Eli Raphael Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Thanks Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevan Vogler Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) 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 February 25, 2015 by Kevan Vogler Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flyboyf18 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 The engine nacelles are also too small. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenshb Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Are the engine nacelles too small also for the G-version? Jens Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MoFo Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 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: (sorry. it's been a pet peeve for a while) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Koen L Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Lone Star Models has just released a set of replacement engines for the B-52H. http://www.lonestarmodels.com/Conversions1-72.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eli Raphael Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Lone Star Models has just released a set of replacement engines for the B-52H. http://www.lonestarmodels.com/Conversions1-72.html Would like to see pics before committing. Aft engine cooling vents were a complicated affair to make. Edited February 25, 2015 by Eli Raphael Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dehowie Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
F4DPhantomII Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) And you'll need a whole lot of putty and sanding sticks or sandpaper. Edited February 26, 2015 by F4DPhantomII Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Lone Star Models has just released a set of replacement engines for the B-52H. http://www.lonestarmodels.com/Conversions1-72.html Maybe I'm retarded, but I can't find anything about B-52 engines... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Koen L Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Maybe I'm retarded, but I can't find anything about B-52 engines... http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/756/4542187036.jpg Mike did post some pics of his engines on Hyperscale's forum a while ago if someone cares to look for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikar Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 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"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 What does the airplane's flight attitude have to do with the shape of the model? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Crash Test Dummy Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rich in name only Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 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. 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gator52 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 -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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Koen L Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Some pics of the Lone Star items: http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1425838776/1-72+B-52+H+engine+pods Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Exhausted Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 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: (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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SkyKing918 Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 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/) 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.