B-36 Peacemaker Group Build

The Second photo is a rare color photo of the XB-36 taken shortly after the landing gear covers were installed. Notice the antenna mast is still on just aft of the cockpit, the large BM-570 has not been applied yet, the two men just after of the fwd landing gear are still dressed in the Olive Army uniforms, and the "Army" car to the left as the USAF had not been spilt off from the Army as of yet. I`d say this is late `46 to very early `47 judging by the clothes the civilians are wearing.

You know you just enjoy the torture. lol

As soon as Summer will ever decide to end here in Texas, I can restart my projects which were cut short this year.

In the meantime..... Here are a couple of photos I picked up from ebay & and local "junk" seller.

The first picture demonstrates just how bad the B-36 could & would leak oil & gas. This is of two bombers in formation painted in the later white underbelly thermal anti flash scheme. On the bottom, you can see how badly the soot from the engines would blacken up the white paint, and on the horizontal stabilizers you can see the build up of oil & gas that had leaked out of the engines and was building up on the white paint.

troublemaker66

Reasoned

I couldn't imagine paying $100 just to be frustrated.

I paid $30.00 for mine at AC Moore`s with one of their 50% off coupons. I`m not very fond of "collectors" because they drive prices up on kits that they prolly never tried to build in the 1st place.

Yeah, I picked mine up at a LHS going out of business sale just after getting back into the hobby.   I asked Hans and he figured you couldn't go wrong for around $30...... until I started building it!

Trouble....Yours if memory serves me right was a leftover 2008 Kit when the retailers were trying to get rid of them. With the exception of the 1989 Kit I paid slightly more for just to have a boxing of that run, the most I`ve paid for a kit with taxes/shipping is $40-$45

Ive got a 1980 kit still in the factory shrink wrap I bought on ebay 2 years ago when prices were still modest.... Should I double my money because some *** thinks if he pays me $75 he`ll be able to sell it to someone else for $150 in his store? LOL

Reasoned

I couldn't imagine paying $100 just to be frustrated.

I couldn't imagine paying $100 just to be frustrated.

Hi John,

I`m still here and still waiting for my non air conditioned work ( man cave ) building to finally cool down, or for me to finally break down and buy a new window unit. lol

Also another factor keeping people away  is the cost of this kit has been skyrocketing due to the prices being paid for some of the 1980 kits on ebay and causing the other years to be inflated due to people thinking those are worth $100 retail as well.

Still looking for new recruits here, the build time on these things is as long as the real thing's wingspan!

Nige, look back on page 6 of this GB if you want to see pictures of how I lowered the wings.  I did glue the wings to the wing roots so I could be sure to get the proper dihedral angle on the wings, just a tiny error attaching the wing roots will have a large effect on those long wing panels, not to mention getting the wings straight with the fuselage.

Your wing/fuselage joints do look good.

test

John,

You are correct that it doesnt interfer, but Nige is going so far as to sand off the RB panel lines and rescribe them with Bomber ones... and wanting to acurately detail the full 4 bombays, just a suggestion that he might want the proper placement... Not that anyone would know- other than him

BTW... How`s your build going?

I moved the center wing section and tank/spar as a unit and the distance it all comes down in the bomb bay is very slight, it didn't interfere with the truss at all.  There are photos back in this GB where I did that.

I think I have shown this picure before which gives you an idea of the size of the Bomb Bay of a 4 bay B-36 bomber.... This is the same fusealge used for the the B-36/B-58 combo - but the bomb has since been converted and RE-CUT to the actual measurements found described above, and you can see just how close bay 1 is to the lower radome when looking at the hole and where the bay begins

Inside the Bay is a 1/72 B-25 which is being buit as Jimmy Dolittles B-25 that bombed Japan in 1942.. To the right is the fuselage of a 1/72 B-29 that is being built as the Enola Gay that dropped the A-Bomb

Note the differences both in size and bay payload capacities.... Just imagine for a minute if these things actually dropped conventional bombs on Germany or Japan and the devasation just one bomber could have done

Part 1

How to turn a 1/72 stock RB mold into a 4 bay bomber version..

For detailing in part 2, I`ll find Lucien`s old post on how he detailed his XB-36 bays and link to that

You will need the following important things and to read the warning before proceeding:

Patience

Time

more Patience

alot more Patience

Did I mention you`ll also need LOTS of Patience?

Note: If you are additcted to caffiene, nicotine, or any other substance, then it is highly suggested that you get you fill of that before attempting this. Also, remove any annoying spouses, children, or pets from the premisis before begining. Failure to do so will cause the builder to speak in jibberish, slang French, and could lead to property damage and or injury to the model or builder leading to arrest, divorce or possible deporture by authorities.

Now that the inconsequentials are taken care of, let`s proceed with the items and materials you will need:

1 Xacto knife with an assortment of blades you like to cut with

1 large can of play-dough or 2 small cans... Clay is not recommended as it will break the prongs inside of the fuslage whe being applied

1 roll of electrical tape - any color

1 cheap jewelers necklace box - or light piece of wood the same size

1 metal ruler with Centemeters marked on it

sandpaper or file to smooth out the bay opening cuts

Note: In the pictures being presented this is from by B-36 carrier plane that took the B-58 airframe to Wright Patterson "piggy back" style. Your build will not involve the removal of the lower radome and Bay 1 will be more forward & just aft of the lower radome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxrwpur_Op8

The cutting measurements are as follows:

To cut out Bay 1.. measure forward 6.8 CM from the opening of Bay 2 of the fuselage half

To cut out Bay 4 measure back 7.4 CM form the opeing of Bay 3 of the fuselage half

Using the ruler very carefully draw on your cutting lines on the fuselage halves

Insert playdough in the fuselage half you are going to be cutting in what will become Bay4, and in Bay 1. I also recomend based on experience to fill the cockpit area with playdown to avoid breaking any of the support tabs that will be used later when the cockpit assembly is added.

This picture shows the ruler being mounted... Ignore that ( for now ) and use the picture as a guide for play dough application... and remember to fill in the cockpit area with play dough as well

In the next step you will need to mount the support block for the ruler that will be used as a cutting guide... If you are 100% confident you can cut a straight line without help... then skip this step

You will need to mount the support so the ruler can be placed on it to cut a straigh line on the cutting lines... use the stock opening to mount the support block with the electrical tape as shown:

After the support block is in place... Useing the electrical tap... Install the metal ruller so it is in position to allow you to make striaght cuts on the cutting lines

Using the ruler as a guide run the Xacto blade over the cutting lines until you have cut deep enough to snap the pieces off

Repeat other side of fuselage same as above

Suggestion: Save those pieces as later they can be used to contruct the division pannel between the fore & aft bays

When finished put both havles together and use Xacto blade to make both sides look even and sand/file edges to a smooth finish

Again... the model being demonstrated is for the B-36/B-58 combo build and a bomber build will not involve the removal of the lower radome and Bay 1 will be slightly more forward by using the proper measurements of 6.8 CM for forward  Bay1 & 7.4 CM for Aft Bay 4 as well

Nige,

Here is the problem --- you are lowering the wings down, ... as you do, you are bringing the spar down as well.. The part of the spar that is visible is a fuel tank... it is now down lower inside the fuselage by however much you lowered the wings. You can correct this by sanding off the same amount off the top of the spar to keep it in proper position

As far as opening up all four bomb bays, let me find my work on that, and I`ll post that later today.

By gun bays are you refrering to the actual 20MM M24A1 Turret cannons or the gun sights the gunner would be aiming with through the blisters?

If it is the turrets-- then yes along with all the air tanks, bomb racks, bomb hoists, etc as those were all in the non pressurized bomb bays... The Gunners sights were inside pressurized compartments, and not visble.

Also, you are going to have to find a wooden dowel or plastic tube to recreate the entire run of the trolley

Hi Iajn,

I don't understand... if the wing spar is in the wings, and you move the wings down to the correct position, then surely the wing spar will also be in the correct position?

I intend to have 1-4 bomb bays fully open with all the detail in them. i guess I'm gonna need to build the gun bays as well, as they can be seen through the ends of the bays?

Nige

Hi Nige

Nice job, If you are wanting 100% acuracy be sure to take a little off the top of the wing spar becaue if you leave it stock then that will have the fuel tank you will see through the open bomb bay doors hanging too low... Of course if you are going to do doors closed, then there is no reason to worry about that and you`ll have a whole larger set of problems to contend with on making those doors look right...... Aint that right reasoned?

Hi all,

Well, after much trimming, sanding and adding plastic card, I've got the wing roots fitted. In this picture they're just placed in. No filler or glue yet.

I can't decide whether i should glue the roots to the fuse now, or glue them to the wings??

I know what you mean  there... I'm now considering gluing them on??

Well, I finally made a start, now I have the detail and scale book. I thought I'd start with removing the camera windows and stuff. I've now started on correcting the wing root area.

I thought long and hard on how I could ensure both wings moved down by the same amount. This is what I did, I cut the lower wing and then opened up the cut into a slot 1mm wide with a cheap sanding stick. This will guarantee both wings go down by the same amount.

This is the cut out piece placed back in the hole,.

Another angle

You may notice i've left some of the fuselage at the centreline, and have sanded the bulge off so the top of the fuselage is straight,.

Nige

Nige

Thanks for the tips guys. I never intended to use the stock decals. The sheet is the size of a cigarette packet!!

I'm gonna buy some warbirds decals the next time i make an order from Hannants.

Do any of you guys not glue the wings on?

Nige

The ones I have built.... long ago in another life.... I glued them on. On my current builds I still plan to glue them on and construct a proper travel box for it because leaving the wings unglued makes the props more likely to be broken due to mishandling or an accident.

Here is a great buy on a 1989 issue "scrap kit".. Thought about buying it, but decided to give those onthis board looking for a reasonable buy a shot first..... You have 72 hrs before I buy.... If it`s still up, and close to the end... Send me a private message & I`ll hold off longer..

May the fastest buyer win!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Big-Bad-Beautiful-B-36-Peacemaker-Vintage-Model-Airplane-/261083895488?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cc9d016c0

Thanks for the tips guys. I never intended to use the stock decals. The sheet is the size of a cigarette packet!!

I'm gonna buy some warbirds decals the next time i make an order from Hannants.

Do any of you guys not glue the wings on?

Nige

lajntx

Hello & welcome Nige,

You are correct that there is no end date for this GB because this kit does require one to take a break from time to time.

One thing you might want to do though is check your stock decals for hairline cracks as it seems with those decals being 30+ years old I`ll give you 50/50 odds they`ll disentegrate the minute they hit water.

Warbirds puts out some nice aftermarket sheets which can be found at the front of this GB if that becomes the case for you

Len

Hello & welcome Nige,

You are correct that there is no end date for this GB because this kit does require one to take a break from time to time.

One thing you might want to do though is check your stock decals for hairline cracks as it seems with those decals being 30+ years old I`ll give you 50/50 odds they`ll disentegrate the minute they hit water.

Warbirds puts out some nice aftermarket sheets which can be found at the front of this GB if that becomes the case for you

Hi all,

I was at a show in Yate, here in the wet 'n' windy UK, and saw a few B-36's built up and displayed together. They looked real good lined up, with a B-47, KC-97, C-130 and F-111 parked around them.

I got chatting to the club members who built them, and was amazed to see that none of them had glued the wings onto the fuselage, making storage far easier!!

Well, I bought the magnesium Overcast book, and found a 1980 kit for £30, around $45. If this GB really has no end date, I may well join in if that's OK?? I particularly like the idea of cutting the wing roots out to make it all more accurate. I just love cutting kits up!!

Regards

Nige

Thats one of Don Pyeatt`s films. Ive seen that one before and a few of the picrtures he has. The problem with that small of a  probe ( and it`s design ) is how do you manuver 2 B-36`s close enough to drop the probe down and hit the refuling receptor with avoiding the Bubble Canopy to account for?

I really dont see this working unless it is done something along the lines the Russians came up with for the TU-95, which of course would have required a complete rework of the forward fuselage, and deletion of the front turret.

I`m begining to understand more in depth why Convair & the Air Force just threw their hands in the air and admitted defeat on this issue with the B-36 as every attempt solve the issue created more problems

Found this on YouTube today. you've probably seen it, but thought id share anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV_gjAkP1Ng

Spark84

You're right, I'm sure something like that would have been an unprecedented feat, but that's the great thing with "what-if's" you can push the bounds of fantasy if you want to!

But i also think if there was a strong enough need for something like that, they would have found a way. nothing beats good ol' fashion ingenuity.

True, but that is why it is called fantasy.

The real issue here is when it is 1943 and it comes to  B-29`s, B-32`s, & B-36`s, it`s like a Highlander Movie... There can be only one!

There is a reason why the B-36 came out with so much magnesium and was pushed back as much as it was.... The B-29 was the priority aircraft & the B-32 was the backup leaving the 36 program with the scraps ( materials, testing, engineers, etc ) of what was left. For the 36 to have beome the front runner due to a stiff and stubbord defense by that Japs,  that would have left the B-29 as a low priority build meaning you most llikely wouldnt have seen a KB-29 due to matierial and manpower shortages. Due to the need for the amount of fuel, you most likely would see a KB-36 Tanker somewhat similar to the TAMBO concept the Air Force tinkered with in the mid 50`s. That way the 36`s could operate out of the Hawaiian Islands and be topped off somewhere between Guam & Midway for the inbound & outbound trips

lajntx

Spark84

One was to omit the jet engines, build up a in air refuel receptical and paint it with some cool nose art. This would be, the war doesn't end, we don't get jet technology, and we make fast progress on air refueling so the 36's leaving from the us could take off with More bombs, then refuel via kb-29s. .

 

It sound good, but I think in reality you would run into the same problems the USAAF had and the same conclusions they came too in 1943 when they tried to do the same thing with B-17`s being refuled by B-24 tankers.....

http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123133645

1. Your war industries are already maxed and it would disrupt production to to start producing tankers and bombers with recepticals... Then  the manpower issue as you have to train them.

after all those bugs are worked out you still have problem #2 to deal with....

2. The KB-29 could only carry so much fuel in order to take off which would still not be enough to fill up the B-36 sufficiently to make the range extension worthwhile... Now if you had 2 Kb-29`s per each B-36 it might work, but that goes back to problem #1.... Production capacities and manpower issues.

You're right, I'm sure something like that would have been an unprecedented feat, but that's the great thing with "what-if's" you can push the bounds of fantasy if you want to!

But i also think if there was a strong enough need for something like that, they would have found a way. nothing beats good ol' fashion ingenuity.

Spark84

One was to omit the jet engines, build up a in air refuel receptical and paint it with some cool nose art. This would be, the war doesn't end, we don't get jet technology, and we make fast progress on air refueling so the 36's leaving from the us could take off with More bombs, then refuel via kb-29s. .

It sound good, but I think in reality you would run into the same problems the USAAF had and the same conclusions they came too in 1943 when they tried to do the same thing with B-17`s being refuled by B-24 tankers.....

http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123133645

1. Your war industries are already maxed and it would disrupt production to to start producing tankers and bombers with recepticals... Then  the manpower issue as you have to train them.

after all those bugs are worked out you still have problem #2 to deal with....

2. The KB-29 could only carry so much fuel in order to take off which would still not be enough to fill up the B-36 sufficiently to make the range extension worthwhile... Now if you had 2 Kb-29`s per each B-36 it might work, but that goes back to problem #1.... Production capacities and manpower issues.