B-36 Peacemaker Group Build

Teut22, you're going to town on that girl!  Looking forward to this.

Changing my mind on part of item 3 in my super detailing rant. I was checking M.V. Products and I think I'll use their 2.6mm (0.101") blue and clear lenses for formation and positioning lights. These may look better since they are more lens-like and are mounted flush to the wings and fuselage. The jewels from Precision Scale will still probably look better and will be easier to mount, especially since they are on the wing edges.

So which green did you end up using?

I'm still in research mode to prepare for super detailing.

1. Plan to add the chaff dispenser chutes.

2. May modify the horizontal stabilizer roots. The model shows the trailing edge root as one single wedge shape, but it is actually two shapes. One part is where it meets the fuselage. The other part where the rear nav lights are mounted.

3. Will add positioning/formation lights to the wings and fuselage. I use the clear and colored jewels from Precision Scale Co. (www.precisionscaleco.com) for all nav and formation lights. This company primarily supplies to the model railroad market. Go to the "Detail Parts" tab, then click on "Click here to see PSC's Scratchbuilding supplies and parts," then click on "Jewels." Sorry, but there is no direct link to that webpage. The 2.7mm jewels seem to be about right in size for the human eye. Although 2.7mm scales to 7.65" at 1/72, I think the next size down is too small at 3.68". Although they are faceted jewels rather than lenses, I have found the sparkle ends up tricking the eye into seeing them as colored lenses or lights. The blue jewels are an in between size, but I think that will be okay for the formation lights.

I use the following:  1) green #48328; 2) red #48327; 3) clear #48329; 4) amber #48378; 5) blue #48293. They come 12 to a package and sell between $3.75 and $4.25 per pack. You can usually find them at good model railroad hobby shops.

4. I will add the fuselage mounted landing lights using lenses from M.V. Products, PN 116 (3mm diam). They are about $0.90 each.

5. The challenge will be to kitbash a decent jet pod mounted taxi light. This one will be a little tricky. I think it will end up just being painted and clear coated with Model Master Window Maker.

6. I plan to add the bomb sight bubble underneath the fuselage and forward of the front landing gear bay, but am still hunting for a 3mm diam hemispherical or spherical clear product. Maybe a bead of some sort (fabric store? bead store?).

7. I'll also add the 6 tabs on the jet exhaust.

8. I don't know if there is any practical way to add the detail of the anti-icing dump valve outlet on top of the wing.

9. And then there is the landing gear bays super detailing.

Well, at least that will make this model build last a while.

Tonight I began the build of of 44-92020

The first ceremonial joining of pieces was the lower deck 

Applied the first coat of green interior paint to the interior pieces as well

CrashTestDummy

lajntx

<SNIP>

The really good news is just like the can says... It bonds really well to plastic.<SNIP>

....and bad news.  That stuff bonds almost too well to plastic.  I have a car kit that's currently parked in the stash because I tried to prime it with the plastic stuff they sell.  I've top-coated it three times, and had to strip it off because of a poor finish.  I'm not certain it's not just me, but in all three paint stripping tasks haven't touched that primer.  So be careful what you paint with it. 

Gene Beaird,
Pearland, Texas

Thats a good point, and those camo paints are probably not suited for anything outside of a military build type of application. 

The plus sides I have noticed is:

They dry almost like a military field paint application would... Dry-ish, no shine, fine grit chalky feel too it.

It drys and form fits really well to what it is bonding too, not just dry on top of whatever it was painted too making panel lines harder to see

lajntx

<SNIP>

The really good news is just like the can says... It bonds really well to plastic.<SNIP>

....and bad news.  That stuff bonds almost too well to plastic.  I have a car kit that's currently parked in the stash because I tried to prime it with the plastic stuff they sell.  I've top-coated it three times, and had to strip it off because of a poor finish.  I'm not certain it's not just me, but in all three paint stripping tasks haven't touched that primer.  So be careful what you paint with it. 

Gene Beaird,
Pearland, Texas

Just for clarification sake guys, the forum's auto-redacting in my last paragraph was not due to me dropping the f-bomb. I'm classier than that.  It was actually the c-bomb, but apparently the British way of stating a screw up doesn't work on this forum. :)

I appreciate your efforts to pull together the reference material for the decals/notice sheet. My Wachsmuth book showed up today. Haven't had much time to look at it, so I don't know if it would have photos of positions for the notices. Anything that helps identify where they go is great. I can ultimately create a set of instructions that combines all the loose reference materials. I hope the German Revell decal sheet and instruction booklet identified where some of the notices belong (correctly).

Regarding the crew, I'm thinking four of the pilot types and two of the FE station crew. It's a bit of a guess at this point. The FE crew member has the advantage of the bent arm not being attached to the leg and the other arm removable and re-positionable. The pilot has the advantage of both arms being tight against the body. I know that I'll be fitting them into some constricted spaces and will need conduct some heavy modifications to get them to fit while also looking somewhat correct. Thanks again.

I've also been thinking about the landing gear. Two concepts: 1) massive sawing and repositioning to get the bogie to hang right and the toggle beam to also sit on an angle, or; 2) only modifiying the bogie. Concept one is ultimately correct, but requires a lot more work, has more opportunity for a *** up, and the toggle beam might actually look a little strange since it now would be on an even greater angle (correct, but sometimes in modeling making you have to play tricks to make the eye see things correctly). Concept two would be easier and I think has the same visual impact, but isn't 100% correct.

I wanted to share some findings I have now with testing differnt paints on my paint test fuselage I made from the warped one.

I found a really good cost effective OD green for the interior work

The lighting doesnt do it any justice, but I got these at my local walmart for $3.77 a cam

I used the one on the right. color 1920 - "Army Green". 

The one on the left was the darker color I had tried earlier ( The bottom green one below ) that will look great on armor, artillery, or even a B-17/B-29 build that`s in dark green. That color is 1919 " Deep Forrest Green "

The really good news is just like the can says... It bonds really well to plastic.

Teutonic222

Thanks for the updated answers. Still not sure about the wing-to-fuselage decision.  I'll probably opt for building it complete - wings attached.

I'll take you up on your decal and landing gear deal. This is the reason group builds are good! Everyone benefits. Hopefully now we can all have more notices, Featherweight windows via Click2detail, and other stupid stuff that few others appreciate.

I`ll get that sheet out to you in a couple of weeks because I want to research my materials & send you pictures of what things are, where they go, and the different colors they need to be, etc

I`m putting those figures together, and will send the gear with them out this week sometime. In the meantime, you said you wanted 6. Is that correct? & which ones do you want? The ones that sit in the pilots seats or the ones with the arm out that sit at the FE station?

Regarding the out of the box thinking, no it doesn't happen quite like it used to. I got out of aerospace for that reason. The following numbers are off, but Aviation Week magazine had an article around 1995 that said (and here is where my numbers are off)...

If you graduated in engineering in the 1950's you would work on approx. 50 aircraft duruing your whole career that would actually fly (experimentals, test beds, and production versions)

If you graduated in the 1960's you would work on approx 32 aircraft that would fly.

If you graduated in the 1970's you would work on approx 15 aircraft that would fly.

If you graduated in the 1980's you would work on approx 6 aircraft that would fly.

They predicted (based on the trends and the use of computer modeling instead of actually building an airplane and testing it) that someone graduating in the 2000's+ would work on ... wait for this ... TWO aircraft that would actually fly DURING THEIR WHOLE CAREER. For me, that would be a non-starter if I were starting an aerospace engineering career today. The thrill is actually seeing something you worked on hit the skies.

I could see that already happening. I was blessed, based on my type of work and my position to have way exceeded those numbers, but most didn't and most won't. The problem was multi-fold:  1) the government continued to cancel programs before military production-intended aircraft even got to the experimental stage; 2) the DoD doesn't seem to work on any purely experimental aircraft anymore; 3) it is now cheaper (and probably better) to upgrade avionics rather than airframes to create a more advanced airplane; 4) drones (which are simpler and lower cost) are replacing many of the piloted aircraft, and; 6) commercial aircraft are becoming more and more expensive to produce, hence the reason we get versions of 737, 757, and 767 ad nauseum, rather than lots of new types, and; 6) the consolidation the aircraft industry (which needed to happen) means less competition, less ingenuity, and less new competing models (which mostly happened during competitions).

It's too bad, but life continues to move forward. I suspect there may also be another really big overlooming reason. We haven't had a big air war in a long time. There are very few "super powers" ... US, Russia, Europe, China (doesn't have a very good aerospace industry). Plus, in the "old" days, it was simpler to make an airplane, thus more countries could create them. Sort of like locomotives in the old days -- almost every developed or developing country had a locomotive industry during the steam days. Now, there are only a handful of loco manufacturers.

Thanks for the updated answers. Still not sure about the wing-to-fuselage decision.  I'll probably opt for building it complete - wings attached.

I'll take you up on your decal and landing gear deal. This is the reason group builds are good! Everyone benefits. Hopefully now we can all have more notices, Featherweight windows via Click2detail, and other stupid stuff that few others appreciate.

Teutonic222

1. Do you, or the rest of the build group, typically build fuselage and wings separate then attach the wings at the end of the build after painting each separately, or do you build up the whole aircraft (fuselage and wings attached) and then paint? I'm thinking fuselage masking and painting would be better without wings on, but I'd like not to have wing-to-fuselage seams.

Ive always put the wings on and painted that way.... but with the 1/72 kit... This will be my first go round with it when I complete the "test build" RB-36E to learn a few things first hand before moving on to my more challenging covervsions. Ive seen two builds where the wings were made to take off for better packing/travel results for builds that were for show display. Its your personal preference, but do be prepared to do a ton of masking which ever way you go, and always do the props last so you dont break them.

2. I don't recall if I told you all, but you can order the DVD version of Strategic Air Command from ClassicMoviesEtc.com. It's $14.95 + S/H.

Cool, thanks! Up until now the only DVD versions I have come across were not available for play for the US region unless you had either a DVD player for that region or a world zone dvd player. 

3. I was playing around tonight to see if I can create my own B-36 notices: the ones that are not included in any decal sheets (OEM or aftermarket), except the German Revell kit. Once my Wayne Wachsmuth book arrives, I'm hoping I can see all the notice markings I need. I have the exact "stencil" font and played around with proper letter spacing in MS Word, then shrunk it down and printed it out. Then I took that printed version and used the copier to shrink it again at 36% percent and printed it (printers can only get down to a certain size, so it needed to be shrunk via the copier). I was testing it out on the notice about fuel just forward of the port hatch. The decal-sized version scales out to about 5.8mm wide by 1.2mm high. My printed version actually works. It looks good. So, I'm thinking I can then just print on decal sheet. If I pull it off, I'll try to create as many notices as possible and make it available to all of you. If I can do it, it will be a couple of months, but hang tight.

I`ll do you TWO better....

1. I`ll  send you a complete uncut copy of that Revell Germany sheet with all those markings and notices if you`ll reverse engineer some sheets for us. A side note though, there are some things on the warbirds stripe sheet that arent on that one, so having both gives you a compete job.

2. I`ll send you a landing gear set with those figures if you want to try and make it look like its landing gear extended in flight. If it doesnt work, then you arent out a set of gears. If you can make it work... I`ll send you another set and let you do mine, so when I hang this baby on my ceiling it will look correct. 

Just let me know

PS... Scroll to 42:03 of this vid which shows the loading of the B-58 to the B-36. They just dont think out of the box like that anymore at General Dynamics do they? 

1. Do you, or the rest of the build group, typically build fuselage and wings separate then attach the wings at the end of the build after painting each separately, or do you build up the whole aircraft (fuselage and wings attached) and then paint? I'm thinking fuselage masking and painting would be better without wings on, but I'd like not to have wing-to-fuselage seams.

2. I don't recall if I told you all, but you can order the DVD version of Strategic Air Command from ClassicMoviesEtc.com. It's $14.95 + S/H.

3. I was playing around tonight to see if I can create my own B-36 notices: the ones that are not included in any decal sheets (OEM or aftermarket), except the German Revell kit. Once my Wayne Wachsmuth book arrives, I'm hoping I can see all the notice markings I need. I have the exact "stencil" font and played around with proper letter spacing in MS Word, then shrunk it down and printed it out. Then I took that printed version and used the copier to shrink it again at 36% percent and printed it (printers can only get down to a certain size, so it needed to be shrunk via the copier). I was testing it out on the notice about fuel just forward of the port hatch. The decal-sized version scales out to about 5.8mm wide by 1.2mm high. My printed version actually works. It looks good. So, I'm thinking I can then just print on decal sheet. If I pull it off, I'll try to create as many notices as possible and make it available to all of you. If I can do it, it will be a couple of months, but hang tight.

Sorry, if I'm going to do this, I want to see great clouds of smoke coming out at engine start-up. Since I was/are a model railroader, I think a model railroad locomotive digital sound system needs to be installed too with the B-36 engine sound .wav file I've seen/heard on the Internet.

lajntx

Today I played around a bit with my warped fuselage with some spray cans to see how well it would work. Out of the 4 I tried today..... 1 was a complete failure, 1 didnt work well, 1 looked nothing like the color of the cap, and the last really wasnt the color I was looking for but it just might work for other things.

Firstly I put the test paint fuselage together but it just didnt quite fit

Hmmmmmm, I put the wing spar in upside down. 

I know Ive seen this somewhere else before. 

Gee, I wonder where? 

LOL!  That's 6 turnin' , now just imagine 4 burnin!

You know I've got those Estes rocket engines of my son's………

Teutonic222

lajntx - your insight on hanging the model was totally underwhelming. Made me laugh. Maybe a safety net underneath in case it stalls out and decides to come crashing to the ground..

The flaps down position also seems like one of those "is it worth it" mods. The landing gear ought to seem easier, but it's the rocker toggle that cause the problem.It's fairly easy to cut the bogie and re-calibrate the angle. It's fairly easy to trim/extend the cylinders. It's that dang beam connecting them that's the big problem. I might look deeper into it.

Just as in the video above. Let`s just go all the way like this guy did.

Reasoned

Teutonic222

Well Reasoned, I hope you aren't OCD, because now that you know the landing gear is not quite accurate it could nag at you for the rest of your life. :)

Ha!  Well since it will hang from my 9yr old's ceiling, I suspect it will last all of a week before a high altitude crash anyway.

That`s why you should make the engines operable so it doesnt fall 

Today I played around a bit with my warped fuselage with some spray cans to see how well it would work. Out of the 4 I tried today..... 1 was a complete failure, 1 didnt work well, 1 looked nothing like the color of the cap, and the last really wasnt the color I was looking for but it just might work for other things.

Firstly I put the test paint fuselage together but it just didnt quite fit

Hmmmmmm, I put the wing spar in upside down. 

I know Ive seen this somewhere else before. 

The silver paint looked too light, and the "Chrome" was a complete failure. Back to the drawing board there.

I tested 2 greens. The one with the perfect color based on the can cap came out too regular green, and the camo green came out a little too dark... But looks to be the perfect color for an armor build or even a B-17 in OD Green.

For this build though... I just might build it with that Camo Green to see how it looks.

Teutonic222

Well Reasoned, I hope you aren't OCD, because now that you know the landing gear is not quite accurate it could nag at you for the rest of your life. :)

Ha!  Well since it will hang from my 9yr old's ceiling, I suspect it will last all of a week before a high altitude crash anyway.

BTW, In response to your question regarding hanging it, I'm planning on using 2lb mono fishing line wrapped around the tail section and somewhere on each wing then have them come together in one spot in order that I can tie off on a hook in the ceiling.

lajntx - your insight on hanging the model was totally underwhelming. Made me laugh. Maybe a safety net underneath in case it stalls out and decides to come crashing to the ground..

The flaps down position also seems like one of those "is it worth it" mods. The landing gear ought to seem easier, but it's the rocker toggle that cause the problem.It's fairly easy to cut the bogie and re-calibrate the angle. It's fairly easy to trim/extend the cylinders. It's that dang beam connecting them that's the big problem. I might look deeper into it.

Well Reasoned, I hope you aren't OCD, because now that you know the landing gear is not quite accurate it could nag at you for the rest of your life. :)

Thanks lajntx. I wasn't particularly serious about, however. :)  It would have made for a particularly interesting concept, though.

Reasoned

I am also modeling my B-36 just like Teut22 and put in nose weight (just in case) but plan to hang from ceiling in landing mode, never thought about the gear being inaccurate.

The landing gear is molded in an on the ground postion, not really a lot you can do about it other than manufacture your own, pay someone good money to make a part very few people have an interest in, or just live with it.

Chalk it up to one of the limitations of this kit

Here is a good pictures of what it looks like:

I am also modeling my B-36 just like Teut22 and put in nose weight (just in case) but plan to hang from ceiling in landing mode, never thought about the gear being inaccurate.

Teutonic222

More questions. More questions. I mentioned before that I plan to hang my aircraft.

1. It's been a while since I have hung a model plane. I'll use fishing line, but what do you all recommend as the best places or ways to attach the line, especially since I'll still have it nose-weighted for use on a shelf/table if I ever have the inclination?

No idea there, you`ll have to use what you know and figure it out as you go along.... If it doesnt break and fall -- then it works. If it breaks and fall -- It didnt work 

2. Has anybody ever modeled the B-36 in a flaps down position (probably 15 or 30 deg flaps or so)? If so, how did the mod go? Or is this one of those "what are you thinking" modifications.

I havent, but there used to be a B-36 vet over on the B-36.net board that built models and said he did something along those lines once. Never saw a picture of it though.

3. Has anybody modeled the main landing gear in the accurate position where the bogies are actually hanging forward (i.e. the front pair of wheels hangs lower than the rear pair of wheels)? I have both the original plastic gear and the aftermarket metal gear. I thought I would use the metal gear for on-the-ground display and modify the plastic gear for the hanging position. I'm guessing I could easily trade off the gear due to the fairly large pin-to-hole dimensions (usually a little tack) and hopefully do a similar thing with the wheels since I only have one set of wheels.

Welcome to the exact thing I have been spending the last 3 years trying to figure out. As you know in flight the wheels hang slightly forward and the pistons are in different postions as well. I talked to the guy at SAC that does those metal gears once a few years ago and tried to talk him into making that. He told me I wouldnt like the price if he did. I asked.... and it was over $1000 to make those since it would require a completely new casting and the R&D that would go into it. Other than doing surgery on a plastic set and living with the fact it still isnt looking right... Or just living with it in "on the ground" position is about as far as I have been able to get with it.

Teutonic222

Why not fasten the two complete fuselages together at the wing spars, twin tales, and then have double the bombing volume with just the 10 engines?

The only way something like that is even contemplated is *IF* the Japanese had put up a stronger fight, and drastically slowed the Allied Island Hopping Campaign. Then it would have became necessary to bring the B-36 into production over the B-29 and launch bombing attacks against the Japs from Alaska or Hawaii. This in turn would cause the think tanks to come up with better ideas to put more bombs on a target.

Something similar with B-36`s was on the drawing board to use against the Soviets so the 36 wouldnt have to land in Alaska and refuel- Or have a way to make the ship go faster. During project TOM-TOM when it was being tested on having fighters link up on the wings of a B-36 and "piggy back" to the battle front it was suggested that instead of Mating two F-84`s on the wings of a B-36, to simple link up 3 B-36`s together with this linkage and either use 1 plane to carry the other two so they could conserve fuel and fly on.... Or use the 3 together to fly flaster and escape faster in a hot zone. I used to have drawings of this, but cant find them. In the meantime here is some video of the TOM-TOM project showing the F-84 Parasite being mated up to the B-36

More questions. More questions. I mentioned before that I plan to hang my aircraft.

1. It's been a while since I have hung a model plane. I'll use fishing line, but what do you all recommend as the best places or ways to attach the line, especially since I'll still have it nose-weighted for use on a shelf/table if I ever have the inclination?

2. Has anybody ever modeled the B-36 in a flaps down position (probably 15 or 30 deg flaps or so)? If so, how did the mod go? Or is this one of those "what are you thinking" modifications.

3. Has anybody modeled the main landing gear in the accurate position where the bogies are actually hanging forward (i.e. the front pair of wheels hangs lower than the rear pair of wheels)? I have both the original plastic gear and the aftermarket metal gear. I thought I would use the metal gear for on-the-ground display and modify the plastic gear for the hanging position. I'm guessing I could easily trade off the gear due to the fairly large pin-to-hole dimensions (usually a little tack) and hopefully do a similar thing with the wheels since I only have one set of wheels.

Why not fasten the two complete fuselages together at the wing spars, twin tales, and then have double the bombing volume with just the 10 engines?