Jump to content

Juggernut

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    1,362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Juggernut

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/15/1962

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Pennsylvania
  • Interests
    P-47's, P-51's, B-17's, A6M....

Recent Profile Visitors

649 profile views
  1. But British aircraft use weird measurements like a 2BA wrench....what the hell size is a bolt/nut that requires a 2BA wrench? It ain't metric and it sure as hell ain't inches... Damn BAE Jet streams.... Hawker-Siddeley HS125's are just as bad....weeping wings suck! Well, at least the majority of the fasteners on British aircraft are in inches or fractions thereof.
  2. The issue is that it's just not a simple remove and replace correction. As has been shown, it involves a lot of modification to the flight deck enclosure as well as the nose (not to mention the instrument panel...which probably could be done by providing a template and sanding to shape). Then there's the issue of the clear parts... Few people like vacuformed clear canopies/windscreens and clear resin, while nice, has its drawbacks (mainly in the production end so I've read). I've also noticed that the scalloped section under the windscreen is totally wrong. The glareshield should be a straight line of material from one corner of the windsreen to the opposite corner across the instrument panel. Note the glareshield in the image below. image borrowed from: https://www.398th.org/Images/Images_Welty/Text/Welty_AfterWar_Pittsburgh.html It appears that one could design such a set but I fear that it would be cost prohibitive to create such a set based on cost of production vs. how many would actually buy it. As has been seen and discussed here ad nauseum in years past, many of the buyers of this kit just don't consider the misshapen nose, such big a deal that they'd splurge on a replacement/correction set. I would but I, along with a few others are the exception rather than the norm. There are also other areas of the B-17G kit which could use some "lovin". Namely the radio room is missing the structure above the circular fuselage where the turtledeck opening for the gun is located. That area has been addressed (albeit simplified) in the B-17E/F kit but it could use a lot more. Above is a UAL Mod Center enclosed radio room gun installation in a B-17G followed by the factory built radio room gun installation. You can see the circular fuselage and the turtledeck structure. Compare what's here with what's in the kit. You'll see there's need for some stuffin to round out the detail in this area.
  3. Monopoly....fun through the ages.
  4. Fortunately, he's a moderator here so you can pm him and ask what he did. I don't think he modified the instrument panel so my thoughts are he just recontoured the nose.
  5. Iain (32SIG) did a B-17G and flattened the area in front of the windscreen by, I believe, sanding/reshaping. Here's the WIP thread: https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/64220-b-17g-a-bit-o-lace/page/7/
  6. Nice...I used Air Corps Library and only found the 89L41000 print.... I also misinterpreted the effectivity... "up TO P-47N-1-RE.
  7. Every wartime photo of P-47M's where I can see the wheels, all have the six-spoke wheels. Most, if not all 47N's went to the Pacific so I would think all the eight-spoke spares went there as well. After looking at the Republic P-47 landing gear blueprint for late model P-47's, there is no specific callout for one wheel vs. another on field of the drawing. All it says is that P-47 aircraft use a Bendix #57405 wheel (34 x 9.9). The IPC for the P-47 says something entirely different, calling for a Goodyear 530660. I'm not sure if this is a wheel or a tire. I'm still digging and cannot yet find out why there is no evidence of P-47M aircraft with 8-spoke wheels aside from what I said above. I'm still digging on this one....
  8. Very nice product...and review for that matter! I'm gonna get me a set or two of those props. But what to do with the wheels? The P-47M didn't use 8-spoke wheels, only the P-47N used them. Maybe I'll just hang onto them in the event Hasegawa releases a 1/32 P-47N. I won't build the Trumpeter N, it's just too busy for me and that canopy/windscreen makes me shudder.
  9. The ZM Verlinden based stuff (at least that's what it appears to be based on observation) is questionable and somewhat hokey looking but their later stuff seems a lot better.
  10. Your aircraft is a B-17G-40-BO assigned to the 457th BG, 94th Combat Wing, 1st Air Division, 8th USAAF. As such she would have been delivered from the factory with: - Unstaggered waist gun positions - most likely with UAL Cheyenne Mod Center 3-pane enclosed waist windows - UAL Cheyenne Mod Center bulged cheek gun positions - Open (removable plexi-glass) radio room gun position (gun is stowed when plexi-glass panel is in position- not visible from outside the aircraft). - Standard tail turret - A-1A Upper Local Turret - A-2A Sperry Ball Turret - 6-foot triangle "U" (most likely white triangle w/black letter U) on vertical stabilizer - 6 or 8-foot triangle "U" (same coloration as on tail) on upper right wing near tip. (multiple sources available for precise location - the old Monogram 1/48 B-17G box art/instructions being just one) 457th BG aircraft carried no squadron codes - you lucked out there. From August 1944 - 48-inch wide, blue band on vertical tail - You lucked out there again if the aircraft was lost in July 1944. From Spring 1944 - colored prop bosses as follows: - 749th Bomb Squadron - Blue -750th Bomb Squadron - White (this is what I believe are the colors of the prop bosses in the photos indicating which squadron this aircraft was assigned to) 751st Bomb Squadron - Yellow Standard USAAF serial number stencil - 15-inches in height. Insignia Yellow. Standard camouflage: Olive Drab/Neutral Grey (OD most likely faded if in service any length of time) - fabric covered control surfaces faded more (lighter) than painted metal surfaces Vertical tail center section probably built by subcontractors and may be different shade of olive drab (not faded vs. the rest of the aircraft) - no way to tell definitively Outer wing panels - may also be unfaded or less faded than remainder of airframe due to subcontractor construction. (no way to tell from photos above) What you attribute to the wartime censor may just be an old name from a different crew or you may be entirely correct. I see no mission markings or other scoreboard on this aircraft (which is uncommon) so it may very well have been a wartime censor blotting out such information.... Just a WAG on my part though. If you're going to render this aircraft in 1/32, you've got a LOT of work cut out for you as you cannot make this aircraft from the 1/32 HK kit as it comes in the box. You'll need to kitbash the B-17E/F kit with their G kit to get anywhere close. REFERENCES: 1. McDowell, Ernest. (1987). Flying Fortress, The Boeing B-17. Squadron/Signal Publications. Carrollton, TX (p. 39) 2. Lloyd, Alwyn T., Moore, Terry D. (1981). B-17 Flying Fortress in Detail and Scale, Part I, Production Versions. Aero Publishers Inc. CA (p.55) 3. Birdsall, Steve. (1973). B-17 In Action Squadron/Signal Publications. MI (p. 48) 4. Freeman, Roger. (1991). The Mighty Eighth, A History of the Units, Men and Machines of the US 8th Air Force. (p. 289)
  11. On the World War II in Color series, I think there's a mention of pathfinder mosquito's preceding a large raid on Hamburg, if I'm not mistaken. No other details I'm afraid but the Mossie's obviously carried incendiary bombs to light the target
  12. Alright! Archer Fine Transfers has some great products! Welcome Woody and thanks!
  13. Same question I had after hearing of the ground locks for the gear. It seems like a pretty straight forward fix to just cut them off and dress the remaining parts to fix the "issue". My interest lies primarily with the upcoming Dambuster release. I may pick this up instead of the WNW as I'm not too sure how I feel about stressed skin effect on a plastic model...The jury is still out pending the WNW release though. Oh, price is also a major concern regarding the pending WNW issue.
  14. well, according to the USAF SIG, the colors referenced (34102, 34092, and 36081) are correct for the A-10 European I Color Scheme, verisions 1, 2, and 3. The Charcoal-Lizzard (as spelled on the site) substitutes 36118 for 36081. I know the referenced colors with the 36081 grey are correct for the Euro I Scheme. Having said that, it's very hard to tell whether the A-10 in first image is in the Charcoal-Lizzard Scheme or the 1st European I Scheme. The grey is lighter but could have lightened with exposure.... tough call on that one. Second set of images appear to be the 2nd European I Scheme although I think there's a slight error on the description of the color changes on this version vs. the earlier one at the below link. Personally, until I looked at the below link, I never knew the A-10 carried so many varied color schemes... Peanut and Flipper color schemes duly noted. I thought there was the old Euro I Scheme and the new tactical grey scheme. The Don color profiles included are copyrighted 1999 so while they may be accurate up until that time, afterward they may not. But since this thread is quasi-dealing with the coloration of the A-10 prior to 1999, I think you're safe. Examining the photos vs. the color profiles seems to corroborate the validity of the profiles (with the noted exception as above). USAF SIG A-10 Webpage
×
×
  • Create New...