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

[Quixote74]

4 hours ago, serendip said:

So if I understand correctly the initial B-52H kit #UA72200 and possibly the B-52G #UA72202 were the only two MC kit to have been corrected. I'll see if I can find the kit numbers of the corrected versions of these kits?

 

I'm planning to build a G or H with Hound Dogs although I'm not sure the 'H was equipped with Hound Dogs operationally. The plan is a SAC jet in NMF with white anti flash undersides.

 

My understanding is that all kits other than 72202 (ALCM G) and possibly 72200 (late H) were only ever issued in "corrected" versions (Per @sigtau's post above the H may have had corrections when first released). So any "pre-EVS/Phase VI" boxing (e.g. 'early G' or 'early H') should be as good as Modelcollect gets for those variants.  For an ALCM G, kit 72212 should be fine, but I can't confirm if there are any later releases of the 'late H' to ensure you get the updated parts, or if they simply changed the plastic with the same box.

 

Scalemates isn't infallible but generally very helpful to track this sort of thing (especially the 'kit history' charts):

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/modelcollect-ua72202-b-52g-usaf--1016530

 

Can't confirm 'operational' carriage of Hound Dog by the H but I know it was able to carry it - in fact even the last few 'tall tail' versions (D/E/F) had that capability.  And for the record, any Hound Dogs would almost certainly be 'early' (no EVS/Phase VI) airframes, as the missile was withdrawn around the time the upgrade programs started.

 

[Norm DUbay]

Both early G And H models carried the hound dog. I would recommend starting with Italeria kit number 1451.  It the early B-52 G and comes with the hound dogs and a nice decal sheet.  I plan on building one of these in the future.  While there are things needing correction they are not too difficult to do. There should be a crease in the lower part of the nose Radom that’s missing and can be built up with putty. The wing roots come straight out from the fuselage which causes the wings to look like they are in flight when sitting when the model is sitting on the ground.  There have be a few ideas and even a correct(it wasn’t that great) to fix the problem but I believe the best and easiest way is to score around 90 percent of the wing root removing the plastic so the wing root can be pushed into the fuselage to the correct angle.  You will need to remove a little material from the bottom of the wing but it shouldn’t be a big deal.  The G engines could use a little help. The cowling are the about the right length but the rest of engine is a little too short.  I have measurements somewhere Iand will try to find them.  The engraved lines on the engine pods are heavy and not accurate I would fill them.  The wing fuel tanks are not too big bad they are more accurate than the DB ones as the are way too long.  Probably the most difficult correction will be the rear fuselage which in fact is too narrow.  It starts tampering too much starting in the rear of the rear landing gear well.  The guy Nigel in the video posted on this thread has a video on YouTube showing you how to fix this area. You basically remove the tail pieces by scoring the base and styrene spacers to wide the fuselage.  For the TF-33 engines I’m going with Titan models ( on Ebay) 3d printed ones.  I think they are the most acurate in shape.  I was going to go with Lonestar initially but it’s hard to order from him since the website is down most of the time.  I know Buffmasters had a bad wrap for their stuff but the last update casting of their TF-33 were actually pretty good.  I have a couple of sets.  HTH 

[serendip]

Quixote, Norm,

 

Thanks that helps a lot.

 

Norm, I got kit nr. 1451 yesterday - not too bad, panel lines bit thick and wobbly. Regarding the wing root fix, what I did recently on a Revell B-1B is taping the body into the shape it's supposed to be, sticking it in an oven at 80C and letting it cool. That really bends things back into shape. For the wings, I might try tape to bend and secure the wings into the droop angle they're supposed to have and bake as above. The thinking is that the droop would not originate from the roots seeing as it's the weight of the fuel throughout the wing adding the weight - please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I've read that the tapering at the rear is reasonably accurate and that it's far too thin is a bit of an internet hype thing - I'm still on the fence in that regard.

 

I'm also not sure how too address all the antennae, NACA scoops etc., which apparently are missing. 

 

Regarding the engines noted I'll check Titan's website, why would you buy TF-33's for this 'G though?

 

Marc.

[Norm DUbay]

Hi Marc,  Yes the wing engraving needs a little help.  The wing root still needs to be address at the fuselage though.  There is a slight angle tharpt needs to be added and then there is a wing droop that would need to be added probably starting between the two engine pods.  I found my dimensions for the G engine.  The length of the cowling is 23” while the rest of the engine pod is 152” making the overall length 175”.  So the cowling in 1/72 should be .320 and the pod 2.11 inch.  As far as the tapering at the rear fuselage the Italeria kit is too narrow. Boeing simply modified the rear area of the earlier models with radar equipment instead of having a gunner.  Pima Air Museum has a B-52D tail gunner section on the floor in a hanger.  I measured it out and the 1/72 scale Monogram kit is pretty much on the money.  I only mentioned the TF-33 for sourcing.  I’m going to use my other early B-52G kit and convert it to an early H.  Norm

 

[serendip]

Thanks again for the info Norm.

I'll check the engines and see how far off they are. Regarding the droop, thanks. So a combination of a lack of a downward angle at the root and between the engines.

 

Regarding the tail section you're sure the D would have the same dimensions? - i.e., all they did was fill the gunner's position with ECM instead?

 

Regarding the TF-33 I get it now. I can't find Titan on the internet. Some good 3D printed J57's including nacelles would be a godsend also but again I cannot find much on the internet and Scalemates, though a great site, seems not to have discovered 3D printing yet.

 

Marc.

[serendip]

Here's the rear of a 'G from the rear:

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle2/b-52g_57-6509/images/b-52g_57-6509_108_of_173.jpg

 

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle2/b-52g_57-6509/images/b-52g_57-6509_111_of_173.jpg

[serendip]

It would seem the left and right pivotable gun housing defines the breadth:

 

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle2/b-52g_57-6509/images/b-52g_57-6509_109_of_173.jpg

 

[Norm DUbay]

Hi Marc, Look on EBay with the username heavykits or search for Click2details on the internet.  The same quad 50 cal was the same on both the D and the G so they have to be the same dimension at this point.  I’m pretty sure I compared the the guns from the Monigram D and Italeria G and the G kit was undersized.

[Paul Boyer]

Here's a link to Click2detail B-52H engines:

 

https://www.click2detail.net/store/p65/1%3A72_B-52H_TF33_Engine_Set.html

 

Click2detail and Titan Models are within the same company. I recently built their 1/72 scale C-32A "Air Force Two" kit

[serendip]

3 hours ago, Norm DUbay said:

Hi Marc, Look on EBay with the username heavykits or search for Click2details on the internet.  The same quad 50 cal was the same on both the D and the G so they have to be the same dimension at this point.  I’m pretty sure I compared the the guns from the Monigram D and Italeria G and the G kit was undersized.

Thanks Norm and my bets with you - makes no sense that the gun mechanism would be changed between 'D and 'G versions - that (obviously) in contrast to the gunner's post which was made obsolete. The only conclusion hence being that the gun mechanism on the AMT / Italeri kit is also underscaled as well as the rear section in itself. Does that make sense to you also?

 

Thanks,

 

Marc.

[serendip]

1 hour ago, Paul Boyer said:

Here's a link to Click2detail B-52H engines:

 

https://www.click2detail.net/store/p65/1%3A72_B-52H_TF33_Engine_Set.html

 

Click2detail and Titan Models are within the same company. I recently built their 1/72 scale C-32A "Air Force Two" kit

Thanks Paul and the build looks wonderful - the diameter of the engines is astounding.

 

Marc.

 

[serendip]

And any links to some good AMT / Italeri (preferably) Early 'G build would be much appreciated.

 

Again, searching on the internet is disappointing, I suspect because it's been a while since the kit came out.

 

[serendip]

Bye the way Norm, thanks so much for measuring the engines - the J57's on the kit are pretty much spot on as far as the cowlings are concerned and 3mm short on the pods themselves which is .12" or thereabouts, which I feel is close enough.

 

The Click2detail / Titan bypass engines look gorgeous.

 

Marc.

[serendip]

1 hour ago, Paul Boyer said:

Here's a link to Click2detail B-52H engines:

 

https://www.click2detail.net/store/p65/1%3A72_B-52H_TF33_Engine_Set.html

 

Click2detail and Titan Models are within the same company. I recently built their 1/72 scale C-32A "Air Force Two" kit

 

I forgot to mention I read your excellent summary on FSM of the MC kits which steered me towards AMT / Italeri instead.

 

Shame that the market is now probably saturated with these two disappointing series of kits making manufacturers hesitant to invest in a new representation of this iconic jet.

 

I do wonder if crowd funding could be an option for this and other missed subjects but I've no idea what investment costs would be and how many kits would need to sell to turn a profit.

[Dan Tinklepaugh]

Tap the brakes on the Click2Detail engines. Engines are awesome but the pylons are identical and designed for the  Monogram kit. The AMT/Italeri pylons are side and position specific. The cad drawings on the website show the correct item but the resin pylons are actually identical. I found a way to make them work but only using the front nacelles grafted to the kit engines which had been cut on the bottom middle and inserted a thick Evergreen strip to widen the engine and better match the curved shape of the resin part. I only used 30% of each of the resin pieces so it’s not a wise upgrade economically. This way I was able to keep the kit pylons and not try to mate to/modify the wings with incompatible pylons or damage the resin engine by cutting off/switching pylons.

HTH

Edited October 15, 2023 by Dan Tinklepaugh

[Norm DUbay]

[Norm DUbay]

Good to know Dan about the H engines.

[Norm DUbay]

 

[dehowie]

Just by the MC kits for an easy Buff build.

Having spent enough time measuring a real B-52 and crawling around its a WAY better start point..like way more than the AMT kit.

It can be built from the box and it looks in comparison with an unmodified AMT kit a thousand times better.

The microscopic view of the MC kit has overblown what are tiny issues compared to the gigantic dramas of the AMT kit.

The hyperbole thats been gone into to generate youtube views ie money has so generated so much utter misinformation as to actually have people buying thecworst B-52 ever released as a preference.

The list of issues needing work on the AMT range from the nose, fuselage complete wingroot change out, wings and engines which on the H are 30% under sized and clearly obvious which leaves not much and thats just to get it to look like one.

As opposed to building the MC kit oob and getting a decent looking Buff.

Minor shape issues are not the same as incorrect detail, way wrong shape, a hodge podge of time frames on structural patches on the fuselage, wings that are at the wrong angle.

One reviewer even criticised the MCs wing section which when compared to actual photos of a wingless Buff was pretty spot on.

The AMT kut is the worst place to start by a long way.

And if your after a quick build it will look like one unlike the AMT kit with its bizarre wing issues and litany of issues.

 

 

 

[serendip]

13 hours ago, dehowie said:

Just by the MC kits for an easy Buff build.

Having spent enough time measuring a real B-52 and crawling around its a WAY better start point..like way more than the AMT kit.

It can be built from the box and it looks in comparison with an unmodified AMT kit a thousand times better.

The microscopic view of the MC kit has overblown what are tiny issues compared to the gigantic dramas of the AMT kit.

The hyperbole thats been gone into to generate youtube views ie money has so generated so much utter misinformation as to actually have people buying thecworst B-52 ever released as a preference.

The list of issues needing work on the AMT range from the nose, fuselage complete wingroot change out, wings and engines which on the H are 30% under sized and clearly obvious which leaves not much and thats just to get it to look like one.

As opposed to building the MC kit oob and getting a decent looking Buff.

Minor shape issues are not the same as incorrect detail, way wrong shape, a hodge podge of time frames on structural patches on the fuselage, wings that are at the wrong angle.

One reviewer even criticised the MCs wing section which when compared to actual photos of a wingless Buff was pretty spot on.

The AMT kut is the worst place to start by a long way.

And if your after a quick build it will look like one unlike the AMT kit with its bizarre wing issues and litany of issues.

 

 

 

Thanks dehowie but I'm surprised that in your opinion the MC kits are so much better - opinion seems pretty much unanimous on the (early) MC kits being flawed in a number of ways. MC going out of their way to provide corrections sets for the earlier releases (and these being integrated into later releases) would support this I would think.

 

Do me a favour and advise on which MC kits are acceptable and better than the AMT / Italeri kits regarding the 'G and 'H models and which are pre-improved releases? That would be very helpful.

 

Thanks again for your feedback.

 

Marc.

[serendip]

17 hours ago, Dan Tinklepaugh said:

Tap the brakes on the Click2Detail engines. Engines are awesome but the pylons are identical and designed for the  Monogram kit. The AMT/Italeri pylons are side and position specific. The cad drawings on the website show the correct item but the resin pylons are actually identical. I found a way to make them work but only using the front nacelles grafted to the kit engines which had been cut on the bottom middle and inserted a thick Evergreen strip to widen the engine and better match the curved shape of the resin part. I only used 30% of each of the resin pieces so it’s not a wise upgrade economically. This way I was able to keep the kit pylons and not try to mate to/modify the wings with incompatible pylons or damage the resin engine by cutting off/switching pylons.

HTH

Thanks San for the heads up, that helps.

[serendip]

On 10/15/2023 at 3:52 PM, Norm DUbay said:

Hi Marc, Look on EBay with the username heavykits or search for Click2details on the internet.  The same quad 50 cal was the same on both the D and the G so they have to be the same dimension at this point.  I’m pretty sure I compared the the guns from the Monigram D and Italeria G and the G kit was undersized.

And agreed Norm the guns do look somewhat scrawny on the AMT / Italeri kit.

[Norm DUbay]

I was pulling for MC to give us a good late B-52 but they missed the mark.  In this day and age and the amount of reference material available a decent kit should’ve been achieved.  I still think the Monogram is still one of the best  B-52s out there.  While I applaud MC’s effort to correct their B-52s they still couldn’t get it right.  Having lived in Tucson in the 70 and 80s and visiting there all the time since my parents are there I was always at the boneyard and Pima air museum. Took lots of photos and measurements of B-52s over the years.  In 76 you would literally drive through the main gate of Davis Monthan into a sea of B-52 and you could pull you car over and walk right up to them.   For an expensive kit the MC has as many issues as the Italeria kit needing correcting, it’s not just internet hype.  Here’s a list of things needing correcting IMO and I’m sure there are others out there that could add to the list

1.  Nose profile is wrong and the distinctive crease and EVS are anemic.

2.  Wrong ejection seats

3.  Escape hatches for ejection seats are too small.

4.  Leading edge of wing roots are a funny shape being too blunt.

5.  Vortex generators on wings have wrong count and are missing on one side of the horizontal stabs.

6 Raised details on the wing spoilers are incorrect being too short.

7.  Wing fuel tanks are totally off being too large and having shape issues.

8.  Rear stabs are undersized and the rear fuselage is missing the pivot point triangle plate for the stabs.

9. Engines for the G are too flat in side profile for the bottom portion and the APU is shaped wrong.  There’s lack of detail on the engine pod panel line wise and it looks odd when installed on the wing with all it’s panel lines.  The H engine is better but the cowling still need refining and reshaping.

10.  Engraved lines are heavy for 1/72 scale reminds me of a dicast model. 

[serendip]

49 minutes ago, Norm DUbay said:

I was pulling for MC to give us a good late B-52 but they missed the mark.  In this day and age and the amount of reference material available a decent kit should’ve been achieved.  I still think the Monogram is still one of the best  B-52s out there.  While I applaud MC’s effort to correct their B-52s they still couldn’t get it right.  Having lived in Tucson in the 70 and 80s and visiting there all the time since my parents are there I was always at the boneyard and Pima air museum. Took lots of photos and measurements of B-52s over the years.  In 76 you would literally drive through the main gate of Davis Monthan into a sea of B-52 and you could pull you car over and walk right up to them.   For an expensive kit the MC has as many issues as the Italeria kit needing correcting, it’s not just internet hype.  Here’s a list of things needing correcting IMO and I’m sure there are others out there that could add to the list

1.  Nose profile is wrong and the distinctive crease and EVS are anemic.

2.  Wrong ejection seats

3.  Escape hatches for ejection seats are too small.

4.  Leading edge of wing roots are a funny shape being too blunt.

5.  Vortex generators on wings have wrong count and are missing on one side of the horizontal stabs.

6 Raised details on the wing spoilers are incorrect being too short.

7.  Wing fuel tanks are totally off being too large and having shape issues.

8.  Rear stabs are undersized and the rear fuselage is missing the pivot point triangle plate for the stabs.

9. Engines for the G are too flat in side profile for the bottom portion and the APU is shaped wrong.  There’s lack of detail on the engine pod panel line wise and it looks odd when installed on the wing with all it’s panel lines.  The H engine is better but the cowling still need refining and reshaping.

10.  Engraved lines are heavy for 1/72 scale reminds me of a dicast model. 

Thanks again Norm for summarizing.

I envy you living close to Davis Monthan - I live in the Netherlands and there isn't a B-52 inside of 7000 miles I suspect. It must have been wonderful to spend a day in places like that.

I do very much appreciate dehowie's opinion also and applaud him (really I do) for speaking out as is the whole point of sharing views on fora like this one but almost everybody on the internet is very underwhelmed by what MC has done - shame.

 

I don't see any other manufacturer having the cojones to bring out a well designed kit of the B-52 until it hits 100 years because everybody who wanted one took a chance with MC and would be hesitant to fork out even more money.

 

The tips on this thread so far have been immensely helpful so far however - keep 'em coming!

 

Marc.

 

[serendip]

If the breadth of the rear fuselage aft of the tail is too narrow this should be fixable. I think someone mentioned 6 mm which is some .2 inches in real money. That's doable.

 

But as Norm and others pointed out the whole gun unit on the AMT kit is also probably underscale. How will that then fit nicely with the widened rear section? I have no idea how to correct the gun unit to be compatible with a widened rear fuselage.

 

All theories and / or suggestions welcome.

 

Marc.