Need B-24 advice

[Rob T]

I'm wanting to build a B-24 kit but I don't know which kit to go with. Other than the Revell X-15, I haven't really built a plane kit since I was a kid starting in the hobby. I have been building cars for 30+ years so I'm not a newbie but the plane's fuselage seams and panel lines intimidate me. I am most interested in some of the 1/48 scale kits but 1/72 would be ok too. The B-24D is my favorite model but I'm not stuck on it. Which available kit would be my best bet to start with. I'm not really looking at accuracy of details as being the big factor but which kit would be the easiest build with fewest known assembly headaches? Thanks for your time!

Rob

[Robertson]

By far the Hasegawa 1/72 is the first choice. One of their best. An excellent kit in every way, including fit, with minor variant feature issues. You'll need the "Consolidated Mess" book to sort the features out on the turret nose types.

Don't fret the kit's price, you do get what you pay for.

The -distant- second choice would be the 1/72 Academy, but the engine cowls are too small. The 1/48th kit is not really a kit of anything, being in the same league as Monogram's A-26 Invader, although most people are not as aware of that as for the Invader.

Robertson

[DonSS3]

The Monogram B-24 (both D and J available) is the way to go in 1/48. The turrets are something of a hassle (can be replaced with Koster vacuform bits), but overall they're pretty good kits.

[mawz]

The 1/72 Academy is in fact the Minicraft kit and is available in Academy, Minicraft & Eduard boxings. It's quite good aside from the undersized engine cowls. This is what I'd start with unless you get a deal on the better Hasegawa kit (the Has kit is better, but not that much better).

In 1/48 the Monogram is where it's at, and is reasonably accurate for either variant(it's nothing like their A/B-26 kit, which is lousy)

[ChesshireCat]

somebody sells an aftermarket set of engine cowls for the Academy kit, and Quickboost sells an engine set for the Hasegawa kit that actually fit better in the Academy kit. Otherwise there's not a lot of betterness in the Hasegawa kit (I have several both). Academy has more versions, but at least one of their versions is far from being correct. I like both brands, but think it's time for Revell or Airfix to bring out another in 1/72 that has a realistic price. If Airfix sold one of the same mold quality as their Lancaster we could declare a national holiday!

gary

[Steve N]

As mentioned above, you only have one option in 1/48: the venerable Monogram kit. It's a decent kit, but definitely a product of its times (first released in the late 1970s.) Surface detail consists of somewhat heavy raised panel lines, and the details are a little sparse and heavy-handed by today's standards..but it's a straightforward build and ends up as a decent replica. To me, the biggest accuracy issue is the canopy..the cockpit side windows are noticeably too short (vertically) giving the canopy a "squashed" look. Squadron has a vacuform replacement canopy that looks much better. The tail turret is also incorrect for a "D", being the later fully-enclosed turret used on the later B-24s (the kit was originally released as a "J"..Monogram modified it to represent a "D", but the only thing the changed was the nose.) As mentioned above, Koster Aero Enterprises makes a vacuform/resin turret upgrade set that addresses the issues (I think it may include a corrected canopy as well.)

In 1/72, the Hasegawa kits are by far the best B-24s (in any scale) but also by far the most expensive..although I've scored them for as little as $25.00 on sale or second-hand. Unfortunately, Hasegawa made the same screw-up as Monogram on the "D", only providing the later-style tail turret. Nobody makes an aftermarket replacement (yet) and it would take a fair bit of scratchbuilding to correct the kit turret. The Academy/Minicraft B-24s date from the early 90s. They're not as good as the Hasegawa kits, but still look good built-up, and can be found far cheaper. They've got some accuracy issues here and there, most noticeable being the undersized and simplified engine cowls. Interior detail is also rather sparse.

The old Airfix B-24J and Revell B-24D date from the 60s, and aren't really serious models. Both are quite crude by today's standards, being covered with rivets and featuring moveable control surfaces and retractable landing gear.

Cheers!

Steve

p.s. Take "Robertson's" assessments with a grain of salt..he tends to be a bit hyperbolic, and often declares kits as "fatally flawed" based on shape or dimensional "inaccuracies" that no one else can see.

[Rob T]

I want to thank you guys for all of the replies. This is some fabulous info. Since I want to build one to get my feet wet instead of a detailed accurate build I have an idea now. I am glad to hear that there are not a lot of flaws constructionwise with the Revell as I had my mind pointed in that direction. I don't remember seeing an Academy or Minicraft in 1/72 and probably would have ignored them based on prior experience. I'm glad to hear they are viable options. The Hasegawa kit is nice but way too expensive for this point in my aircraft building. Once I get a build in to get started I may try a Hasegawa kit so I don't burn some cash on a learning build. Does anyone know if a comprehensive listing of available kits and decals and detail items for the B-24? I've seen them for some other planes.

Rob

[Rich in name only]

Some great comments but to add:

The 1/48 Monogram is the best to get into airplanes again. It's big so not much fiddly-bitting there.

Also, if you want to start trying techniques, the clear parts are a maze for masking but big enough and numerous enough to try different techniques on one kit.

Same for the interior---you almost can't mess it up because it's so inaccurate but also mostly invisible, despite all the "glass". So you can experiment there, really mess up royally, and no one will know unless you tell them.

Revell and Monogram (US) older (originally but available now) 1/48 kits are great for inexpensive, big enough to avoid tiny details, industrial strength, yet advanced enough to require studying/following instructions, planning a build, and using every tool in the book from sanding to aftermarket.

Did some price comparisons this week and the kits cost about as much as they would have in the 50s allowing for inflation.

[ikar]

Here's a few color shots for the B-24:

[Rob T]

Thanks for the photos! I never get tired of looking at good shots from WWII, especially color shots! Strawberry bad girl is my favorite. I've seen her many times at the Air Force Museum in Dayton. I've loved her for more than 30 yrs now! LOL

Rob

[ikar]

I took that shot when I visited the museum with my Father in 1970 after I got drafted and just before I went into the Air Force. It was sitting apart from the rest of the aircraft near a flatbed with the Goblin and one of its wings on it.

Back then a lot of aircraft were displayed outside and you could walk up and touch them. The rest were put inside a hanger where the new buildings stand now. When I was in the 5th F.I.S. the squadron commander had me hit up each pilot and as many enlisted in our building as possible for donations going to the new structures.

Edited July 5, 2014 by ikar

[Steve N]

Neat pics! In 1970 the aircraft were probably being prepped for the move from Patterson to the new Air Force Museum at Wright Field, which I believe opened in 1971. The Strawberry was repainted before going on display at the new facility, but they didn't do nearly as good a job on the nose art.

These are some pics I found on line of the Strawberry just after she was restored in Tuscon and heading out to Dayton, in 1959. She was stripped to bare metal and repainted then..the unit markings are inaccurate, but they did a really nice job recreating the original nose art. I really wish they'd get a professional artist to repaint it now.

Here are some pics from an old book of the Strawberry being taken out of mothballs in Tuscon and restored..

Here's the original nose art..

Here's how it was recreated when she was initially restored in 1959..

..and here's how she looks today. She's had the same artwork since I first visited the museum in the late 1970s. It's nowhere near as well-executed as the original..particularly the face.

SN

[ikar]

Are you sure that the museum wasn't at Wright-Pat in 1970? I remember seeing a B-58 sitting in the distance waiting to be brought over to the main group of aircraft on display outside and the rest fo the museum housed in a hanger alongside them.

Here's some shots of what it looked like then:

If you look at the edge of the picture you will see a strange ship with outward angles tails. Any idea what this thing is?

[RCAFFAN]

From Steve's pics it seems clear that restorers don't always care about accuracy as while the guy did a great job on the nose art he seems to have added his own touch with the "shoe buckles" not present in the photo of the original. Also I would read the original nose number "24" as yellow with black outlines, not white like the restorers did.

[Steve N]

Those pics are definitely the old outdoor display area at Patterson field. The B-36 in your pics is actually the YB-36 (the second prototype.) When the rest of the aircraft were towed over to the new Wright Field facility, the Peacemaker was considered too big to move, and left behind to be scrapped (the museum's current B-36J had been flown directly to Wright field to replace it.) Scrappers cut up the YB-36, but the carcass was saved by the (late) airplane collector Walter Soplata, who had it stashed at his farm near Cleveland, wher it still remains. I don't know if there's enough left to make a viable candidate for restoration.

Somewher on the interwebs someone posted some home movies of the USAF Museum planes being towed down the highway, but I can't find it.

SN

Edited July 7, 2014 by Steve N

[Steve N]

From Steve's pics it seems clear that restorers don't always care about accuracy as while the guy did a great job on the nose art he seems to have added his own touch with the "shoe buckles" not present in the photo of the original. Also I would read the original nose number "24" as yellow with black outlines, not white like the restorers did.

Speakind of the Strawberry's nose art, I've actually heard that the girl had the bathing suit added for her return to The States, and she flew her combat missions au natrale. That's strictly anecdotal though..I've never seen a photo confirming it. It may just be a tall tail.

The yellow number with a black outline is a bit of an curious anachronism. That's the only photo I've ever seen showing it. dvery other wartime photo of the plane shows the number in white. Mike Grant's decals give you both.

SN

Edited July 7, 2014 by Steve N

[Steve N]

If you look at the edge of the picture you will see a strange ship with outward angles tails. Any idea what this thing is?

I thought it looked familiar, but I had to look it up:

North American X-10

[KSL]

The yellow number with a black outline is a bit of an curious anachronism. That's the only photo I've ever seen showing it. dvery other wartime photo of the plane shows the number in white. Mike Grant's decals give you both.

One more:

Sergey.

[ChesshireCat]

One more:

Sergey.

Now I'd love to have that scheme in 1/72 scale!

gary

[Steve N]

Mike Grant did decals for the Strawberry in both 1/48 and 1/72. I have the 1/72 sheet, and it's gorgeous. Unfortunately he only has the 1/48 set listed on his website, but you might be able to find the 1/72 ones on the secondary market. Superscale and Sky Model Decals also did sheets that include markings for the Strawberry, but they're not particularly accurate. The Superscale set was based on the way the USAF Museum painted her when she was initially restored, and the unit markings weren't even close to accurate.

Thanks for that pic Sergey, I don't think I've ever seen that one before.

SN

Edited July 8, 2014 by Steve N

[flip marchese]

Actually I am learning that the 376BG used yellow numbers commonly and what have long been interpreted as white may in fact be yellow. Do not infer that yellow was more common that white. I am not saying that. I am saying yellow numerals in the 9 & 12 AF 376 BG ARE NOT AN ODDITY.

copyright 2013/14 P C Marchese

[Rob T]

I want to continue to thank each of you for the advice and photos. I have one more. I have purchased the Revell 1/48 B-24D to build the Strawberry bad girl with Mike Grant decals. One thing I know I will need is a set of masks. Which mask would be best; the Eduard or EZ mask sets? What is the major difference between them. I can't find any photos of the EZ mask set.

Rob

[phasephantomphixer]

Not sure you care to go very far into corrections, but it was pointed out to me that the Monogram kit has the ball turret misplaced.

Then if you do a Ploesti raider, the ball would've been removed, and the hole faired over. And you would replace the Norden sight

with a low altitude sight like from the AMT A-20.

[Rob T]

Thanks for the info on the ball turret. That's interesting info but this is just going to be a fun build for me, probably OOB. I know there are some other issues with the kit but this build is just to put my favorite B-24 on the shelf and judge my interest/skills at building aircraft. I'm not that worried about the accuracy at this point.

Rob

[Steve N]

"Strawberry" definitely had a ball turret. When she arrived at the USAF Museum it was removed and installed in the B-17 they had at the time, which is now at the Air Mobility Command Museum at Dover AFB. The turret was returned to the USAF Museum a few years ago, and will be re-intalled in the Strawberry at some point in the future (right now there's a rather crude sheet metal patch over the turret opening.)

I'm not sure if any of the Ploesti Raid aircraft had the ball turrets removed. Most were likely early D's which never had them in the first place, as the turret was introduced midway through the D production run.

SN