Hobby Boss 1/32 B-24J - Initial Observations

[1to1scale]

7 hours ago, Gerhard said:

I like this guy!!!  Came here to post my comments again, but 1to1scale read my mind and beat me to it. 

Thank you, but I’m married already! Two modelers in one household would never work, I’m sure you will find that special someone soon....

[Jan_G]

7 hours ago, PhilB said:

The "plan" posted earlier in this topic is one you can find on google images.

One amongst many and if anybody would like to google "B24 wing aerofoil" and then look at the images, you will see plenty of versions, most of which make the one posted earlier look quite exaggerated.

As I said previously, people shouldn't go throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because of a plan posted on here taken from the web posted by "Kativ.eu" whoever they are?

totaly agree Phil!

I'm not B-24 expert and cannot comment on accuracy of different sources regarding the profile. My picture was intended to show what we were discussing. Not to make any expert judgement on it. I personally don't care about the wing profile and I'm definitely not rivet counter

jan

[LSP_K2]

1 hour ago, Jan_G said:

totaly agree Phil!

I'm not B-24 expert and cannot comment on accuracy of different sources regarding the profile. My picture was intended to show what we were discussing. Not to make any expert judgement on it. I personally don't care about the wing profile and I'm definitely not rivet counter

jan

 

I'm with you there, 100%. While I'll probably never end up with the kit, if I did, it looks enough like a B-24 to me that I'd be absolutely satisfied with it, and I can guarantee no one that I know would recognize it as incorrect, nor would they care.

[Markjames1968]

Not saying the kit is right here, ill leave that to those who think they know what they are talking about,  BUT, i think most people even those that have drawn the plans, seem to me  have mistaken the crosssection of a ‘Davis wing ‘

 

the wing is a laminar flow wing that intersects the heavily Radiused shoulder of the fuselage and hence if vieved from any angle other than a DIRECT side view, would appear to have a concave top section behind tye max depth point on the aerofoil. Im pretty sure that the aerofiol might have a very straight section at this point that again due to optical illusions of other curves in the area make it seem ‘concave’

 

The kit may or may not be right, i will reserve judgment till its in my hands but you need far more accurate info than the terribly limited stuff that has so far been offered as much of the wing fuselage upper join is a complex intersection 

[wunwinglow]

[wunwinglow]

https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord/davis_corrected.dat

[Dave Williams]

That’s a nice drawing, but what’s the original source of data?  Unless it’s an official engineering drawing from Consolidated, or the NACA, or  Bureau of Aeronautics, I’m not sure how accurate it is.  It doesn’t seem quite right compared to the numerous pictures of real B-24s shown in this thread.

 

OTOH, it may be correct, but I believe the B-24s wing was set at a slightly over +3 degree angle of incidence, which is what may be throwing the look off, whereas the drawing is shown at a 0 degree angle.

Edited December 2, 2018 by Dave Williams

[petrov27]

I'd love to see how it compares with existing kits out there; anyone have the 1/72 Hasegawa and/or the 1/48 Monogram and could trace the airfoil at the root for those kits

 

Its not really a show stopper for me; I am more interested to see what aftermarket (especially turrets) comes out for it.

 

On that note, does anyone have the Tigger vac form B-24 and can comment on what the clear vac turrets are like with that kit?

[titan]

I had the Tigger B-24 for a while.  The turrets were one-piece and clear.  As far as accuracy I can't comment but I do remember and Emerson-sytel nose turret shape.

[Pup7309]

10 hours ago, petrov27 said:

I'd love to see how it compares with existing kits out there; anyone have the 1/72 Hasegawa and/or the 1/48 Monogram and could trace the airfoil at the root for those kits

 

Its not really a show stopper for me; I am more interested to see what aftermarket (especially turrets) comes out for it.

 

On that note, does anyone have the Tigger vac form B-24 and can comment on what the clear vac turrets are like with that kit?

The 72 Hasegawa seems to have greater alfoil depth, will have to check the Revell 48

[Markjames1968]

14 hours ago, wunwinglow said:

looks right to me other than lack of incidence  , as can be seen, NO 'concave 'portion on the upper rear half of aerofoil as so many thinks there is...…, this aerofoil coupled with the heavy shoulder height intersection causes some odd optical effects if not viewed from 100% abeam of the aircraft

Edited December 3, 2018 by Markjames1968

[wunwinglow]

This is a plot of the aerofoil, so if the wing was mounted on the aircraft at an angle, that would be a separate issue. The profile wouldn't change.....  However, note the section may well change along the wing, and it may/probably will be twisted along its length, usually reducing incidence as it gets further outboard. This is so the wing will stall later at the tip, for any given angle, and the pilot will keep some aileron authority, while the stall starts at the root, giving him plenty of warning things are getting interesting and he ought to start doing something about it....

 

The section IS a very interesting one, it was at the forefront of aerodynamic knowledge when it was used on the B24, and it IS fundamental to the success of this bomber at that time. I would be very uncomfortable making a model where the primary reason for the aircraft being the aircraft it was, is poorly represented. I haven't seen the kit, so I'll reserve comment on the kit bits until then, but for me, if it was seriously out of shape, it would put a real damper on the idea of getting one. Something like that would need at the very least a new wing top surface, tip to tip, and that would be a major, major job. For me, anyway.....

Edited December 3, 2018 by wunwinglow

[Radub]

I have a couple of observations.

First of all, I am waiting for the "Ploesti" boxing and I intend to hang mine from the ceiling. So, given that I will mostly see the bottom of the plane, I can ignore any (therefore unseen) potential issues with the wing profile. 

Second of all, let us wait for the plastic and then assess it. At this stage we are comparing photos of the plastic parts against photos of the real thing and relying on drawings found on the internet. Comparing plastic to photos is seldom a good idea. Do you remember this case of such research?: 

 

Let us take a deep breath here, count to ten. 

Radu 

[D Bellis]

2 hours ago, Markjames1968 said:

as can be seen, NO 'concave 'portion on the upper rear half of aerofoil as so many thinks there is...…

I hope you're being sarcastic, because the upper line aft of 60% is most definitely "concave". If you're serious, maybe you might try printing it out and putting a ruler across those two points if you're unable to see the curve on your screen. 

 

D

 

 

[wunwinglow]

Judge the provenance for yourselves....

 

https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/coord_database.html

 

I'd trust this source, but you HAVE to understand how these ideal aerodynamic mathematical forms are sometimes changed when turned into aluminium. But for our purposes, I would suggest these are a damned sight closer than squinting at digital pixelated copies of 3rd generation photos....