Jeff Dick Actually for the most part spot on. I won't go into the interior too much in either case.
Monogram clearly states: "This accurately detailed model was designed from authentic drawings and photos of the B-17G. Also much technical information was furnished by Boeing Historical Services."
Now that was 45 years ago! Also a lot of the photos were taken from a "Gate Guard", consequently there are a few mistakes, that are easily fixed or modified. I am going to be brutally honest with no bias. Pros: Dimensions, cross sections, sweep angles, airframe geometry, are spot on. Complex shapes like fin, rudder, elevator and horizontals and wing tips, all match Boeing drawings. Propellers are excellent, engines are good, transparency placement and shapes match, navigation, formation and identification lights are molded on, but at least they're there. Pitot tubes are included, accurate and placed correctly. Markings provided are accurate for the production numbers.
Here are what I call "Modern Cons": Transparencies have distortions on the compounded curves, only one style of nose glazing, longer F style glazing was also used. Nine O Nine had both during its career, as did many others. surface detail is raised, trailing edges too thick, fabric detail was cool in its day, but is over scaled, no separate flaps, and the inner end of the flap panel line needs to be moved inward and corrected as per blueprint dimensions, the tail wheel/strut needs replacing, the wing vents are the early style (B-E), and as such, no Tokyo tank fillers. Missing wheel well detail, placement of main oleo to wing is 1 scale foot too deep, no ducts behind the oil cooler and inter cooler intakes. Missing inspection windows on chin turret and no zippers. Rudder access panels repeated on starboard side, there should only be one, just under the lower hinge. (Airfix 1/72 B-17 decals repeat this error, but so easy to correct haha). No separate Bomb bay details or doors on pre visible kits, on visible and on, racks go right to the top of the turtle deck, the bomb bay bulkheads are not angled back to 3.5 degrees, and the panel lines do not follow this. All very easy fixes, no major surgery required.
HK Modern pros: recessed panel lines (not recessed on real B-17), recessed rivets? (not recessed on any aircraft, period). Flattened and bulging tires, main wheel well details, tail wheel details? Slotted and more accurate main wing vents, separate flaps, open cowl flaps. Ducts for oil cooler and inter cooler intakes, clear wingtip nav lights. Separate entrance hatches. Nice top and ball turrets.
HK Modern cons: Not based on Boeing's blueprints, drawings or dimensions. Consequently the wing geometry is wrong, the complex outlines of the fin, rudder, wingtips are wrong. Fuselage cross sections too large, (fat fuselage), wing is not NACA 0018 at root, or 0010 at tip attachment. Fuselage angle from aft radio room is wrong, it puts the aircraft centre datum line over a scale foot too high at the end of the tail turret, meaning the fuselage is angled too far down, from the aft radio room bulkhead. The wing tips are the wrong shape and with the single nav light on the edge are only for a very late G, Even though it is covered in recessed/drilled out rivets, the patterns don't jive with the real thing, partly because of the incorrect shape and outline of the majority of the kit, and the individual responsible for adding rivet details to the Granger drawings. The trailing edge forward sweep angle is 1 degree out, causing the tip cord at attachment to be a foot to long. (Fat wing). Missing all seven of the formation lights, no nav lights on the fin, no blinker lights on the tail turret end plate, no identification lights! CIA B-17? Spurious panels and antennas from a Warbird. No pitot tubes! Position, shape of oil cooler intakes too high and close together. No deicer boot outlines, remember it's supposed to be an early G! What are those huge long slots on the back of the chin turret, running right through to the centre of the bottom supposed to be? Gear down oleos are fully extended, so inflight gear down or on jacks would be ok. The inside details of the bomb bay ceiling and doors And bulkheads are covered in ejector pin marks. The bomb bay bulkheads are integral with the wing spars, and as such should be angled back 3.5 degrees, actually quite noticeable on the real thing and Boeing drawings, externally the rivet patterns should follow the slope back also. The nose glazing has distortions, and the attachment cross section is too slab sided, narrowing to much, it just isn't right, additionally the early G had both long F style noses and the normal one as the kit supplies. The raised surface of the wing tank fillers and outer wing and tip connector covers are too high, easy fix. The turtle deck is too wide, because of the rest of the fuselage being too fat. The propeller blades have no twist. Vectors or Monogram is the way to go. The engines are missing details and providing other spurious ones. The exhausts visible on the outside nacelles of 2 & 3 are very late style, which would have shrouds covering them anyway, the majority of the the G's used the early glycol heating system (woefully inadequate), with the #2 exhaust having the tubing for that running back and forth along the outside, as per the Monogram kit. The separate flaps are not detailed even close to correctly, and the hinge is completely bogus, all B-17's had zap flaps, not split flaps. In other words, the leading edge of the flap was pushed further back as the flap lowered to 45 degrees, photos clearly show this. Split flaps are hinged at the leading edge and don't push back. Fuel tank drain blisters too small. Some access panels completely missing, or misshapen. I have probably missed a few things, either way if you were to take photos of the completed HK B-17's either scale, and completed Monogram or Revell B-17's and compare both to photos of the real thing, I can say with absolute certainty, that the HK B-17 will fail miserably. Sorry for the late long answer, but others will read this also. Why in heaven's name, HK did not follow Boeing's blueprints, drawings or photos, is beyond me! There are some modellers who love the HK B-17's. For the price point, along with the omissions and glaring issues, I would rather spend the extra time and money on the Monogram B-17G, and some detail sets, to easily outclass the HK by leaps and bounds. I am an old guy, and my daughter is helping me setup a blog with Wordpress, which will hopefully be up and running in January. There I will provide photos, to clearly illustrate the points I have made, plus several more. And for the Lancaster aficionados, just sock away and wait for the Wingnut Wings Lancasters, I am.
21. December 2019 at 02:28:06
Boeing
May 1943 | FS36173 FS34087 FS34092 FS34201
All kidding aside, thanks for the in depth comparision. "Counting Rivets" will never be for me, but you are making me feel a lot better about the Revell B-17 in my stash. Looking forward to your blog on this!
9+
12+
Neuwied
Viña del Mar
JohnE
Fluegelmann
sachin_bradman
vercorsman
seth9229
Peter 47
Panzerjager
vepe
Korcan
Evil Carrot
2-33 Pilot
JivkoDjakov
Staaken
flutte
prunotto
Aref
perseus
karelhawk
Jagdtiger
LawnMowr
