Super detailed 1/48 B-17: Visible B-17 or Cutaway?

I've built both the visible version and a cutaway in the past. Both turned out well, but my preference was for the cutaway because the transparent half tended to glare in direct light. Then again, maybe it was purely a psychological thing - the open areas in the cutaway just seemed to draw people in for a closer look, where they took more notice of the fine details. The plastic allowed for rescribing panel lines and playing around without the challenges of keeping a huge piece of clear plastic free from damage, so I had a little more confidence in performing radical surgery.

Good point.  The other thing I was thinking of with the cutaway, is that you can elect what areas to emphasize with detail.  For example, the tunnel between the cockpit and nose is completely bare and something would have to be done to it from scratch with the clear half fuselage. 

I would like to do the nose and cockpit cutaways on the starboard side, since most B-17s had their nose art only on the port side and it would be a shame to cut that out.  Any reason why that would be difficult, based on your previous cutaway?  Also, do you have a build thread or pictures of that project? 

You can always use the visible kit to do a cutaway, that way you will get more details right from the box? Am assuming the visible kit has more interior. You can still cut and paint the clear parts. Less scratch building. I used this idea on a haswgawa clear n1k2 fighter. See this link to the article in fsm

http://finescale.com/en/Online%20Extras/2009/11/Building%20a%20cutaway%20N1K2-J%20Shiden%20Kai.aspx

bstarr3

I would like to do the nose and cockpit cutaways on the starboard side, since most B-17s had their nose art only on the port side and it would be a shame to cut that out.  Any reason why that would be difficult, based on your previous cutaway?  Also, do you have a build thread or pictures of that project? 

 

It's been a number of years, but I want to say that the interior of one of the fuselage halves was a bit light on the molded details - like the ribs and stringers were molded into one half of the vertical stabilizer, but the other was completely smooth. Pretty sure that was on the port side because that is the "visible" half that was molded in clear.

Up in the nose, the Monogram engineers used a series of long pins to seat the interior sections, so you may want to really study that area before you make a decision on where to make your cuts. If the nose art becomes an issue, you might consider modelling a ship that repeated the art work on the starboard half, or find a ship like the 909 (323 BS, 91 BG) where the artwork is directly below the small line of windows of the nose, rather than under the pilot's window. You may lose a section of the "billboard" recording the number of missions flown, but the nose art and name of the ship are preserved after surgery.

Sorry, no photos or logs. I built the visible version in '92 and the cutaway in '98. Those were commission projects, so I focused more on productivity than recording the build. However, FSM published an article featuring a cut away of the 909 ship which had been fitted with interior lights for display. I recall referring to it several times, particularly for modifying a figure to take up the ball gunner's position. They might still have that on file somewhere on the site, or I may still have that issue laying around. It may be of help, so I'll look around for you.

I've never done a visible kit, nor a cutaway, but here's my $0.000002...

Between the two, in general, I think a cutaway is better, because the clear parts in visible kits don't really do a satisfying job of representing the 'missing' sections and so are a bit distracting, where a well handled cutaway pulls the viewer in.

On the other hand, for an in-flight representation, a cutaway might be a little weird. (Is it a cutaway? Is it heavily damaged?) If executed in such a way that it was really 'clear' (kapow!) what was being represented, I think the cutaway would be better.

Take that for what it's worth. Good luck!

-J

Just a quick two cents.

If you would like to do an inflight I believe that the visible side may offer you the most support and security for the interior work.  A cut away takes some of the strength of the fuselage sides away not to mention the possibility of dust or additional passengers getting into the build.  Would be tougher to remove it.  

Like I said just my two cents.

Joe

KnightTemplar5150

 It's been a number of years, but I want to say that the interior of one of the fuselage halves was a bit light on the molded details - like the ribs and stringers were molded into one half of the vertical stabilizer, but the other was completely smooth. Pretty sure that was on the port side because that is the "visible" half that was molded in clear.

Up in the nose, the Monogram engineers used a series of long pins to seat the interior sections, so you may want to really study that area before you make a decision on where to make your cuts. If the nose art becomes an issue, you might consider modelling a ship that repeated the art work on the starboard half, or find a ship like the 909 (323 BS, 91 BG) where the artwork is directly below the small line of windows of the nose, rather than under the pilot's window. You may lose a section of the "billboard" recording the number of missions flown, but the nose art and name of the ship are preserved after surgery.

Sorry, no photos or logs. I built the visible version in '92 and the cutaway in '98. Those were commission projects, so I focused more on productivity than recording the build. However, FSM published an article featuring a cut away of the 909 ship which had been fitted with interior lights for display. I recall referring to it several times, particularly for modifying a figure to take up the ball gunner's position. They might still have that on file somewhere on the site, or I may still have that issue laying around. It may be of help, so I'll look around for you.

 

You're right, the starboard side is the one with rib and stringer detail in the tail section, even on the regular monogram kit.  I don't know if there are any other differences without looking at the kit parts again.  I assume the visible kit port fuselage is identical to the standard, since they would just inject clear styrene into the same old mold. This presents the problem of removing the molded on interior detail on that half of the kit, if I were to use the visible. 

I do remember I think seeing an article about the 909 cutaway.  I just let my subscription to FSM lapse this past month, so if you have that article on file somewhere you could share, I'd appreciate it. 

Johnny1000

I've never done a visible kit, nor a cutaway, but here's my $0.000002...

Between the two, in general, I think a cutaway is better, because the clear parts in visible kits don't really do a satisfying job of representing the 'missing' sections and so are a bit distracting, where a well handled cutaway pulls the viewer in.

On the other hand, for an in-flight representation, a cutaway might be a little weird. (Is it a cutaway? Is it heavily damaged?) If executed in such a way that it was really 'clear' (kapow!) what was being represented, I think the cutaway would be better.

Take that for what it's worth. Good luck!

I've got this question running on a couple different sites, and several people have mentioned exactly this - how the cutaway "draws the viewer in".  I think that's probably true, although I don't really know who would be looking at this, besides my anonymous internet friends.  I live in a small town far away from everything so no modelling clubs, no local hobby shops, no access to competitions.  I do this pretty much for the enjoyment of the process, and the satisfaction of people on forums like this saying "hey that looks cool!" 

This is inherently an "unrealistic" model, whether cutaway or clear fuselage half.  It's actually pretty rare on these sites to see people modelling with figures at all, but often when they do it's more often as part of a static display, and not often an "action shot" like I'm proposing to do.  I don't know if people view that as more of a "toy like" or unrealistic representation, but it's an idea that I've had since I was a kid, making a 1/72 B-17 with way too much glue and way too little patience 25 years ago.  

fightnjoe

Just a quick two cents.

If you would like to do an inflight I believe that the visible side may offer you the most support and security for the interior work.  A cut away takes some of the strength of the fuselage sides away not to mention the possibility of dust or additional passengers getting into the build.  Would be tougher to remove it.  

 

Joe

 

To preserve the structural integrity of such a large model, you might consider filling the cutaway sections with thin ribbing, like in a structural drawing. That would also reduce the impression that large sections had been "blown out." Here's a link to an example:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/62065301090634939

Having seen quite a few of these, the Mustang and other "visible" models, it's pretty hard to see what's inside through the clear plastic.

The structural issues can probably be solved with a wing spar. I don't know if this kit came with one, like the B-36 did. But it probably would be better to make a realistic one.

There's enough bulkheads to keep the fuselage round. 

One other thing is that the "visible" model is kind of a "one trick" pony.

There's just the one clear part. If you wanted to say expose the innards of part of a wing, the tail or an engine nacelle, you'd be cut away anyhow.

Those are my 1 1/2 bits.

Did you consider showing the ball turret gunner preparing to enter/entering the turret ?

(turret would be positioned with guns facing aft for takeoff then would be rotated so guns were straight down to bring entry hatch inside aircraft)