1/48 B-17 series from Hk

[timc]

The only medium that you can accurately scale from as far as blueprints are concerned, is vellum (if I'm remembering the medium correctly...it's the brown, translucent paper (it's not really paper) that engineering drawings are done on).  We used vellum to loft parts for prototype designs and parts in the aircraft plant I worked in.  Plain paper suffers from shrinkage, expansion with humidity, etc. and can't be relied up for measurements.

 

If the factory blueprints are US Government property, why then can I access them on AirCorps Library website?  If the USG owns them I should be able to file a FOIA request and get the entire series of blueprints for free but I cannot.  I think the blueprints are Boeing proprietary, just like their images are.  Just like today, the company I worked for did not turn over blueprints to the USG when the product was delivered; they were given all the technical documents that the company was contractually obligated to (-1, -2, -4, etc. tech manuals) but our company maintained, and still maintains ownership of the design blueprints.

 

The old Monogram 1/48 scale B-17 fuselage while not perfect , is closer to the prototype than is the HK offering.  After having studied the 1/32 kit, the 1/48 kit and evaluated it against the old Monogram dinosaur, the dinosaur holds up pretty well.  A lot of the errors in the Monogram kit are in the details, not necessarily the overall shape.  Again, it's not perfect and while both 1/48 offerings differ from each other in many respects, they both resemble the prototype.  In my considered opinion, the HK kit has some errors that were transcribed from the 1/32 scale kit and resembles more of a late war B-17G than an "early" B-17G, even with the standard tail stinger.

[ChesshireCat]

8 hours ago, timc said:

The only medium that you can accurately scale from as far as blueprints are concerned, is vellum (if I'm remembering the medium correctly...it's the brown, translucent paper (it's not really paper) that engineering drawings are done on).  We used vellum to loft parts for prototype designs and parts in the aircraft plant I worked in.  Plain paper suffers from shrinkage, expansion with humidity, etc. and can't be relied up for measurements.

 

If the factory blueprints are US Government property, why then can I access them on AirCorps Library website?  If the USG owns them I should be able to file a FOIA request and get the entire series of blueprints for free but I cannot.  I think the blueprints are Boeing proprietary, just like their images are.  Just like today, the company I worked for did not turn over blueprints to the USG when the product was delivered; they were given all the technical documents that the company was contractually obligated to (-1, -2, -4, etc. tech manuals) but our company maintained, and still maintains ownership of the design blueprints.

 

The old Monogram 1/48 scale B-17 fuselage while not perfect , is closer to the prototype than is the HK offering.  After having studied the 1/32 kit, the 1/48 kit and evaluated it against the old Monogram dinosaur, the dinosaur holds up pretty well.  A lot of the errors in the Monogram kit are in the details, not necessarily the overall shape.  Again, it's not perfect and while both 1/48 offerings differ from each other in many respects, they both resemble the prototype.  In my considered opinion, the HK kit has some errors that were transcribed from the 1/32 scale kit and resembles more of a late war B-17G than an "early" B-17G, even with the standard tail stinger.

I used to access to the Fed's fish scale. Try printing off a print! They know what printer it's being printed on, and are often not nice about it. Prints are often declassified after so many years unless there's an item (part or assembly) they deem critical in their eyes. They will drop by for a visit if you print something they are interested in. I found this out more that once.  Tooling prints will get you a visit from the FBI if you ain't got any business in there (I learned this while discovering Hestalloy). All in all pretty nice, but somewhat protective. By the way, virtually all tooling data is linked with the blue prints if you know how the dig thru them deep enough (think layers upon layers)

      Shape issues are simple engineering issues. It's near impossible to start two  assembly lines building the same airframe, and come out with identical pieces. It's one of the laws of engineering. Close, but not similar. For 98% of us they are the samething, but run them thru a CMM machine (if there was one that big)!  The two B17 kits in mention are to my eyes good enough, but also differ a little. Which one is in error? Maybe none, or more than likely both. I seriously doubt Boeing has kept the original blue prints for nearly 75 years ($$$), but rest assured Uncle Sam never throws anything away! They're in storage somewhere rotting away. Just like the prints for every battleship. Why? I just don't know. Later designs are stored in a digital form, but even the M1 tank started out on paper. If memory serves me right they have to keep the masters for seven years after the last parts are made, (or end of service) but the Fed has the real master prints that nobody gets to see. 

gary

[Cubs2jets]

micro-film "copies" of the engineering drawings "blueprints" for many / most of the U.S. military aircraft are with the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC.  It is often possible to purchase copies of these drawings on microfilm rolls.  Today there is a small issue of finding a microfilm viewer as technology has moved on.  The Smithsonian does not have the funding to copy these microfilm rolls into digital media.

 

Here is a listing of "B-17" related documents and such in the Smithsonian collection.  I'm not 100% sure that the engineering drawings are listed, but this will give someone a start on finding them - if they wish.

 

https://airandspace.si.edu/research/resources/technical-files?combine=B-17

 

C2j

[ChesshireCat]

14 hours ago, Cubs2jets said:

micro-film "copies" of the engineering drawings "blueprints" for many / most of the U.S. military aircraft are with the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC.  It is often possible to purchase copies of these drawings on microfilm rolls.  Today there is a small issue of finding a microfilm viewer as technology has moved on.  The Smithsonian does not have the funding to copy these microfilm rolls into digital media.

 

Here is a listing of "B-17" related documents and such in the Smithsonian collection.  I'm not 100% sure that the engineering drawings are listed, but this will give someone a start on finding them - if they wish.

 

https://airandspace.si.edu/research/resources/technical-files?combine=B-17

 

C2j

thanks for post this link!

gary

[Robertson]

The HK rear fuselage is still grossly fat and looks wrong, and by more than a small amount according to someone who has the full set of dimensions... Wish he actually spelled those out...

 

  The outer nacelles are absurdly high and really disqualify the new kit. 

 

  Never mentioned by anyone is that the HK wing profile is a (wrong) cambered shape: Flatter on the  bottom and more curved on the top: Following 1930s airliner practice, the real thing had a perfectly symmetrical tear drop shape airfoil, relying on the fuselage-set camber angle instead. For years I though the Monogram was wrong to have this symmetrical airfoil shape...: I now consider this the greatest achievement of Monogram’s exacting research... 

 

  Monogram’s clear parts were always poor, but with squadron/falcon replacements easily found for cheap everywhere, I consider this kit the greatest of all old kits that is still the top of its class. About the only interesting parts of the new kit is it’s cowlings and props, which might slightly improve on the Monogram originals. I will buy the HK kit for those parts alone, but likely little else... Maybe it’s new clear parts will prove easier to fettle in place than Squadron?

 

R.