I have built a lot bombers mostly the old Monogram kits.Now I have the pro-modeler Ju-88,JU-217 love the detail in them,but I was wondering out of all the bomber kits out there which one did you like to build.Mine was the Monogram b-24 J.Digger
I just received a new one last night from eBay, the Revell/Monogram P-61 Black Widow. It looks awesome and has great detail. Although it hasn’t been buit, it’s most likely going to be at the top of my list. As well, a few years back I built a B-17G (also from Revell). That kit was a lot of fun.
Ryan
My favourite was the old Airfix B-26. But the B-36 from Monogram was awesome. William Bros’ B-10 would be at the top for originality though…
My biggest disappointment: AMT’s XB-70…
I’ve always loved the Monogram B-26 and the AMT XB-70 Valkyrie. I haven’t finished the XB-70 yet but it’s an impressive aircraft!!!
Just now finishing the old AMT XB-70 (If you see one, grab it, for they make no more) for a store display (a large art supply store in Downtown Brooklyn, of all things), meaning it’s going to hang from the ceiling. The wheels are covered and the in-flight windscreen is in place. I can see where it would be a disappointment to many people, but, like the SR-71, these kits just don’t lend themselves to detail outside he cockpit. They are very large and aerodynamically simple, since lumps, bumps and protrusions on the aerodynamic shape are counterproductive to speed demons like this. I still like my big white monster.
I’m having a lot of fun with Monogram’s B-29 at the moment.
My fave to build would be the Pro Modeler (ex-DML) Ju 88A-4, with the Eduard PE detail set. That was a really nice combo.
My two favorites are the Monogram B-29 and B-36. [:)]
Take care,
Frank
Revell He177.
A stunning kit of a bizarre aircraft.
This was the second kit I picked up last year after returning to the hobby, and in hindsight not such a great choice.
The problem was not the kit, but my lack of experience. Hence I’ll be going back for a second shot with PE and resin flaps etc, maybe as a Baedecker raid machine in all over black with grey.
Karl
Sharkskin,
you are absolutely right, the Valkyrie does not lend itself to superdetailling and amazing, complicated paint jobs… I guess part of the problem I have with this kit lies in the lack of opportunity to do anything out of the ordinary with it, but in general, the kit is still very ‘chunky’… The leading and trailing edges of the wings were my main concerns.
I love the aircraft though and I do wish someone (Academy…??) will one day release it in 1/144.
My fave is still the ol’ Monogram B-17G.
I agree on the old Monogram B-17, 24, 25 and 26. These were always fun kits to build, I stress OLD because I just build the new Revell/Monogram versions and the grad of plastic is poor. It is soft, and they didn’t account ofr skrinkage in the mold when they change the grade because nothing fit worth a darn on bot hthe B-25 and B-26. But they still turned out to be good looking models and I can’t complain about the cost.
I found a large colour photograph, in a history of North American-Rockwell, of an XB-70 returning from a hypersonic flight with huge areas of white paint having flaked off, revealing grey primer (alu. honeycomb structure?) underneath, so that’s how I did mine. Huge amounts of masking, using thin strips of tape, involved.
And yes, I also ended up spending almost as much on filler as I did on the model itself!
Favourite bomber model? ICM 1/72 Sikorsky Ilya Muromets WW1 Heavy Bomber, for all the detail, riggiing, research and work involved! - even down to the Bare Metal Foil window frames!
Chris
Chris, what about posting pictures of this Valkyrie and of this Ilya Murometz…??!
Since I’m a 1/72 kinda guy, I like the limited re-release of the Hasegawa B-17F and G variants… (you know, the ones molded in gray plastic) But I’ve always wanted to do a B-24 and an A-26 in 1/72…
Everyone is selecting the behemoths (B-29, B-36, etc.). I guess size does matter. I must admit myself. The large bombers I have a lot more fun building. If I were to revisit my subject area (too late) I’d probably just build the bombers. I’d go with 1/48 in everything unless the kit just plain did not exist at that size (e.g., B-36).
I’m partial towards the medium bombers, but in the heavies, I enjoyed building Tamiya’s Lancaster in 48th scale. Despite it’s age (same age as all the Monogram bombers in the 70;s and 80’s), I am building another. This time a 617 Sqdn Dambuster. But i do like all the Monogram stuff as well. But my favorite is Tam’s Lancaster. With Monograms A/B-26’s a close second. I also have a couple of AMT’s XB-70. I was 4 yrs old when I saw that baby roll out of the hangar for the 1st time in 1964. Awesome.
Chuck
Fly Navy
Would somebody please give us a 1/48 B-57A or B, or maybe the whole series, starting with Brit originals, going all the way up to the WB-57F. (NASA had the last two flying examples, and they were based at NASA’s Flight Ops Center at Ellington Field, Houston, where they keep their 24 T-38s, the C-135 Vomit Comet and, usually, an old Super Guppy. I remember the first time I saw one of those bizarre WB-57s taxiing out, looking as though the heavily bouncing, wobbling wings would break off at any moment. The crew would be wearng full pressure suits, a la SR-71. And to see them take off was a wonder in itself. So gimme a B-57, any model, since we’re not likely to see anything other than an A or B if we’re lucky at all. And then I want a 1/48 B-47. It wouldn’t be all that big, compared to a 1/72 B-36 or B-52.
And can anyone answer me this: If I can ever solve the problems with my Eduard Profi-pak X-1, I’d love to mount it from a 1/48 Monogram B-29. What, generally speaking, is required to adapt the mother ship? I know there’s a large cut out, and that there is a long stiffener to compensate for the lost structure from the cutout, but beyond that I don’t know. Does anyone make markings for this bird? I seem to recall seeing some, with the stork motif. I’ve read that the X-1 was hung from the B-29 by chains around the fuselage, but if this is so, it seems like a terrible accident waiting to happen. Can someone shed light on this stuff?
Well it was some big straps that held the X-1 in place… at least the first ones.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-1/Large/E-595.jpg
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-1/Large/E49-007.jpg
Here is about the best pic Ive found showing the underbelly of the carrier. Its an X-1 being mated to a B-50. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-1/Large/E51-593.jpg
And heres a nice RC B-29 drop of an X-1
http://www.koolflightsystems.com/images/Mac’s%20B29%20small%20file.mpg
Here is an excellent site about the B-29 mods to carry the X-1.
Let me be sure what I just witnessed on the link I got from DaveB.: A four-engine model of a B-29 takes of, whips around in a sort of Chandelle ending on the straight and level. At that point, completely to my surprise, a bright orange X-1 emerges from the bombay, a rocket motor lights, and the X-1 ascends like the hounds of hell are after it. Then the X-1 makes an absolutely perfect landing, followed by a slow victory roll by the mother ship. Did I just dream that?
How many channels were required to pull that off? And how many controllers?
I thought that recent clip we saw showing the all-jet B-52 was the most impressive RC a/c I’d ever seen. However, this B-29/X-1, based on the sheer elaborateness of its routine – and the perfection of the execution – comes awfully close. Thanks for showing it to me.
TOM