Jump to content
belcherbits

Hobby Boss 1/32 B-24D

Recommended Posts

It's really a bit sad Hobbyboss and or Trumpeter don't spend a bit more time here on this site.  There is a ton of info passed on here for free (many thanks), and the supplied knowledge is amazing.  The kits in question are not inexpensive as we all know and it just seems that the companies used really bad photos, no line drawings or other type of aircraft info, then inputed it to a Cad Cam system, and them had the system generate the model, then the molds from that.  

 

We all know that they did a terrible design on the turrets by creating them the way they did and allowing a seam line in clear plastic, not to mention the large alignment pins inside the turrets. 

 

There is plenty of info on this aircraft for free, all of which could have been used by them to formulate a better overall model.  Especially one of this size and scale. 

 

I guess they could have just paid Hasegawa the rights to up scale their 1/72 versions, as they overall appear to have a better overall look, especially the way Hasegawa did the turrets. 

 

The way they were done by Hobbyboss, is a bit of a insult to modelers in general IMO. 

 

Paul C 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jack said:

.....sometimes i really get fed up with  this BS ........just build the damn thing, all this bickering about accuracy, inches wise, this-too-wide-this too-narrow, this not being realistic, blah blah blah..........IT'S A HOBBY FOR PETE SAKE..............enjoy assembling it............

 

No one is making you read it.......sit back and have a (insert your favorite beverage here) and take a break. As you said it's a hobby.  :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly each of us should be allowed to build in the manor in which they personally enjoy most, weather that is simply building a kit OOB, or taking a kit and super detailing it, or modifying it so its accurate to the 99th percentile. 

 

There are different people who enjoy each, and I really don't see anything at all wrong with discussing accuracy or close tolerances in a kit, if done in a honest and respectful manor......generally with kit in hand or someone you know with it in hand. 

 

Let's just not turn this into another rivet counters VS just build it, I'm going to head that off at the pass right now, as ther is no need since there is no "wrong way" to make models. 

I'm in the middle on the HB B-24 not unlike most any kit myself, as I want to know all and any faults, but will likely choose not to fix some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nmayhew said:

need a new rear turret for that one

Okay? From what I've read on the interweb the IIIA was a lend lease machine with U.S. armament, as opposed to the III which had .303s and the BP rear turret? :wacko:

Clarification would be much appreciated - don't want to bugger around with this project any more than I have to.

Thanks in advance.

Edited by CharmyDown
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CharmyDown said:

Okay? From what I've read on the interweb the IIIA was a lend lease machine with U.S. armament, as opposed to the III which had .303s and the BP rear turret? :wacko:

Clarification would be much appreciated - don't want to bugger around with this project any more than I have to.

Thanks in advance.


Don’t know about that, but the aircraft shown in that photo clearly has the BP rear turret.  You can see two gun barrels, one above the other, and the curved turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jack said:

.....sometimes i really get fed up with  this BS ........just build the damn thing, all this bickering about accuracy, inches wise, this-too-wide-this too-narrow, this not being realistic, blah blah blah..........IT'S A HOBBY FOR PETE SAKE..............enjoy assembling it............

 

+1!!!!! +1!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:


Don’t know about that, but the aircraft shown in that photo clearly has the BP rear turret.  You can see two gun barrels, one above the other, and the curved turret.

Thanks Dave,

I agree with your observations, I'll  probably leave it as is, but by the time I get round to doing this someone might have brought out a replacement. Total respect to our cousins across the pond regards this airframe and this kit's issues.

I'm going to reserve my anal retentiveness for such things like Hurricanes, Spitfires & Lancasters. :P

It's going to look impressive I've no doubt any way. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received my kit some days ago and I'm still torn back and forth wheather to build it just as it is. Even when built out of the box, it can't be mistaken to anything else than a B-24. But then, there are some shape issues, and once I'm aware of them, they bother me :doh:

I noticed that at the fuselage-area, where the nosewheel-well starts,  the fuselage cross-section is widest at about middle hight, which looks OK to me (what does not mean that it has to be accurate). But at the area where the glass-nose begins, the kit cross-section is widest at about the lower third, while on the real thing, it should be widest at about the upper third of its hight (taking the photo 32scalelover posted on page 1 of this thread as reference).

 

I'm just thinking out loud but it might be possible to draw a 3d-model of a new front section, from the nose-tip to the forward end of the wheel-well, which adresses the shape issues. Since almost all internal structure of the kit just starts at the forward end of the wheel-well, not too much surgery would be necessary other than removing the forward section from the kit's fuselage. But what about the clear nose? Vacuforming comes to mind. Again, just thinking out loud, but maybe I'll give it a try.

 

Here, the area where the wheelwell starts, is marked with thin tape. I tried to get the spape of this area using a profile-gauge. On the right you can see the cross-section where the glass-nose starts, showing the problem that it is widest at about the lower third of its hight.

 

Fc8CjHk.jpg

 

Cheers

Alex

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have entertained thoughts of buying this "D" kit, now not so sure.  I would like to see a profile shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the build I'd argument. But when a kit costs over 200 dollars it should be right. Not wasting time fixing a lazy companies poor effort. I own a 3d3pdrinter and  shouldnt need to make parts to fix what l pay for already. Its not hard do it right then do it once. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Phantom said:

I understand the build I'd argument. But when a kit costs over 200 dollars it should be right. Not wasting time fixing a lazy companies poor effort. I own a 3d3pdrinter and  shouldnt need to make parts to fix what l pay for already. Its not hard do it right then do it once. 

 

And there it is “its not hard to do it right”.

That sweet chestnut the should be sent to the dustbin of history never to be seen or heard from ever again.

If its not that hard id recommend you go chat with Peter Jackson about just how difficult it is to do right even with basically unlimited funds, on tap research information at your fingertips and an incredibly talented design team.

IIRC the figure used was a quarter of a million in software costs in 5 programs to “get it right”.

5 tries to get the Fokker D VII correct, 5 different CAD design programs, training courses etc.

Oh its insanely more difficult to get right.

Whats even funnier is the Monogram 1/48th B-24 which is just as wrong in the reverse way from a nose fuselage section point of view has never seen a single bad word spoken of it.

Funny that hey...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Phantom said:

I understand the build I'd argument. But when a kit costs over 200 dollars it should be right.

 

What bothers me most about this kind of thread is - how do you know it is right? Most drawings in books are about as accurate as model kits - someone other than Consolidated drew it, so how did they arrive at what they drew?

 

Photographs are notoriously difficult to get accurate shapes from, so they don't really help either

 

Best bet is go and measure some real planes and check the kit against that

 

And who is going to do that?

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RLWP said:

 

What bothers me most about this kind of thread is - how do you know it is right? Most drawings in books are about as accurate as model kits - someone other than Consolidated drew it, so how did they arrive at what they drew?

 

Photographs are notoriously difficult to get accurate shapes from, so they don't really help either

 

Best bet is go and measure some real planes and check the kit against that

 

And who is going to do that?

 

Richard

 

Or you can study the available references (some of which are quite comprehensive), pictures and data from SME’s and make an informed decision for yourself.    

 

Or just uniformly write off any criticism of a favored model or manufacturer as nothing more than fake news that can never be verified unless you have unrestricted access to the real thing.   

Edited by John1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If manufacturers care about accuracy, they should be the ones who go out and measure against the real thing before they make the kit.  Some do, like Tamiya.  But, not everyone has the time and money to do that, and you can still make a fairly decent kit in most cases, given the multitude of references available today.  That said, a number of the things that get criticized are things that are somewhat obvious in photos.  In this case, there is a dead on hi-res photo of the nose of a B-24D freely available on the internet.  If someone wants to go out and measure the real nose and prove HB got it right, or if HB wants to come here and say they got it right and why, it would be great.  But until that proof appears, people are going to assume it’s wrong.  Right or not, that’s the reality of these things usually work.

Edited by Dave Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent a bit time on the nose, and printed a new basic forward fuselage section and a mould for vacuforming. The mold required some sanding after printing to get rid of some ugly edges. Of course, no guaranty for accuracy, but I like the overall look compared to the shape of the kit's parts.

 

vT7ISKx.png

 

Gj9rGSh.png

 

CjR1fVJ.png

 

YhCDs8q.jpg

 

wbcwKLB.jpg

 

Cheers

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...