Not a whole lot interesting stuff here but Robert Hargrave expressed some interest in my 1/72 B-52 project. Some old hands here may remember this as a model actualy started in 2003 but it got sidelined by my major surgery that spring. And the size of it makes painting indoors difficult so I work on it sporadically...though I actually did some primer work on it today. New photo from a few hours ago:

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/208/b52a8ns.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

The long delays have proven to be a blessing in disguise as they have highlighted some areas of concern that would not have been discovered prior to painting. This kit is large and isn't the greatest fit so there are a lot of seams and big glue joints. Several of those joints have shrunk over a period of months and I'll have a chance now to repair them before final paint.

Why paint and not metalizer? The kit is big, awkward, and needs a lot of handling. Metalizer might be more accurate but I don't need the pain on a model this size.

BTW, this is the AMT B-52G. It has Hound dog missiles (built but not shown in the photos). This kit was known to have a "defect" in that the wings are set in the "in-flight" attitude and don't have the proper droop for an aircraft on the ground. for that reason, I will display this on a stand.

(another photo to follow)

Here's a new detail photo so you can get a better look at the surface of the aircraft. AMT actually did a nice job on the detail work. As I mentioned, the plane is somewhat ill-fitting so some filling and rescribing is necessary. This shows the area of the hound dog pylon and the engine where I've done some of that filling and rescribing to preserve detail.


http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/4255/b52c6yw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Nice job! The B-52 is one of my favorites. I built the old Monogram 1/72 B-52D several years ago, but no longer have it. Have you built the Monogram kit? If so, how does the AMT kit compare to it?

Last time I built the Monogram kit, both me and the B-52 were teenagers!

As I recall, the Monogram kit was really very nice. It was slightly more detailed than the AMT kit (which has solid wings with no flap detail). Monogram kits were always very good for getting the shape right. The Monogram probably fit a bit better and it didn't suffer from the unusual four part fuselage that AMT used in order to make multiple versions. And the Monogram kit also had better wing attitude so that the model would sit properly on it's main gear and outriggers. A very good kit.

But the raised panel lines on the Monogram kit are a big drawback. When you get a kit this big, you are going to have to deal with seams no matter how nicely things go tegether. Raised panel lines are very difficult to deal with in such a situation. It's not a major issue on a small aircraft where you might only have to repair a few panel lines on the back of the fuselage. But when you have a big model, you have to do seam work on a 2 foot long fuselage with 6 inch wing roots.

Even though the Monogram kit is a great kit, I give a slight edge to the AMT kit because the engraved panel lines are much easier to deal with when you have to fill seams and do repair work.

How about a 1/72 Slim Pickens in the cockpit? :tongue: (sorry, I just watched the SE of Dr. Strangelove this morning...)

I think Slim Pickens was flying an "H" :)

Brent, it's looking good, even in primer. Mine does not have the open canopy like your kit, and I'm awaiting a reply from Revell / Monogram to see if they have any of the forward canopy windows still sitting around in a drawer somewhere, when my kit came in mine was broken in half. If they are out of them I'll make due. Keep the PICS coming, I love stealing (borrowing) ideas from others......

Does the Monogram Buff still come with that "jet noise" electric motor in the bomb bay? :)

Does the Monogram Buff still come with that "jet noise" electric motor in the bomb bay? :)

The one I built back in the 80's didn't have this feature, but I can't speak for the latest kit re-issues.