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

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:
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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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...

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

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.

oh and scottrc great looking michell, Im quite impressed.

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

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?

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?

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.

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

Thad

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

Thanks Vintage, Didnt want to break any rules

Thad

QUOTE: Originally posted by KINGTHAD Thanks Vintage, Didnt want to break any rules Thad

Better safe than sorry

and what would the Dehavland Mosquito fall under?

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?

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

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 ....

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.

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?

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...

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.

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

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.