Link: Copy link
This. ^^Lynn Ritger wrote: The biggest issue with the Revell kit, and the one thing that really jumps out at folks who know Forts, is that the wing is too thick, which completely throws off the proportions of the mid-fuselage. Well, "completely" is relative- I mean, it still looks like a B-17, obviously, it didn't magically transform into a Short Stirling.
Is the Monogram kit that bad, or is it moreso simply lacking in detail in some areas?Whitneyville wrote: If I recall correctly, the ROG has a slight parts count edge, and detail (that's hidden when built!) of the "bridge frame" wing structure. From a kit-building/ finished model standpoint, the Airfix "looks more like a Queen". Either is far better than the old Hasagawa or sadly, the 1/48th Monogram. Enjoy!
Well, yeah, it is enough for some, because that's exactly where my judgment was made. I don't know if it's the nose profile, or the set of the wing, or even the thickness of the the wing, ro some combo thereof, but the Revell looks distorted to me. Precise measurements regarding thickness or set or profile are wonderful, but sensitivity to shape doesn't always translate, and besides that, we then get scads of photos with red lines on them, or dueling drawings, and that muddies rather than resolves. This is inherently subjective anyway--not everyone has the same shape sensitivity with regard to a B-17 or a Spitfire, as opposed to a 109 or a FW 190, where pretty much anything goes for me, so the key is to look at built-up examples and make your own judgment. The value of this thread is that people can point out plusses and minuses to both kits. For some, what's going to matter more is that the Airfix is a late-production G, and the Revell suits for earlier versions. This is particularly relevant for folks who prefer not to deal with NMF on a 4-engined bomber.Nav1Bill wrote: I'm not sure "looks off" is definitive enough to make a choice. Paul Boyer's build notes are probably the most useful. Not sure the bias from those involved in the research or production of one of the kits makes for an honest review.
I'd like to see some accurate figures or detailed discussions about the areas that "look off" or are "too thick".
RP, I am also closing in on being 40 year old tooling, scary; four of the Queens sit on my shelves awaiting their turn, along with a pair of Flying Boxcars. As we both know one of the most enduring debates on the boards is the possibility of a new tooled Fortress in 48th scale and what that would look like in terms of tooling, cost, accuracy, etc etc etc; would not be a simple result no matter the efforts.Whitneyville wrote: Matt, the 1/48 Monogram is forty-year-old tooling and looks it. It's detail level is on par with the 50 year-old 1/72 Airfix, except without movable control surfaces. The Monogram is like a poor shell to pour photo-etch and resin parts into. I plan on building the new 1/72 Airfix, but I built the Monogram for my late employer who was a "Queen" pilot out of North Africa. In the early 80's, the Monogram was the only 1/48 in town, and Mr. Roberts thought the world of me doing his aircraft, but I was disappointing back then with it.
Remember, there were about as many B-17G-05's and later marks built as all others combined, so Airfix chose the most produced aircraft to make.
I'm looking forward to Airfix's take on "The Pregnant Cow", the B-24-J. The nick-names I use are from WWII aircrew veterans I have known. Very sadly, all of them are gone now.-Ricky-Pooh