1/72 B-17F advice

[Luka]

Maybe a simple question to ask, but I just can't figure out by reading some of the online reviews; which is the best B-17F in 1/72? The obvious candidates are Academy, Hasegawa and Revell. Any Britmodellers out there that have some good pointers for me?

[tomprobert]

All three kits you mention have their own issues, but from a detail point of view Revell is probably the winner. 
 

The Academy kits suffer from excessive wing dihedral and interior detail is lacking. I think the Academy kits lack openings for the oil coolers in the wing, but without the kit in front of me I can’t be sure about that. 
 

Hasegawa kits are ok but again the interior detail is lacking and the cockpit shape poor. 
 

Revell, being the newest tooling, is brimming with detail and builds well but the whole fuselage is too skinny and the wing too thick. The top turret sits a little high, too. 
 

All three look like a B-17 when done - I’ve built all three at some point over the years and Revell is probably the best overall package. 
 

What we really need is Airfix to backdate their beautiful G-kit to an F and we’d be laughing!

 

Tom

[elger]

@tomprobert just beat me to it

 

There isn't really a very good B-17F in 1/72. Here's a quick summary of what I know of the available kits:

 

Hasegawa: The oldest, and it has fine raised panel lines. The cockpit front windows are somewhat oddly shaped giving it a drooping eye appearance. The engine nacelles have a very nice shape.

Academy: The definition of mediocrity. It has reasonably fine recessed panel lines. The wheel bays are devoid of detail and also the various wing air intakes are missing details. The interior is very sparse. The clear parts for the tail section are split in half so you're going to have a seam right through the middle of the rear window. The shape of the engine nacelles is awful. The main wheels are wrong for most Fs and Gs. While the overall outline is reasonably accurate, it has too much dihedral, which you could fix relatively easily with a shim.

Revell: the most modern of the bunch. It has nice detail, but the panel lines are very broad and do not look great. This is the biggest turnoff for me. The shape is okay but the wing is a big thick (too deep vertically) and the elevators on the other hand are not deep enough (they look flat). You can't really make a true early F (like the Belle) because it doesn't have the right front nose windows for that. Later Fs are fine. The nose cone is very thick clear plastic with a lot of distortion. It's a great kit though - it's very nice to build.

 

I have been thinking about a 1/72 B-17F myself recently and there's two options I'm considering: the Revell F front side windows fit the Airfix new G kit perfectly, so if you also move the one staggered window and give it an early tail you might get a very nice F out of the Airfix new G, and alternatively, while it's super basic I kind of like the Academy B-17s and I've been thinking that most of its shortcomings can be updated by using the relevant Revell parts. But that does involve using parts from two kits. If I had to get one model to build a B-17F I'd probably get the Revell kit again and just blast it with primer until the panel lines almost disappeared.

 

HTH!

[72modeler]

There has been a lot of discussion on all three kits here on BM- you should be able to find it. I have all three, and I prefer the Hasegawa and the Academy kits  to the Revell kit, which although it has the  better cockpit and detail parts, and the wheel bays are boxed in,  it has some serious shape issues with the nose contours, the wings are 'way too thick in cross section, and IIRC there was something wrong with the angle of the bulkheads at the front  of the bomb bay. The Academy kit is very accurate and scribed, but the way the wing roots and wings are molded, there is excessive dihedral, but is an easy fix. I don't think the cowlings and engines are nearly as nice as the Hasegawa and Revell kits, but Quickboost makes replacements. Wheel bays are not boxed in, and IIRC the intakes in the wing leading edge for the intercoolers, oil coolers, and carburetors are not open,  so will need to be opened and boxed in, which is a pain. IIRC the vents for the Tokyo tanks in the outer wings need to be filled in, as they were fitted to very late F's and G's. The Hasegawa is the oldest of the three, but is considered by many as being the most accurate out of the box. It has raised panel lines and the wheel bays are not boxed in. IIRC there has been some criticism of the angle of the windscreen, but to me it looks OK.

 

The internet reviews for many kits are not going to provide good information on shape, fit, or dimension problems for the most part. In my opinion they are pretty much 'politically correct' and seem to be of the type where the parts in the box are shaken, not stirred, and if it looks like the box art, then it gets a good review. 

 

Just a quick description off of the top of my head- I'm sure our resident Flying Fort experts can tell you more. It also depends upon which B-17F you want to model, as they had a long production run and many changes were made, especially in armament fit, and late production F's pretty much resembled early production G's, so try to find good photos of the one you want to model. The serial number will tell you the block and assembly plant, as Boeing, Douglas, and Vega all built B-17's. Hopefully this will be a good starting point until others can post their observations of the three kits.  Good luck on your build- do you have a certain one in  mind? My favorite is the famous and oft-photographed "Knockout Dropper" from the 303rd BG.

Mike

 

http://www.americanairmuseum.com/aircraft/517

 

My forlorn hope is that Airfix made the molds to do an E or F at the same time they tooled their excellent B-17G, which has the staggered waist guns and Cheyenne tail turret, so earlier versions could be released at some point in the future. I do know at least one fellow modeler who is using the Airfix  B-17G and Hasegawa B-17F to do a better B-17F. As soon as he finishes the conversion, with the 2nd Law of Modeling being what it is, somebody will release a state of the art F! 

[Luka]

Thanks for the info all! I'll take these points into account for my next step.

@72modelerI have the Kits-World Charlie Brown/Franz Stigler decal set, so I want to build 'Ye Olde Pub' (for the 109 I'll use the Tamiya kit).
I was already a bit suspicious about there not being a definitive B-17F. The option of mating the Airfix kit with one of the -F's seems a bit of a gamble for the reason you stated, especially with the investment into two models. I hope I can get at least one of them on the cheap in some online auction I'd give it a shot.

 

Cheers,
Luka

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, 72modeler said:

internet reviews for many kits are not going to provide good information on shape, fit, or dimension problems for the most part. In my opinion they are pretty much 'politically correct' and seem to be of the type where the parts in the box are shaken, not stirred, and if it looks like the box art, then it gets a good review.

 

I agree with this almost entirely, and would suggest it extends to the majority of magazine reviews also. One bit I have a differing view on is the reasoning.

 

I don't think there's any political correctness to it, or fear of not finding favour with the manufacturer and much more simply because the reviewer is unqualified and unequipped to comment on accuracy.

 

It's common in reviews of lots of products which are clearly reviewed by people who seemingly don't recognise what someone knowledgable about the subject would recognise as "an absolute howler".

 

I think to enable reviews of such, samples would need to be sent with a dossier similar to F4C class radio control competition scale class static judging - i.e. the judges will assume everything you've done is wrong and deduct points unless something in the dossier justifies why it's right. Perhaps that's a spiel saying it's based on a LIDAR scan master of whoever's specific example, or Arthur Bentley's plans or whatever the source references are and why they were chosen to give the reviewer something to compare against.

 

I personally find myself rolling my eyes at paint set reviews when the latest RAF set full of FS numbers comes out in a flashy box, or yet another copy of someone's disproven chips somewhere and gets glowing praise for being wet and colourful.

[theplasticsurgeon]

Going along with what's been written previously - and adding photos.

First built, Hasegawa B-17F Memphis Belle.  That front windscreen doesn't look right to me.

Next an Academy B-17F kit, built as a YB-40 Gunship.  Be careful with the dihedral of this kit.

Revell.  That front turret looks about 1mm too high to me.

[vppelt68]

Also noteworthy is that Hasegawa only provides the early, non-astrodome navigator's roof window; Revell apparently both and Academy only (?) the dome. On the other hand, the early, triple small cheek windows and domeless roof windows are all there in the Academy E kits. No-one produces the late F bulged cheek positions in correct order, which is reversed in the G type. The Revell F and G cheek parts can be kitbashed for that, though, or the triple small setup too.

V-P

[vppelt68]

3 hours ago, elger said:

@tomprobert

I have been thinking about a 1/72 B-17F myself recently and there's two options I'm considering: the Revell F front side windows fit the Airfix new G kit perfectly, so if you also move the one staggered window and give it an early tail you might get a very nice F out of the Airfix new G...

You mean something like this? I'm converting her to an early to mid production G. V-P

 

[TheRealMrEd]

Luka,

 

FWIW, I addressed some of the issues involved with making an early B-17F, when I made my XB-40 conversion:

 

 

It ended up being a combination of parts, based primarily on an Academy B-17E kit, as well as other wings, etc. As the "E" and "F"were mostly similar except for the nose glass, an aftermarket item could help you there.  A read through of the (long) build thread might give you some ideas.

 

Build thread HERE:

 

Anyway, good luck with your project...

 

Ed

[e8n2]

12 hours ago, 72modeler said:

The Academy kit is very accurate and scribed, but the way the wing roots and wings are molded, there is excessive dihedral, but is an easy fix. I don't think the cowlings and engines are nearly as nice as the Hasegawa and Revell kits, but Quickboost makes replacements. Wheel bays are not boxed in, and IIRC the intakes in the wing leading edge for the intercoolers, oil coolers, and carburetors are not open,  so will need to be opened and boxed in, which is a pain. IIRC the vents for the Tokyo tanks in the outer wings need to be filled in, as they were fitted to very late F's and G's. The Hasegawa is the oldest of the three, but is considered by many as being the most accurate out of the box. It has raised panel lines and the wheel bays are not boxed in. IIRC there has been some criticism of the angle of the windscreen, but to me it looks OK.

The Academy kit uses the same wings throughout the B-17 family and they DO NOT have the Tokyo Tank vents.  Hasegawa has the vents on both the F and G models.  On both Hasegawa variants the front windshield scribing is incorrect.  The top of the front window should be parallel with the top of the cockpit roof.  Instead it is parallel with the lower window line giving it the droopy look mentioned earlier.  Further, on the Hasegawa G, the tail turret is the Cheyenne turret and the window glazing is too shallow.  Compare it to the window glazing on the Airfix or Academy G and you will see what I mean.  It also only has staggered waist gunner positions, the earlier non-staggered ones are not an option like on the Academy G.

Later,

Dave

[72modeler]

Dave,

 

You are correct! I went back and looked at my Hasegawa and Academy kits, and I see what you mean about the windscreen- it will need to be corrected. I also forgot that I had started a Hasegawa B-17F a long time back, and when I pulled the box, Lo and Behold, I had already filled the Tokyo tank vents! Yes, the Hasegawa B-17G does have the staggered waist guns and Cheyenne turret, (What is the fascination all the kit makers have with late B-17G's,,,enuff is enuff!) but I was thinking that the nose and tail section of the Hasegawa B-17F would be the donor for crosskitting with the Airfix B-17G. Also need to take notice of the nose window configuration and whether or not there is a flat window/astrodome on the upper nose of the chosen subject, as has been pointed out. . That and the four possible gun mount possibilities in the nose cone! It would sure be nice to have a state of the art B-17F. I know it will never happen, but if Airfix tooled up a conversion kit, with fuselage halves engineered for the early tail and waist gun positions and flashed over openings for the various nose window possibilities, and the appropriate clear parts to do an E or F, I would sure as heck buy a couple! (That is, if there were any left after @tonyot had bought a couple of cases for Coastal Command projects!)

Mike

 

I do have a complete Revell B-17G that I traded with a modeling mate for something he wanted more- said there was nothing that could be done to correct the awful wings and pinched-in nose,  so wanted no part of it. I am going to use the detail parts and will use the wheel bays as a pattern to correct the bare ones on either the Academy or Hasegawa kits.

[TheRealMrEd]

Actually, the Academy Pacific Theater B-17E box has the right fuse side gun windows blanked out, so that you can cut out either the staggered or non-staggered one as you choose:

 

h

 

Ed

[e8n2]

The Revell B-17F can be built as the Memphis Belle, but the Academy F CAN NOT be built as the Belle because it has an astrodome on the nose which the real Belle did not have.   The Airfix G and the Revell F, and I presume the Revell G probably has the exact same wings as the F, have Tokyo Tank vents that look nothing like the real thing.  For an F it is just a matter of filling in the vents.  For a G it is a different proposition.  Check out photos of real wartime Gs and you will see the vents and how they are different from the Airfix and Revell kits.  It would have been nice for Academy to have included both types of tail turrets for their G kit, since both were used on the Gs, but they only give you the Cheyenne turret.  While I haven't looked for any photos, I doubt if any F models had the Cheyenne turret put on for flight test. 

Later,

Dave

[elger]

43 minutes ago, e8n2 said:

The Revell B-17F can be built as the Memphis Belle, but the Academy F CAN NOT be built as the Belle because it has an astrodome on the nose which the real Belle did not have.  

I made this point myself over on Hyperscale a little while ago but somebody correctly pointed out to me that in fact you can't make the Belle out of the Revell kit either because it's missing some of the front windows - they are supplied as black decals!

 

[Seahawk]

2 hours ago, elger said:

 

I've got a patio that looks like that.

[72modeler]

6 hours ago, Seahawk said:

I've got a patio that looks like that.

... and it looks like the same fellow who did the brick molds did the panels on the new-tool Revell kit!  Every time I see that pinched nose and those horribly fat wings, I get physically ill! It's been a while since I looked at one, and like a fool sold the one I had years ago, but does the original 1/72 Revell 'Memphis Belle' have the correct nose window/navigator's window configuration? (In my opinion, the best box art ever!) Wish the kit had been as accurate as the box art!

Mike

[vppelt68]

23 hours ago, e8n2 said:

 It would have been nice for Academy to have included both types of tail turrets for their G kit, since both were used on the Gs, but they only give you the Cheyenne turret.

Later,

Dave

That depends on the boxing. The Academy 15th AF Fortress edition includes both tail turrets, don't know about the others.

V-P