HKM B-17 Proportion issues

[Fred Jack]

I tend to feel in general, that if someone invented a shrinking machine and shrank a real plane, someone will find problems with it. We were so happy with Monogram's bomber offerings, non of us checked the dimensions. I wouldn't know whether the old Monogram is more accurate. They both look like B-17s to me, only one is bigger and costs 300 bucks. If I spent that much on a model, I'd have to build it in the yard, because I wouldn't be allowed back into the house.

[Juggernut]

The 1/48 Monogram B-17G has been checked and rechecked time and time again (by a lot of people) and still remains one of the, if not the most dimensionally accurate B-17 models ever offered in any scale.  Granted it has some detail errors in it but for a 38 year old kit I'd say that its done well.

[Phartycr0c]

Just My 2p, I appreciate everyone's approach to kit building is different. Its what floats your boat. 

 

One thing I notice through all this is that the manufacturers we are discussing are all far east affairs HKM, Trumpeter, Hasegawa, ZM, Tamiya etc. Could it be there is a simple resource and reference drought? censorship in China for example?

 

Im not clear how these processes work but surely access to a base reference is required in order to produce a first stage cad drawing?  Why has no one produced a 1/32 Do 17? simply because there are no 1.1's about and other references and drawings are scarce / nigh on available.

 

The point I am trying to make is whether these far east companies have access to accurate references from which to produce these kits of which there are good ones and bad ones. 

 

 I don't see many companies in Europe (other than Revell or lately Airfix)  or the US being brave enough to produce some of the subjects we are seeing arriving on the market.

 

I spoke at length with Neil Yan at Telford this year, about the Lancaster production. Neil is passionate about producing as accurate a product as possible given his access to the either the real thing or decent references.Neil did say he was researching release of the Lancaster in the "converted" guises a la Dambusters and Tall boy versions in addition to the " standard" airframes. Good news all round if they appear.  

 

Putting it another way, if I build for example a Flanker and it is recognised as such, great. If I build a Flanker and its recognised as an F15 then its likely the kit is inaccurate or iv'e cocked the build up!

 

Buys what ya likes! 

[Lancman]

On a side note I hope in the Lancaster kit they include a load of SBC's as that's what they usually carried rather than a bomb bay full of 500 and 1000Lb'ers.

 

Graham

[Propwash]

Based on my experience with men's tailoring, I agree that the thickness of the plastic may very well have a lot to do with the apparent excessive wideness of the fuselage.  I've been doing historical men's tailoring for almost 25 years, and I often draft patterns from scratch using the guidelines in old tailoring manuals.  Thickness of the cloth can make a big difference in how a garment goes together and how it fits the wearer.  If a suit pattern was drafted for, say, a 10-once fabric, and you tried to construct it with 18-once fabric, you're going to run into construction problems owing to the added bulk.  Adjusting for this problem is more of an art than a science and can only be learned from experience.  That's why garment manufacturers employ pattern engineers to work out the glitches.

 

Same goes for grading patterns up or down in size.   Different pattern pieces, such as collars and sleeves, for example, must be graded in different proportions in order for the finished garment to come out right.  If you drafted a pattern for a size 38, took it to a custom blueprint shop and had them do an across-the-board upscale to a size 42, you'd end up with a pattern having both oversized and undersized pieces and a finished garment that looked like it was made for a circus clown. 

 

I know it might seem like a big leap from designing suits to designing airplanes, but the rules of proportion and construction that must be taken into consideration are the same, only on a bigger (or in the case of a model, smaller, scale).  Taking all the challenges they faced into consideration, I think the engineers at HK have done a very good job on the B-17, and I expect them to get even better with subsequent offerings.

 

Jerry

[Iain]

Normally a 3D CAD model would be created from the outside shapes/dimensions first - then working inwards from there?

 

So I'd be surprised if the designer worked from internal bulkheads outwards and didn't allow for moulded fuselage thickness...

 

Didn't Nige find that before he made changes to the fuselage rear that cross section was oval rather than round?

 

Iain

[Fred Jack]

There is hope for the Do17, since one was found largely intact in 2007 off the coast of Kent and raised.

[ghatherly]

Ian,  I am not guessing where they started, as you very well may be correct, and probably are.   Irregardless of where they started, if they went with the scale 1/32 outside measurements, the wall thickness for the fuselage plastic and various interior parts you could very well have parts much smaller than scale when the interior details were laid out.  IF one does the math, taking into account the material used, something had to give.  In the case with Nige's build he thinned the fuselage walls and made the bulkheads smaller.  As for the out of round condition, I thought that only came about as he was part way through the fix and not completed all of the fuselage modifications.  I may be mistaken as I am recalling this  from memory, plus I just spent 10 hours rebuilding Tamiya F-4C inner wing pylons that needed a lot of help………Tamiya   go figure!!  and my brain is fried.     

 

By whatever means they came to their final conclusion, I tried to come up with a professional thought process as to why a company of highly educated people would make the decisions they did with this kit.  My speculation, and that is all it is, explains the fat fuselage, the extra length, why the first and last bulkheads are the correct size, and why everything in between is to large.  One can also logically use the thought process to explain why the tail is a little off and the windows are slightly larger.   

 

Doug,  I doubt you will see any changes on the "F".  HK has made their decision, and keep in mind if I am right, and they did make a skinny true to size exterior fuselage, then the whole kit is out and they are starting from scratch because the interior is to big.  Also, none of the AM stuff would work from the "G" and they might not step up and make revised sets for a second time.

 

 

Many of you have seen what I like to build, so I would like for it all to be very close to being right.  The reality is that with bigger models that have full interiors, comprimises have to be made and there is no two ways around it.   Maybe now some can see that the HK folks were not sleeping at the wheel, and perhaps there was a great deal of care and thought that went into the kit, it just is not perfect.    But that is what modelers are right??? 

 

Everyone have a Very Merry Christmas, Gary

Edited December 24, 2013 by ghatherly

[Juggernut]

The only thing that HK will be able to reuse from the G kit for their F is the wings, horizontal stabilizes and forward fuselage from the radio room (Bulkhead 6) to the front of the cockpit (Bulkhead 3, if memory serves).  Everything else needs to be made fresh for a B-17F.

[JRutman]

Haven't been back to check this thread in a few days and I am very pleased to see the level of civility that has prevailed. Nice discussion and great chaps here for sure. Interesting views on the matter at hand as well.

  Nice to be part of a forum that doesn't break down into tantrums,name calling and throwing monkey poop every time there is a dissagreement. NICE!!

J

[LSP_Mike]

JR,

 The key is to always try and have an informed discussion, backed with relevant data. We need to keep in mind that the information presented should be more technical; it is up to each modeler to judge whether they choose to spend their money on a kit.

 Tims comment regarding the "useable" portions of the G kit may be technically correct, but if I see an F kit at a price I like, I'll get it to build, and go from there. This in no way is a reflection on Tim, or his data; rather it is my choice in wanting to build the kit. It's a "50 shades of Olive Drab" thing.

[DougN]

JR,

 The key is to always try and have an informed discussion, backed with relevant data. We need to keep in mind that the information presented should be more technical; it is up to each modeler to judge whether they choose to spend their money on a kit.

 Tims comment regarding the "useable" portions of the G kit may be technically correct, but if I see an F kit at a price I like, I'll get it to build, and go from there. This in no way is a reflection on Tim, or his data; rather it is my choice in wanting to build the kit. It's a "50 shades of Olive Drab" thing.

 

I believe Tim's comment was in response to whether or not HKM needed to do a new fuselage to release an "F" kit.  He was pointing out that they would need to do so since most of the fuselage on their "G" kit is different from an "F" kit.

[LSP_Mike]

Doug, I guess you have a point, which I might have thought of myself, if I had actually done any. (thinking) IIRC, there was some discussion regarding the waist of the  kit being a little "fat" which may  or may not be true, but still, an F at a good price may tempt me. I have only 289 kits in my wee collection, so may actually NEED one more. I am sure many here will agree.

[ghatherly]

Doug, I guess you have a point, which I might have thought of myself, if I had actually done any. (thinking) IIRC, there was some discussion regarding the waist of the  kit being a little "fat" which may  or may not be true, but still, an F at a good price may tempt me. I have only 289 kits in my wee collection, so may actually NEED one more. I am sure many here will agree.

Mike,  No maybe about it, she is fat.  The numbers tell the story.

[Silver Dollar]

I like 'em with a little meat on the bones.  Oh you mean the B-17?  Nevermind.