Any definitive corrections to the HK B-17 nose in sight?

[Thunderbolt]

On 6/1/2019 at 7:00 AM, LSP_Kevin said:

 

I suspect this refers to Zoukei-Mura's Super Wing Series, usually abbreviated to SWS.

 

Kev

Yes, I meant Zoukei-Mura. 

[Thunderbolt]

On 6/1/2019 at 4:53 AM, vince14 said:

Who are SWS? If you mean WNW, by all means send them an email. I assure you that the reply will be 'Thanks for your interest, we still have many WWI subjects to kit first though' as that's their standard response.

 

I really wouln't hold your breath for a future WNW B-17 (or any other non-WWI subject after the Lanc).

 

I didn't mean WNW, I meant Zoukei-Mura. I had created the post about WNW potentially following suit of their Lancaster with a B-17, which, I do indeed understand, will never happen. 

[Thunderbolt]

The basic problem has been talked about for years already: exaggerated convexity from the 10 to 2 o'clock positions looking at the model head on shifts the HK windscreen up what looks to be at least 1 and as many as 2 mm. It isn't a direct shift upward either; the window proportions are off due to changes in aspect ratio made to accommodate the convexity of the kit nose. Thus, windscreen correction must address (1) relative height of windscreen to windows and (2) absolute windscreen shape relative to reality. 

 

Here is my juxtapositional analysis of the differences between the kit and the reality. 

Caption: 

LOWER: in reality the lower edge of the windscreen is nearly flush with the side windows 

UPPER: in reality the upper edge of windscreen is slightly lower than the windows and the roof is thicker 

HOOD: the hood is noticeably thicker in reality. 

 

If I had the kit, I think I would know what to do. 

 

(I suspect), an effective correction accepts the location of the side windows as truth and uses their location as a reference point to shift the windscreen downward.

- Shifting the windscreen downward would require special attention to both the upper and lower sides. 

- On the upper side, the gap created will need to be filled with plastic card which will thicken the roof more in line with reality. Because thickness is being added to a slope, the windscreen will shift forward by some small amount, which would need to be reconciled with the fuselage join later.

- On the lower side, the framing to which the clear plastic joins (I.e., the very front, lower part of the turtledeck piece) will need to be flattened (via thinning and bending) to more accurately reflect reality. In all likelihood, the very lower edge of the frame will need to be cut free from the rest of the turtledeck to permit its proper positioning and bending: 

 

 

- The clear plastic would be sacrificed, painted over and glued with the polystyrene hood to permit accurate shaping of the windows, which would be drawn with a sharpie using good photographs, drilled out, and glassed with a clear acetate backing from the inside. At that point, the windscreen would have been corrected, and the major remaining task would be (1) flattening the fuselage and (2) ensuring a clean, accurate join between the fuselage and windscreen. 

 

Regarding how I think the fuselage should be approached, the essential aim would be to remove the entire upper section of the nose, making a flexible "hood" that is very thin to promote flexibility, and shorter on the sides to promote flattening when the sides are re-approximated. 

 

If I did try this, I would assemble the sections outlined in red below, and then cut them out as one unit. Before cutting, I would drill a series of parallel holes on the hood and on the lower 2/3 of the fuselage directly opposed from one another, with the ultimate goal of using a pursestring suture to perfectly reapproximate the edges. As the suture tension is dialed in, the piece flattens to meet the windscreen as desired.

 

 

Flattening can only occur using a tensing technique if the sides get shorter. Thus, I would remove about 0.5 to 1 mm from the lateral edges and then reduce the thickness of the "hood" to near paper to make it as flexible as possible. The point of removing plastic from the edges it to reduces the height of the hood as the edges are reapproximated once again. The fuselage shape is adjusted to accommodate the reduction in windscreen height and the flatness of the lower frame. It may result in a perfect level of flatness, it may not. The correction obeys the windscreen and not the fuselage. the bet is that if the windscreen shape is corrected, the fuselage will follow naturally. 

 

Does this make sense?

 

One day, I will try it and share my work

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by thunderbolt1988

[brahman104]

4 hours ago, thunderbolt1988 said:

The correction obeys the windscreen and not the fuselage. the bet is that if the windscreen shape is corrected, the fuselage will follow naturally. 

 

Does this make sense?

 

One day, I will try it and share my work

 

 

That's a fair assumption, and I'd be inclined to agree with you. At the moment I am undertaking a comparison between the kit and the factory drawings to see if there are any other issues; I'm betting there are. My reference point will be much further back at the #4 bulkhead (which incidentally is on a slightly receding angle when view from the side). 

 

I wish you luck with your corrections and I'll be watching with interest to see how it turns out.

 

Craig

[tomprobert]

You’ve also got the problem of the starboard forward cheek window being too large - the actual aircraft has a smaller window than the rearmost one. HK has both the forward and rear window the same size. 

 

Tom

[Thunderbolt]

7 hours ago, brahman104 said:

 

That's a fair assumption, and I'd be inclined to agree with you. At the moment I am undertaking a comparison between the kit and the factory drawings to see if there are any other issues; I'm betting there are. My reference point will be much further back at the #4 bulkhead (which incidentally is on a slightly receding angle when view from the side). 

 

I wish you luck with your corrections and I'll be watching with interest to see how it turns out.

 

Craig

 

Thanks Craig. Would you be able to share your factory drawings with me?

[ScottsGT]

I'm actually surprised some aftermarket supplier hasn't offered a fix for this.  One that could be done like the 1/72 Space Shuttle kit had for it. Basically a "cap" where you carefully section out an area and replace with the resin part.

[Thunderbolt]

6 hours ago, ScottsGT said:

I'm actually surprised some aftermarket supplier hasn't offered a fix for this.  One that could be done like the 1/72 Space Shuttle kit had for it. Basically a "cap" where you carefully section out an area and replace with the resin part.

 

So am I. 

[nmayhew]

On 5/31/2019 at 6:26 PM, Jennings Heilig said:

1. Invent cold fusion. Perfect electrical power generation using it. Make it ubiquitous around the world.

 

2. Fix HK B-17 nose.

 

vintage Jennings!!

 

[Juggernut]

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.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Juggernut
Inserted additional image(s)

[brahman104]

9 hours ago, thunderbolt1988 said:

 

Thanks Craig. Would you be able to share your factory drawings with me?

 

PM me mate and I'll see what I can provide. Be warned, it's a minefield!

 

Craig