Jump to content

Early B-52G/H radome


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Hooker169 said:

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking Nigel’s work, I’m totally onboard with his work and definitely ordering a couple of his noses.

It’s just that I’m interested in all these variations which we all seem to be discovering on a nightly basis it seems.

No worries.. You'd be the last person to knock my work!!

 

I will offer the short and long noses without any bumps so you can build your model as you want.

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

Apologies for mediocre quality, but I hit my library and dug up a couple of clearer photos of the EVS/pre-Phase VI nose configuration:

2020-08-09-19-51-20.jpg

20200809-194048-1.jpg


wow great photos!  Thanks for posting!

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Nigelr32 said:

Its interesting to see that those renderings above do not show the clear split line of the late radome brought forward to enable the camera support structure to be inserted. 

 


makes me think the artist took his early H profile and slapped some EVS’s on it to do his drawing.

 

the two most recent photos Quixote post show a clear panel line between the radome and the fuselage forward of the EVS’s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Corey said:


makes me think the artist took his early H profile and slapped some EVS’s on it to do his drawing.

 

the two most recent photos Quixote post show a clear panel line between the radome and the fuselage forward of the EVS’s.

 

Technically 59-2569 is an early G, but you're correct that there are some inaccuracies in Mr. Styling's linework for that profile.  From the rear line of the forward (vs chin) radome - i.e. just forward of the windscreen - the basic contours and panel lines for any BUFF with EVS should be the same. Phase VI just added the larger radom forward of that line, and of course the new antennae.

 

I haven't done an overlay comparison but it looks as if he did correctly capture the difference in the forward nose profiles betweem the early and late Gs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the attached pic, it looks to me like some "Bodywork" has been done on the belly part of the radome.. like it's been straightened out to better match the profile of the "forthcoming" new radome?

 

I have circled the area where I think the work has been done..

 

If you think about it, something had to be made up to produce a mould for the new design.. maybe this is it? In mould making terms this is known as the buck. This may have been the beginnings of the buck??

20200809-194048-1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Winnie said:

I'll email to @Nigelr32 later, but the dash-1 (pilots flight manual)  may explain the more "uppy" nose with regards to some of the sensor antennas. May also be in the RNAV or EWO dash-1s... Thank Uncle Sam for freedom of information!

Winnie,

 

If you could, can you include me on that e-mail?

 

Thanks,

 

Marc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2020 at 4:44 PM, SteveV22FE said:

I received my test sample from Nigel to validate the "Early" nose radome correction for the ModelCollect "Early" G and H kits.

 

Overall, the resin is very smooth and very well cast with no visible air bubbles on the casting. Removal of resin used to cast the part was very minimal and was easily removed by scoring with an X-Acto on both side and it cleanly snapped off the piece. The piece feels very solid and includes a molded in support for the flight deck. The part also has the indentations or chines that are found on B-52 nose radomes, but manufacturers fail to include. The NACA intake is also present. 


117827347-1625141307661198-7868801251720
117765353-1625141250994537-1039150027892
117893121-1625141237661205-5240678917332

 

Installing the piece is very straight forward. I was able to use the existing panel lines, on the "Early" kit as a guide to remove the kit radome and fit the corrected piece. I found it easier to install the new radome if I assembled the forward fuselage prior to fitting. The assembled flight deck will easily slide in with the forward fuselage assembled.

117787954-1625141300994532-9172930679086

 

Be aware of two things:

1. There will be a small step on the underside where the radome meets the fuselage. The fuselage side is a bit taller than the radome. This will be normal. Fair the fuselage to match the radome. This will produce the correct contour from the radome going aft down the length of the fuselage. 

 

2. Due to the way ModelCollect produced their "Early" kit, there will be a small gap between the radome and the kit where the windscreen installs. I filled the gap with a piece of styrene.

 

IMG-1018.jpg
IMG-1019.jpg
IMG-1020.jpg

 

Final thoughts. This part is a winner in my book. I really had no intention of building this kit just because of the nose radome being incorrect. Now, it's in the queue to be built after my Monogram "D" model. The overall final look of the model just looks right. An experienced modeler should have no problem installing this aftermarket piece.

 

I am grateful that Nigel trusted me to test and validate this piece. If you're tempted to build this kit, I recommend that you get this radome.+

 

Thanks for the review Steve. Glad to see it went OK.

 

I have a couple of suggestions to those who want to fit one.. I will make a video on my channel regarding this.. 

 

Be aware.. the moulded  vertical line on the kit is too far back in my opinion.Make the cut forward of this line and sand to fit.

 

The nose does not "support" the flight deck, you need to cut away some of the plastic flight deck to fit.. again, I will cover this in a video on my channel.

 

EDIT:-  Quixote has posted on the other thread that he thinks the nose looks off. I have responded with a photo attached so am doing the same here.. the perspective makes a massive difference to the appearance of the nose on these aircraft.

 

IMG_8987.JPG.b48c924914e3a3244a86182ce0d394e5.JPG

 

 

Edited by Nigelr32
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 7/25/2020 at 3:43 PM, SteveV22FE said:

Post here for the sake of duplication....

 

This may help...or not... (posted under "Fair Use" for educational purposes)

It looks to me that the Later nose has more of a up sweep and it approaches the end of the radome. The early seems to me more gradual. 

The later nose doe have a more "pointy" appearance. The early nose is "pointy" but not at the same angle as the later nose.

IMG-0882.jpg

The picture also supports what Teeradej writes earlier on this thread - that the slope of the nose at the bottom of the fuselage on the earlier model starts farther aft than the later model - see the vertical white boundary of the radome where it lines up with the side windows.

 

This also argees what Steve said previously on this thread :Also note:  the back end of the nose radome on early planes is at station 170.60.  It was later moved forward to 150.70...

 

It could also just be the paint job though.

 

However to my eye the slope of the nose on the underside seems more gradual on pre phase VI / EVS aircraft. This would support the above.

 

Very curious as to what everyone thinks...

@Nigel, I'm curious how you handled that on your update set.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The slope of the nose is indeed steeper on the early nose. The later nose was longer, ahead of station 96, hence shallower curve. Late is also deeper at st 96. The shut line of the rear of the radome is indeed further forward on the phase VI + aircraft as they needed a frame to hang the cameras off.

 

Basically, the lower form is completely different on early vs late, from every angle.

 

I have made early and late noses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nigelr32 said:

The slope of the nose is indeed steeper on the early nose. The later nose was longer, ahead of station 96, hence shallower curve. Late is also deeper at st 96. The shut line of the rear of the radome is indeed further forward on the phase VI + aircraft as they needed a frame to hang the cameras off.

 

Basically, the lower form is completely different on early vs late, from every angle.

 

I have made early and late noses.

On the contrary, to my mind the slope is more gradual. The starting point of the slope is farther aft than the length the tip of the nose has been shortened by - net result a more gradual, not steeper slope.

 

Sorry for getting somewhat anal about this but I'm converting the HPH (pre phase VI) to the earlier nose and this is turning into such a puzzle.

 

As always with these things lots of contradictory information - Steve and Teeradeej's info helps a lot but is not conclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, serendip said:

On the contrary, to my mind the slope is more gradual. The starting point of the slope is farther aft than the length the tip of the nose has been shortened by - net result a more gradual, not steeper slope.

 

Sorry for getting somewhat anal about this but I'm converting the HPH (pre phase VI) to the earlier nose and this is turning into such a puzzle.

 

As always with these things lots of contradictory information - Steve and Teeradeej's info helps a lot but is not conclusive.

So are you saying the sheet metal work is flat from 150 to 170? No it isn’t. The taper on that piece is similar to the original radome/ pre G metal work. 
 

Your opinions are your opinions. I have made resin noses for G and H early/ late and to put it simply, you can sand a Late radome into the shape of an early radome but not vide Versa. 
 

maybe that what you mean by more gradual? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh...no one's happy!

 

Here's a guy who went out of his way to make a radome that better represents an early radome and PEOPLE STILL COMPLAIN!

 

If you can do better, by all means, make your own! Nigel did a great job on this. He didn't have to it. He could have easily made these for himself and posted pics and said, "Look what I did!" He didn't do that and offered it to the community. That's a pretty nice thing. It certainly made my B-52 look better over the MC mistakes.

 

So, Thanks Nigel, I, for one, really like what you've done!

Edited by SteveV22FE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, how am I complaining - as far as I know I'm asking polite questions.

 

Guys, all I'm trying to do is gather as much info as I can to get my '48th HPH '52 to look as good as I can - if people cannot handle constructive critiscm that's just to bad.

 

I'm curious as to where I rocked the boat here - apparently some here have a very shallow comfort zone for feedback.

 

Let's not make this into an f-14 AMK discussion. 

 

Jeez guys, this is supposed to be a forum - questions are what makes the world go around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, serendip said:

Steve, how am I complaining - as far as I know I'm asking polite questions.

 

Guys, all I'm trying to do is gather as much info as I can to get my '48th HPH '52 to look as good as I can - if people cannot handle constructive critiscm that's just to bad.

 

I'm curious as to where I rocked the boat here - apparently some here have a very shallow comfort zone for feedback.

 

Let's not make this into an f-14 AMK discussion. 

 

Jeez guys, this is supposed to be a forum - questions are what makes the world go around.

Answers also help. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently purchased all of Nigel's late G updates. I have not built the kit yet, so time will tell. Between the photos shown here and the videos on YouTube, I think this nose update set is a winner. I have hundreds of B-52 photos, from the X/YB to the H model, many from former WADC pilots who ferried planes directly from Boeing to the USAF. With the exception of the Monogram D, no one has truly captured the profile of the late BUFF's accurately. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and until someone comes along with actual Boeing blueprints and line drawings from the depots where the planes were updated, I feel that Nigel's offerings bring us closer to making a silk purse out of the MC sow's ear.

 

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nigelr32 said:

Answers also help. 

Sure,

like when I provided you with a long list of bumps and bulges regarding the phase VI update from a book you turned out to own yourself.

 

Do not perceive my questions as criticism of your product. However Nigel, keep in mind this thread is about sharing knowledge and ideas with like minded people - it is not chiefly about plugging products.

I'm fine with what your product but do not try to change or suppress my questions into perceived criticism of your products because you think (which it doesn't) that it clashes with your business model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Finally found time to pull these off a hard drive in storage.

They may help with getting some more info on that very pronounced break in curve between the radome and fuse.

I aws surprised just how much the fuselage is curving in and its onle really visible from almost directly below.

This is on a retired G in Darwin.

HTH

IMG_1450-X2.jpgIMG_1455-X2.jpgIMG_1456-X3.jpgIMG_1483-X2.jpgIMG_1567-X2.jpg

IMG_1591-X2.jpg

Edited by dehowie
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...