Feedback requested on which Modelcollect 1/72 B-52's to avoid

[serendip]

Also I am very curious as to how accurate or inaccurate the droop angle of the wing fitments (for lack of a better term) in the fuselage are on the AMT / Italeri kit. Again they don't seem that bad. If anything the droop of the wings at the root on the real thing seem to be no more than a few degrees at most. Most of the droop seems to originate from the weight of fuel.

 

Does anyone know where to find some profile views front, left and right of the B-52? Does Boeing have anything?

 

Thanks again.

[Norm DUbay]

[serendip]

16 hours ago, Norm DUbay said:

Thanks Norm,

It really does appear that the root of the wing (at the spar) really only has a few degrees of dihedral if any. Curvature seems to start outside of the box structure rather than the box structure being angled itself.

 

Line drawings / blueprints I cannot find but also the pictures I have pretty much support yours above. 

 

(All) feel free to criticize if you disagree - I'm here to learn.

[Norm DUbay]

Yes it’s only a few degrees.  However the Italeria kit has theirs coming straight out too much.  If the wing root had been shorter then it coming straight out would’ve have been so much of and issue.

[Dafixer]

I've seen them without engines on the wing and that wing sticks strait out, parallel to the ground. At least that's my recollection of it...

[Rob de Bie]

6 hours ago, serendip said:

It really does appear that the root of the wing (at the spar) really only has a few degrees of dihedral if any. Curvature seems to start outside of the box structure rather than the box structure being angled itself.

 

I'm pretty sure that the B-52 wing itself has no dihedral or anhedral. It is built 'flat', and it's the combination of wing incidence and wing sweep that makes it look like there's anhedral. If you rotate the root airfoil say 3 degrees, you can imagine that the wingtips move down, because they are positioned further aft. And that looks like anhedral, but because of definitions in a/c design, technically it's not. Furthermore, the bending of the wing makes the above almost useless.

 

Rob

 

[habu2]

The wing root has a slight anhedral (I don't know the exact angle) but the long high aspect wing has a lot of flexure designed in when aerodynamic loads are applied. 

 

 

.

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by habu2

[serendip]

Rob, all,

I tend to agree the designed anhedral is negligible or non-existent indeed and that the actual anhedral is induced through the engineered flexibility of the wing and (fuel) weight.

 

This would imply that the solution to the unrealistic attitude of the wing on the AMT / Italeri wing would need to be found in the wings themselves not operating on the root moulded into the fuselage.

 

Your thoughts all on this welcome.

 

Great picture Habu!

 

Marc

 

 

[serendip]

 

 

 

I chose the last picture especially because it does not seem to be a wide angle lens picture.

[habu2]

 

My references show the wings have a 6° angle of incidence and 2° 30′ anhedral as designed, meaning with no gravity induced droop or lift induced flex.  

 

Incidentally the B-52 / X-15 pic I posted and the first pic you posted ("The High and Mighty One") are the same aircraft, 52-0003 aka "Balls Three"

 

.

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by habu2

[serendip]

Thanks Habu,

 

100% clear - info much appreciated. Any chance of sharing your source material or letting me know where it's from?

 

I'm having a hell of a time finding good information on the internet and Boeing isn't forthcoming either.

 

Thanks, enjoy your weekend,

 

Marc.

[Rob de Bie]

I searched some more, and found something of use in Walter Boyne's book 'Boeing B-52'. But warning: it's getting confusing!

 

In appendix 10 the book shows two drawings with lots of measurements. They appear to be Boeing drawings, since there are quite a few station numbers shown. Unfortunately the drawings are printed a tad too small, making some crucial numbers difficult to read. In a subdrawing it is shown that the wing has a *positive* dihedral of 2.5 degrees. Wing incidence is listed as 6 degrees. Wing sweep is 35 degrees on the leading edge.

 

If you assume a 'wing plane' with 2.5 degrees dihedral, then rotate that whole wing plane 6 degrees, I calculate an *apparent* anhedral of 1.7 degrees on the leading edge, as seen in front view.

 

Disclaimer: the measurements in the drawing don't add up perfectly, like the distance between root leading edge and tip leading edge. It's one of those numbers that are hard to read, but my calculated value (64'9") in no way matches what I think I see (60'5" ?). Therefore the above value for the apparent anhedral could need revision.

 

Rob

Edited October 21, 2023 by Rob de Bie

[serendip]

Well spotted Rob!

 

I've got the book myself and I think you've solved the mystery - 2.3 degrees dihedral:

 

 

Regarding distance at the root between leading and trailing edge this seems to be 30' 11'' but I may be misunderstanding what you mean with your value.

 

[Rob de Bie]

Note that the dihedral is in degrees and minutes, 2 deg 30 min, or 2.5 degrees, not 2.3 degrees.

 

To recreate the wing planform, you need 4 out of 5 of these numbers:

 

- half span, clearly reads 92'6"

- root chord, clearly reads 30'11"

- tip chord, clearly reads 12'4"

- wing sweep, probably reads 35 deg, measured on the leading edge (note: usually it's measured on the quarter chord)

- distance between root leading edge and tip leading edge. I think I read 60'5" ?

 

Now if I calculate wing sweep angle, I get:

 

  wing sweep = atan (60.41 / 92.5) = 33.15 deg

 

Which doesn't agree with the 35 deg in the drawing, and mentioned in other references.

 

If I reverse the calculation, to calculate distance between root leading edge and tip leading edge:

 

  distance = 92.5 * tan (35 deg) = 64.77 = 64'9"

 

Which doesn't agree with the value of 60'5" that I *think* I read. The drawing cannot read 64'9", the vague shapes don't match those numbers at all.

 

Therefore, something is still not right, and I cannot figure out what.

 

Rob

[serendip]

Got it Rob, and indeed you are right 2 degrees and half a minute, 2.5 degrees as you say.

 

But help me with the distance between root leading edge and tip leading edge - I see 30 feet and 11 inches in the picture above - I think I'm missing what you mean.

 

Thanks.

 

Marc.

[Rob de Bie]

30'11" is the wing root length. I'm talking about the measurement at the very right of the upper view drawing. It's outside the scan you posted.

 

Rob

[Winnie]

For the ejection seats, if you take the lower 2 seats, add armrests to them, then you have the pilot/copilot seats. It's weird that they chose the ACES style seat for the MC kit, but there we are.

 

Nigel has quite a few upgrades for the kit, horizontal stabs, engine mods for the G, new nose pieces to correct the EVS and radome, wing fuel tanks and wheel bays, I have them all, but unfortunately my kit is packed away due to moves. (Also got fed up, as my AGM-69 load didn't work with the rotary launcher, so I'll have to go back to 4 B28 load... I suppose I could add the ALCM to mine.

 

I think with what you can get for aftermarket, the MC kits make a decent model. There has been a couple of real nice ones built, and shown, including this one:

 

 

Cheers

H

[serendip]

Can anyone help . I got the AMT / Italeri 'G with Hound Dogs two weeks ago and the panel lines on the right top wing look embryonic - I guess they popped it out of the mould when it hadn't cooled enough.

 

So as one does I ordered another - same problem.

 

Is it worth ordering another version of the AMT /  Italeri kit and swapping the wings around or do they all suffer from this problem. Hoping some other versions which were popped out of the mould in a different batch might be OK.

 

Anyone else who had similar issues? Panel lines on the rest of the kit (except the pylons) look sharp if a little trench like.

 

Thanks all,

Marc.

 

[Quixote74]

6 hours ago, serendip said:

Can anyone help . I got the AMT / Italeri 'G with Hound Dogs two weeks ago and the panel lines on the right top wing look embryonic - I guess they popped it out of the mould when it hadn't cooled enough.

 

So as one does I ordered another - same problem.

 

Is it worth ordering another version of the AMT /  Italeri kit and swapping the wings around or do they all suffer from this problem. Hoping some other versions which were popped out of the mould in a different batch might be OK.

 

Anyone else who had similar issues? Panel lines on the rest of the kit (except the pylons) look sharp if a little trench like.

 

Thanks all,

Marc.

 

The issue you're seeing isn't a problem of the parts being removed from the mold too soon, it's that the panel lines of the tooling itself are soft/shallow.  Having examples of all three AMT boxings and the Italeri ALCM G, I can confirm there's no noticeable difference in the molding itself.  The only difference between them other than variant-specific parts and decals is that the Italeri pressings are molded in a darker and slightly harder plastic (supposedly because AMT's standard polystyrene mixture had a higher fexibility because the bulk of their production was for car kits, which often require the body to be stretched slightly to fit over the chassis).

[BWDenver]

Not sure if this helps or not...

 

Shot was taken by an EC-47/cargo pilot, Lee Croissant.

[serendip]

Nice picture.

 

[BWDenver]

The video of the BUFF build in fascinating.  But I can't help but wonder what was the motivation on the part of the kit make for including ACES II seats in the kit VS the Webber seats the BUFF actually flew with.  20 years ago I can I sympathies with a vender for not having the right seats, but today there is an abundance of information available.  Incredibly the downward seats are reasonable accurate.

 

As you can see they look nowhere near the ACES II seat....

 

The upward seats have a rail the seat travels along as it exits out the top of the BUFF.  The seats don't get particularly dirty in use, and are regularly pulled for periodic maintenance.  the color shot was taken at Chanute AFB in Jan '91 where the AF sent its Egress Techs to learn their craft.  Chanute AFB was established in 1917, and decommissioned in 1993.

 

The upward seats are large bulky and complex systems when compared to seats of today.  B&W Photographs were provided by Weber, color shot is mine.

Edited February 4 by BWDenver

[BWDenver]

7 hours ago, serendip said:

Nice picture.

 

Thanks, I didn't get to take it though.  It does show the wing root joint reflected in most kits, that is very prominent.   finally a wing root joint you don't have to fill with puddy!