Jeff Dick Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) I've been off work with a back injury and suffering from cabin fever. To keep myself sane I decided to try modelling on a bed in breakfast tray having all the tools and paint etc. in reach on the tray. I got the Revell 1/72 B-17G very early in January on EBAY, so I chose to do it because I felt many B-17 builders would like to know how it is. There are some really impressive engineering features and details on this kit, however there are some glaring omissions and errors. Starting at the nose, the perspex is really thick and has large flanges to secure it to the nose, it is "sucked in" too much at the bottom and is about 6 scale inches too narrow. They give you 2 choices of perspex, one a bit longer than the other. I sanded off the flanges and back painted the edge and actually glued it on with the same color paint. It looks a little better, but someone is going to have to do a new vacform set for this B-17. The ILS antenna is way too big, I used a nice one from the ESCI 1/72 C-47. The chin turret is missing the two rear access panels and you can only glue the guns in one elevation, as the slits are covered to simulate the zippers. Ther is no control yoke for the chin turret or gun sight. They have done a lot of interior detail that no one else has included on a B-17 kit, yet there are no oxygen bottles, ammo boxes or equipment for navigators or bombardiers panels. The inside of the nose has 2 seats, an oversized Norden bomb sight, table for the Navigator and 2 50 cals. The top of the nose is missing panel lines and the astrodome has no tapering fairing at its rear. The two panels with the side windows and cheeks line up with all panels lines but the top, so they need to be filled. The cockpit has 2 great seats a control panel two yolks and the top turret mechanism, but again no oxygen equipment or side control consoles or overhead console. The top turret is too high, I shaved the turret flange down to .010" to fix it. The bomb bay is almost right, someone has finally realized the bomb bay ceiling is not up into the turtle deck where the life rafts are! However a characteristic of the B-17 bomb bay is that the bulkheads are part of the wing spars and as such are tilted back 3 degrees (angle of incidence) giving the opening a curved forward edge front and rear. The bomb doors are curved the same way to match. The bomb bay opening is not a perfect rectangle. The radio room is pretty nice, but again no oxygen equip. or ammo if you install the gun. The top rear window has a weird kink from the side view, I fixed it with masking and putty. They give you an extended air deflector for it but no indication of its panel outline or hinges if you leave it closed. The ball turret has a couple of pieces for interior detail that you will never see and the windows are not consistent with photo's. The round one looks too small in dia. and the 4 windows above and below it are too long. Waist compartment is standard unstaggered and has no oxygen equipment or floor and the framed windows are flush with no bevelling, no air deflectors indicated. Tail wheel has too tall and too narrow a look to the tire and the scissors are a solid triangle and should be an open V shaped brace. The horizontal stabilizers look too thin, have a node at the start of the tip curve and have no deicer boots. The rudder is missing two access panels on the left upper hinge the same as the two at the bottom hinge. The standard tail turret glazing sits too far back and needs to be shortened so the bottom tip of the rudder is even with the top corner of the glazing. They give you an interior for it, but it is physically impossible to install the gun breeches with the armor plate as shown in the instructions. At any rate you can't possibly see that part of it anyway. The wings are too thick (deep) by 6 scale inches at the root and the tip and make the fuselage look too small in dia. The ailerons should be shorter in cord at the top than the bottom and there should be no trim tab on the starboard aileron. I added .040" stock to the gap on the top wing. There is no indication of deicer boots. The vents aft of the engines are all the same width and they are not on the real thing. The tip vents are a single slit more common on late F's; most G's have 2 slits that sit further forward. The engines are really impressive as well as the wheel wells and the landing gear. The propeller blades are too broad near the hub, so I reshaped them. Tires look too narrow and are not flattened, Supercharger components are outstanding. If you were to use the Cheyenne turret and stagger the waists, there are no heat exchangers on the wings. There are no Navigation, Formation or Identification lights indicated at all. The decals for Nine O Nine show two black wing walks at the roots, not seen on WWII B-17's Also the black outline to the A on the wing should come off, I think they are confused with the warbird 909. Initially I thought this would be the holy grail for 1/72 B-17's, but it is a no more than a source for detail parts for cross kitting an accurate 1/72 B-17. I built it with some corrections but some I left as is. It's all hand brushed with Humbrol and Testors and is modelled as Nine O Nine would have looked at the end of her carreer. I sure hope Wingscale is reading this! Jeff If someone can tell me how to upload my photo's here I'd appreciate it, in the mean time here are links to my gallery on Kitmaker.net http://gallery.kitmaker.net/showphoto.php/photo/354925 http://gallery.kitmaker.net/showphoto.php/photo/354929 http://gallery.kitmaker.net/showphoto.php/photo/354934 http://gallery.kitmaker.net/showphoto.php/photo/354931 http://gallery.kitmaker.net/showphoto.php/photo/354932 http://gallery.kitmaker.net/showphoto.php/photo/354930 http://gallery.kitmaker.net/showphoto.php/photo/354927 Edited February 28, 2011 by Jeff Dick Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve N Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 First off, nice job..especially for being brush-painted! I concur with pretty much all your observations about the kit (although some I hadn't noticed myself.) I also picked up on the thin horizontals, but wasn't sure if it was an inaccuracy or not. I'm planning to vacu-form or heat-smash a new nose cap. That kit piece is simply not up to the standards of a modern kit. I also plan to scratchbuild a gunsight, chin turret control and bombardier's panel..those are very disappointing omissions, particularly since Revell included so much invisible detail in the tail gunner's compartment. The "ram's horn" antenna in my kit is short-shot, but I was planning to scratchbuild a more realistic replacement anyway. I'm debating whether to use the kit wheels or some True Details resin replacements. The kit wheels are very nice, but the tread is similar to the "fish scale" treatment in the AMT 1/48 A-20 kits. I probably won't add any oxygen bottles, since they really wouldn't be seen from outside anyway. Bottom line, we still await the definitive 1/72 B-17. The new Revell kit is very nice in many respects, but has enough "warts" that it still doesn't completely eclipse the older Academy and Hasegawa efforts. SN Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Jeff, Thanks for the post! First off... BRUSH PAINTED!!! You Sir, have some incredible skill with the brush! Unfortunately you cannot upload your photo's to ARC. Instead, if you have the URL address for your pictures, you can insert images here (using the 5th small button on the top left - just left of the happy face). Hope this helps. And I hope your back get's better soon! This guys brush painting makes the Mona Lisa look like a 6 year old painted her... Cheers! Mark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stevehnz Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) I hope no one minds me popping these up, I guess its hot linking so its thats the wrong thing feel free to edit them gone or ask me to. Its a well impressive build in my estimation. Steve. Edited February 28, 2011 by stevehnz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It certainly is. I know others are going to ask as well, so I'll be the first... how did you get the reflection of the water? Is the diorama base a mirror with the concrete hardstand built on top? Impressive! Simply impressive work! Cheers, Mark. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shawn M Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 fabulous work! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
100th BG Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yep, I have to agree this kit is a bit of a disappointment, especially considering the pre-release hype and the technology available today. The clear pieces and the panel lines are not what you would expect from 2010. It does go together well for the most part although there is not positive method for locating the top turret, the structure on either side of the bombay (vertically that is), or the tail gunners compartment interior. Which can't be seen anyway as pointed out. One thing, do not associate the grills on the wings with the Cheyenne turret. The grills are part of the hot air system which did not appear until late production. The pumpkin turret was available well before that. There are a couple of camoed G's in this picture with the Cheyenne turret, which were well before the introdction of the hot air system. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B-17 guy Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Nice job on your fort, especially the exhaust staining on top of the wings. My opinion of the 72nd sclae kits is biased, I have not see on of them that looks right. Either the props are too skinny or too fat, nose's look wierd, etc. They all look cartoony to me. The best looking fortress kit of them all the 1/48th monogram B-17G kit. Like I said, I'm biased. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
100th BG Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yep, Monogram got it right...in 1975! (Geez, the year I graduated from high school. I think I'm trying to get old. Not growing up, just getting older ) Think what that design team could do with the technology available today... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yep, Monogram got it right...in 1975! (Geez, the year I graduated from high school. I think I'm trying to get old. Not growing up, just getting older ) Think what that design team could do with the technology available today... Suffice to say after building one, I could see myself working on a BF 190, and alas! There would be the tiny rumblings of 4 CW's, and a few craters left on my work bench as the 10 1/48 scale figures fly back home for a round of tiny beers after another successful mission bombing my 1/48 Messerschmitt plant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Dick Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 It certainly is. I know others are going to ask as well, so I'll be the first... how did you get the reflection of the water? Is the diorama base a mirror with the concrete hardstand built on top? Impressive! Simply impressive work! Cheers, Mark. Thankyou for the comments Mark, I can't take full credit for the base. It was actually done by Al Petrie aka Alvis 3.1. Although it was my idea about the mirror, Al executed it nicely. What we both realized afterwards was that it would have been better with a polished stainless steel mirror. The glass mirror reflects from the back of the glass therefore the edge of the tarmac sits about 1/8' above the reflecting surface, you notice it more in real life. This was done to show off the bomb bay. Additionally this base was built for a 10 man group build of the 1/48th Monogram B-17G, some years ago in our club, Victoria Scale Modellers. Each person had a different role in the construction of the whole display and each person had their name and "nickname" printed on crew positions on the ficticiuosly named "Victoria's Secret". I have the model at home here, the base was actually for 1/48th but it looks better than a rug! I hope to post some pics soon of this build, becuase some of our members did a lot of impressive scratch building to accurize some parts of the kit ie. bomb bay. There is a follow me jeep and a large oak tree that go with the base as well. If I'm not mistaken I believe Steve Bamford was on of the crew on this build. Regards, Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Dick Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yep, I have to agree this kit is a bit of a disappointment, especially considering the pre-release hype and the technology available today. The clear pieces and the panel lines are not what you would expect from 2010. It does go together well for the most part although there is not positive method for locating the top turret, the structure on either side of the bombay (vertically that is), or the tail gunners compartment interior. Which can't be seen anyway as pointed out. One thing, do not associate the grills on the wings with the Cheyenne turret. The grills are part of the hot air system which did not appear until late production. The pumpkin turret was available well before that. There are a couple of camoed G's in this picture with the Cheyenne turret, which were well before the introdction of the hot air system. Very interesting photo, one I've not seen before. An F and a mix of camo and NMF B-17's and the one you circled has unstaggered waists and looks as is it was delivered with the cheyenne. The top turret is annoying in the way it's fixed to the fuselage, it pops out and rattles about when you are working on the model. About the heat exchanger grills, I realize they are late, I was just referring to the possibilty of them. You really have to look up the serial to find out if a B-17 had them. The majority of the current warbirds and museum B-17's have them because most are very late G's. I think a photo etch set or even a decal would suffice. I have seen a few drawings that show them symmetrically on each wing, and they are not. Regards, Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Dick Posted February 28, 2011 Author Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yep, Monogram got it right...in 1975! (Geez, the year I graduated from high school. I think I'm trying to get old. Not growing up, just getting older ) Think what that design team could do with the technology available today... Looks like you and I went to different schools together! LOL Yes, this point is what really irks me. They have the best shape and outline rendition of a B-17 sitting right in their laps! But like the old saying goes; "sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees". It's obvious they went with someones drawings, however most are flawed. The best set of drawings I've ever seen are Rikyu Watanabe's, the worst I've seen are Aerodata's. I have a set of Boeing's drawings and the service manuals although you have to be aware of the difference betwwen general arrangement drawings and blueprints. Years ago I purchased the ID Models vacform B-17 in 1/32 scale. It was a non returnable sale (this is before internet) and it only took me less than an hour to determine they had based it on Aerodata's drawings. I marched the kit straight out to the dumpster and basically flushed $250 down the toilet! With so many 1/1 scale B-17's in the world and thousands of photo's there simply is no excuse for what RVG pulled off. Let's hope Wingscale is a little more observant. Regards, Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Same goes for some of the AM that goes along with the 1/48 Fortress... I feel your frustration, and Karl may soon be losing his hair over these avoidable errors! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Dick Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Same goes for some of the AM that goes along with the 1/48 Fortress... I feel your frustration, and Karl may soon be losing his hair over these avoidable errors! I see you're from "Winterpeg", don't feel too bad, we have had a fair dump of snow here in Victoria. I have a great many relatives in Winnipeg, I was born in Winkler and spent some years of my youth in S.W. Mb. I built my first 1/48 B-17 in Borden Ont. in the winter of 77 and then built many more in CFB Namao in the late 70's and 80 while Airframe tech on CC-130's, again mostly in the winter. I remember buying my first aftermarket decal sheet from Tiger Hobbies in Winnipeg, it had "The Witches ***" on it. Good times, Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kostucha Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 PRICELESS!!! Tiger Hobbies is my LHS! I go there for pretty much everything! Small world. We're not so much as freezing anymore, as we are all sick and tired of this whole "Winter" thing. Why did people settle here in the first place? There's two seasons in Winnipeg... Winter... and Flooding. *facepalm* Small, small world! Thanks for the note! That post definitely put a smile on my face. Mark. 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.