Valom B-26 vs Hasegawa B-26 - what is going on here?

[WV908]

21 minutes ago, Ed Russell said:

As I said, these pictures are not mine.. I would have to go and find my B-26 models to do that - and it's freezing cold out there (2C at the moment!)

 

Sorry didn't see that haha.

 

Thanks,

  WV908

[Graham Boak]

 An interesting discussion, but I think we are all agreed that the Valom section is hopelessly wrong.

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

 An interesting discussion, but I think we are all agreed that the Valom section is hopelessly wrong.

Indeed. Just to show how good the Hasegawa airfoil section is in comparison, here's the NACA 0017 over both.

 

[gingerbob]

From what I've seen on this thread, it seems the whole Valom kit is hopelessly wrong! 

 

How's the Hasegawa for angle of incidence?  My gut reaction was to wonder if they had the later angle, but I'm not accusing the kit, more my own knowledge of B-26s.

[Seahawk]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

 An interesting discussion, but I think we are all agreed that the Valom section is hopelessly wrong.

Which adds a significant additional complication to the idea of marrying a Valom wing to, say, an Airfix fuselage.  As I said in a thread when we discussed that idea recently, if it was easy, someone would probably have done it by now.

 

16 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

How's the Hasegawa for angle of incidence?  My gut reaction was to wonder if they had the later angle, but I'm not accusing the kit, more my own knowledge of B-26s.

Not sure whether this is an answer to the question you were asking but the Hasegawa B-26B/C and B-26F/G have different fuselages reflecting the differing wing incidences.

[gingerbob]

41 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

Not sure whether this is an answer...

 

Yeah, that pretty-much reassures me.  I had a vague idea that I knew that from some previous discussion.  I've got a Monogram one (72nd) in deep storage, but otherwise don't see myself getting into 72nd Marauders (which sounds like an Army unit).  48th, on the other hand, I've got some kits and bits and good intentions, but they haven't yet asserted themselves...

[72modeler]

53 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

Not sure whether this is an answer to the question you were asking but the Hasegawa B-26B/C and B-26F/G have different fuselages reflecting the differing wing incidences.

Yes, I have both the Hasegawa B-26B and the B-26F/G kits and the F/G does have the correct increased angle of incidence. I wish I had owned a digital 35mm camera back when I was up close and personal with Kermit Weeks' B-26!

Mike

[Lightningboy2000]

4 hours ago, Tbolt said:

But I thought we were just comparing the B-26B kits here?  The 3.5 degrees of incidence increase came on the B-26F and it's clear in that photo that Valom have got almost zero incidence on their wing and the leading edge of the wing should be above the window just forward of it.

 

Like has been pointed out also that airfoil section is completely fictional which is obvious from a quick look at a picture. It's like Valom or who ever did the drawing, new that the top of the wing got close to that panel line so instead of increasing the incidence to the correct value they just made the airfoil fatter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Tbolt, that explains everything I was saying in one photo.