Bedders Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Hi folks, can I ask for thoughts about B-17F kits in 1/72? I'm tempted to invest in an Airfix G model, but I much prefer the sleek nose of the F model. If I wanted to build an F model Fortress, which kit should I start with? TVM, Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 Well there's Academy and Revell both do a B-17F in 1/72nd, the Revell kit is the newer of the two take a look here 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael51 Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 The Academy kit is nice but I recall it having excessive wing dihedral. Despite its age, the Hasegawa kit would be a better bet. Better still, the Revell version has the benefit of positionable flaps and bomb bay dooors in a newer mold. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 (edited) I have all three, and I like the Hasegawa kit best, but it is not scribed; the interior is simplified; and wheel bays are open. The Academy kit is scribed; the cockpit and bomb-aimer's position are also very simple; and the wheel bays are open; the wing does have excessive dihedral, but is easily fixed; I would only use the Revell kit for detail parts, all of which are very nice, and the wheel bays could be fitted to the other two kits or used as a guide for scratchbuilding, BUT the wing is 'way too thick, the nose is pinched in profile, and does not have the correct pear-shaped cross section that flattens at the bottom, and IIRC, the bulkheads that make up the bomb bay are angled wrong, which makes the shape of the bomb bay doors off. (There was a modeler who did a very comprehensive review of the Revell kit here on BM, which has only been released as a late production G, IIRC, so you might search for that posting and discussion.) I also agree that the F is the most beautiful of the Forts, but we're still waiting for THE definitive kit in 1/72 scale. There are so many variations in the cheek and nose guns that you need to have a photo of the one you want to build. I haven't really pulled all three out in a while to do a detailed comparison, as I am foolishly hoping that we will see a better kit in my lifetime. (Are you out there, Airfix?) Good luck- a bazillion choices for B-17F nose art and markings...my favorite is still Knockout Dropper from the 303rd BG. Note the contour of the lower nose and the neat treatment on the ADF football! What appears to be a whip antenna on the upper nose is actually a scratch on the original negative. (Pic is from World War Photos) Mike Found a photo, via Wikipedia Commons, of her taken at Molesworth before she headed stateside- she was the 1st 8th AF B-17 to reach 50 missions and also 75 missions. After her 80th, she was autographed by 303rd BG personnel and sent home for war bond tours. Sadly, this very famous Fort was scrapped at Searcy, OK in 1945. Serial was 41-24605. I'm thinking I was wrong regarding my comment about a scratch in the negative of the other photo I posted- if you look carefully, you can just make out a whip antenna on the upper nose, and I found other photos that show the antenna; what threw me was the antenna in the close up photo was angled forward, and I wasn't sure how that could be. Blast these tired old Mk 1a eyeballs! Note that the .50cal mounted in the middle of the nosecone appears to have been removed. Edited January 16, 2018 by 72modeler added additional photo and text, corrected BG 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wm Blecky Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 I have the Academy kit myself and much prefer it to the other kits out there. Yes, as has been pointed out, the wing dihedral is a little excessive, but as also has been pointed out, it is an easy fix. The somewhat new Revell B-17 kit, just does not look right to my eyes - not that I am any sort of expert! I do recall reading several reviews that did confirm my thoughts of it. Hasegawa's kit is also quite nice, but as has been said, it is an older kit, so raised panel lines on it. There are detail sets (Eduard and CMK come to mind) out there for the Academy kit that I think could easily be adapted to the Hasegawa kit (probably more so that trying to fit a Revell set to either of those 2). Quickboost does several nice resin sets (engines and props) that would certainly improve them as well. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 My preference is the old hasegawa kit, the shape looks more accurate than the Revell one and although not recessed panel lines, over all looks less die cast like 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 Hasegawa all day long. It's still my favourite G too. (If anyone wants to dump theirs because they're buyng the new Airfix one, then PM me). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theplasticsurgeon Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 Just to show what's being talked about here: This is my Academy B-17E - similar to the F other than the nose-cone. This was an Academy B-17F (Memphis Belle) kit, with a YB-40 conversion set fitted I think these capture the look of the cockpit well. The angle of the windscreen when looking vertically down on the model. I've not built the Revell kit yet, but have both F & G kits in my stash. Now the Hasegawa B-17F. The angle of that cockpit just doesn't look right to me. BUT I've got both F & G kits in my stash. Edited 2021 to add this Revell B-17F, straight from the box. Forget all the other kit - this is the way to go. Others have mentioned the dihedral on Academy kits. Unadjusted it builds like this - too much V. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 (edited) Well I'm not biased one way or the other, but I have a Hasegawa example to dispose of cheap, but you will need decals. And there it was....gone! Edited January 15, 2018 by bentwaters81tfw sold 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted January 15, 2018 Author Share Posted January 15, 2018 Interesting thoughts everyone. As ever with this hobby, it's never straightforward and I'll mull over the options. In the meantime, Airfix, we NEED a good B-17F, to go with that P-51B, the Spitfire XIV and the T-6. A two-seat Me262 is very nice, but we don't NEED one the way we need those others! Should I start and 'Airfix in 2025' thread over on Rumourmonger? Let's think, how old will I be then... Justin 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael51 Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 And a 1/72 Manchester. I mean, really, how significant is another Me262 nightfighter over a Manchester? Michael 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 8 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said: Well I'm not biased one way or the other, but I have a Hasegawa example to dispose of cheap, but you will need decals. And there it was....gone! I have absolutely no idea how that happened * whiistles innocently * 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wm Blecky Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 8 hours ago, theplasticsurgeon said: Now the Hasegawa B-17F. The angle of that cockpit just doesn't look right to me. Some fine looking B-17s you have there. With regards to the Hasegawa kit, Squadron offers a vac canopy set for it, do you know if it addresses the cockpit angle? Failing that, what about the vac form set for the Academy kit? From my experience, Academy's kits often share similarities with other manufacturer's kits and maybe the B-17 is one of those kits??? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratch Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 Don't get the new Revell B-17F mixed up with the old one A bit rough now 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artie Posted January 15, 2018 Share Posted January 15, 2018 Taking a look at the picture posted by Mike (72Modeller), I'd dare to say that, IMHO, raised panel lines are not an issue here.....with a detailed riveting treatment, and keeping the raised panel lines to a minimun, you'll get a nice "overlapping panels effect", way more realistic than an engraved kit.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted January 15, 2018 Author Share Posted January 15, 2018 31 minutes ago, Work In Progress said: I have absolutely no idea how that happened * whiistles innocently * Plotters in our midst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWFK10 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 11 hours ago, Artie said: Taking a look at the picture posted by Mike (72Modeller), I'd dare to say that, IMHO, raised panel lines are not an issue here.....with a detailed riveting treatment, and keeping the raised panel lines to a minimun, you'll get a nice "overlapping panels effect", way more realistic than an engraved kit.... I was about to say the same thing. The photo clearly shows that engraved panel lines bear no resemblance to what's actually present on the airframe. In a similar vein, I've just built Airfix's 2011 1/72 Spitfire I, which has (rather overdone) engraved panel lines on the fuselage. I've also built its 1979 predecessor, which has delicate raised lines. The real aircraft looks like this, so in my view the older kit is the more accurate representation. There are a couple of B-17 shots here that make the point, as well. And a close-up of part of a Lancaster fuselage, illustrating that the 1980 Airfix kit, which is sometimes criticised for being covered in rivets, faithfully attempts to reproduce the appearance of the real aircraft. Granted, the practical disadvantage of raised detail is that it gets sanded off and is difficult to replace but in many cases it's closer to the real thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 What isn't closer to the real thing is going around with a so called rivetting tool, those depressions when scaled up would in many cases be deeper than the thickness of the sheet metal! Divots like that are indicative of pulled skin, at best the real aircraft would be getting re-skinned, at worst, overstressed and written off! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artie Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, Wez said: What isn't closer to the real thing is going around with a so called rivetting tool Well, you're right, if we model a 1/72 scale plane, NOTHING should be visible, nor rivets, nor panel lines....of course we try to represent an optical effect, an artistic license, instead of a true to the scale feature, to give our models a more "realistic" instead of a toy-like look.....BUT when we talk about riveting or engraving tools, the thing here is to choose the right one. There are different tools for different scales. I've got a set of "Rosie the Riveter" (czech or polish made) tools, and come with different wheels, ranging from a 1/72 to 1/32 scale...If we measured a panel line in a model, it would represent a five to ten milimeters gap in the real thing...Is that more accurate than a line of rivets...???? Don't think so.... Both engraved and raised panel lines are inaccurate, but depending on the subject you're modelling, and the techniques you're using, a (tiny) raised panel line can prove to be more realistic, or at least more helpful... Just my two cents.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Schilhart Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 I can recommend the new Revell 1/72 B-17F, it's a wonderful model kit and goes together without issues: With kind regards from Vienna Roman 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 19 hours ago, Ratch said: Don't get the new Revell B-17F mixed up with the old one A bit rough now Ratch, That's a sweet-looking 20th FG Mustang you have there- what kit? Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratch Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Cheers Mike, its the old Airfix kit (02045) - I built those some years back 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army_Air_Force Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) The Academy kit ( reboxed by Airfix ) gets another vote from me. Dihedral is an easy fix, and the rest of the model seems reasonably accurate. I built a Hasegawa many years ago too, and that was good. This is the Airfix rebox of the Academy kit. I did seem to leave off more bits than I glued together!!! ;-) Edited January 16, 2018 by Army_Air_Force 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratch Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Airfix reboxed Academy's G rather than the F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 10 minutes ago, Army_Air_Force said: The Academy kit ( reboxed by Airfix ) gets another vote from me. Dihedral is an easy fix, and the rest of the model seems reasonably accurate. I built a Hasegawa many years ago too, and that was good. This is the Airfix rebox of the Academy kit. I did seem to leave off more bits than I glued together!!! ;-) AAF- What a wizard diorama! Mike 1 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