1/48 B17's

For various reasons I am looking to build a kit of a B17 in 1/48th, does
anyboday have a recommendation as to a good kit?
--
estarriol
Reply to
The shuffling Shambling Zombiefied corpse of estarriol
Loading thread data ...
The old Monogram "G" version is just fine but this is an older kit with raised panel lines, but it has a real good amount of interior details. The Revell "F" version is workable but not as good a kit as the Monogram, also has less interior detail. There are after market detail sets for these kits. There have been rumors for years of an Asian company doing a new 1/48 kit as well as rumors of a 1/32 version! Rumors, though. Only rumors.
-John
Reply to
Pacific95
news flash, the 1:1 scale B-17 has, are you ready for this, RAISED PANEL lines
Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the 2003 world champion drill team Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA
Reply to
N329DF
"N329DF" wrote
No it doesn't. The B-17, like most aircraft of similar construction, had overlapping skin panels creating a sawtooth-like profile. Most models, on the other hand, have flat skin profiles interrupted with raised, thin lines of semi-circular cross-section to represent the panel edges. Some models use grooves rather than raised lines. The question is which model scheme better represents the real aircraft's skin profile as neither is truly correct.
KL
Reply to
Kurt Laughlin
For "normal" aircraft with flush or lapped panels I prefer grooves in 1/48 or smaller sine the groove is easier to restore if you get a little happy with the sanding stick. If the actual aircraft had a pronounced ridge or step at the joint then the model whould have a pronounced ridge or step. For an example of pronounced steps see the back end of the Wildcat.
Kurt Laughl>
Reply to
Ron

Yes. I just like working with recessed lines better all the way around. I do realize that the surface of a real B-17 is a sea of bumps and rivets. I just like the way recessed panels look. I think the only weak point on the Mon. B-17 is the glass, but some careful clean-up, mounting and painting will yield decent results. It just doesn't have the clean, tight look of a fancier kit. But I do think Verlinden makes PE frames for the larger ones. Where's that Trumpeter 1/32 kit ??!!??
-John
Reply to
Pacific95
Mmmmmmm the Revell F is what I want then, but I am not a big Revell fan, damn, ok thanks all for the info.
-- estarriol the damned
Reply to
The shuffling Shambling Zombiefied corpse of estarriol
"The shuffling Shambling Zombiefied corpse of estarriol"
A European company called Mirage has announced both a b-17F and G to be released in 2004. See
formatting link
Don't know if this is going to happen or not. Not sure of the quality of said release.
The Mono G is a fine model. Good fit for a 1970's issue. Ditto's for the Revell F. If you build be sure to bring plenty of putty and sandpaper.
Reply to
WR
On 15/11/03 9:10 pm, in article snipped-for-privacy@post>
No experience of the Revell: the Monogram was a really easy build, and I didn't need putty or sandpaper.
Lots of detail, no major fit problems, and for about $20 (£13.99 in the UK) how wrong can you go? It's hanging from small son's ceiling in "Bit 'O' Lace" markings, and it sure looks the part to me...
Bestest, M.
Reply to
Matt Bacon
Monogram...the G kit is great.
Reply to
Rufus
I have 7 B-17's. plan to hang them in formation from the ceiling someday escorted by some little friends....
hanging those babies makes you not so concerned about the topside details. ain't no one gonna see them except flies...
Craig
Reply to
Craig
I need to make a correction to a previous posting. I mentioned a book by Edward Jablonski.... I incorrectly mentioned the name as B-17. Correction: The book is published by Doubleday, and is titled: Flying Fortress. The jacket is dark blue with several silver B17's on the front...very attractive. The details in the back of the book would be, in my humble opinion, a tremendous source for intricate and accurate detail. My apologies to any who may have been inconvenienced by my err. Happy Modeling always, Bruce
Reply to
Bruce Apple
Very good book. In fact...that was my FIRST hardback book of a military nature. I got it when I was like 7 years old. A good read as well. And much better than his better known (and over-rated, in my opinion "Air War").
It has a wealth of info for the modeler, and many great reference photos.
I am surprised though, that you had to "describe" this book for anyone. I figured EVERYONE knew of it, as it was always featured in those "Military Book Club" ads...lol...(along with "Air War").
Reply to
Greg Heilers
Kurt, The B-17 does have overlapping joints, which results in Raised panel lines. I know it all too well as I spent about 7 yrs working on a 17, and have 20hrs flying as crew. Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the 2003 world champion drill team Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA
Reply to
N329DF
I guess we can get "nitpicky", and suggest that this results in neither raised, nor recessed, panel lines....but more of a "scalloped" effect. They can be seen as "raised", or "recessed"...depending on from which direction you are viewing them...lol.
On a similar note, does not the Hasegawa 1/48th P-47 also duplicate a beautiful "scalloped" effect, particularly in the wing-root area?
Reply to
Greg Heilers
"Greg Heilers" wrote
That's exactly my point. The real thing has an edge, not a raised rib nor a sunken groove.
KL
Reply to
Kurt Laughlin
We could call them lapped lines?
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
Reply to
WmB
Clinker-built B-17s? gd&r :)
Reply to
Jeff C

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.