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

I have advocated sticking to the original concept - and that really is not difficult - but after all this is a "fun thing" and so please let us not develop it into anything heavy. I feel sure that now views have ben aired everyone has a fair idea of where the boundaries lie and also that a little bit of discretion - may be even a large little bit is permissable. Can I suggest then that the "build" continues without further ado, we all obey the "unwritten" rules and produce the goods accordingly?

HI
I think we should stick to bombers, two or more engines and a bomb bay.
Just my thought.

oh and scottrc great looking michell, Im quite impressed.

Keep the votes comeing, there are some intriguing ideas in here that I want to think through some more, and I will post a decision on this at 5:00 Central time, as to what the build will include, or if it will stay the same.

Hey guys, if it was a medium to heavy aircraft (two or more engines) and you have documantation that it drops bombs, then built it. Otherwise we will argue until the cows come home about the roles of the A26, A20 and B25 because yes, they were modified into the attack fighter/bomber role. But they were still used as bombers. Same with seaplanes. All of those patrol aircraft were setup to drop bombs and depth charges on U-Boats. So, I would think a PBY, PBM, Short Sutherland, Condor, etc should qualify and give us some unique new perspectives.
Scott

Well-- I can withdraw from the build with my PBY if others wish...I just only had that and a B-26 on my pile...I don't really want to start the B-26 right now- so I had chosen the PBY...it was after all a 2 engine bomber/ rescue aircraft.... seems to me no real difference between it and a B-25 or B-26 as they all did similar duty in the Pacific on their attacks on the Tokyo Express....but I will humbly withdraw if the group wishes...

I for one have no problem with the limits imposed by Vintage, BUT--consider this: there
are several aircraft out there that really blur the demarcation line between medium bombers & the attack / light bomber class. The two that come to mind immediately are
the A-20 & the aircraft that was developed from it, the A/B-26 Invader. They had an appearance, performance & function very similar to the Mitchell & Marauder, & it seems to me that the real difference here is one of terminology rather than substance. The
issue becomes even stickier when we consider that one of the classic medium bombers of all time, the B-25, was frequently used in the attack role in the SW pacific
theatre. Please forgive me if I'm being a pest, but I think it would be a good idea to give the participants as much of a choice of subjects as possible within the parameters laid down by Vintage. After all, who wants to see the same aircraft built over & over again in a group build? We should all respectfully obey the wishes of the group leader, but first let's get through the process--natural to a group build, in my opinion--of deciding which of these fringe-dwelling aircraft fit within the specified boundaries. I think it would most fair to decide on a case by case basis. So, how about it? A-20 & A-26--in or out? Any others that anybody else can think of?

Yes - medium/heavy Bombers only - otherwise it will become very dubious as to what in fact may beincluded. Not really surre why we need the debate - the initial description was abundantly clear was it not?

VA:

My "vote":

Build advertised as Medium & Heavy Bombers.
No light bombers, no attack bombers, no fighter bombers, no patrol bombers, no dive bombers, no torpedo bombers.
Only Medium & Heavy Bombers.

Here is the painted noseart on "Mystical Adventure". I need a new Digital Camera, this one got dropped in my cooler last fall and spent a few hours in ice water. I think the shutter is wacked.
()

Scott

Ok since people are asking if a fighter bomber/attack aircraft would be able to get into this group a decision has to be made. I belive that a fighter bomber/attack aircraft is not a bomber, since it also perfoms the roll of a fighter/attack aircraft. A bomber does not. If we do allow fighter bombers/attackaircraft in than the basic fighter/attack aircraft is also allowed in because almost all of the fighters/attack aircraft developed could be and were used as fighter bombers, thus the pure-bredness of the group is lost. Also because I feel that bomber kits and modelers are very under represented in the face of so many fighter/attack aircfraft kits, that is the reason I wanted to start this build in the first place . But that is just my opinion, and because this is a group I dont belive only one person should have a say in this so it will be put up to a vote among current members, Yes fighter bombers/attack aircraft should be allowed , no fighter bombers/attack aircraft should not be allowed. And if they are allowed I think only a limited number should be in.

Ok I am thinking of joining in I noticed that some guys are doing Fighter bombers. Is this the case? Or just chatter among the group? Either wat I have lots of fighter bombers and a few bombers in the way of a 1/48 lancaster from tamiya, 1/72 RB-36 peacemaker, No room for these when completed and testors B2 but it is not a very good kit,along with a B25 mitchell and B 26 maurader both monograms.I wont even go into the fighter bombers yet.

Vintage Aircraft,
Thanks for adding me, now have to find 4 Hercules 14 radials, cowls and props, a nightmare yes, but worth the trouble to remember my Grandfather.

Vintage:
Jets seem to be extremely underrepresented in the build, so I thought of doing maybe
an A-6 Intruder (1/48 Monogram) as my first choice or an A-7 Corsair II (1/48 Hasegawa)
as my second. These planes are of course technically classified as "Attack" aircraft instead of bombers, but I guarantee you those weren't watermelons that they dropped
on the NVA. What say you, chief?

QUOTE: Originally posted by leitch Vintage Aircraft, If its okay with you I would like to join this build with something none of you have mentioned. A 1/48 Lancaster BII, My grandfather flew in them with 514 SQn during WWII. Am going to convert the Tamiya BIII.

Hey you can enter our build, I shure wish I could get my hands on a Lancaster, but I cant find one anywhere. Ill put you on the group build list.

Hey everyone, I have two new additions to my 1/48 family, Tamiya P-47D-25 Bubbletop Thunderbolt, and the Monogram 1/48 TBD-1 Devistator. A bit far off from the 1/72 bomber I was going to get today, but just as good

Vintage Aircraft,
If its okay with you I would like to join this build with something none of you have mentioned. A 1/48 Lancaster BII, My grandfather flew in them with 514 SQn during WWII. Am going to convert the Tamiya BIII.

On realy big gaps like that, and the ones I had on the 1/32 Corsair, I used Bondo. Yup. bodo, it doesn't crack and it sands well. Just make sure it sets a little before putting it on because it could craze or melt the plastic.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Vintage Aircraft Hey I am heading up to a hobby shop today and am thinking of buying a 1/72 bomber, either the B-17F, or C/D from Acedemy or the B-24J Liberator from Acedemy, or even a 1/72 B-25H from Hasagawa. What should I choose. I need a reply quick cuz Im leaving at 12:00 today. Thanks in advance Oh Shrikes I think you should try to fill that gap with styreen and then if needed put putty on it, or just finish it with some Mr Surficer 500. Good luck to you. And since you built Revells kit you should have no trouble with this one.

Styrene! Why didn't i think of that?!? I'll try a bit more sanding, and if that doesn't do the trick, i'll go at it with styrene.

Okay, I'm biased towards the B-17, but I've never seen an academy B-24 kit go together, so I'll have to vote for that one!

Hey I am heading up to a hobby shop today and am thinking of buying a 1/72 bomber, either the B-17F, or C/D from Acedemy or the B-24J Liberator from Acedemy, or even a 1/72 B-25H from Hasagawa. What should I choose. I need a reply quick cuz Im leaving at 12:00 today. Thanks in advance

Oh Shrikes I think you should try to fill that gap with styreen and then if needed put putty on it, or just finish it with some Mr Surficer 500. Good luck to you. And since you built Revells kit you should have no trouble with this one.

Okay, guys, I'm well underway with my B-17G! Unfortunatly I've hit a snag... The wing roots on the Academy kit have a humongous gap. I'm not too sure how to sand it to correct it... sanding the bottom edge only creates a gap there.
Here's a picture at what looks like the proper dihedral:

Would this be too much for putty to handle? I've heard it shrinks and cracks over time... What do you think?

Welcome to the group build biggles.

Vintage ,I'm kinda leaning towards the Fencer at the moment ,its the
1/72 Dragon kit.The Mossie is a 1/48 Tamiya.

At the moment I'm finishing 1 NAWSC Aggressor F18A in 1/72 and
1 F18B "The Fighting Omars" in 1/72.So I'll have to finish these first.
Shouldn't be too long 2 to 3 weeks.

Hey thanks for the info Lucien, and why cant you join us

Jtraz Ill put you douwn for a C/D version of the B-25,

M1 why the heck are you going to build the Matchbox Lancaster, it is a horrible kit, I only built it for a fast project and never intended it to be a show model, really just something to test a multitone paint shceme for a british aircraft on, I used so much putty on that thing it was embarrising, Its right up there with the Revell Lancaster in poor quality, exterior is ok but interior is just like the Revell B-17 1/72 except there is no bombay what so ever on it.

Hey Stram the P-38 is a nice build, with a good end product, but it just takes alot of work to get a good end result, but other than that I havent had a bad MONOGRAM not Revell, experiance. Almost all Monogram kits are really nice with only a little extra work neede to get them to Tamiya standards. But I would say try and build the P-38, youll leanr somthing in building it and it might be fun.

Hi! I'm not joining (unfortunatly), but I thought I could add someting interesing...

You were talking about the TB-3 a while ago, and (knowing a thing or two about it), thought y'all might like this-

[image]http://www.airventure.de/historypics/vak2.jpg[/image]

Yes, it is real, and yes, it really happened. It was actually the final result of a whole series of experiments using the TB-3 and parasite aircraft. The Zveno used in WWII was the combat version, and the only parasite aircraft to be used in combat.

It's too bad I can't join this build. Bombers are my favorite type of aircraft, and I really feel bad I can't join. I'll watch it, though. Good luck, everyone!

uh ,you can change me to a matchbox 1/72 lancaster.

Hi Biggles,
Welcome!
Your gonna have all three!

You guys are killing me. I haven't ever had a bad Revell experience that wasn't my own fault. Now I hear that the 1/32 Corsair is bad and so is the 1/48 P-38. I have both of these kits in my stash just waiting to be built.

Well I think I have decided to go ahead and get the Academy Memphis Belle but I am gonna try the Revell with some scratch building. It will be the first time I have ever tried scratchbuilding.

Update:

Almost done with my current project and will be starting my B-17 very soon.

VA -

OK, I'll do the AM B-25, C or D version, probably a C-1 Strafer but maybe something from North Africa. I'll make final choice in a week or so after some study (& effort to make room on workbench).

John

welcome to the forum biggles and to the build!

Vintage Aircraft,

I'm in, if you'll have me! Put me down for an A-26, Ju 88A and a Do 217E, all in 1/48.

Regards,

QUOTE: Originally posted by scottrc Hey stram, I feel for you, I did the same thing with the Revell 1/32 Corsair, man was that a POS. I wish I just spent the extra $$$ and got the Trumpeter. Those kits will make a good projects for family fun night, where I throw a couple of layers of newspaper on the kitchen table, and me and the kids all grab parts, glue them together, and by bedtime have a plane ready to hang from the ceiling.

Thats the way to build a Revell kit, Its the best method I ever heard of, other than just not buying one And I feel for both you guys, I had to attemp to build the Monogram P-38J Lightning, I gotta say Im a huge fan of the Monogram line but that kit was just plain I was expecting better but iI guess my work payed off with it, I won a competirion with it best of show.