serendip

Hi Annie and GW, Thanks so much for your feedback and I should have tried harder yesterday. See below for some great ref shots of AIM 9 and 7's F-18's: Marc.

Hi all, I'm finishing up now on the Kinetic F/A-18C in VFA87 colors, 2014, over Iraq. This kit was not much fun in my opinion - it turned out O.K. but the lazy instructions and mediocre fit at times meant it's remained a struggle. Anyway it turned out not too bad but the kit includes no decals for the missiles that I can find, in contract to the instructions which show decal placement for the missles. So which kind soul can help with which AIM-9X and AIM-7 colors would be suitable for 2014 Hornets? Thanks all, Marc.

Can anyone help . I got the AMT / Italeri 'G with Hound Dogs two weeks ago and the panel lines on the right top wing look embryonic - I guess they popped it out of the mould when it hadn't cooled enough. So as one does I ordered another - same problem. Is it worth ordering another version of the AMT / Italeri kit and swapping the wings around or do they all suffer from this problem. Hoping some other versions which were popped out of the mould in a different batch might be OK. Anyone else who had similar issues? Panel lines on the rest of the kit (except th

Got it Rob, and indeed you are right 2 degrees and half a minute, 2.5 degrees as you say. But help me with the distance between root leading edge and tip leading edge - I see 30 feet and 11 inches in the picture above - I think I'm missing what you mean. Thanks. Marc.

Well spotted Rob! I've got the book myself and I think you've solved the mystery - 2.3 degrees dihedral: Regarding distance at the root between leading and trailing edge this seems to be 30' 11'' but I may be misunderstanding what you mean with your value.

Thanks Habu, 100% clear - info much appreciated. Any chance of sharing your source material or letting me know where it's from? I'm having a hell of a time finding good information on the internet and Boeing isn't forthcoming either. Thanks, enjoy your weekend, Marc.

I chose the last picture especially because it does not seem to be a wide angle lens picture.

Rob, all, I tend to agree the designed anhedral is negligible or non-existent indeed and that the actual anhedral is induced through the engineered flexibility of the wing and (fuel) weight. This would imply that the solution to the unrealistic attitude of the wing on the AMT / Italeri wing would need to be found in the wings themselves not operating on the root moulded into the fuselage. Your thoughts all on this welcome. Great picture Habu! Marc

Thanks Norm, It really does appear that the root of the wing (at the spar) really only has a few degrees of dihedral if any. Curvature seems to start outside of the box structure rather than the box structure being angled itself. Line drawings / blueprints I cannot find but also the pictures I have pretty much support yours above. (All) feel free to criticize if you disagree - I'm here to learn.

Also I am very curious as to how accurate or inaccurate the droop angle of the wing fitments (for lack of a better term) in the fuselage are on the AMT / Italeri kit. Again they don't seem that bad. If anything the droop of the wings at the root on the real thing seem to be no more than a few degrees at most. Most of the droop seems to originate from the weight of fuel. Does anyone know where to find some profile views front, left and right of the B-52? Does Boeing have anything? Thanks again.

If the breadth of the rear fuselage aft of the tail is too narrow this should be fixable. I think someone mentioned 6 mm which is some .2 inches in real money. That's doable. But as Norm and others pointed out the whole gun unit on the AMT kit is also probably underscale. How will that then fit nicely with the widened rear section? I have no idea how to correct the gun unit to be compatible with a widened rear fuselage. All theories and / or suggestions welcome. Marc.

Thanks again Norm for summarizing. I envy you living close to Davis Monthan - I live in the Netherlands and there isn't a B-52 inside of 7000 miles I suspect. It must have been wonderful to spend a day in places like that. I do very much appreciate dehowie's opinion also and applaud him (really I do) for speaking out as is the whole point of sharing views on fora like this one but almost everybody on the internet is very underwhelmed by what MC has done - shame. I don't see any other manufacturer having the cojones to bring out a well designed kit of the B-52 until it hit

And agreed Norm the guns do look somewhat scrawny on the AMT / Italeri kit.

Thanks San for the heads up, that helps.

Thanks dehowie but I'm surprised that in your opinion the MC kits are so much better - opinion seems pretty much unanimous on the (early) MC kits being flawed in a number of ways. MC going out of their way to provide corrections sets for the earlier releases (and these being integrated into later releases) would support this I would think. Do me a favour and advise on which MC kits are acceptable and better than the AMT / Italeri kits regarding the 'G and 'H models and which are pre-improved releases? That would be very helpful. Thanks again for your feedback.