1/72 XB-70

Wedfactory, your comments are pretty much what I saw when I did a dry test fit of mine. 

Now for the build comments. After taping the kit together I have the following comments on construction.

First the is the connection between the cockpit and "goose neck". With a little care the connection should be no problem

The first problem I came across is the 4 wing panels. On my kit one of the top wing panels is warped and will take a little care to get to flatten out...

If I can successfully get this worked out then the goose neck to upper wing panels shouldn't be to hard. The lower wing panels will take quite a bit of work to get to lay right. The connection seems to be a bit awkward. I will have to spend some time here to get it right...

There are also 4 molding marks that will need to be sanded off, (no biggie there) and as with SR-71 models there will be quite a bit of pudding along the wing leading edge to hide the seam. I believe if you get the wings done well, the rest of the kit will fall together....

Hope this helps you guys....

After reading this thread I got the urge to pull out my XB-70 and take a look at it. To get an Idea of how big it will be I did  tape together mock up.

In the background is a 1:72 scale MIG-25 for comparision

Staring with the cockpit area...you notice that it alone is almost as long as the MIG-25!

Then adding the rest of the "goose neck" ...

This is not a small kit by any standards and is huge by 1:72 scale! Once all together you get an idea on what you are working on.

The finished product will be about 31 inches long... and to compare the sizes of the XB_70 and MIG-25 I put the MIG-25 on the back of the XB-70

I have two of these beasts sitting on my to do pile. I want to do one on the ground and one in flight. I also have the resin F-108 to go with these guys... Have my hands full with those three alone...

Yes I see what you mean about 3 and 4.  I just amazed at how deep and wide the gap's are.

No need really, I imagine the kit uses exactly the same sprue numbering. In summary my rant just says "pay lots of attention to 3 & 4, cause this is where it all goes wrong".

He is a picture of an interesting job someone had done on a 70, the area I am talking about is almost bang below the rearmost section of the walk line (I would say wing walk line, but it isn't on the wing!).

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal4/3801-3900/gal3812_XB-70_Tietjen/00.shtm

I do not know if it even interests you, but there are some pretty interesting "what if" schemes here;

http://www.edwardsflighttest.com/b70.html

Bob, yes I believe the instructions are the same.  Part 3 and 4 look like what your are talking about.   I can scan the instructions later and post them.

FeldMarSchall Model

Bob, hehe I don't know when I'll start, I did a dry test fit last night.  Alot of work ahead of me.

+

The Valkyrie in 1/48 would be a even bigger beast, and a paint hog.  I'm almost afraid that the little landing gear on the 1/72 will break from the wight.  And I'll go though a full bottle of Ambroid Pro Weld to, on the Valkyrie.

I feel the "filler bashing" this kit gets is a little OTT. All the filling issues surround parts 3&4 (assuming they have the same sprue No. as AMT) which form the rear fuselage and taper the cylindrical forward section down into the beavertail. The AMT assembly instructions suggest fixing these onto the forward section first, but I would be wary of doing this. These same two parts have to match in three different areas, the front fuselage joint, the beavertail joint & the wing joint - this is the kits only real issue.

After putting much though into it I think the best way to approach it is to worry about the front & rear joints primarily & do most of the filling / repairing on the wing seams after everything is glued up.

The front joint isn't perfect, but is easily sorted, the rear joint is difficult & the wing joint is easily masked & filled to give a decent finish. I would concentrate on the rear joint - no matter what way you join 3 & 4, you will not get it to sit correctly as it is to narrow, pinch it together & it is narrower than the remaining fuselage behind it, push it down & it sits to low to meet the top of the remaining fuselage & because the 70 has such long uninterrupted lines it is hard to hide this.

Anyway, the "much thought" I mentioned earlier let me to thinking that some extra styrene could easily solve the problem. if a section of styrene 2- 3mm thick & 80mm or so long & tapering to a point (like a triangle) was added between the rear end of the joint between 3 & 4 it would give a far better finish & would let this crucial joint fit & allow it to be made good with the minimum of finishing, your option is to fit it as best you can & use filler to make good a joint which will never really be made good.

The supplied landing gear is sturdy enough, the main gear central strut is more than strong enough - the other main gear arms are pretty weak, but don't really take much load anyway - if you are unconvinced, there is an aftermarket metal set available, but other than being metal & costing money, they are little different.

The upper forward tip of the intake is rounded in the kit, but is pretty much razor sharp on the real deal, again not hard to sort.

Paint hog is nearly correct, how about PAINT HOG, I found this part harder than making the kit fit look right! Give it an overall coat of light silver before laying down the white, the reflectivity of the silver will save both paint & time.

I hope I haven't unnecessarily bore anyone with my rant.

I read a build review of that 1/48 vac kit a week or two ago. It made the 1/72 kit sound like a Tamiya kit.

If I recall correctly, there was actually a 1/48th XB-70 in vacform (by ID Models, I think) way back  I want to say late 70's but I'm not sure. I don't know anything about the model other than that it existed.

hkshooter

I want one in 1/48th. I'd be better than four feet long anddefinately a ceiling hanger.

That is OK as long as you hang your A-12 in front of it, "leading the way".  The Blackbird family was in Category I, II and III testing about the same time as the XB-70.  They out-performed the white beast in nearly every category of speed, altitude, time to climb, maintenance man hours to flight hours ratio, time in the air, number of sorites, etc.

The only way to tackle that beast is a big tube of 3m spot putty, a putty knife and quart of MEK.

I bought the kit a few months ago and have it on my short list of "doing soon".

I don't care how many tubes of Squadron white it takes, that was one beautiful aircraft and I've warned the Missus to clear up some ceiling space for a "wings full down" display!

The Valkyrie in 1/48 would be a even bigger beast, and a paint hog.  I'm almost afraid that the little landing gear on the 1/72 will break from the wight.  And I'll go though a full bottle of Ambroid Pro Weld to, on the Valkyrie.

I want one in 1/48th. I'd be better than four feet long anddefinately a ceiling hanger.

Milairjunie, I've looked over the box and no, the one that I have has no Limited Edition.

Bob, hehe I don't know when I'll start, I did a dry test fit last night.  Alot of work ahead of me.

FMM - HOLY CR@P! you beat me to it.  I hope you will do a WIP on this beast.

Bob

I am jelous, my AMT XB-70 cost me an arm & a leg & came in a shabby old box!

Does that one have the "limited edition" picture, blueprint & plaque?

I just love that bird, be sure to post some pics when she is done!

Well it just came in the mail yesterday, I can say I'll be using about a pound or more of filler on this beast!

aha!

http://xb70.interceptor.com/

half way down there is an image even

if i recall the paint "chipped" off in sheet size pieces..could be a neat way to break up the white

edit:

I may be wrong on this since my google image search turned up nil...i thought I saw it on the old Discovery wings show

To me I think the color what is pretty hard to brush on or airbursh, it takes so many light  coats to build the color up.

tempestjohnny

Italeri has quite a few of the AMT molds.  And they really jacked up the price too.

As I recall, Italeri bought all of the aircraft kit molds in AMT's possession at the time AMT got out of the injection kit end of the business. Many of those kits that you see in Italeri boxings today actually have Esci orgins as AMT bought many Esci molds when that company went under.

As for the XB-70. It is an AMT original. I helped a friend put one together several years ago and, in my experience, typical AMT fare in the department of fit (or lack of same). Lots of filler, lots of patience because it can be made into a real showpiece.

Here's a couple of pictures I took of one at a show in 2008:

It is the only injection formed kit of the beast in 1/72. As far as I'm aware, the only other 1/72 incarnation of the beast was in the form of an ancient vac formed kit that I've been told has enough accuracy issues that it isn't worth seeking out.

Italeri has quite a few of the AMT molds.  And they really jacked up the price too.

The AMT and Italeri are definately the same kit in different boxes.  I built one several years ago and used a truck load or two of filler and a tank car full of white paint.  Getting a decent paint job with white paint is as bad or worse that NMF, especially with something that big.

Darwin, O.F. 

A few days ago, I ordered one off of amazon.com, though MyAtomic hobby's for 59.36.

The Italeri kit is a rebox of the AMT. If I recall correctly, it's the only 1/72 injection moulded kit of the XB-70.

Isn't there an AMT 1/72 version and also an Italeri 1/72 model?   Which one is under dicussion here?

Chris

Yes, It does have some (lots) of fit issues, but it isn't the worst. certain areas like the fuse joint and wing root seams are pretty bad, but can be fixed. other than those issues it is actually not bad.