Jump to content

modelcollect B-52D


Recommended Posts

One particular feature of the B-52D I didn't know was the lower ejection hatches are asymmetric or offset from the center line.

ErHOEM.jpg

 

Here is looking forward. The blade antenna forward of the hatches is the center line.

zQ7P6H.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, pminer said:

Very cool!! Which Museum are you at?

The Museum of Aviation down at Robins. Its about an hour 20 from me and it's pretty impressive actually. I had to go inside after it started getting hot outside and ogle the F-111E for a bit😓

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at Nigel’s video i would say he may want to go take a look st some better wing root images.

Looking at both my images and others the wing section on the Monogram kit is far further from the actual aircraft.

The Buff certainly does not at the join or inboard have anywhere near a flat botton wing section.

This photo shows i think quite clearly Modelcollect got it pretty close. Perfect i doubt but its far better than the Monogram one. The upturn of the lower half of the wing section is clear to see in the image off this link which blows up to a nice size.

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/29-june-1955/

One less thng to worry about fixing.

 

 

Edited by dehowie
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dehowie said:

Looking at Nigel’s video i would say he may want to go take a look st some better wing root images.

Looking at both my images and others the wing section on the Monogram kit is far further from the actual aircraft.

The Buff certainly does not at the join or inboard have anywhere near a flat botton wing section.

This photo shows i think quite clearly Modelcollect got it pretty close. Perfect i doubt but its far better than the Monogram one. The upturn of the lower half of the wing section is clear to see in the image off this link which blows up to a nice size.

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/29-june-1955/

One less thng to worry about fixing.

I'm sorry, but i fail to see your point??

 

Looking at the Monogram, and to a certain extent the AMT, I would say they are both far closer to the actual shape than the MC kit. The MC kit root looks more like a B-17 to me.

 

May I ask, do you have all three kits to compare? You really need the MC kit to see what I mean. It has also been pointed out by someone else on the original thread regarding errors with the MC kit. You should also take a look at the plane view of the wing root/fuselage join on the kit. Again, the MC kit got it wrong in my opinion.

10 minutes ago, dehowie said:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

B-52 wing section.

https://goo.gl/images/UoUoRs

i think you will see even with the angled section which hides the leading edge upward taper toward the fuselage that it is far thicker and way less tapered than the Monogram wing(sectionalky) as you presented quite clearly in your video.

The point of maximum thickness is only just back from the leading edge not a long taper as per Monogram.

Taking it for granted that the Monogram kit is “right” is IMO is not right.

Looking at both the wing image above and any side photo illuminating the upward curve of the lower wing section to me makes it pretty easy that the MC kit wing at least near the root is far closer to reality than the traditional section Monogram wing.

As i said one less thing to worry about in future MC releases.

 

 

Edited by dehowie
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dehowie said:

B-52 wing section.

https://goo.gl/images/UoUoRs

i think you will see even with the angled section which hides the leading edge upward taper toward the fuselage that it is far thicker and way less tapered than the Monogram wing(sectionalky) as you presented quite clearly in your video.

The point of maximum thickness is only just back from the leading edge not a long taper as per Monogram.

Taking it for granted that the Monogram kit is “right” is IMO is not right.

Looking at both the wing image above and any side photo illuminating the upward curve of the lower wing section to me makes it pretty easy that the MC kit wing at least near the root is far closer to reality than the traditional section Monogram wing.

As i said one less thing to worry about in future MC releases.

 

 

Although the shadow is problematic this picture may show what you mean.

QrYScw.jpg

oTc6YX.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah.. I see what you mean now guys, the lower wing is not flat.. so the most accurate of all is the AMT wing chord then?

 

In my opinion, comparing to any drawing or photo the root shape on the MC kit is inaccurate. It is too bulbous, too blunt and is too high up on the fuselage. However, I think it would look a lot better of a strip of plastic were added to the leading edge and shaped to suit. The leading edge is just not sharp enough.

 

As I said, in my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents from someone who has built multiple copies of the AMT and Monogram kits, I agree with Nigelr32. I'd say AMT and Monogram are more accurate then MC in the wing area. But that's me and MC (unlike AMT and Monogram) can fix that before release.

 

Regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this and its quite interesting.

Not just these but for other B-52’s.

The wing is actualy quite thick mid chord.

It clearly has no flatsection mid chord and the wing is clearly asymetrical with the leading edge higher than mid chord line.

As it does not have the leading edge fairing you can clearly see the upsweep of the lower surface of the wing section.

The only flat section appears to be around where the flap would start. Which both MC and Monogram did correctly.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/40159534@N02/22564129626

 

The wing does thin out rapidly however the curve on the lower surface stays almost all the way to the inboard engine pylons.

A look at any photo of the pylon on the High and mighty one or Hound dog mount shows that very clearly.

Looking at those pics IMO MC got that upsweep to the leading edge better than Mongram who did a traditional aerofoil meaning the leading edge is to low compared to the upper fuselage.

 

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/x-15-aircraft-on-a-boeing-b-52-nasa.html

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by dehowie
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys can compare kits and pictures all you want. You will only end up with interpretations, opinions and conjecture. 

 

Wing design is a science with its own specific language. If you want to know and replicate the geometry of a wing (any wing) you have to speak and understand the language. 

 

So, the definitive description of the Boeing B-52 wing geometry is as follows:

 

Wing span:  185 ft

Wing area 4000 sq ft

Root chord: ~34.5 ft

Mean chord: 21.62 ft

Taper ratio: 0.37

Leading edge sweep: 35 deg

Aspect Ratio: 8.56

Wing root: 14% thick, NACA 63A219.3 mod

Wing tip: 8% thick, NACA 65A209.5 mod

 

The NACA airfoil designation is a numerical code representing parameters that precisely define the geometric cross section of a wing.  If you want to know more read the wikipedia entry here:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil

 

Anything else is just creative licensing.

.

 

 

 

Edited by habu2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully agree with the exception that by molding the wrong shape wing the leading edge of the Monogram kit is to low changing the shoulder etc and the wing to me at least is to thin at the root.

Still a great kit particularly for its time but she aint perfect and using it instead of images etc to base conclusions is not right.

Plenty of Mongrams classics we love fail the blowtorch of scrutiny directed at new kits the B-52 is still a great kit.

Acceptance that they are perfect and ideal are generally wrong.

Given the far higher prices of the re-releases these days means in spite of the fact they are 50 years old soft moldings cant be excused in the same way missed Apu exhausts are not.

 

 

 

 

Edited by dehowie
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Dear Modelcollect, I think you're doing a great job! Especially you're active listening to opinion and advises from modelers: which is great! I'm really looking forward for the EARLY D,G,H series to come out, I will buy a good number for sure! I think, as someone else is suggesting, the idea of also use an old Monogram kit as a guide it's very true. Monogram kit were extremely accurate in shape!! I wish I could give my small contribution with some pictures but the system only allows me a very limited space for a picture, probably because I'm a new member? I don't know. It's a bit frustrating but anyway.  Perhaps You can find also some interesting material also on the official Boeing Site: http://www.boeing.com/bds/strategicairpower/?cm_re=March_2015-_-Roadblock-_-Strategic+Airpower#1955/b-52

 

B-52s_001_resized_20190108_054927831.jpg.314f0742dc8d3596fc3860279a162d6e.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully MC will chime in but the last word was the G correction set is going to production and the “Broken Arrow G” test shots just got back. 

I do know the D is rumored to have 108 mk117 bombs included and much of the CAD drawings are in work but I really don’t know a specific release date.

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...