B-17 guy Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Like the title says, whats out there in aftermarket for the revell B-29? Any engines? Or anything else? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
longmc Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Eduard has a whole set of PE coming out in their next release. A bit pricey and probably go unseen once buttoned up, much like their B-17 sets. I think there used to be cowlings and props but IIRC they were from Cutting Edge, so most likely long gone. Kits World has lots of nice decals. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
timc Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I don't know of any offhand but Eduard's stuff is indeed pricey. Cutting Edge had replacement cowls for the 29 a bunch of years ago but like some of their stuff is tough to find and even if you do, it may be super expensive. Other than that, I don't know of any aftermarket for the B-29 other than some decals and even those I think are OOP. There are replacement barrels for the guns but they're not specifically labeled for the B-29. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DonSS3 Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) Mike West of Lonestar Models has produced a resin set with the exhausts: http://www.lonestarmodels.com/conversions-1-48.html Specifically: http://www.lonestarmodels.com/B29_exhausts_op_640x480.jpg There's also these that he's got listed as "stock" exhausts: http://www.lonestarmodels.com/48_bare_B29_pipes_parts.JPG There are some Cutting Edge props that pop up on eBay from time to time, but they can get really expensive, really fast. Edited January 1, 2014 by DonSS3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
timc Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Don's correct about the Cutting Edge props. I had a set years and years ago but sold them. Now, with the Revell B-29 kit, you don't need aftermarket Ham-Standard props as they come in the kit. Note that the Revell release has the ham-standard props, not the old Monogram or Monogram/Revell releases. Mine is still sealed but I'm told that all the parts for the Silverplate B-29's are still in there as well sans the decals. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chukw Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 True Details makes these props. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
057 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) Here are photos and some assembling instructions in pdf format http://www.hannants.co.uk/search/index.php?adv=1&product_category_id=&product_division_id=&manufacturer_id=&product_type_id=&code=&scale_id=955&keyword_search=b-29&setPerPage=25&sort=0&search_direction=0&save_search_name=&save_search= and in "Info Eduard" pdf-magazines http://www.eduard.com/info-eduard/?utm_source=mp&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=320x180%231&utm_campaign=InfoEduard-EN Edited January 2, 2014 by 057 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quailane Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) I see metal landing gear and resin wheels on eBay all the time. Also squadron (I think it is them) makes vacuformed clear parts for the B-29 in two sets. Edited January 2, 2014 by Quailane Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jeffryfontaine Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Don't forget about nightiemission (Terry Dean's) metal nose weights and resin conversion parts for the B-29 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 (edited) There are no accurate Hamiltons, or anything else, for the Monogram B-29s, except maybe the long OOP Paragon set. The kit's original Curtiss props have ridiculously narrow blades. The more newly moulded/issued in-box Hamilton props have a spinner size of about 1/32 scale, if not 1/24, and yes they are that absurd... The KMC-derived True Detail props have nice hubs but are one foot short in diameter. They are still the best available option. This kit's original fuselage metal mould was warped, bent and twisted by heat-treating the metal halves clamped together from the very first pressing (you can see that as both fuselage halves share the same bending and twist despite being from different sprues)... In addition, the right fuselage is "bored out" one mm to erase some polishing flaw, so it is entirely out of round on top of all that. For some reason the cockpit opening is not centered either, and the boring-out means the cockpit radiuses are all over the place, despite the clear parts being clean and straight: You can imagine what that does to the fit... Unlike their B-17G, keep in mind this kit has the precision feel of a seriously beat-up toy of the 1950s you might pick up at a flea market, and I am not sure that is not unfair to most such toys... Robertson Edited January 3, 2014 by Robertson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nerdling Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 There are no accurate Hamiltons, or anything else, for the Monogram B-29s, except maybe the long OOP Paragon set. The kit's original Curtiss props have ridiculously narrow blades. The more newly moulded/issued in-box Hamilton props have a spinner size of about 1/32 scale, if not 1/24, and yes they are that absurd... The KMC-derived True Detail props have nice hubs but are one foot short in diameter. They are still the best available option. This kit's original fuselage metal mould was warped, bent and twisted by heat-treating the metal halves clamped together from the very first pressing (you can see that as both fuselage halves share the same bending and twist despite being from different sprues)... In addition, the right fuselage is "bored out" one mm to erase some polishing flaw, so it is entirely out of round on top of all that. For some reason the cockpit opening is not centered either, and the boring-out means the cockpit radiuses are all over the place, despite the clear parts being clean and straight: You can imagine what that does to the fit... Unlike their B-17G, keep in mind this kit has the precision feel of a seriously beat-up toy of the 1950s you might pick up at a flea market, and I am not sure that is not unfair to most such toys... Robertson I see Gaston is at the hyperbole yet again. By the way when will you start using your real name on here instead of just trolling with a fake one. I always find it odd that nobody has ever noticed these issues except for you. Makes me think they aren't even there. But please show us the oh so famous mspaint blue and red lines... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 This kit's original fuselage metal mould was warped, bent and twisted by heat-treating the metal halves clamped together from the very first pressing (you can see that as both fuselage halves share the same bending and twist despite being from different sprues)... In addition, the right fuselage is "bored out" one mm to erase some polishing flaw, so it is entirely out of round on top of all that. For some reason the cockpit opening is not centered either, and the boring-out means the cockpit radiuses are all over the place, despite the clear parts being clean and straight: You can imagine what that does to the fit... So you've talked with the folks at Monogram to get the full skinny on how the molds were treated back in 1978, eh? I'd love to have that person's phone number or email address... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DonSS3 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 That's odd, my B-29 kit (well over 20 years old) shows no sign of bending or twisting on the fuselage halves and there seems to be NO evidence of "boring out" whatsoever. I've not seen these issue listed anywhere else for that matter. How odd is that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
timc Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 I don't think it's the B-29 molds are suspect here. My original kit from 1977 is fine too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) That's odd, my B-29 kit (well over 20 years old) shows no sign of bending or twisting on the fuselage halves and there seems to be NO evidence of "boring out" whatsoever. I've not seen these issue listed anywhere else for that matter. How odd is that? Listen to this, then watch this space how in the blink of an eye no one will back up their statements with photos... Meanwhile, back in the real world, this is what all B-29 builders have to deal with: Three things are visible in this photo, two of them related to heat-treating the steel mould, so before a single kit pressing was ever done: -Fin tilts to the right in the perfectly centered photo (joint centered to the lens), but beyond that the lower part of the fin is also offset to the right (bent fuselage). The important thing to remember is that both mould halves are in perfect agreement with both anomalies, which creates a good central join fit: The compound "warping" can only be in agreement from different sprues if the huge female steel moulds (outside skin detail) were securely clamped together upon heat-treating. No plastic moulding production would ever be done before heat-treating... That the fuselage is twisted can also be seen in the turret bases, which don't line up... Hard to photograph, so take my word on it... Further evidence of fuselage bending: Second issue: Despite the perfect centering of the photo, the yellow lines in the first photo show up on my screen as 10.43 mm on the right, on digital calipers, vs 11.42 mm on the left: That's 1 mm of out-of-round due to boring out on the left side of the photo. Further evidence of boring-out on the left side fuselage: The final proof is in the wingroots: Both wingroot are an exact match in their distance to the centerline join (bottom): 33.28 mm: Yet they don't stick out the same depending on which side the fuselage's skin has been bored out (ignore the glue, this is just a spare fuselage for reference): This explains why the front radiuses at the front don't match by a long way...: -Third issue (in the first photo) is the blue lines: As you can see, the lower edges of the cockpit opening are not symmetrical, which means the cockpit opening is "rotated" out of alignment, but take heart: It is just done that way and has nothing to do with any of the other steel mould warping or boring-out issues... I have had nearly ten of them over the years and they are all the same, as well as original 1970s pressings I have examined... Again, just as the claims that the B-17G moulds are showing signs of wear (they actually look better now than they ever did), don't hold your breath for pictures that show there are B-29 kits unaffected by all of this combined, or that this isn't true at all... It never is true: I am all making it up! Robertson Edited January 5, 2014 by Robertson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nerdling Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Listen to this, then watch this space how in the blink of an eye no one will back up their statements with photos... Meanwhile, back in the real world, this is what all B-29 builders have to deal with: Three things are visible in this photo, two of them related to heat-treating the steel mould, so before a single kit pressing was ever done: -Fin tilts to the right in the perfectly centered photo (joint centered to the lens), but beyond that the lower part of the fin is also offset to the right (bent fuselage). The important thing to remember is that both mould halves are in perfect agreement with both anomalies, which creates a good central join fit: The compound "warping" can only be in agreement from different sprues if the huge female steel moulds (outside skin detail) were securely clamped together upon heat-treating. No plastic moulding production would ever be done before heat-treating... That the fuselage is twisted can also be seen in the turret bases, which don't line up... Hard to photograph, so take my word on it... Further evidence of fuselage bending: Second issue: Despite the perfect centering of the photo, the yellow lines in the first photo show up on my screen as 10.43 mm on the right, on digital calipers, vs 11.42 mm on the left: That's 1 mm of out-of-round due to boring out on the left side of the photo. Further evidence of boring-out on the left side fuselage: The final proof is in the wingroots: Both wingroot are an exact match in their distance to the centerline join (bottom): 33.28 mm: Yet they don't stick out the same depending on which side the fuselage's skin has been bored out (ignore the glue, this is just a spare fuselage for reference): This explains why the front radiuses at the front don't match by a long way...: -Third issue (in the first photo) is the blue lines: As you can see, the lower edges of the cockpit opening are not symmetrical, which means the cockpit opening is "rotated" out of alignment, but take heart: It is just done that way and has nothing to do with any of the other steel mould warping or boring-out issues... I have had nearly ten of them over the years and they are all the same, as well as original 1970s pressings I have examined... Again, just as the claims that the B-17G moulds are showing signs of wear (they actually look better now than they ever did), don't hold your breath for pictures that show there are B-29 kits unaffected by all of this combined, or that this isn't true at all... It never is true: I am all making it up! Robertson Yes you are making it up Gashton. Since that is all you ever do. People would be more likely to believe you if every statement you made wasn't filled with hyperbole and over exaggeration. You constantly show the same photos you made with mspaint. Photos that have strange blue and red lines in them that for some odd reason aren't straight themselves. You've for some reason decided that you hate the B-29 kit so you have taken it upon yourself to have some odd almost obsessive crusade to ruin the kit. Yet nobody else besides you has ever noticed these flaws. This brings me back to my original point. Why won't you just use your actual name on this board. Or is it the fact that you have pretty much been booted from every other board for being a troll so you had to resort to using a false name to try and get people to believe the drivel that you post. Now go actually build something instead of being an "expert" on every aircraft ever built by every company that has ever produced aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darius at home Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) I have had nearly ten of them over the years and they are all the same, as well as original 1970s pressings I have examined... Robertson So that would be nine then. As ever Gaston is entertaining but quite, quite mad. Perhaps stronger meds are in order... Darius Edited January 5, 2014 by Darius at home Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Captoveur Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Has Gaston ever actually completed a model? I have a recent pop of the B-29. It has some flash, but otherwise it looks totally buildable. You can either build the Monogram one, or hold your breath for Tamiya to come out with one I guess. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WymanV Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Been reading Gaston Marty Robinson's posts on the interwebs for a few years now with amusement. And since I'm just-a sittin' here working on a bowl of hot soup on a cold winter day, I thought I'd take the time to open some of this in Flexisign and see just what is going on here. Let's consider the three of the photos that even come close to meaning anything. First, we'll dismiss this one outright as it's hard to tell where the kit parts end and the shadows begin. Shame too, as there might be something here. This one next: Note I drew the blue lines out until they met with the belief that they should meet at the vertical. Nay nay. In fact, it looks suspiciously like if the fuselage was photographed head on instead of with the nose to the left and the tail to the right, they would come awfully close to meeting at all three points. Hmmm... Let's move on: As you can see, the red line is crooked. It's glaringly obvious when you look for the 'step' just aft of the second bomb bay. Follow it to the nose and you'll see more. Flexisign has a funny way of exposing these things as it's purpose is to make them straight by default, and you get to choose how crooked you want it to be. The yellow line is a 0 degree straight line and shows just how much closer the kit really is. How about this one: Note the purple lines (this software is so cool-I use it to draw patterns for R/C scratchbuild projects) above the aft windows of the nose glazing. They show the fuselage is rotated to the right. And the peak of the nose is off to the left. Regrettably, the software does not rotate the fuselage so it is viewed directly from above. Wonder how much closer it would line up if it did... I'm off to build a model. I personally get more out of building them than I do nit-picking them and throwing them in the dumpster. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you-a hobby is a hobby. But for anyone out there who enjoys picking them apart, a bit of advice: Start your studies with a valid foundation first. Next up: What's Wrong With the Monogram B-17G ;)/> Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jester292 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Dear "Robertson", My Revell B-29 is not warped. Please send your kits to me, as I have no qualms with warped moldings. I will try my best to overcome the strange defects of your specific boxings. A question if I may. Why on earth would you waste so much money and time trying to "prove" the the 1/48 Superfortress is faulted to the point of being unbuildable and intolerable? Sorry to let you down, but I'm allowed to like the kit. Aaron PS. Your lines are crooked. Maybe this is why you think your kits are warped. Better luck with purchases in the future. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Robertson Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Been reading Gaston Marty Robinson's posts on the interwebs for a few years now with amusement. And since I'm just-a sittin' here working on a bowl of hot soup on a cold winter day, I thought I'd take the time to open some of this in Flexisign and see just what is going on here. Let's consider the three of the photos that even come close to meaning anything. First, we'll dismiss this one outright as it's hard to tell where the kit parts end and the shadows begin. Shame too, as there might be something here. Well Wyman, the edge of the kit is very clear, it could hardly be more given its rough silver overspray on a black background... But I'll concede it is a difficult issue to capture on clean plastic, given it is only 1-2 mm and the needed long focus at a strange angle: The eyes do way better than a lens... Hey, I noticed you don't mention instead the photo where the wingroots are the same 33.28 mm from the centerline join, and yet don't stick out anywhere near the same? You know the term "smoking gun"?: This one next: Note I drew the blue lines out until they met with the belief that they should meet at the vertical. Nay nay. In fact, it looks suspiciously like if the fuselage was photographed head on instead of with the nose to the left and the tail to the right, they would come awfully close to meeting at all three points. Hmmm... Let's move on: Oh no let's not move on! Perhaps a mention that the lower centerline join is obviously perfectly centered to the lens might help you with your "suspicions"? I think I understand now: My nasty red line is hiding the centerline join, so you assume it is somewhere else, and that I am putting a red line there just to accuse a poor innocent kit? Well how about the original photo without the red line then? Sorry about this, but I just noticed it revealed about a half-dozen smoking guns, and maybe you don't like those... Oh well... Bear with me: It really is beautiful, and it shows several points I have been making, and proves all of yours wrong: If your claim of the nose being too much to the left was true, then the nose-closest upper fuselage join would be to the left of the main spine joint behind it, would it not?: It is very slightly to the right... This is because I lined up the picture using the less affected lower join, which accross the nose gear bay you can see is perfectly aligned to the lens... The upper join I got as close to center as I could, but by using the lower join as a reference, I still had to leave it slightly in the opposite direction to where your "suspicion" would put it... The entire steel mould has rotated to the right of this image upon heat-treating, despite both pieces being clamped together (so they warped as one)... This seems to have slightly displaced the front of the spine joint to the left of the image, while the rear obviously veers off to the right. What is so revealing about the spine join veering off to the right is that it does not line up to the lean of the tailfin... This demonstrates there is warping by rotation, or the fin would lean to the left, not the right. This is also confirmed by the tailplane roots being twisted to the main wings... But, hey, check it out yourself, don't trust an unreliable source like me! Something else also proves there is a bending of the tail, on top of the rotation: If you draw a line from the bottom join to the forward start of the main spine join, you will find most of the bulk of the fin is to the right of that line: That implies a bending of the tail as well as a rotation... Now you could still argue this deformation has nothing to do with the steel moulds, that it is just the plastic of my kit issue deforming itself after leaving "perfect" moulds... Well you don't even have to check yours: Think about it: That is not possible. These two fuselage halves are not together face-to-face when they leave the mould... They would never agree twice in warping the same way: Only massive metal parts clamped face-to-face together would warp in perfect agreement and keep a single join line... That is in fact the whole point of clamping them together upon heat-treating: If something twists or bends slightly, at least you still have a kit that can be assembled without ridiculous feet-long giant gaps... As you can see, the red line is crooked. It's glaringly obvious when you look for the 'step' just aft of the second bomb bay. Follow it to the nose and you'll see more. Flexisign has a funny way of exposing these things as it's purpose is to make them straight by default, and you get to choose how crooked you want it to be. The yellow line is a 0 degree straight line and shows just how much closer the kit really is. Ok, this is facepalm time... My photo is not perfectly perpendicular, and the "crooked" red line follows the kit's join, while your yellow line goes nowhere accross solid plastic... As for the last photo in your post (not the one below here), it was a heavily reworked kit, and the main point was the differences in left-right nose radiuses: I'll admit it was rotated (not that it makes any difference), but the lines on it were an old interpretation of the problem, and so I should have used a simpler photo of a brand-new kit like the one below: From the bottom you can actually see the different radiuses better, and this time it is perfectly lined up since the kit's centerline join provides a reference through the bomb bay: Interestingly enough, the "cheek" that looks undernourished from the front is the left cheek, which is the one above here, and here it looks like it is the "fatter" cheek. This is because the "boring out" on the right side (lower) is done further back, more level with the turret. This accounts for the much lazier curve on the bottom, while the much more sharply pitched curve on the left cheek (top) suddenly reveals itself... As another boring out! There is no doubt about it: While much of the right fuselage "bores out" beyond the left -from behind the main wing to the rear of the right "cheek"-, within the forward left "cheek", it is the left fuselage that "bores out" beyond the right... That was why bending the cheeks with pliers didn't seem to improve things, until I resorted to carving the left cheek... If the precision symmetry here in that last picture doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what it woud take... I-have-made-symmetry-out-of-this-crap... And there will be a finished model... As additional info, the Monogram's clear nose cap is oversized by 6 inches, being 5' 6" in diameter, while the actual nose cap was 5' even... The Squadron clear nose cap can be trimmed close enough (5' 1") by its outer frame, but the Monogram's inaccurate oversized framing will show up if you try trimming the kit part instead... This means the entire nose must be "pinched in" a huge amount (3 mm) by the nose cap's strength, and because it is circular the Squadron vacu-form part is, amazingly enough, up to it, if glued with gassed-out cyano glue: It will fog a little, so leave a hole in the cheek to reach in with dabs of Future with a fine bent brush... Or pick another subject! As for Wyman, were your arguments sufficiently answered, or is there anything else I can help you with? Robertson Edited January 7, 2014 by Robertson Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crazydon Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Next up: What's Wrong With the Monogram B-17G ;)/>/> Ken 2MM too short and no dropped sluts :P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PhantomPhreakII Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) 2MM too short and no dropped sluts :P/>/> Hey.. coincidence.. mine doesn't come with sluts either..:-) then again if it did I'd have to answer to my wife (she's a cop you know)... Harald, grabbing the popcorn Edited January 7, 2014 by PhantomPhreakII Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jeffryfontaine Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Like the title says, whats out there in aftermarket for the revell B-29? Any engines? Or anything else? Talk about a thread hijack. :( Did all of the aftermarket stuff get covered? The KMC/True Details propeller sets are nice. Does anyone remember the low-pressure injection molded Hamilton Standards that were produced by one of the Seattle IPMS members many years ago? A one-piece mold and a bit rough around the edges so the would require some sanding to get rid of the imperfections. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
krow113 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Seriously , this is a joke thread right? I first saw the incoherent ramblings opinionated here over 4 years ago , how long does it take to slather a model in bondo and carve a female pleasuring device out of it? None of the dimensioning techniques used here are relevant or what a properly trained person would use. Toooo funny. 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.