LSP_Ray Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 My current solution to all this is going to be to wait for the D! Probably the wing wont be fixed but no front turret problem. nmayhew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 On 12/18/2018 at 10:49 AM, Maxim said: This is the supposedly correct Monogram 1/48 (picture borrowed from earlier in this thread). How about doing the same thing and imposing that "accurate" line drawing taken from the web on the wingroot profile on this one? Be interesting to see how accurate the Monogram is too? nmayhew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maxim Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Define accurate drawing. Most drawings are inaccurate as they are someones interpretation. Laying a drawing over a photo is inaccurate at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, Maxim said: Define accurate drawing. Most drawings are inaccurate as they are someones interpretation. Laying a drawing over a photo is inaccurate at best. Exactly my point. It has been posted that the line drawing is "accurate" so if that's the case I'd like a comparison to see how the Monogram holds up as it is said to be an accurate model. Kagemusha and nmayhew 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexM Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 According to Wikipedia, the airfoil of the B-24 is described as Davis 22% / Davis 9.3%. As far as I understand it, the percentage means the relation between the chord line (something lile the width/length of the profile) and the maximal thicknes of the profile. That would mean that at the wing root, thickness of the profile is relatively high with 22 %, and at the wing tip relativly much thinner with 9,3 %. So the profiles at different positions of the wing are not similar in a geometrickal sense, meaning they are not just scaled to each other. The relation between width and thickness chanches at every postion of the wing, which makes it difficult to compare one certain Davis profile to a randomly chosen wing-postion of a model kit. I don't know if this drawing is accurate, but it illustrates the chanches of the relation between width and thickness of the wing: http://kativ.eu/ivohobby//Airplanes/1-48/B-24D Liberator - 1-48 Revell/Drawings/B-24J wing sections.jpg Iain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconspit Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 ...i‘m really tempted, on EBay Germany it sells for 118€... Kagemusha and Dave T 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pup7309 Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, AlexM said: I don't know if this drawing is accurate, but it illustrates the chanches of the relation between width and thickness of the wing: http://kativ.eu/ivohobby//Airplanes/1-48/B-24D Liberator - 1-48 Revell/Drawings/B-24J wing sections.jpg Excellent point. If you look at ‘T’ which I believe is the wing root it looks as though, if accurate, Monogram got it right. The truth is out there, we just need to be looking at the correct info. Edited December 22, 2018 by Pup7309 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigels modelling bench Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) Hi everyone.. it's been a long time!! I just popped by to see what you guys make of this new release from HB. I have actually done an in-box on my You Tube channel.. here.. I read with interest your comments on the wing profile, turrets and u/c legs. In my opinion the turrets are a mess and will need to be replaced or looked at with squinted eyes. The wing profile .. I hadn't noticed, but now I know it will bother me. In my opinion, HB were going to make metal legs to be inserted into the plastic parts, then changed their minds.. probably a financial decision?? I havent seen this kit built yet, but in pictures it looks OK to me. It's certainly a lot better than the HKM B-17 which in my opinion is a mess. The wing profile on that kit is too fat in my opinion..... (But we best leave that one, it gets my back up)!! If you know me, you'll know why. As for the wing profile.. if you want to have a go at correcting it, it will at least be made easier for you as there is no root moulding on the fuselage. I recently put together a comparison review of the AMT, Revell and Modelcollect B-52's. I mentioned the mess of the wing shape on the MC kit and got slated for it. I've realised we must tread carefully when looking at shape errors on kits. In my opinion, it needs to "look" right. I have been burned too many times by following "accurate" drawings. As a sideline.. if you have the HKM Lanc, check every sprue. Due to their awful packaging my kit had broken fuselage parts. Edited December 22, 2018 by Nigels modelling bench Rick Griewski, Kagemusha, Iain and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 3 hours ago, AlexM said: According to Wikipedia, the airfoil of the B-24 is described as Davis 22% / Davis 9.3%. As far as I understand it, the percentage means the relation between the chord line (something lile the width/length of the profile) and the maximal thicknes of the profile. That would mean that at the wing root, thickness of the profile is relatively high with 22 %, and at the wing tip relativly much thinner with 9,3 %. So the profiles at different positions of the wing are not similar in a geometrickal sense, meaning they are not just scaled to each other. The relation between width and thickness chanches at every postion of the wing, which makes it difficult to compare one certain Davis profile to a randomly chosen wing-postion of a model kit. I don't know if this drawing is accurate, but it illustrates the chanches of the relation between width and thickness of the wing: http://kativ.eu/ivohobby//Airplanes/1-48/B-24D Liberator - 1-48 Revell/Drawings/B-24J wing sections.jpg Indeed - 22% should be the thickness/chord ratio - on a quick measure it looks like the kit is almost bang-on root thickness wise (don't set this in concrete just yet) - but the shape needs tweaking. As said, will ponder on this over next week, or so. Nige - great to see you back! Are you going to dive in and build? Iain Rick Griewski and alanash1963 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Griewski Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 19 hours ago, nmayhew said: wow that turret looks like the gunner and his girlfriend are having a 'moment' - thinking love scene in the car in the film Titanic!! Good imagination. I rarely associate anything with the Titanic except rearranging deck chairs. nmayhew, alanash1963 and Nigels modelling bench 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigels modelling bench Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Iain (32SIG) said: Indeed - 22% should be the thickness/chord ratio - on a quick measure it looks like the kit is almost bang-on root thickness wise (don't set this in concrete just yet) - but the shape needs tweaking. As said, will ponder on this over next week, or so. Nige - great to see you back! Are you going to dive in and build? Iain Hi Iain, Thanks for the welcome comments. I probably won't dive in just yet. i think I'll wait for the AM to do some turrets. I'll bet Hph are making moulds as we write?? As for the wing, I look forward to your comments.. I am thinkimg perhaps some deep scoring on the inner surfaces of the wings, then "wrap" the plastic around some correctly sized ribs, perhaps 3D printed?? Another wing related observation, just comparing the 1/48 and 1/32 parts here on the bench.. the fairing behind the landing gear opening is much less pronounced on the HB vs the Monogram?? I must say, I'm surprised Eduard havent announced ANYTHING for this or the Lanc yet?? Remember when the B-25/17 came out, they had sets mentioned before the kit was released. Question.. I have some Mk1 design AN-64 500lb bombs in metal. Would these be correct for this kit? Edited December 22, 2018 by Nigels modelling bench Iain and alanash1963 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pup7309 Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 20 hours ago, 1to1scale said: Already in progress. Yikes. Thanks picture tells 1000 words... P.S. Looks like a tight fit for the gunner. Definitely no room for Kate Winslet. nmayhew, Rick Griewski, alanash1963 and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 58 minutes ago, Gloucester Nige said: As for the wing, I look forward to your comments.. I am thinkimg perhaps some deep scoring on the inner surfaces of the wings, then "wrap" the plastic around some correctly sized ribs, perhaps 3D printed?? Along those lines possibly - yes. Removal of strengthening webs on mouldings - then framework of ribs/longerons to replace, whilst still working with kit spar. From other projects you can do quite a bit of bending on styrene mouldings as you form around new shapes and bond in position - I did this to flatten the belly on the Revell Spitfire very successfully. A friend, who frequents these forums, was playing with digital cutting of styrene sheet to make interlocking wing spars/ribs for a scratch-build project and it worked perfectly - so poss draw up on computer and go similar route. All *very* early days yet - just thinking aloud... Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSP_Mike Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 Thanks for all the input so far. At least we are seeing some images, and getting some ideas flowing. No assumptions regarding the kit; each will decide what to do on their own. As I said earlier, we have some pretty talented modelers, and we're bound to find some solutions. Rick Griewski and alanash1963 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomprobert Posted December 22, 2018 Share Posted December 22, 2018 (edited) The option mentioned earlier in the thread of using either the Combat or Tigger vacform wings would, in my opinion, create more work than the benefits would be worth. For a start, the vacformed kits are devoid of all surface detail so full scribing/riveting would be needed to match the fuselage. Then you have got to graft the HB nacelles onto the vac wing. Wheel bays and flaps/ailerons need scratch building - unless the HB parts can be used. You’d also have to fathom a way of sparring the wing, and getting a decent join to the fuselage... In short, if the wing issue really bothers you that much, it’s likely easier to try to mod the HB wing. Edited December 22, 2018 by tomprobert Iain and Rick Griewski 2 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