Modelcollect B-52H

[Nigelr32]

33 minutes ago, Dutch said:

Absolutely,  yes! Thank you Nigel! K/r. Dutch 

 

Here you go @Dutch

 

 

[MarkN]

Me too

[OSRS72]

I am trying to make the vortex generators out of evergreen plastic sheet for the main wings but I can't find any data on their size.

Does anyone know this?

[USAFsparkchaser]

I hope Nigel would also do those vortex generators along with an external antenna set, with the rest of his upgrades we might actually get a pretty decent B-52 finally. What he has done so far looks really nice. He is a great help to the B-52 model community.

[Quixote74]

On 8/29/2020 at 8:54 AM, OSRS72 said:

I am trying to make the vortex generators out of evergreen plastic sheet for the main wings but I can't find any data on their size.

Does anyone know this?

 

12 hours ago, USAFsparkchaser said:

I hope Nigel would also do those vortex generators along with an external antenna set, with the rest of his upgrades we might actually get a pretty decent B-52 finally. What he has done so far looks really nice. He is a great help to the B-52 model community.

 

I don't have exact dimensions of the vortex generators, but if you're working in plastic it's a moot point since the thinnest sheet styrene you could work with would still be significantly overscale to the 1:1 dimensions. 

 

Basically you'd need to work out the fabrication method in the thinnest material possible,  (photoetch would be more practical for a scale representation, but would be the most labor intensive to install).  I don't see any way this could work as a resin piece, short of possibly casting the entire horizontal tail.  Anything practical in sheet styrene will fall along the lines of the proverbial "golf ball sized rivets," but like panel lines what you're really trying to create is the visual impression of the real thing, not a precise scale replica.

 

To give more detail of what you're trying to represent, the B-52's vortex generators are a series of rectangular plates, staggered in alternating angles to the airflow, and mounted to narrow base plates proud of the main stabilizer skin.  This is a pretty good close-up photo:

 

[USAFsparkchaser]

Anyone heard from Nigel lately? I sent him a PM last week but have not heard anything back. I would like to contact him about his update sets.

[Winnie]

if you look on the videos, his email is posted

[USAFsparkchaser]

Thanks

[Andriyko]

I am new to the ARC forum.  I would like to share some of my personal point of view on the latest B52 discussion and welcome some guidance.

 

I recently purchased the MC B52G and MC B52H kits. 

One of the first kit I bought when I was in my young teens was the Monogram B-52D (the original pink box with jet sound - in fact I bought two - $15 CAD each, I still have one unstarted).  In my youth I wanted to be a B52 pilot.  But alas, Canada did not afford me that opportunity.  Years later, while hiking in Algonquin Park, I met another American hiker who just happened to be a B52D navigator.  I recall the stories he shared about his SEA times.  I always admired the B52 as an aircraft.   I purchased the AMT B52G early with Hound-dog missiles with the intent to mount the missiles to the second B52D - life intervened and it did not get done.  I understand that Italeri will be releasing the Hound Dog kit later this year.

I am a retired Aeronautical Engineer (Masters Degree in Structures and Aerospace) and a pilot who has held some very senior positions in the aircraft business over the last 40 years.  Weather permitting, I fly my airplane regularly.

 

The model kit standards over the years have improved tremendously.  In my opinion, it probably was pushed by the capability and ubiquity of advances in photography.  The better we are able to zoom in on details the more critical we have become on a model's ability to depict reality.   Fortunately for me, I do not look at my completed models through a camera lens - I look at them, completed, sitting on a shelf with my own eyes.  If it looks right, its good enough for me.   I do not worry about parts being exact to drawings.  With years in the aviation business and reading across to  the hobby... I have yet to find a 72nd, 48 or 32nd scale kit accurately, and to scale, reflects reality - I point to skin thicknesses, panel joints, fasteners, fillets, mechanisms just to start - let alone gross dimensions.  So, what looks good to me is good enough.  Why should I chase errors in millimetre drawing dimensions when the kit skin is "trenched"?  For example, consider the best panel line, scribed at 0.10 mm  actually represents over a 1/4 inch panel gap in 72nd (actually around 0.28")  Doesn't happen in my experience - unless you are depicting the SR71.   Bottom line - if it looks good - its good.

 

Someone recently pointed out that the engine pylon locations on the MC B52 wing was different that the Monogram B52 wing.  I find it curious that it didn't catch anyone's eye before.  Seems to have looked good enough.

 

I have read through all 35 pages of this post as well as other related posts on the B52.  I have watched, admired and subscribed to Nigel's Modelling Bench.  Yes, I follow much of the B52 chat.  So here are my two cents:

1)   The Monogram B2D is the most accurate B52 in shape.

2)  The AMT early B52G fuselage and wings are a difficult build and just do not do it for me.  In my kit, the soft plastic warped making the fuselage unworkable.  The best part about the kit were the Hound-Dog missiles and decals.

3)  The MC B52G  (with MC correction set) and B52H come very close.   In my opinion, it needs new wing tanks, H-stab (and its root), rear wheel bay, and maybe some nose work to look right.  Ideally, the spoilers should be corrected.

 

So given that I have an AMT B52G early Hound Dog kit that has an unbuildable (warped) forward fuselage and I have a Monogram kit

 

For a B-52H using the MC kit:

I would think the ideal way to build the H would be to use Nigel's corrections for Nose, Tanks, real wheel bay and H-Stab correction.  I may take that approach.  But as an alternate, given the parts available from my AMT kit, I would like to try, for the major details:

1) Use the AMT tip tanks - while not ideal, may be close enough.

2) Use the AMT rear wheel bay parts with some plastic card and strip to correct the rear MC wheel bay.

3) Sand down the the MC mounting points for the H-stab and adapt the rear to accept the complete AMT H-stabs.  Some scribing and plastic card would help with the missing H-stab adjust panels.  Nigel's video shows that the AMT H-stabs take at least second place to the Monogram H-stabs.  The AMTs, put on a proper rear end may correct the apparent mounted swept angle.

4) Live with the MC H nose.

 

For an Early B-52G I would like to try either 

1) Take an approach similar to tomprobert and SteveV22FE.  Kitbash the Monogram and AMT kits using the AMT:  nose, engines, wheel bays, tip tanks.   Scratch build or otherwise a new bomb-bay.  As far as the nose is concerned:  Live with it (ie. AMT) OR sprue-goo the inside to be able to round off the nose and add chines OR use a version of Nigel's nose. Last but not least, adapt and mount the Hound Dogs.

As a second B-52G approach

2) Use the MC B-52G and do 1) 2) and 3) ideas mentioned for the B52H above.  As far as the MC nose is concerned:  Live with it (ie. MC) OR sprue-goo the inside to be able to round off the nose and add chines OR use a version of Nigel's nose. Last but not least, adapt and mount the Hound Dogs.

 

Before I start cutting things up - I welcome thoughts and opinions on which is the way to go on for the H and early B52G based on what my choices are.  I have the kits either way.

 

Thanks and keep building

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteveV22FE]

Have you gotten anywhere on your G project?