Dave Williams Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 http://store.spruebrothers.com/product_p/hkm01e05-os.htm mywifehatesmodels 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssculptor Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 That price is not unreasonable considering what I paid WNW for their multi engine WW1 bombers. The question is do I want to spend that much since I have the vacuform kits and the Guillows kits. Granted Guillows are a biot out of scale but if that does not bother me it should not bother no one else who sees my models. W will see, we will see. Everyone else, enjoy their kit. Hopefully it will be followed by the B-24, DC-3, etc. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 What the H-E-double hockey sticks, I ordered one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancman Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 I got mine on pre-order ar Hannants and it's £233/$290 with free postage in the UK, can't wait for it to arrive Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottsGT Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Oh man. I want, but.....lots o cash (or credit I should say) and lots o space taken up when built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 I ordered my kit from my local hobby store. Even with California tax it is less than Sprue bros and no shipping charge. Hobbytown Temecula supports our plastic addictions with good prices and our club members support our local hobby store. We also get monthly gift cards at our hobby club meetings. The Dude 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 I am waiting for the final pics of all the sprues but what I already saw let me think a ton of work will be required to get an accurate early fort with regard to the internal details. The initial kit was based on a late G and there were tons of small differences with the early ones.The most obvious one was the padding in the nose of the E. Globally, you may keep the cockpit pilot area and the bomb bay. Every other area had noticeable changes! However, I do not blame HK as the topic is a minefield for which no coherent documentation has ever been published... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Many fortresses had the padding removed to facilitate BD repairs or other maintenance. You'd have to find extant photographs of the inside of any given fortress to determine whether the padding was totally, partially or was not removed. Even if it wasn't removed from your chosen aircraft, you'd only have to add it in the crew compartments. from frame 6 forward. The B-17E My Gal Sal shows padding in the radio room and in the cockpit but the sides of the nose are bare metal. I don't know if that's a result of research or if they just didn't put it in the B/N compartment. I believe, though I cannot guarantee that this restoration was done as accurately as is humanly possible but there probably are some deviations. We may never know. There appears to be covering/padding over the instruments and equipment at bulkhead 3. Of course the type of padding used was changed on later B-17's if I remember what Karl H wrote in a related post in some other thread. I've been involved in one aspect or another with the B-17 for over 40 years (mostly in reading technical manuals, published references and of course, modeling) and the stuff I'm still learning blows me away. Just when I think I've got it figured out, something else comes along and then we have to take a step back, re-evaluate and move forward with the new information. And for all the knowledge and information I have available, Karl H has much more than I. I've worked the R-1820's on the 17's (actually on stands off the airframe and that was back in the late 1980's) but never actually turned wrenches on the old girl. There is a LOT of information on the 17 available but as has been said, there is no, one, go-to book on the B-17 and most likely never will be. To do a comprehensive book on the Boeing B-17 (and just the E's, F's and G's) would be monumental task (but not nearly as complicated as is the B-24) and would encompass either one gigantic volume (read as expensive) or three dedicated volumes, one to each subtype. Then we have to add all the subsytems like gun turrets, modification center information, etc. This is a task I've often thought about but have not yet summoned up the intestinal fortitude to take on. I don't feel I'm qualified to embark on a journey of this magnitude. A professional technical writer by trade, I've got that part covered but would need the assistance of an army (or at least two or three SME's much more knowledgeable than I) to assist me and agreeing to provide information and proof any information to be included (most likely to be named as coauthors rather than just mentioned in the foreward). That, and to sign on for how ever many years it will take to achieve the goal. I'd have to pay Boeing (and most likely any SME's) to use any of their proprietary images/information so the cash outlay from the start would most likely be cost prohibitive with no guarantee of any ROI after publication. I wouldn't call the topic of the B-17 a minefield by any stretch as documented information is available. You just have to find it and decipher whether it applies to all or some of the B-17's manufactured and by whom they were built...Easy-peezy. If you want a minefield, start looking into the B-24. The kit does have issues, no doubts. Knowing that going in and accepting the challenge is a decision that each person has to determine for his/her own self. In my own past experience, the misshapen nose was a deal breaker for me for a long period of time. But, as I've said recently, the older I get, the more I'm inclined to overlook this and accept it for what it is. It'll never be fixed and I have to accept that fact. I have reversed myself on this issue and am now willing to accept it and fix the other issues that are within my capabilities as a modeler. Adding padding is no harder than mixing epoxy putty, applying it and texturing it as necessary. Edited November 16, 2016 by Juggernut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Well, when you say that the information has been published, you have to find where! For instance, I have yet to find a book with pictures or drawings showing all the modifications made by the United Airlines Cheyenne center. Most historical books only scratch the surface of the block and factory differences and most walkaround books validate a lot of erroneous features linked to restoration of planes, the B-32 ball turret use being one obvious example. I have more or less 25 books and got hundreds of digital pictures about the plane and I am still far from having a sufficient amount of data to build an accurate replica with such sources! The B-24 situation may be worse but the B-17 one is already dreadful! I mentioned the padding as one example but there are many, many small differences. Frankly, I have no actual expertise in the B-17. I seriously started studying the plane last year and am discussing for some weeks with Karl. Fortunately, there are people like him with an incredible knowledge of the plane. However, this does not mean the information is easily available, alas! I think the best example is possibly all the problems that may be observed on the restored planes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moldmkr78 Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) You know what? I'm gonna build another one because it was fun building the first one. Everything else is secondary. Edited November 16, 2016 by moldmkr78 Cees Broere and The Dude 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Well, this site is for people liking large scale replicas and/or model kits. I know I am in the first group but I fully understand the people belonging to the other one. Just a matter of taste and interest for a different approach! Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moldmkr78 Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Well, this site is for people liking large scale replicas and/or model kits. I know I am in the first group but I fully understand the people belonging to the other one. Just a matter of taste and interest for a different approach! Have fun! Hey, I like large scale replicas as well as the next LSP'er. I'm just not going to stress over details that varied from plane to plane depending on the maintenance crew, the ground crew, the flight crew, or basically anyone else that touched the aircraft during it's service. I also understand molds and mold making. It's not as easy as some would think to change any detail of any model without major repercussions with every part that touches the changed part. Considering that HK probably has close to a million dollars in tooling for this model, I'm just happy that we have a 1/32 B-17 that pretty much looks like any B-17 I've ever seen. I can appreciate the desire of those who wish to have every detail perfect, but sometimes it's just not possible in the real world. LSP_Kevin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierry laurent Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I understand but do not think that most changes would really have an impact on the design on the kits. We are mostly considering elements added on the main plane structure, not structural changes. This means the situation is similar from a kit perspective. The only major structural changes have already been considered by HK: tail type, aligned waist guns and nose variations. Frankly, I do no think there is actually a technical challenge. To me the main problem is choosing some specific schemes and finding the relevant combination of internal features and details to reproduce. This was already complicated for a late G. This will be worse for a E/F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancman Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Hannants have now moved the due date out to January Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcben80 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just got my shipping confirmation email from SB. Can't wait to see what's inside that big box! Cheers, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now