Guest Nigelr32 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Hi all, Just looking through my new toy and have noticed something which I think is in error... The oxygen tanks in the cockpit have a framework over them? I thought these tanks were "bare" gloss yellow cylinders? Am I correct? Are there any other issues with this kit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunpowder Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 They are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 ... Are there any other issues with this kit? ... Check with TimC on here ... apparently he's picked the majority of the errors (not that he's been especially scathing in any respect!) ... but he DOES know the heavy! Rog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) Nigel:Overall its a good kit and if you're not a B-17 rivet counter, then the issues with the kit won't be a major concern. The major issue I have is that the nose section and windscreen are misshapen because of the circular cross section of the nose in that area. The nose is noticeably flat on the top to increase pilot visibility. HK neglected to notice this issue most likely due to the drawings they used to produce the prototype. The second issue is very minor but it seems that HK has a penchant for wide prop blades. The B-17 kit has the same problem that the B-25 has, the props are too fat in the chord. Again, not a huge issue but noticeable to my eye. I have ordered this kit so I can look it over and see if there are any other issues. Overall, it does seem like a very good kit though. We'll see about the details . EDIT: Just and FYI, I originally said I wasn't going to get this kit because of the nose shape issue. While it is still a thorn in my side, Eli's 91st BG decal sheet tipped the scales in favor of HK and I preordered it from SB. Ahd while I'm at it: I do know the fortress pretty well having been reading and learning about it since 1975 when the 1/48 Monogram kit first came out...I was hooked. There are others that know a lot more about her than I do and I regularly defer to their knowledge if its in opposition to mine. So, if you read that something is amiss with this kit and you don't know if it's true or not, post it here and I'll have a look and/or refer it to someone more learned that I. Either way, we'll try and get you the correct information. Remember: B-17G's were built by three different manufacturers and many subcontractors made assemblies that went into these aircraft. Details that may be correct for a B-17G made by Boeing may or may not be correct for a similar B-17G built by Vega or Douglas. Fer instance, Douglas implemented the single pane enclosed waist windows much earlier than did Boeing or Vega so you'll see some forts built around the same time with the three pane windows or possibly the single pane windows.... Gotta check those serial numbers guys and your reference photos. And even then, it's not a sure thing because many, many G's were built as cookie cutter aircraft (meaning they didn't stop the production lines to install enclosed waist windows, etc. and all were built exactly the same on any given assembly line) and then shipped to modification centers here in the U.S. and in the U.K. to have waist windows put in, pumpkin tail turrets put on and cheek guns fitted. Also, when in combat, from what I've read (and I cannot find the reference right now) only the lead aircraft in the squadron and the deputy lead would carry bomb sights. All the other aircraft would drop on the signal from those aircraft and/or when they hit the smoke marker trail from the lead ship. I'm still a little fuzzy on exactly how many aircraft would carry bombsights (2 per squadron or two per formation or two per element...?) but what I wrote is my understanding of the practice. Edited August 12, 2013 by TimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famvburg Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Were O2 cylinders yellow back then? I would have thought green like is used today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Nigel: Overall its a good kit and if you're not a B-17 rivet counter, then the issues with the kit won't be a major concern. The major issue I have is that the nose section and windscreen are misshapen because of the circular cross section of the nose in that area. The nose is noticeably flat on the top to increase pilot visibility. HK neglected to notice this issue most likely due to the drawings they used to produce the prototype. The second issue is very minor but it seems that HK has a penchant for wide prop blades. The B-17 kit has the same problem that the B-25 has, the props are too fat in the chord. Again, not a huge issue but noticeable to my eye. I have ordered this kit so I can look it over and see if there are any other issues. Overall, it does seem like a very good kit though. We'll see about the details . Thanks for your reply there Tim. I have a million pics of... I visited her twice in 2008, it's by far the best museum I've ever seen. I see what you mean already having just looked at the nose, that'll have to be corrected!! I guess there'll be some new props along soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chango Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 It looks like the ammo boxes for the ball turret are wrong; HK has them attached to the bulkhead but they should be attached to the turret mounting itself. If the ammo boxes were on the wall, the ball wouldn't be able to spin around freely, kinda defeating the purpose of the thing in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Mike Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Tim wrote: "The major issue I have is that the nose section and windscreen are misshapen because of the circular cross section of the nose in that area. The nose is noticeably flat on the top to increase pilot visibility. HK neglected to notice this issue most likely due to the drawings they used to produce the prototype." Tim, the first thing that comes to mind (mine anyway) is if the kit plastic is thick enough to handle a block sanding to at least reduce the circular cross section, and make it more accurate visually. The issues brought up so far sure don't sound like too much. nmayhew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 as for oxygen cylinders...green usually means liquid oxygen yellow for compressed oxygen, back then I don't believe they had liquid oxygen in the a/c. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Bruce, our Gulfstream IV's use gaseous aviators breathing oxygen and all the bottles are green. I believe the yellow bottles are for low pressure oxygen and the green cylinders are for high pressure oxygen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 It looks like the ammo boxes for the ball turret are wrong; HK has them attached to the bulkhead but they should be attached to the turret mounting itself. If the ammo boxes were on the wall, the ball wouldn't be able to spin around freely, kinda defeating the purpose of the thing in the first place. Yes ... this is correct - I recall someone mentioning this at some point before. So ... 1/ This doesn't sound like a hard fix ... I may be wrong, but you could just try to find the relevant photos and attach the boxes in the right location (scratch build any additional bracketing etc?). I know MDC are producing flexible .50 cal ammo belts and feed chutes if they are needed also. 2/ this stuff is tucked away inside the fuse' anyway ... I doubt you'd see it on the completed model ... I know when it comes time for assembly (eventually) that I won't be putting anything together that can't be seen from external to the aircraft or is not required for structural integrity. Rog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormer Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 2/ this stuff is tucked away inside the fuse' anyway ... I doubt you'd see it on the completed model ... I know when it comes time for assembly (eventually) that I won't be putting anything together that can't be seen from external to the aircraft or is not required for structural integrity. Yes and no! Don't you just love the thought about all that detail and paintwork that YOU know is in there? Artful69 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) Tim wrote: "The major issue I have is that the nose section and windscreen are misshapen because of the circular cross section of the nose in that area. The nose is noticeably flat on the top to increase pilot visibility. HK neglected to notice this issue most likely due to the drawings they used to produce the prototype." Tim, the first thing that comes to mind (mine anyway) is if the kit plastic is thick enough to handle a block sanding to at least reduce the circular cross section, and make it more accurate visually. The issues brought up so far sure don't sound like too much. Mike: While you could sand a flat in the upper part of the nose section, you would be hard pressed to make the windscreen, its attaching trim and instrument panel match that area. If you look carefully at the instrument panel on the real aircraft, you will see that it is not a consistent/uniform arc from left to right. Along the top center section of the IP, you will see a flatter arc segment corresponding to the flattened area of the nose section. Now take a look at the kit instrument panel (backside). See the shape difference? Edited August 12, 2013 by TimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artful69 Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Yes and no! Don't you just love the thought about all that detail and paintwork that YOU know is in there? lol Stormer ... thats what makes our hobby so interesting!! - we're not all the same ... I have no objection to fiddling around with things to create the right fit and finish ... especially in easy to see areas - like externals on the aircraft ... or through 'glass' As for stuff that I know is in there, but I can't see? ... these to me are just unnecessary delays in finishing the things that I can see Unfortunately (for me), sometimes it's unavoidable in any case - ZM produces the better '32 Uhu (accuracy wise) - and I HAVE to fit all or most of the unseen nonsence in order to build the model (the only consolation being that I won't have to chase after the AM I would have had to use on the Revell). Rog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted August 12, 2013 Share Posted August 12, 2013 Yes ... this is correct - I recall someone mentioning this at some point before. So ... 1/ This doesn't sound like a hard fix ... I may be wrong, but you could just try to find the relevant photos and attach the boxes in the right location (scratch build any additional bracketing etc?). I know MDC are producing flexible .50 cal ammo belts and feed chutes if they are needed also. 2/ this stuff is tucked away inside the fuse' anyway ... I doubt you'd see it on the completed model ... I know when it comes time for assembly (eventually) that I won't be putting anything together that can't be seen from external to the aircraft or is not required for structural integrity. Rog Rog: The stuff may be hard to see but there's two things that make us do it right... One, we know it's in there and two; those pesky IPMS judges will undoubtedly shine their flashlight (torches to you guys of the UK, Emerald Isle area) and it had better be in there and be painted. There's one more tidbit: Since this fortress has staggered waist windows, the right side window will show much more of the ball turret area than would otherwise be seen with unstaggered waist windows. D.B. Andrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts