Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Nice build Paul and good comments:thumbsup:. Love the girlie figure sitting in the SAC sash on the nose too. I look forward to reading your full review.

 

Regards and happy modeling all!

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Boyer said:

That and photoetched spoilers and resin wing tanks and . . . . 

Paul , is it the diameter of the tanks that’s  off or is it length which could be rectified by cutting out a section?

 

As for antennas, I’ve approached MC about the antenna issue and even had another ARC member with detailed information offer his assistance. So far, no joy.

The motivation on MC’s part to fix the issues may have run it’s course, at least until the D retooling begins.

Edited by Hooker169
Can’t spel
Link to post
Share on other sites

The tanks are somewhere between 20% and 30% too large, length and diameter, and they seem bigger around in the front than in the back. I did rough measurements of long-shot photos, comparing the length of the tank compared with the length of the jet pod next to it, then measured the length of the kit engine pod (which look OK to me). I formed a simple ratio with that info and came up with (roughly) what the tank should be on the kit. Then dividing the length of the kit tank by what I think it should be came up with something around 25% too big. Since it is a rough estimation, I'm spreading the error a bit to say somewhere between 20% and 30%. No way to section, chop, thin the kit parts to get it to look right. I believe Nigel compared the AC parts with drawings and the AMT parts and deduced the AMT parts were correctly scaled. So now we wait to see if an aftermarket company can come up with a fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 After DB resin Buff master is a little rough and so I couldn’t say if his or a copy but DB is a company unto them selves and their pieces are just beautiful. unfortunately I don’t know who if anybody has those molds usually you’ll see something resembling DB stuff in a flight path advertisement but I don’t know if they have all that stuff just a thought I’d mention it

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

 

Based on what?  Have you built both kits?

 

Based on having the MC H...based on spending hour upon hour upon hour pouring over hundreds of photos, plans and every B-52 kit available, based on spending hours walking around real B-52’s photographing them and helping where possible with correction sets.

Just looking at the MC parts is a joy compared to the junk in the AmT kit box where shall i start?

The soft plastic, huge panel lines, a mismatch of timeframes with reinforcing panels missed, added in incorrect places, engines out of size requiring replacement, incorrectly located ejection panels, vents missing, a wing with its well known issues, evs poorly shaped and placed, nose shape wing profile...thats a start.

Having spent a huge amount of time researching B-52’s i will take the MC kit any day over the AMT kit...anyday...you can already buy antenna sets to add the farms needed for you timeframe as B-52 antennas have changed that many times you need to pick your timeframe.

As a starting point it is far better launching point end of story than the AMT kit..

 

 

Edited by dehowie
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Boyer said:

The tanks are somewhere between 20% and 30% too large, length and diameter, and they seem bigger around in the front than in the back. I did rough measurements of long-shot photos, comparing the length of the tank compared with the length of the jet pod next to it, then measured the length of the kit engine pod (which look OK to me). I formed a simple ratio with that info and came up with (roughly) what the tank should be on the kit. Then dividing the length of the kit tank by what I think it should be came up with something around 25% too big. Since it is a rough estimation, I'm spreading the error a bit to say somewhere between 20% and 30%. No way to section, chop, thin the kit parts to get it to look right. I believe Nigel compared the AC parts with drawings and the AMT parts and deduced the AMT parts were correctly scaled. So now we wait to see if an aftermarket company can come up with a fix.

 

Paul -

Your build looks great and I'm sure I'm one of many eager to see the full review and detailed article. 

 

Concerning the wing tanks, have you compared the AMT tank size to photos? I don't have the MC kit(s) yet but I checked the AMT version against a set from DB Resin (last available from Airwaves) and the AMT tanks are significantly smaller.  None of my references have dimensions or accurate line drawings of the wing tanks so I can't verify which is correct, but I'm inclined to trust DB's work over AMT based on accuracy of various other components.

 

Comparison shot of the DB and AMT parts, along with the large tank used on the A-F variants from the Monogram 😧

 

gtLq0mv.jpg

 

Note: parts are aligned with the mounting pylon leading edges.  DB tank is molded solid vs the others in halves, thus some slight distortion but you get the idea.

Edited by Quixote74
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hooker169 said:

 

Did Buff Master take over the DB molds or are his original?

 

The DB molds seem to have been primarily split between Flightpath/David J.Parkins and Airwaves (distributed through Hannants).  I believe most, if not all, of the B-52 sets went to Airwaves, but don't have any info on current status (it's been quite a few years since I've seen any of tnese advertised, and I'm not sure they ever re-released the full G or H conversion sets).

 

The provenance of BuffMaster's work seems to be mixed. Several of the products (HSABs being an example) are original, or at least from a master that was never released by any other companies. There are parts of some sets (engines, "lumps & bumps") that may be reworked from kit parts or other sources, but none originated from DB's products as far as I can tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

27 minutes ago, Quixote74 said:

 

Paul -

Your build looks great and I'm sure I'm one of many eager to see the full review and detailed article. 

 

Concerning the wing tanks, have you compared the AMT tank size to photos? I don't have the MC kit(s) yet but I checked the AMT version against a set from DB Resin (last available from Airwaves) and the AMT tanks are significantly smaller.  None of my references have dimensions or accurate line drawings of the wing tanks so I can't verify which is correct, but I'm inclined to trust DB's work over AMT based on accuracy of various other components.

 

Comparison shot of the DB and AMT parts, along with the large tank used on the A-F variants from the Monogram 😧

 

gtLq0mv.jpg

 

Note: parts are aligned with the mounting pylon leading edges.  DB tank is molded solid vs the others in halves, thus some slight distortion but you get the idea.

Great info @Quixote74! Now we need a MC tank added to that pic!

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dehowie said:

 

Based on having the MC H...based on spending hour upon hour upon hour pouring over hundreds of photos, plans and every B-52 kit available, based on spending hours walking around real B-52’s photographing them and helping where possible with correction sets.

Just looking at the MC parts is a joy compared to the junk in the AmT kit box where shall i start?

The soft plastic, huge panel lines, a mismatch of timeframes with reinforcing panels missed, added in incorrect places, engines out of size requiring replacement, incorrectly located ejection panels, vents missing, a wing with its well known issues, evs poorly shaped and placed, nose shape wing profile...thats a start.

Having spent a huge amount of time researching B-52’s i will take the MC kit any day over the AMT kit...anyday...you can already buy antenna sets to add the farms needed for you timeframe as B-52 antennas have changed that many times you need to pick your timeframe.

As a starting point it is far better launching point end of story than the AMT kit..

 

 

 

Holy cow dehowie….seems like you know your stuff well! Thanks for that. I've been a BUFF addict for eons.....worked on them in the USAF. But seeing the issues with these kits...I'm thinking it's really hard for manufacturers to get a BUFF just right. Knowing the secretive nature of the USAF...that doesn't surprise me.

MC has been great to us. This is the main reason I will always buy their stuff. Yes...I wish all things were perfect...but we don't live in a perfect world. Hell...I'm happy with the AMT offering...even though it is a serious modeling PITA!!! Once you build it and make it look as right as possible...it looks great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DUNEDEVIL said:

Kind of Quite lately anyone heard anything more about the upgrade sets? I keep looking at the MC site 

and mine haven’t shipped yet 

Last I checked MC were to start shipping the sets last weekend.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/29/2019 at 12:13 AM, Quixote74 said:

 

The DB molds seem to have been primarily split between Flightpath/David J.Parkins and Airwaves (distributed through Hannants).  I believe most, if not all, of the B-52 sets went to Airwaves, but don't have any info on current status (it's been quite a few years since I've seen any of tnese advertised, and I'm not sure they ever re-released the full G or H conversion sets).

 

The provenance of BuffMaster's work seems to be mixed. Several of the products (HSABs being an example) are original, or at least from a master that was never released by any other companies. There are parts of some sets (engines, "lumps & bumps") that may be reworked from kit parts or other sources, but none originated from DB's products as far as I can tell.

@Quixote74   Great wingtip tank comparison. Do you have an original release Hasegawa 1/72 F-4E outboard wing tank for comparison as well?  I have a few of those in spares box, so am curious to see if they will work as possible replacements.  I will try to dig some up this weekend and pull out my AMT & ModelCollect tanks and place them on a mat as you have done. R/ Dutch 

Edited by Dutch
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 5:25 AM, Dutch said:

@Quixote74   Great wingtip tank comparison. Do you have an original release Hasegawa 1/72 F-4E outboard wing tank for comparison as well?  I have a few of those in spares box, so am curious to see if they will work as possible replacements.  I will try to dig some up this weekend and pull out my AMT & ModelCollect tanks and place them on a mat as you have done. R/ Dutch 

 

Dutch -

I do have the "old tool" Hasegawa Phantom, but would have to do some stash excavation for a photographic comparison. I can tell you that although the shapes are in the same general ballpark, the BUFF tanks are significantly larger in all dimensions (even the AMT tanks, which per above I suspect are underscale).  If the DB tanks are correctly sized, you might get a close starting point from a *1/48* Phantom wing tank (1.5x the dimensions of the 1/72 version).

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Quixote74 said:

 

Dutch -

I do have the "old tool" Hasegawa Phantom, but would have to do some stash excavation for a photographic comparison. I can tell you that although the shapes are in the same general ballpark, the BUFF tanks are significantly larger in all dimensions (even the AMT tanks, which per above I suspect are underscale).  If the DB tanks are correctly sized, you might get a close starting point from a *1/48* Phantom wing tank (1.5x the dimensions of the 1/72 version).

Don, I will dig out both a 1/72 & 1/48 F-4 tank for the photo comparison.  Give me a few hours, and I will try to have a photo posted soon. R/ Dutch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I took a series of photos of both AMT/ERTL 1/72 B-52G wing tanks and ModelCollect 1/72 B-52G wing tanks with various other tanks in different scales for comparison.

 

001.  From bottom to top: Modelcollect tank with Monogram 1/48 F-4C 380 gal wing tank superimposed; MC tank; Monogram 1/48 SUU-23 gun pod; Hasegawa 1/72 F-4E 380 gal wing tank.

 

The MC tank looks a little bulbous. The Hasegawa tank is obviously too small in diameter and length. The Monogram 380 gal wing tank looks to be too large in diameter and length, but the SUU-23 looks to be about the right size.

001.JPG

Edited by Dutch
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...