Which 1/72nd B-17G better , Airfix or Revell/Germany ?

.

Joined: February 3rd, 2004, 5:28 am

June 12th, 2018, 4:22 pm #11

I like them both for different reasons. I will always enjoy building Revell kits, there's just some nostalgia about building their stuff, even though it's "new." Yes, it does have deep panel lines, and some of the shapes are a tad off (it needs some TLC to make it a little more accurate, but stuff like the wing profile really can't be easily fixed), but it sure looks like a B-17 when it's done. The Airfix kit builds nice, but the wings and nacelles are a little fiddly. It could also need a few more panel lines scribed onto it, which is easy enough. And, as others have noted, the Airfix kit handcuffs you to a pretty specific and small set of B-17's, relatively speaking, that you can build straight from the box. Here's a few photos... Sweet 17 (OR-S) and Priority Gal (OR-C) are the Revell kit, while Cheri (OR-W) is the Airfix kit. The Revell kits were easy enough to convert to wheels up, while the Airfix kit comes with the parts in the box to do so.

- Dennis S.
  Thornton, CO USA 18076858_10101904968634802_7190005139983344017_o.jpg 18076779_10101904969967132_1376050637812537611_o.jpg 18076629_10101904969148772_1344675239274895558_o.jpg
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:39 am

June 12th, 2018, 10:49 pm #12

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.  
This. ^^

M.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 28th, 2006, 2:51 am

June 12th, 2018, 10:57 pm #13

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".

Thanks.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 19th, 2013, 2:03 am

June 13th, 2018, 12:18 pm #14

The panel lines underneath the cockpit on the Revell kit look out of scale and don't match the surface detailing on the rest of the kit. It just jumps out at me.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:39 am

June 13th, 2018, 12:57 pm #15

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!
Is the Monogram kit that bad, or is it moreso simply lacking in detail in some areas?

M.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 12th, 2004, 3:14 pm

June 13th, 2018, 2:07 pm #16

Airfix. I would not even consider the Revell kit, whcih looks like it was made out of badly fitting Legos.  The surface detailing alone is so bad it negates any possible detail advantage (that you probably couldn't see anyway).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 31st, 2010, 6:01 am

June 13th, 2018, 5:04 pm #17

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  
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 26th, 2005, 5:39 am

June 13th, 2018, 10:04 pm #18

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".

Thanks.
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. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 1st, 2005, 3:39 am

June 13th, 2018, 10:26 pm #19

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  
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.

M.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 31st, 2010, 6:01 am

June 14th, 2018, 1:55 am #20

Too true Matt, too true.I wish I could understand the thinking of kit makers when they spend all the money on R&D and tool-making and not bother to do it right. I'm a model railroader too, and they'll cut a die with gross errors and make 'em by the mile and cut them off by the yard also.
Quote
Like
Share