BACK IN THE SPOTIGHT--THE BOMBER GROUP BUILD (Medium and Heavy bombers from all eras)

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, June 10, 2004 2:15 PM

Hm, I started on the bombs for the B-2, and that's it.... I need to get a move on, but other kits and all... (Ah well, as is the life of a modeler )

One thing bugging me, though.... What color is the B-2, exactly? The paint the kit comes with, I'm thinking might not be enough to cover the whole kit.... (Could always buy more, if I can find it atleast... )

Anyone know at all?

Reply
Edit

Lufbery

Member since
December 2002
From: Harrisburg, PA

Posted by Lufbery on Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:02 PM

HI all,

I've made some small progress on my bomber. I sanded the raised ejector pin marks off the bottom piece of the top wing, and corrected a couple molding flaws on the top piece. The two pieces are now glued together, and I'm going to work on puttying and sanding the seam between the two parts.

Then I need to do the same thing to the bottom wing. Big Smile [:D]

Regards,

-Drew

Build what you like; like what you build.

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 8:10 PM

Oh and I got the Tamiya Bubble Top Jug and it is a Must have.

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 8:05 PM

Hey everyone I know I am getting off the subject of Bombers here, but I just compleated my first aircraft in over a month, it is a Monogram 1/48 Mig-15 Bis. I did the Russian version and used alcalad to represent to metel on the fighter, next up in my Korean collection is going to be the Academy 1/48 F-86F-30 Saber, aided by the Monogram 1/48 F4U-4 Corsair, from 1968 in Korean war markings. Oh and not much going on with the Bombers, havent had a chance to work on them since my last post on my progress.

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 8:16 AM

Hey since it was based of the B-24 its a B-24 Variant, the only difference is its armement, to its standard Army/Airforce counterpart and since it is in the Navy it was given the Navy designation. But otherwise you are correct. Sorry about that. Big Smile [:D]

Holly cow that web site is yours swany, Ive been looking at that site for about a year now, and reading about the B-17 and other Bomber aircraft. What a small world we truly live in. Oh and I have to say I am quite impressed with your work. Shock [:O]

Reply

Swanny

Member since
February 2003
From: Sandusky Ohio, USA

Posted by Swanny on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 7:21 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Vintage Aircraft

QUOTE: Originally posted by Swanny

QUOTE: Originally posted by Vintage Aircraft
Swanny RB-17G
Daryl Huhtala 1/48 RB-17G
Masu 1/48 B-26

Not that I'm trying to be a party pooper or anything but I am not building any medium or heavy bombers as part of a group build nor do I have anything going on with a B-17. I am building an SB-2 but not in connection with this group build - sorry guys but I don't know where this listing for me came from.

Hey my bad sorry, about that, though someone said you were, but you do have a B-24 I see. Ill take you

That's not a B-24, that is a PB4Y-1.

Swanny's Models

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 12:04 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Swanny

QUOTE: Originally posted by Vintage Aircraft
Swanny RB-17G
Daryl Huhtala 1/48 RB-17G
Masu 1/48 B-26

Not that I'm trying to be a party pooper or anything but I am not building any medium or heavy bombers as part of a group build nor do I have anything going on with a B-17. I am building an SB-2 but not in connection with this group build - sorry guys but I don't know where this listing for me came from.

Hey my bad sorry, about that, though someone said you were, but you do have a B-24 I see. Ill take you

Oh and guys dont break off, remember I did say that I would allow some things in, if you can get me enought information on some of those aircraft you people want to build I will consider including them.

Reply

Swanny

Member since
February 2003
From: Sandusky Ohio, USA

Posted by Swanny on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 9:36 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Vintage Aircraft
Swanny RB-17G
Daryl Huhtala 1/48 RB-17G
Masu 1/48 B-26

Not that I'm trying to be a party pooper or anything but I am not building any medium or heavy bombers as part of a group build nor do I have anything going on with a B-17. I am building an SB-2 but not in connection with this group build - sorry guys but I don't know where this listing for me came from. Confused [%-)]

Swanny's Models

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 9:11 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jeeves
[Sorry if I am beating a dead horse-- but you haven't addressed the patrol bombers specifically-- are they in or out??

Jeeves:

See my Sunderland whines -- maybe we should break out & start a Maritime Aircraft Build ???

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 9:10 PM

V.A. & Folks

I'll stick with the B-25C/D, but I'm really not sure if it will be a PTO Strafer, CBI, ETO, or MTO and if US or (if ETO,MTO) British. Depends on what decal sets I can scrounge up -- right now I'm heavy on PTO stuff.

I have the following stuff for the build:
AM B25C/D (the original, not re-issue)
Verlinden B25B Detail
Verlinden B25 Control Surfaces
Eduard B25B Detail
Aires B25B Cockpit
Cutting Edge Corrected Cowls (early)
some other non-specific stuff
Knowing the AM kit is pretty good, lots of this PE & resin won't get used ....

I also have an AM B-25B -- if I do a straight medium bomber version, I may just convert the B to a C/D, so I can save the C/D kit for a Strafer. Yeah, the detail & stuff above says B25B but in most cases can be used for C/D also.

I've got more research & decision making to do. When I get closer, I'll put a section up on my website to show the kit/detail pieces, etc.

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 8:42 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Vintage Aircraft
What should the A-20, and the A-26 be classifyed as, Attack aircraft, or Medium bombers.

The A-20 & A-26 were built under attack bomber programs; at the end of WW2 when attack bombers went away, the A-26 became the B-26 and was type classed as a light bomber.

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 2:16 PM

hey chaps i av a 1/48 b-26 an a b-17 if i pass me exams if iget the big un i ll do it but otherwise im doin revell B-26 an god elp mecos i ve got a 1/2 finished hawker hunter and a1/2 finshed F-14 !!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Reply
Edit

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 1:15 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by knight667

B-29 pics should be up tomorrow (Wednesday) evening when I get my film back. Hopefully some B-17G progress pics too, although it's complete and hanging in my living room now. Still waiting for my B-17F to arrive.

Did we ever decide on a logo? I read all the posts, but couldn't find mention of one other thant VAs problem posting images....

Great I cant wait to see them, I can find very few photos of compleated B-29s that are good, This is going to be quite a treat for the eyes, Im suspecting. Shy [8)]

Yeah we really need a logo, if someone could make one, cuz I cant get mine up at all.

Reply

knight667

Member since
January 2004
From: Philomath, OR, USA

Posted by knight667 on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 12:31 PM

B-29 pics should be up tomorrow (Wednesday) evening when I get my film back. Hopefully some B-17G progress pics too, although it's complete and hanging in my living room now. Still waiting for my B-17F to arrive. Sad [:(]

Did we ever decide on a logo? I read all the posts, but couldn't find mention of one other thant VAs problem posting images....

John "The only easy day was yesterday." - US Navy SEALs "Improvise. Adapt. Overcome." - US Marine Corp. "I live each day/Like it's my last/...I never look back" - from "I'm A Rocker" by Judas Priest

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 12:07 PM

Hey I am so sorry that I have been behind on the replies, I started work yesterday, and I dont have much time to talk, on Mondays, thrue Wednessday, but I can talk on my breaks at 12:30 central time. And the rest of the week.

Oh and Daryl Huhtala, I am sorry I havent put you down yet, I am doing it now.

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 12:02 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by shrikes

I think the Havoc and Invader should be classified as medium bombers... to me, it seems that "attack" and "bomber" are rather loose terms to begin with. I mean, the A-6 is indeed a bomber in the truest sense (its main purpose was to drop bombs), but classified by the Navy as an attack plane. The same goes for Havoc and Invader. Of course, this is just me.

Oh, and V.A., will I be building the B-17G or the B-17B for this GB?

You can build whatever one you want, you can also build both of them.

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 11:58 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jeeves

QUOTE: Originally posted by Vintage Aircraft

Ok the group build criteriea will stay the same, but if the case is strong enough for, certain aircraft, they may be let in, but only if it fits the criteria perfectly. and if another member thinks it is viable. And only a very few of those will be let in.

Now that that is over lets get back to buiseness.

What should the A-20, and the A-26 be classifyed as, Attack aircraft, or Medium bombers.

Sorry if I am beating a dead horse-- but you haven't addressed the patrol bombers specifically-- are they in or out?? I see John has made his vote known-- but I am interested in what you, the group leader, declares. I will abide by your decision whatever it may be...

Since you were one of the first to join, I will accept your PBY

Reply

ADleitch

Member since
January 2003
From: Syracuse, NY

Posted by ADleitch on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 8:06 AM

For anyone that wants to know, The Mosquito was intended in its orginal design as a fast bomber, with no armament what so ever, it used its speed to escape interception. Later they discovered they could fit alot of weapons to it, and also carry bombs.

The mosquito is one of the best aircraft ever designed and I hope Trumpeter are reading this and release a really good 1/32 one for us.

Its Better to Burn out than to Fade Away!!!

Reply

Jeeves

Member since
February 2003
From: Saratoga Springs, NY

Posted by Jeeves on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 7:24 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by Vintage Aircraft

Ok the group build criteriea will stay the same, but if the case is strong enough for, certain aircraft, they may be let in, but only if it fits the criteria perfectly. and if another member thinks it is viable. And only a very few of those will be let in.

Now that that is over lets get back to buiseness.

What should the A-20, and the A-26 be classifyed as, Attack aircraft, or Medium bombers.

Sorry if I am beating a dead horse-- but you haven't addressed the patrol bombers specifically-- are they in or out?? I see John has made his vote known-- but I am interested in what you, the group leader, declares. I will abide by your decision whatever it may be...

Mike

Reply

shrikes

Member since
November 2003
From: Manila, Philippines

Posted by shrikes on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 12:26 AM

I think the Havoc and Invader should be classified as medium bombers... to me, it seems that "attack" and "bomber" are rather loose terms to begin with. I mean, the A-6 is indeed a bomber in the truest sense (its main purpose was to drop bombs), but classified by the Navy as an attack plane. The same goes for Havoc and Invader. Of course, this is just me. Big Smile [:D]

Oh, and V.A., will I be building the B-17G or the B-17B for this GB?

Blackadder: This plan's as cunning as a fox that used to be Professor of cunning at Oxford University but has now moved on and is working with the U.N at the high commission of cunning planning

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Monday, June 7, 2004 9:45 PM

Ok the group build criteriea will stay the same, but if the case is strong enough for, certain aircraft, they may be let in, but only if it fits the criteria perfectly. and if another member thinks it is viable. And only a very few of those will be let in.

Now that that is over lets get back to buiseness. Smile [:)]

What should the A-20, and the A-26 be classifyed as, Attack aircraft, or Medium bombers.

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 7, 2004 9:08 PM

V.A. & Guys:

I posted a "No" - ie, keep it pure Medium & Heavy -- because that is what V.A. laid out & these FSM builds get real loose real quick. BUT, if you look back further thru these posts, you'll see that I was really sniveling around to build a Sunderland ('cause I got the 3 great new P/E sets from White Ensign).

Medium & Heavy are relatively standard terms, with some variation by country as to what they really mean. And there have been some good posts about aircraft like the Mossie or Beuafighter whose role varies by specific model. Likewise, the B-25 is a medium bomber - that it was used in the attack role was kinda a local thing -- it was still a medium bomber by definition. But 2(4)-engines & bombs do not a medium(heavy) bomber make so patrol bombers, light bombers, attack bombers don't fit.

V.A., ball is in your court ....

Reply
Edit

Daryl Huhtala

Member since
June 2004
From: Hooterville

Posted by Daryl Huhtala on Monday, June 7, 2004 7:04 PM

Okay, I'll wander out on a limb and commit to a build of my Dad's RB-17G.

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 7, 2004 4:25 PM

Surely the Mosquito must fall in this catagory as much as say the Wellington (two engines and a bomb bay) the Mosquito did carry some heavy ordnance as well - it is not so much as whether an aircraft qualifies as to the Mk. The Mosquito was produced in some Mks as a fighter - some a bomber and some a fighter bomber - build the right Mk and there is no problem? Inciddenatlly I did not wish to appear paternal in my previous offering - just gently to nudge things back to the typically casual mode that exists in tis forum - which makes it so enjoyable. I also do not recall seeing Swanny's name appearing - he is a bomber fan - any notions please?

Reply
Edit

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Monday, June 7, 2004 4:13 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by KINGTHAD

Thanks Vintage, Didnt want to break any rules

Thad

Better safe than sorry Big Smile [:D]

and what would the Dehavland Mosquito fall under?

Reply

KINGTHAD

Member since
May 2004
From: Dallas

Posted by KINGTHAD on Monday, June 7, 2004 4:00 PM

Thanks Vintage, Didnt want to break any rules

Thad

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Monday, June 7, 2004 3:56 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by KINGTHAD

vintage, I was going to do a Ju88 let me know if I can play or not.

Thad

Hey the JU88 was a bomber, built as one and used as one, plus it was a medium so your in the clear

Reply

KINGTHAD

Member since
May 2004
From: Dallas

Posted by KINGTHAD on Monday, June 7, 2004 3:54 PM

vintage, I was going to do a Ju88 let me know if I can play or not.

Thad

Reply

Vintage Aircraft

Member since
May 2004
From: A little place I call earth

Posted by Vintage Aircraft on Monday, June 7, 2004 3:51 PM

QUOTE: Originally posted by thundergod

Wow I didnt intend to start anything guys. I am sorry. I was just wanting to Know since there was talk about it from a few people. If we are talkin 2 or more engines and a bomb bay then the Dehavilland Mosquito would be considered, I dont think it falls in the bomber catagory does or did it?

Hey you didnt start anything, I just decided to try and resolve this issue that inevitably would have come up sooner or later and might have gotten out of hand, so I really thank you for bringing it up.

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 7, 2004 3:25 PM

Wow I didnt intend to start anything guys. I am sorry. I was just wanting to Know since there was talk about it from a few people. If we are talkin 2 or more engines and a bomb bay then the Dehavilland Mosquito would be considered, I dont think it falls in the bomber catagory does or did it?

Reply
Edit

THE MAGAZINE

CONTACT US

RECENT ARTICLES

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT REVIEWS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT REVIEWS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT VIDEOS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT THREADS

CATEGORIES

NEW PRODUCTS

OUR STORE

CURRENT ISSUE

SEARCH FINESCALE.COM