Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Its almost like they got confused or lost track of what part(s) are needed for which B-52 version and instead ended up producing a FrankenBUFF (a bit of everything all thrown in together making a hybrid BUFF and an almost useless kit to model an accurate B-52).  Why/how the more recent model manufacturers get the B-52 so messed up is beyond me. Its not like its a new or classified aircraft; its not like there aren't readily available examples found in museums or gate guards/heritage parks or active flight lines;  its not like there aren't drawings, plans, and other reference materials easily obtainable; its not like we don't have B-52 experts and former/current pilots and ground personnel still living and accessible who would, in all likelihood, gladly assist in helping with a models production. Honestly, if Monogram could do it back in 1968 with their 'D' why can't a modern manufacturer today fifty years later? 

 

Lets hope MC fixes the issues...but I'm not holding my breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few model companies left in the world that care about their product as much as the consumers do.  Getting a subject 85% (or whatever %) correct is unfortunately the new norm.  All I can think of for reasoning is that corporate somehow is pushing the concept of "close enough is good enough; get it out the door."  This is hardly the first sub par kit launched at the modeling world.   Something egregious is going on in the design and tool up phase that defies explanation in light of the available resources and technology.  It can't cost any more to inject an accurate mold than it does to use an inaccurate one.  Don's comments are spot on.  I think it just boils down to the fact that somebody just doesn't care enough to do it right.  And that's sad.  I'd love to buy and build an accurate B-52.  Until one comes along, I guess I just won't care either.  There are other projects I need to do. 

 

Rick L. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On August 8, 2018 at 11:10 AM, engineman said:

Let’s relax and see what’s actually in the kit . I believe the photos are probably developmental test shots . They do have a series of tall tails in development 

 

On August 8, 2018 at 11:31 AM, BN7149 said:

That's exactly right. 

 

On August 8, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Murph said:

 

It's always best to panic early.

 

Regards,

Murph

 

Guess we didn't panic early enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sabre Freak said:

 

 

 

Guess we didn't panic early enough?

Whoa... why did you quote me?  I was endorsing the panic!

 

This Buff is D.O.A. and it was obvious weeks, if not months ago.

 

-Ryan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely true. They could make corrections and produce a good H and a good early G . As for the tall tails , the monogram kit is still the standard, but their  late G model is certainly dead .

it will require some correction parts 

Edited by engineman
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Don said:

Well, I certainly wouldn't recommend preordering anymore MC B-52's based on this current release.

 

Regards.

 

Especially when THIS 3D render was promised.........

 

1YIiMx.jpg

But THIS is what was produced.....

 

oARNmq.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, habu2 said:

 

fixed....  :cheers:

 

Yeah, you are right.  I'll just buy $100 of something else.  But my time of pre-ordering something based on CADs or test shots is long gone.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Paul Boyer said:

C'mon, this isn't helping. The Modelcollect kit may not be good, but it isn't THIS toy.

The post was tongue n' cheek, Paul.

AND you're correct, this toy isn't the MC B-52G but I would argue the tail gun area might be more accurate.......:woot.gif:

Edited by Hooker169
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and let me repeat; LACK OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS!!!

 

In this image what do you see the truck in the fore ground doing.

I found the original image online, right down to the red crane!!! I see a recovery vehicle with the 2nd MAN truck raised for towing, right??

Well you cannot build this truck from the parts in the box, a sprue may be missing??? I don't know; couldn't get an intelligent answer from MC?? Based on the instructions all you can build is another towing tractor, with a fifth wheel where the recovery rig should be????

They absolutely need to talk as a group before kits are released, maybe even before that!!!???!!!

MAN recover.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Murph said:

 

No strakelets.   :crying:

 

That’s because this is the version used by the U.S.AAIRFORCE   

 

U.S.AAIRFORCE  also had the unique one-piece windscreen. 

 

That VNAF insignia on the fuselage is an interesting choice. 

 

Flight of the Old Dog.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, habu2 said:

Flight of the Old Dog.......

Image result for flight of the old dog

EB-52 Megafortress...still a more accurate B-52 then what MC produced...:woot.gif:...LOL!!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Don said:

EB-52 Megafortress...still a more accurate B-52 then what MC produced...:woot.gif:...LOL!!!

:rofl::rofl:

 

Flyboy is right, obviously there was a breakdown in coordinating the design and release of this kit. The original CAD drawings were really good but the final product, not so much. But I just don’t see MC as being such a huge corporation that you cant just yell over to the next cubical, “Hey Chuck, I just sent you a revision to the tail, check you’re in-box”! It just reeks of lazy and rushed with little to no QC.

 

BUT,,,,,,,,,, they did listen to the guys complaining of the wing droop problem on the first test build and went back to redesign the entire thing so maybe there’s hope. 

 

It’s just frustrating, the F-14 guys have had several really well executed kits over the years, the B-52 has several poor attempts. Both arguably the most iconic combat aircraft in history!:crying:

Edited by Hooker169
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...