b-52 transplant wing corner attachment scratch converison amid D monogram to G italeri

[Davide Calzolari]

I have a scrapped old b-52d monogram and I have a brand new b-52g italeri(rebox of ertl or amt):you know what is the problem of italeri/amt/ertl, hu ? 

The winged attachment corner of the wings, ("diedro" in italian but i dont know how translate in english )which would give the kit mounted without modifications a flying appearance

Now many of you will imagine what I want to do: do a nice graft/ transplant from monogram to the italeri

With quite a few plastic brackets thicks,plus loctite, inside the fuselage,to strengthen the whole

...chance of success of the enterprise?

I don’t visually love old versions of buff, I love visually the g/h lines

 

debate (insults included)opened!
 

[Giorgio N]

"Diedro" translates as dihedral in English

 

I have the Monogram kit but not the Italeri one, so I can't tell if one will fit the other or not, in any case you will have to eliminate the part of the wing that in the Italeri kit is attached to the fuselage, to make room for a "flush" joint surface, as in the Monogram kit. This will leave a gap in the fuselage side surface that should be better reinforced with something. Ideally I'd glue plasticard inside the fuselage and then drill through this holes to accept a metal tube passing from wing to wing inside the fuselage. Such a spar could even be bent before gluing it in place to help the wing retain the proper dihedral.

I wonder however if it wouldn't be easier to add the specific G parts from the Italeri kit to the Monogram one, may be easier to do... at least if the fuselage sections are close enough in size and shape

[tomprobert]

I used the AMT H and Monogram D to make an H a few years back. I used the Monogram centre section of central fuselage and wing, combined with the AMT nose and tail sections. This kept the structural integrity of the wing box and landing gear bays. I then added the AMT engines to the wing which wasn’t difficult. Finally, I rescribed the whole thing to ensure all panel detail was consistent. 
 

There was a slight mismatch between the fuselage profiles, but this was easily fixed with some filler and rescribing. 
 

In short, it can be done!

 

Tom

[Alex Gordon]

10 hours ago, Davide Calzolari said:

which would give the kit mounted without modifications a flying appearance

If you want it in flight finding a decent head on photo could be tricky.

 

From Wikipedia

 

From U-Bend

 

Good luck with the build.

[Davide Calzolari]

nb:  ive the monogram b-52D kit damaged,thus the sole transplant is diedral of D to the G, instead than the  opposite (and absolutely i prefere G/h series and i've no wish to converte the D to G as nose probe,an odissey..for the purpose this there's already the italeri kit ,but at the same time  i dotn wanna surely do it in flyng condition  as wings )

[Davide Calzolari]

On 17/08/2021 at 11:12, Giorgio N said:

 

I wonder however if it wouldn't be easier to add the specific G parts from the Italeri kit to the Monogram one, may be easier to do... at least if the fuselage sections are close enough in size and shape

 

i suppose  the opposite is more simpler,altough the cut and glue work will be not so simple,being done with the eyeball mk 1-..:) for the rest,ive the D already damaged,is the other option is the sole  viable  (hi giorgo,ive improved my wirttne english surely :d )

[Sabrejet]

On 17/08/2021 at 20:40, Alex Gordon said:

If you want it in flight finding a decent head on photo could be tricky.

 

I'll have you know that some of us spend a lot of time standing in front of B-52s! 😉

 

 

[Giorgio N]

On 8/20/2021 at 8:57 PM, Davide Calzolari said:

 

i suppose  the opposite is more simpler,altough the cut and glue work will be not so simple,being done with the eyeball mk 1-..:) for the rest,ive the D already damaged,is the other option is the sole  viable  (hi giorgo,ive improved my wirttne english surely :d )

 

Personally I would find the solution proposed by @tomprobert as easier than modifying the wing roots of the Italeri kit to accept the Monogram wings. Cutting a fuselage in sections is not too difficult once the cutting line is identified. Cutting the line straight is easy enough by masking it using robust tape (I use electric insulation tape) and doing the first passes with a scriber, followed by a cutter until the parts are separated. If material ends up missing because of an overenthusiastic cut, it's still easy enough to reinforce the junction with plasticard from the inner side and add plastic strips to fill any gap.

By doing one fuselage half at a time you also have the advantage of having the other half to use to check the alignment of all parts.

 

PS: best way to improve in a language is by using it ! Just keep reading stuff in English and take part in English language forum and things will keep improving 👍

[Rob de Bie]

On 8/17/2021 at 9:40 PM, Alex Gordon said:

 

From U-Bend

 

 

These two photo show something elementary about the B-52's anhedral/dihedral. The wing on its own was built flat, no anhedral or dihedral. It was then mounted with an incidence angle of 3 (?) degrees to the fuselage. If we leave out gravity for a moment, that alone creates the impression of anhedral, caused by the sweep angle. See first photo. But is also basically why the second photo shows no anhedral: the fuselage is rotated nose-down, so we are looking at the wing in its own plane, and voila, zero anhedral or dihedral . Now add gravity, full fuel or empty, lift, G-load, and things become muddy 🙂

 

Rob

Edited August 25, 2021 by Rob de Bie

[Massimo Tessitori]

Please note that the wings bend downwards on the ground and upwards while flying due to the different forces acting on the plane, so this is not only a matter of dihedral at the wingroot that should change only marginally, but of bending of the whole thing.