Steve N Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) After all the hoopla about the skinny nose on the various forums when the test shots were shown, I decided to check the kit parts against some actual drawings. These are in Aerodata International's "Bombers of WWII," and labeled 1/72 scale. I realize that drawings aren't necessarily gospel, but these look pretty good to me. Anyway, here's the Revell fuselage laid against them. Lining up on the upper fuselage spine, the upper nose and nosecone appear relatively close. Where the discrepancy appears to lie is in the underside, which is considerably too shallow. This continues most of the way back, although the tail appears reasonably close. Simply put, the belly doesn't hang down enough. Now I admit, I haven't taken any measurements..this is just a quick and dirty check. I also checked both the Academy and Hasegawa fuselages. Both are also a bit too skinny in the vertical dimension, but not as much as Revell (about halfway between the Revell dimensions and the drawings.) All three kits are about the same length, and match the drawings fairly well in that respect. Let the flames begin! Steve Edited February 2, 2011 by Steve N Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Need to see the top turret mounted and laid on that picture. I've heard it's way too tall. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B-17 guy Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I may be biased, but I have yet to see any 1/72 fort that looked right, they all look cartoonish to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chuck1945 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The turret in those drawings looks suspect. I have just been digging through a couple of books on B-17s and units and I just dont see that rearward bulge on the real thing. In another post in a different ARC forum the comment was made by a guy who was in a position to know, that Revell AG got Boeing technical drawings for this project. Of course there is the question whether Revell actually paid heed to them. At this point, all we can say for sure is that the kit doesnt match the plans but we have no reason to believe the plans are accurate either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve N Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Well, as I said it was just a quick comparison. As I mentioned on another forum, I have no intention or desire to become the next Gaston, declaring every kit Fatally Flawed based on comparison to blurry photos found on the interwebs. It's true, the drawings could very well be inaccurate. But the Revell fuselage is still skinnier in the vertical than either the Academy or Hasegawa Forts, and it does look a bit anorexic to my untrained eye. SN Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Phil marchese Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) I may be biased, but I have yet to see any 1/72 fort that looked right, they all look cartoonish to me. If you tape the nose and tail on the Matchbox kit, you'ld start to hum the theme to Twelve O' Clock High or calling out bandits. If you lay the fuselage to the Boeing station drawings as Karl and I did a few years aggo. youll know why... Dead nuts on. Pitty the wings lack airfoil at the MAC and the clear parts are so thick. But as for the fuselage, its the best by far. I'd like to see someone tape up half an M-Box to the new Revell G. Confirm that right waist! Edited February 3, 2011 by Phil marchese Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Has anyone done a side by side comparison between the various 1/72 B-17s? I would have thought that would be the first thing reviewers would do with the new Revell kit, but I haven't seen any yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chuck1945 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 What disappoints me the most I think, is that I had extremely high expectations for the RoG B-17. Ever since they started their large plane campaign back in the late 90s with the He 177, each release has been well received with little criticism regarding accuracy (with the exception of the Lancaster and its outer wing dihedral). They have provided either the first injection kits (Bv 222, Ju 290) or a significant upgrade from prior kits (He 177, Fw 200) with interior detail and a price that didn't require a second mortgage. The price and detail parts are there with the B-17, but there are certainly qustions regarding accuracy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve N Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Has anyone done a side by side comparison between the various 1/72 B-17s I did check the Revell fuselage against the Hasegawa and Academy Forts, and both were a bit fatter in the belly. There were some other minor shape differences, but nothing really visually significant. I haven't checked the wings against each other..simply because the wings of the Revell Fort look OK to me. I'm not an engineer nor draftsman..I was simply curious because the Revell fuselage just looks "off" to me. But then who am I to judge..I also think the 1/72 Tamiya Spit I and Hasegawa Spit IX look OK. SN Edited February 4, 2011 by Steve N Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Prop Duster Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 After all the hoopla about the skinny nose on the various forums when the test shots were shown, I decided to check the kit parts against some actual drawings. These are in Aerodata International's "Bombers of WWII," and labeled 1/72 scale. I realize that drawings aren't necessarily gospel, but these look pretty good to me. Anyway, here's the Revell fuselage laid against them. Lining up on the upper fuselage spine, the upper nose and nosecone appear relatively close. Where the discrepancy appears to lie is in the underside, which is considerably too shallow. This continues most of the way back, although the tail appears reasonably close. Simply put, the belly doesn't hang down enough. Now I admit, I haven't taken any measurements..this is just a quick and dirty check. I also checked both the Academy and Hasegawa fuselages. Both are also a bit too skinny in the vertical dimension, but not as much as Revell (about halfway between the Revell dimensions and the drawings.) All three kits are about the same length, and match the drawings fairly well in that respect. Let the flames begin! Steve Steve your right! its awful! your comparison proves that the maker has failed miserably. Sooooo, :D to spare you the, undeserved pain, of having to deal with this misshapen blob of plastic, I will, reluctantly but bravely, "let you" send the beastly thing to me. That way you can go on and build a model worthy of you skills; while I shall suffer in your stead. Sniff, snork, sniff Ain't I just too kind?? Are you beliveing any of this?? ********************************* Seriously: Good luck on your build. Looking forward to your further evaluations as you progress. And I'm still thinking I'll be gettin one, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I did check the Revell fuselage against the Hasegawa and Academy Forts, and both were a bit fatter in the belly. There were some other minor shape differences, but nothing really visually significant. I haven't checked the wings against each other..simply because the wings of the Revell Fort look OK to me. I'm not an engineer nor draftsman..I was simply curious because the Revell fuselage just looks "off" to me.But then who am I to judge..I also think the 1/72 Tamiya Spit I and Hasegawa Spit IX look OK. SN Thanks, how about the whole package? I know the new Revell kit is probably the best detailed, but it sounds like it has enough issues that one of the older kits may still be better overall. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve N Posted February 5, 2011 Author Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) how about the whole package? Well, per my comments in the Props forum, I think that while the detail is fantastic, the Revell kit falls short of being the ultimate B-17. Not so much because of the possible shape issues, but just the general quality of the molding..my example has an annoying number of sink marks, and the soft, heavy panel lines and thick transparencies are not what I would expect from a new-mold kit. The concept is fantastic, but the execution isn't as refined as I had hoped. For a 1/72 B-17G, Revell packs in by far the most detail, but the Academy and Hasegawa kits are both still viable options (each has plusses and minusses the make them about even.) SN Edited February 5, 2011 by Steve N Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chuck1945 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Steve, I agree whole heartedly. my last post on the props forum compared the shape of the Academy/Airfix B-17G and Revell's. You could probably one kit using a fuselage half from the other. It would take a little fiddling with hatches, but I have encountered kits where the fuselage halves from the same kit line up worse. The ultimate 1/72 B-17 kit is still awaiting; for now though, if you think raised panel lines best represent the B-17s construction, choose Hasegawa, if you want recessed panel lines, Academy, and if you want interior detail, Revell. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Thanks, that is what I was wondering about. I have been following the other post as well, but it has been largely focussed on the Revell kit and the depth of the fuselage. When it is being compared poorly to Airfix and Matchbox kits it kind of makes you wonder. It is too bad Revell seems to have dropped the ball a bit, a B-17 seems like something they would have taken more care with considering the popularity and existing competition. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bigasshammm Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 If only Tamiya would do one... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
100th BG Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Using the following two diagrams from the Boeing Centerline Diagram (15-7010) from the blueprints I did a few measurements. Bulkhead 4 (fwd end of the bombay) should be 8' 7" high. It is. Took similar measurements at Bulkhead 3 (OK), Bulkhead 1 (OK), and the fuselage diameter just fwd of the wing (OK). Also the bulkheads are correctly spaced. So, dimension wise, this thing is not too bad. But the clear pieces are inexcusable. Having an interior that can't be seen is not a great idea to me. And parts that should be molded more delicate are incredibly thick. Why can't we get a decent Norden bombsight in this scale? It's not like it's top secret. Monogram got it right in their B-29 and later added it to the B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26 etc. Also, is it too much to expect seats that look like B-17 seats? The interior isn't really that impressive to me. And has anybody looked at the entrance hatch, the oil coolers, the inboard exhausts? I find it hard to believe that this is the best researched B-17 out there. It is not the worst piece of grabage ever foisted on us, but it IS a disappointment after what they had been releasing. Everything I see wrong can be dealt with with some modeling skills but it is still a bit frustrating. The 35 year old Monogram kit is still the best B-17 on the market to me. Now you all can start seriously flaming me, NOMEX is donned ;) !!!! Their inboard exhaust: A real B-17 IB exhaust: Edited February 5, 2011 by 100th BG Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) So... in terms of 1/72... and compared with the other forts - shape wise, she's a flop. BUT, a kit-bash of her guts with another kit may prove to be useful. For all the hype with this kit coming out, it really seems to be a winner with some extra details, but a failure in accurate shape in the bigger picture. A shame. Perhaps down the road a Fort will be lucky enough to have a couple of the Tamiya exec's either go on a ride, or read something interesting on them to spark their interest and come out at random with a 1/72, 1/48 fort that really blows us all away. Hahahahaha... ya, and tomorrow I'm going to find a winning loto ticket and quit my job. Edited February 5, 2011 by Kostucha Quote Link to post Share on other sites
100th BG Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 The top turret is easy to fix, just remove the lip from part 171. There is still just enough area to attach the dome to the rest of the turret. It actually its down in the airplane better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Great point... but WOW, look at those trenches! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
100th BG Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Mark, I don't think it's a flop shape wise. It does look a bit odd, but it measures out fine. Don't know why that is. As for the interior, you are not gaining much with this kit. You could dress it up better with the Eduard set (which has some decent looking seats!) or the CMK set. If this had decent clear pieces, I would build it with the Eduard set I have but as it is, I am not going to waste my time on the interior. I think some minor fixes on the exterior will make it look fairly decent although I am not happy with the panel lines. Edited February 5, 2011 by 100th BG Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aaronw Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Mark, I don't think it's a flop shape wise. It does look a bit odd, but it measures out fine. Don't know why that is. As for the interior, you are not gaining much with this kit. You could dress it up better with the Eduard set (which has some decent looking seats!) or the CMK set. If this had decent clear pieces, I would build it with the Eduard set I have but as it is, I am not going to waste my time on the interior. I think some minor fixes on the exterior will make it look fairly decent although I am not happy with the panel lines. The interior isn't a huge selling point for me either. Nothing against this kit in particular, but there are few 1/72 kits that could really show off a detailed interior, it is just the nature of the scale due to the small, relatively thick windows. If I'm going to go hog wild detailing the inside of a bomber, I would be going with the 1/48 Monogram kit with the clear side piece. I used to love building the 1/48 Monogram bombers with all that interior detail, only to close it all up never to be seen again. Edited February 6, 2011 by Aaronw Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.