve seen it built OOB including decales at the Airfix forum where the Revell in the same markings resides. Go take a look. The Matchbox fuselage shape looks like it was made in Seattle. Only the "mushroom" needs correcting. the clear parts look bubbly on the trees but are not so outlandish or distracting in the final build. The wings and main wheel/tires are poor. Bottom line: build the Matchbox kit with Hasegawa wings and associated parts. Swap Hasegawa detailed parts to suit you taste and build a BVD-like bomber. I'm not talking boxers. B also these (in link but maybe you'd miss them) http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1397074366 http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1416062210 http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1416062210 Seems Revell make a habit of botching their 4 engine types (Lanc Dihedral, Merlin Halifax engines) HTH T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hacker Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) Yet l have seen it built in the flesh and it seems to look like a Fortress but who am l to know ? I am just a guy who actually builds kits cough,cough........did l say that out loud Edited August 26, 2016 by hacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich G Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Hopefully the upcoming Airfix kit will set the bench mark for the B-17. I was really impressed with the recessed details on the recent Beaufighter and HE-111P releases, they seem to be getting better with every new release, I hope the same refined detail can be found on the new B-17. Otherwise, I actually quite like the Revell offering, I have also built the academy and Hasegawa offerings and liked all of them. Rich 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 The Academy is OK but has a serious issue with the wings!!! By the way,what about the original 1960's Airfix kit? How did that shape up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jure Miljevic Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Hi! General outline of Academy kit's fuselage (I got saddled with that one, too) is nearly identical to Revell's. There are some differences in vertical tail area, though, but both kits also share noticeably too thick wing airfoil. Cheers Jure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicarage Vee Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 By the way,what about the original 1960's Airfix kit? How did that shape up? As a much loved old friend whose faults you forgive and turn a very blind eye to! To be built for the pure joy of the nostalgia. Hopefully Airfix's forthcoming release will finally settle the argument on the best B-17. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jure Miljevic Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Well said, Vicarage Vee. Had build one, when I was sixteen. Probably collector's items these days, especially those from older editions. Cheers Jure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Boyd Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 (edited) Hi, Javier Depends on which set of drawings one chooses for comparison. Still, comparing Revell's B-17G fuselage against several of them shows that nose in front of windshield is curved down too steeply, resulting in not being deep enough and in too small bombardier's dome. Also, model's wing has about 1 mm to 2 mm too thick an airfoil. IIRC something about too thin an airfoil of horizontal tail has also been mentioned, but I cannot confirm this as my otherwise considerable enthusiasm for that Revell's kit (its engines are just beautiful!) had been somewhat curbed after discovering above mentioned issues and I stashed the kit away, though not without regrets. Cheers Jure BTW, if one happens to have the original Revell B-17F from the early '60s, one will notice that the wings are pretty much identical in cord, which I think is a bit 'odd'. I'm certainly waiting for the new Airfix kit to see whose kits are most correct. Also, the nose glass transparency is too thick and has a noticeable lip, just like the original -F. Makes me wonder, just a bit. And the shape of the -F-style tail gun position is too rounded on the top, although that can be easily fixed with a bit of sanding. And yes, the horizontal stabs do appear to be too thin, but I'm again waiting for the forthcoming Airfix kit for comparison. I think I can fix (or at least mitigate) that particular problem, but it will will involve a bit of bit of filler, adult language and adult beverages (in no particular order) to make it right.... Byron On the plus side, with all that being said, the built-up kit will never be mistaken for a Lancaster or a Halifax, or even an FW 200 Although who knows, maybe it might be mistaken for the Tamiya Spitfire. LOL Edited August 27, 2016 by Byron Boyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacarre Posted August 30, 2016 Author Share Posted August 30, 2016 Thanks to all of the posts, it's becoming a very interesting topic... I must reconsider my latest statement and i think that i'll wait for the new airfix kit... Or to live with the inaccurate wing of the revell one... Regards., Javier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbolt Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Thanks to all of the posts, it's becoming a very interesting topic... I must reconsider my latest statement and i think that i'll wait for the new airfix kit... Or to live with the inaccurate wing of the revell one... Regards., Javier If you've already got the kit, then I would build it, since the Airfix kit is the later "G" and we don't know if they will do an earlier "G" with unstaggered waist windows yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingo Degenhardt Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 Thanks to all of the posts, it's becoming a very interesting topic... I must reconsider my latest statement and i think that i'll wait for the new airfix kit... Or to live with the inaccurate wing of the revell one... Regards., Javier Hopefully the new Airfix B-17 kit has a better shaped tail end than it has on the box art - to be seen at the Airfix website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbolt Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 (edited) Hopefully the new Airfix B-17 kit has a better shaped tail end than it has on the box art - to be seen at the Airfix website. So what's wrong with the tail end on the artwork? Is it that it looks a little short? Looks OK to my untrained eye on the model. Edited September 1, 2016 by Tbolt 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