1/144 B-52H kit...

[F-16]

I'm thinking of getting a 1/144 B-52H kit, but I'm not sure which one.

I'm trying to decide between the Academy, GWH and  Revell. I think they are all the same in breakdown of parts.

Details/accuracy in this small scale is not that important for me. What I'm looking for is a good/easy fitting kit that won't give me trouble.

I have read a few build/kit reviews and can't decide. Everyone has there favorite.

How are these kits to build? Any trouble?

Thanks for any suggestions you can give me.

Scott
CNJC-IPMS

P.S.

I was also thinking of getting the Minicraft kit.....Maybe...

[Dave Williams]

I prefer the Academy kit.  It’s more detailed and accurate than the GWH kit.  The Revell kit is an old kit, which is simplified compared to the other two and represents an older standard.  The Mimicraft kit is an older kit that they added a couple of new parts to try and update it, but it’s still pretty simplified.

 

The only real nit on the Academy kit is that it doesn’t have a dropped flap option.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Dave Williams

[haneto]

Academy kit is wrong in its scale(bigger than 144 scale), and the nose cone shape is inaccurate(too pointy).

My vote goes to GWH.

[Bobo1953]

hi gents and gals.

allow me to sing out of the choir giving my preference to the minicraft, provided that you intend to build a shiny cold war cuba missiles crisis buff.

so far as i remember -i did it several years ago- the build is almost snafu proof and the box comes with a full panoplia of weapons to stick at your will under the wings. i am speaking of two nice hound dogs (w. decals) 4 skybolts w. pylons, 12 sram, and , a real treat, the adm-20 quail!  with clear stands for the all bunch.

this is my reccomendation unlesss you prefer the sac camo or the sad mousey post salt versions.

#14615 is the kit id; better to check as in the meanwhile, with the plethora of 1/144 buff issues, minicraft might have got this kit out of produclion.

in case, ask my good friend alan at oldmodelkits.com

happy modeling and my best ciaos to all of arc guys, and as it is quickly approaching, a happy new year!

[JohnEB]

Here's a link to a brief review of the Minicraft kit, that way you can see it for yourself. Alsi, some nice shots of the real aircraft.

 

https://www.dembrudders.com/minicraft-1144-b-52h-current-flying-version-kit-review.html

 

The early H kit looks like fun for the previously mentioned reasons, lots of load ootions.

 

 

 

[not2p]

On 12/28/2022 at 1:33 PM, haneto said:

Academy kit is wrong in its scale(bigger than 144 scale), and the nose cone shape is inaccurate(too pointy).

My vote goes to GWH.

No, GWH is wrong in its dimension in terms of length and wingspan. The B-52H's fuselage was extended rearward after the phase IV upgrade program by 1m. Look at the diagram below.

Then, the correct fuselage length of B-52H in the 144 scales would be around (48(fuselage length prior to Phase IV upgrade)m+1m)/144 = 34cm, which is closer to the Academy's.  

 There are more issues with the GWH kit, including incorrect details in the front landing gear bay and the fuselage shape. All the problems are also present in the Modelcollect's 1/72 scale kit, from which the GWH kit was significantly affected for some reason. 

 

Edited January 26 by not2p

[haneto]

1 hour ago, not2p said:

No, GWH is wrong in its dimension in terms of length and wingspan. The B-52H's fuselage was extended rearward after the phase IV upgrade program by 1m. Look at the diagram below.

Then, the correct fuselage length of B-52H in the 144 scales would be around (48(fuselage length prior to Phase IV upgrade)m+1m)/144 = 34cm, which is closer to the Academy's.  

  Also, the GWH kit's wingspan is longer than it should be. The nominal wingspan you find on the web, 56m, i.e., 38.9cm in the 144 scales, is for the flight position. In the landing position, the wingspan is shorter than the value since the wings are drooped (This video shows how the wings move upward as the bomber takes off.). The GWH kit's wingspan is about 39cm, and the Academy's wingspan is shorter than that by about 1cm. Both kits depict the bomber in the landing position. 

 There are more issues with the GWH kit, including incorrect details in the front landing gear bay and the fuselage shape. All the problems are also present in the Modelcollect's 1/72 scale kit, from which the GWH kit was significantly affected for some reason. 

 

Thanks for explanation.

I simply compared the kit size with data from Wikipedia, and found GWH kit size is closer to the data in 144 scale.

The academy kit has longer fuselage and wider wingspan compared with GWH, so I though its scale is wrong(according to Wiki data).

 

Or maybe the Wikipedia data could be wrong......

[Dave Williams]

I think the big question is what configuration does the oft-referenced length of 159ft 4in refer to?  Is it the length of the B-52 as originally built?  Is it the length after the 40 inch Phase VI tail extension?  Does the length include the 20mm cannon, which has been removed for many years now?  There could be three valid lengths:

 

• as originally built
• with Phase VI and tail gun
• with Phase VI but no tail gun

 

[Gator52]

The Squadron B-52 in Action (1992 version) and Aerofax B-52G/H book both list 159' 4" as the B-52H/Phase VI length, and also agree on 156' for as-built.  Both books pre-date the M61 removal, and interestingly, the B-52 fact sheet on www.af.mil also lists 159' 4", so some dated info there it seems.

 

For what it's worth, the B-52G/Phase VI length was 160.91' per both books, so very close to 160' 11".

 

GWH kit fit well for me and is nicely detailed, but Academy's kit (which I'm about halfway through) is more accurate, especially in the gear wells.  I think Academy has the best gear wells and bomb bay of any B-52 kit in any scale.  Minicraft & Revell are both fairly trouble-free builds with low part counts.

 

Chris

[F-16]

Thank you all for the wealth of information. I appreciate it!

 

Would it be safe to say that both the Aca and GWH kits are  "easy/putty-free" builds?

 

Scott

CNJC-IPMS

[not2p]

3 hours ago, F-16 said:

Thank you all for the wealth of information. I appreciate it!

 

Would it be safe to say that both the Aca and GWH kits are  "easy/putty-free" builds?

 

Scott

CNJC-IPMS

Yes, both kits are well engineered for the easy build. Meanwhile, the GWH kit offers attractive features such as the separate flaps & wing details for landing position and the bomb rack details.

[gmat6441]

The first 1/144 B-52H kit was produced by Crown. The molds were reppoped by Revell and Academy/Minicraft. It has all of the stores/missiles.

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/crown-542-1000-boeing-b-52h-stratofortress--136546

The fuselage was fatter than the later Revell kit, I seem to remember.

[habu2]

I have that Crown kit in my stash.   👍