Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Eli Raphael

What is wrong with AMT/Italeri's 1/72 B-52 G & H offerings?

Recommended Posts

The biggest complaint I've heard leveled against them is that you have to do a lot of work to get the wings angled down to properly represent them when the plane is on the ground. Straight from the box, they are angled for if the aircraft were in flight.

The engine pods are also significantly undersized by most accounts.

Edited by Kevan Vogler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one AMT kit I have I compared the width of the tail with the Mono kit and found AMT to be 1/4 inch narrower!! I don't think Boeing changed the jigs just because they removed the guns from the later birds!

This kit will eventually become a Megafortress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest complaint I've heard leveled against them is that you have to do a lot of work to get the wings angled down to properly represent them when the plane is on the ground. Straight from the box, they are angled for if the aircraft were in flight.

It's a bit of a nit, and I know the common wisdom is that the wing angle on the kit is wrong because it's "in flight" but... that's completely false. It's not in-flight, AMT just flat out blew the wing angle. The wing tips might be at the correct height for an in-flight aircraft, but AMT just pivoted the entire wing to get them there, which is absolutely, 100% wrong.

Wings don't pivot at the root. They flex along their lengths. Any modeller who's built a plane with long, floppy wings knows this; it's why you glue rods inside the length of a wing so it doesn't droop, rather than just bulking up the wing root seam.

THIS is how B-52wings flex in-flight:

061127-F-1234S-003.jpg

(sorry. it's been a pet peeve for a while)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the engine nacelles too small also for the G-version?

Jens

I believe they are too small on the "G" boxing as well as the "H"...or there are some other inaccuracies with them.

I have a "G" version though and I'm not bothered by any of the "glaring" inaccuracies. I'm going to build mine out of the box and it'll be a gear up "ceiling hanger" to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The wings have dihedral

2. Engine nacelles are way too small (G and H)

3. The entire shape of the forward fuselage/windscreen/nose/radome is wrong. It's far too skinny and pointy. Unfixable.

Those are the major ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note there are NO correctly sized engines available to date.

The Cutting edge ones are also under spec by almost 20% as well.

Hopefully Mikes come good.

The Buffmaster ones are correctly sized but quite difficult to use due to the cut lines required to get them off the casting blocks.

So in short.

The wings are buggered and difficult to get a correct look to give the natural anhedral.

The H engines are way under the G engines a touch under.

The nose some people can live with some not.

The airframe is missing many details and is not really a time frame accurate with a variety of details from different eras missing or to many depending on your proposed kit.

Big effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you'll need a whole lot of putty and sanding sticks or sandpaper.

Edited by F4DPhantomII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes a "D" would come back with one wing high, in this case it was the left.

scan0265.jpg

Couldn't it happen to a "G", or maybe even a "H"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does the airplane's flight attitude have to do with the shape of the model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes a "D" would come back with one wing high, in this case it was the left.

Couldn't it happen to a "G", or maybe even a "H"?

Crosswind Landing. Happens in any airplane. To fly the approach you point the nose into the wind and bank in the direction of the runway. At touchdown you point the nose down the runway, but still have some roll attitude. In the case of the B-52 you can land with the nose crabbed, but may still have some roll.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-B-52H-Stratofortress/1400801/L/&sid=c51199eea725a91e25015cd98d099474

Light on fuel the wing tip wheels will be off the ground.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-B-52H-Stratofortress/0706393/L/&sid=c51199eea725a91e25015cd98d099474

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a touchdown photo.

Gear is still long---weight not yet on ground.

Smoke behind rear wheels.

Comment about light fuel weight is interesting because a model on deck with outriggers also on deck implies full fuel load needing flex downward while a "straight wing" kit can be made to rep one with low weight wings.

Not part of the question but interesting side note (maybe it is pertinent after all if someone measures)--the outrigger wheels/tires are the same diameter as Corsair/Hellcat main gear and A3 nose gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crosswind Landing. Happens in any airplane. To fly the approach you point the nose into the wind and bank in the direction of the runway. At touchdown you point the nose down the runway, but still have some roll attitude. In the case of the B-52 you can land with the nose crabbed, but may still have some roll.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-B-52H-Stratofortress/1400801/L/&sid=c51199eea725a91e25015cd98d099474

Light on fuel the wing tip wheels will be off the ground.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-B-52H-Stratofortress/0706393/L/&sid=c51199eea725a91e25015cd98d099474

They typically tip to one side though when light on fuel. I've witnessed them taxi in and take out the taxi lights on one side of the taxiway and missed those on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took these 2 photos at a RIAT Show at RAF Fairford some years ago.

The B-52 did a routine where he rolled down the runway crabbing from side to side by rotating the wheel bogies.

b-52_crabbing_01.jpg

b-52_crabbing_02.jpg

First he was parallel, then crabbed to starboard, then parallel, then crabbed to port....

The outriggers were off the ground - I assume they don't rotate with the main trucks ??

It was a fascinating display and one that I had never seen before.

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-The Flightpath/DB Conversions engines look to me like the right size in the box, but the assumption is that the Monogram B-52D engines are correctly sized as a starting point, since they are used as a base for the conversion.

-In my opinion, a nice model can be made from the AMT/Italeri kits; many of the shortcomings can be mitigated with aftermarket. Given the choice, I'd use an Italeri boxing; it seemed to me that their plastic was easier to work with than AMT's soft plastic. Here's the one I built about 5 years ago:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=197267&st=0

Depending on the era, there are a litany of details to be addressed, mostly with antenna configurations. This is more a factor for the H than the G.

-Sometimes the low wing/high wing effect is the result of a turn while taxiing, like into parking; in a left turn for example the jet leans right, and consequently at the completion of the turn the left wing may be high and the right wing low, even if the fuel is balanced in the wing tanks. Additionally, on some ramps that aren't completely level, the asymmetric effect can appear exaggerated.

-Outriggers will castor in the direction of movement when the strut is compressed, but are not steered like the mains.

Jonah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wings don't pivot at the root. They flex along their lengths. Any modeller who's built a plane with long, floppy wings knows this; it's why you glue rods inside the length of a wing so it doesn't droop, rather than just bulking up the wing root seam.

THIS is how B-52wings flex in-flight:

061127-F-1234S-003.jpg

(sorry. it's been a pet peeve for a while)

If there's no lift under the wings from forward motion, then would the wings still flex along its length? I got the impression that the AMT offering could reasonably represent an 'at rest' bird with no fuel or wing stores, especially if one fanagles the outriggers off the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the AMT kit doesn't represent any configuration you would ever see a real B-52 in. It's just plain wrong. It was a very poorly researched, poorly designed, and poorly executed kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can download the official Boeing B-52G display model drawing here: http://postimg.org/gallery/1v2scszp0/

And the B-52H display model drawing here: http://postimg.org/gallery/2y1kywfhw/

These should answer your questions. They are courtesy Ron Downie's Aviation Archives blog (http://aviationarchives.blogspot.ca/)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×