Alrighty Then, Who Makes A Good B-17?

[modelman62]

Id maybe like to try a 17 for the heavy's GB. Who makes a good one in 48 scale? Like with engraved panel lines, where applicable, etc, and all that stuff.

[A-4Silverfox]

Monogram's B-17G is the only thing available in 1/48 unless you can luck up on a Revell B-17F. No engraved panel lines though on either. Monogram has the better interior detail. True Details has resin interiors for the B-17G according to the November Squadron flyer.

[DonSS3]

You're limited to either Monogram's B-17G or the Revell B-17F. Eduard makes three etched brass sets (Interior, Exterior and Armament sets). And as noted above, there's some new resin interior sets from True Details.

[jrallman]

there is also a verlinden update set, neil at paragon makes some stuff including flaps, prop governors, crew doors, a full bomb bay, and some conversion stuff. also there are vac canopies, resin wheels, lots of decals, a battle damaged tail, resin engines, and the list goes on. in addition to the monogram b-17g and the revell b-17f, there is a promodeler b-17g which is incredibly pricey when it pops up, and it has some PE for the engines and the cheyenne tail gun as well as different decals. There is a Revell Germany b-17g which is the same kit as the monogram kit, but with different decals. and there is an old revell or monogram (cant remember which) visible b-17g, with one of the fuse half done in clear styrene. it is also quite expensive when it pops up. There was a thread in this forum previously that talked about aftermarket goodies for the 1/48 b-17 as well. and may i say, excelent choice for the GB, i love the fort!

oh, and there is a debate as to whether recessed pannel lines would even be accurate on a b-17. the b-17 didn't have but joined pannels and flush rivets like most US fighters. the b-17 used overlapping pannels with low profile rivets. technically, neither recessed or raised pannel lines would be the most accurate. most accurate would be lines of very small very close rivets, but that would be more difficult to cast and very easy to ruin the detail sanding.

Edited November 18, 2005 by jrallman

[robert61267]

Ditto on the panel line comments. I got to crawl around Picadilly Lil, the B-17G at the Chino Planes of Fame Museum. I was amazed at the plethora of lap joints, rivets, and just plain unaerodynamic features on the plane. Engraved panel lines might look proper on some parts of the plane, but you'd need a super photoset and perhaps a construction and skinning diagram to know for sure.

The Monogram B-17G was a fine model in its day, and still holds up pretty well.

Robert

[Hawk10]

I would point out that other than the laminar flow wing on the P-51, most WW II vintage a/c used the overlapping and rounded head rivets. Butt joining and flush riveting is rather labor intensive. Plus butt joined parts don't create the canyons we see on most current models.

[jrallman]

the b-24 libby has a laminar wing as well. fyi. :D

i will say though that regardless of scale accuracy, engraved pannel lines are much easier to repair after sanding than raised pannel lines.

[WymanV]

Was the Davis wing designed to be Laminar flow, or was that a result of the design?

Ken

[jrallman]

I remember reading that it was designed to be laminar flow. I do not remember where I read this, possibly the Squadron b-24 in action book. I'll check tonight. I think they were talking about why wing damage was more of an issue to the libby than the fort.

[peebeep]

I remember reading that it was designed to be laminar flow.

The B-24 wing was intended to have high lift with a minimum amount of drag - a contradiction. I believe it was designed before laminar flow theory was fully understood, but it has laminar flow characterisitics. It seems to be accepted that the P-51 is the first aircraft with a wing section that was designed to have laminar flow characteristics and this was after the conception of the B-24.

Peebeep

[jrallman]

cool stuff! fantastic design from the gut then!

[robert61267]

The B-24 also had a higher wing loading than the B-17 in many configurations, and that made flying a damaged bird back to base that much harder. The lack of powered controls also played a role.

Robert

[jrallman]

I cant immagine how exhausting those long mission must have been without powered controls!

[Steven Leeds]

I have a few 1:48 scale kits that I'm toying around with the idea of trading them for 1:72 versions.

I have in 1/48:

Revell/Monogram B-17F Memphis Belle

Revell B-17G

Revell/Monogram B-17G

Revell of Germany B-24

Revell/Monogram B-25 (x2)

Monogram P-61

Monogram C-47

Monogram B-29

I bought these without giving much thought to where they would actually be stored and the first model hung from my kids ceiling went to battle with a wiffle ball bat and lost so I've kind of scratched that idea for now.

If you're interested in trading let me know. Maybe you could convince me to make the jump to 1:72 PMs seem to be more reliable these days because of some aggressive spam filtering here so I would prefer those.

At any rate, please have a Happy Thanksgiving. My family continues to pray those in harms way and I would ask that keep two of my relatives in your prayers over the Holiday season especially. There names are Bob and Charlie and both are in the Mid-East...

Cheers,

Steven

[peebeep]

cool stuff! fantastic design from the gut then!

Absolutely! The wing is usually referred to as the 'Davis' wing, so perhaps there is a Mr Davis out there who should get the credit?

Peebeep

[jrallman]

you mean instead of Mr. Laminar? Ha ha ha ha, ok yeah it was bad

[wdolson]

The B-24 wing was intended to have high lift with a minimum amount of drag - a contradiction. I believe it was designed before laminar flow theory was fully understood, but it has laminar flow characterisitics. It seems to be accepted that the P-51 is the first aircraft with a wing section that was designed to have laminar flow characteristics and this was after the conception of the B-24.

Peebeep

I read an article written by a retired North American engineer that proved that the tremendous performance of the P-51 was more due to the radiator arangement than the wing design. The Laminar flow wing has gotten the credit all these years, but he showed that the radiator on the Mustang actually gave it about 50 pounds of thrust like a small jet engine, so something that was a net drag on most liquid cooled aircraft became an extra source of thrust.

I forget where I read it. It might have been in World War II magazine.

He said they didn't realize it at the time because the whole idea of jet engines was in its infantcy and so everyone just chalked it up to the wing. I believe he pointed out that the Laminar flow wing was tried on some other aircraft like the P-63 without they dramatic performance of the P-51.

The Davis wing and the Laminar flow wing are two different designs. It's been known for a long time that a long thin wing will get tremendous lift with low drag, but the materials technology to do it right didn't exist until the late 30s (I was an Aeronautical Engineering major for a year before switching to Electronic Engineering, I recall the long thin wing's effieicency coming up in my 101 class). The Davis wing was a Consolidated design. I believe it was on another aircraft they introduced just before getting the contract for the B-24.

The exterior skin of the Davis wing carried more load than on the B-17, which is why the B-17 wing could take more damage and come home. The Davis wing would simply disintigrate in flight if you punched enough holes in the skin. To tear the wing off a B-17, you had to sever the main wing spar. The upside was that the B-24 required less internal structure to the wing though. It was a great wing for an airliner, but made for a weaker bomber design.

Bill

[wdolson]

Ditto on the panel line comments. I got to crawl around Picadilly Lil, the B-17G at the Chino Planes of Fame Museum. I was amazed at the plethora of lap joints, rivets, and just plain unaerodynamic features on the plane. Engraved panel lines might look proper on some parts of the plane, but you'd need a super photoset and perhaps a construction and skinning diagram to know for sure.

The Monogram B-17G was a fine model in its day, and still holds up pretty well.

Robert

This brings up something that I've been thinking about lately. All the shading people do with recessed panel lines looks cool on a finished kit, and I understand that recessed panel lines are easier to deal with if you have to do any sanding. It's virtually impossible to replace raised panel lines if you end up sanding them away.

Kits with recessed panel lines just look nicer than ones with raised lines.

However, I think the hobby may be a bit obsessed about them. I've seen some wartime pictures with weathering that looks a bit like the heavily weathered models with the darkened panel lines, but most wartime photos show only minimal panel detail visible. Most of these are things like cowling flaps, or panels that are removable. Rarely do you see the rivet lines in any detail.

The panel lines on most kits are usually many times scale too. IMO, on a 1/72 scale kit they would be essentially invisible, if to scale. On a 1/48 scale kit they would be barely visible. They would only begin to show on a 1/32 or 1/24 scale aircraft.

If the surfaces were perfectly smooth, the aircraft would be kind of boring.

The problem with building a scale model is that it is a *model*. It is, by definition, less detailed than the original. If somebody digitally scanned a real aircraft and precisely scaled it down to a common modeling scale, the rivet counters would probably complain that it wasn't right, even though it was an exact downscale of the real thing.

I prefer recessed panel lines on my kits. It looks nicer and it is easier to deal with when I have to sand out seams. I don't really sweat the small stuff too much.

As usual, I'm being the heretic. But it is just an observation I've made.

Bill

[jrallman]

I agree with you about the panel lines. One of the elements to modeling, at least as I see it, is a certain amount of artistic license. Yes, it is true that we attempt to replicate real aircraft, but in actuality it is more of a simulation of the real thing. On alot of WWII planes, especially the big bombers, while you don't actually have panel lines and such that you find on models, you do tend to get metal fatigue alone the rivet and panel joints. One way to replicate this in a scale model is by using panel lines and shading etc. Accurate, no, not really. But it is a good artistic representation and much easier than actually distressing the plastic to scale. That being said, I find it rather odd when after market manufacturers make detail and conversion sets for these big raised panel line Revellogram bombers, and the detail sets have recessed panel line! It almost forces you to remove and rescribe!

[Hippy-Ed]

Monogram's B-17G is the only thing available in 1/48 unless you can luck up on a Revell B-17F. No engraved panel lines though on either. Monogram has the better interior detail. True Details has resin interiors for the B-17G according to the November Squadron flyer.

Yes, True Details has 3) sets out for the B-17. I recently got the Bombadier's Section & Cockpit sets. (The other is Waist Gunner Position) Pretty well detailed and not for the timid since there's alot of work involved in making certain parts "fit" such as the interior paneling for the nose section. Need to sand off the kit detail, sand down the resin part to paper thin & heat it so it'll mate up to the kit. (bombadier panel looks wrong too) Most of the parts are quite thick.

Now Paragon has the open bomb bay, flaps & Crew access doors which are quite detailed & add greatly to the kit as well. Just my two-cents.

:lol: