Hello everyone: I would like to know roughly what is the Hasegawa's 1:72 B-24 maximum fuselage width?

I know the best way would be to cut through the kit, but your best guess of each fuselage half is plenty good enough: The widest point would be roughly at the main wing level.

The difference I expect with the 1:48th Monogram kit may be as large as around half a foot of extra width throughout the roughly paralell fuselage areas in plan view, or around six inches extra for the Hasegawa kit, but slightly less around the tail (the Monogram kit fuselage is obviously drastically too narrow overall)...

Reduced to 1:72, the Monogram kit would thus be somewhere around 2 mm narrower than the Hasegawa, and the Hasegawa kit enlarged to 1:48th would be I think around 3 mm wider...

Thanks in advance for the trouble!

Gaston

My guess is 25mm probably way out as I don't have the kit, but you did ask for a best guess

If I understand well, you took that rough ruler measurement on the outside of someone else's Hasegawa kit?

Gaston

Or maybe it was the first number that came to mind?

Yeah, obviously a master comedian.

Gaston

No you asked for a best guess, that was mine. I figured that you were going to attack the model anyway so it wouldn't matter how wild my guess was

Two remedies spring to mind:-
1/. A sense of humour transplant (unlikely, I know.)
2/. Buy one's own kit, and do one's own research, then astound (or not) everyone with the results.
Edgar

I about I don't model in 1/72 scale and replying with something useful for a change?

If I ask how wide it is, it is because it sure beats going from drawings not covered with precise dimensions, trust me...

Gaston

I've already shown that your theories on the Spitfire are a load of nonsense, which others found useful.
Yesterday, I spent the day in our National Archives, researching the Spitfire, Hurricane, Tempest, Mosquito, Malta convoys, infra-red, and managed to answer three personal enquiries from people in various parts of the world, who don't have access to our records. Would you consider that useful?
Edgar

Edgar

The only things that Gaston finds helpful are reproduced pictures as he distrusts plans completely.

Gaston, part of the hobby is doing your own research to find out what you need to know about your subject.

How about looking at some plans that are drawn by a reputable person and make up your own mind from that? Comparing a 1/48th scale kit to a 1/72nd can be a redundant exercise as kits from different sources can use different starting points.

hi Gaston I usually strive to have my aircraft models as accurate as possible but if i can't get hands on reference material or actual plans as long as the kit looks like the aircraft its supposed to be that's good enough for me i take it your planning on building the revell monogram liberator seeing as this is the only game in town for 1/48 your kinda stuck but their B-17 is very accurate so I'm assuming the outline will be similar just depends on how much detail/effort ones willing to put in good luck with your research and subsequent build Ant.

Hi Gaston

I don't see how comparing kits in different scales will really help you, especially as you only asked for rough measurements - you'll end up way out...

Surely it's easier to go by the published full-sized dimensions and scale down? Detail & Scale shows the maximum fuselage width for the B-24 as 7ft 5in (and you can add an extra 13/32nds of an inch for a PB4Y-2 Privateer (not including the blisters)).

All the best

Rowan

I usually stay out of these ridiculous exchanges but this comment caused me to laugh out loud and I can't resist. :-)

Cutting through the kit is the best way? Really?

Let me introduce you to a nifty tool called a Digital Caliper. Using one of these, the fuselage width can be measured to within .001" without resorting to unnecessary surgery or guess work.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Hasegawa B-24 or I would measure it for you. How about an Academy B-24?

Cheers,
Eric

Hi Eric

That was my first thought too, but I resisted the urge (until now) to comment on the suggestion that totally butchering a kit was the best way to measure it. Even if the question was about the cross-section, I'd use a profile gauge rather than slaughter an innocent model.

All the best

Rowan

Well, true enough for the calipers if they are wide enough... But when you hold the fuselage empty of interior parts, it tends to flex even if you barely touch it...

Knowing about the Academy would be great for the 1/72 guys : The Hasegawa kit is one of the best researched and most accurate kits ever offered, a real masterpiece, and the best B-24 by light years in any scale: The conclusions vs the Monogram are interesting to say the least... (if these debates are so ridiculous, how come we did not know the Monogram fuselage was narrower than actual by the amount below?) Here's what I posted on Swanny's after I got the dimensions from Old Dog on the Hasegawa B-24 kit:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much Old Dog!

I'll crunch the numbers with how this relates to the Monogram 1/48th kit, and post the results with some photos of what this entails to widen the Monogram fuselage (if the Hasegawa agrees that this is indeed what needs to be done: I would be very surprised if not)...

The difficulty is that there are bomb bays and turrets in the way to widen the fuselage, so the C-87 version sure would save some work...

Thanks again!

Gaston

Edit: here are the results: Hasegawa kit 1/72 scale translated to 1/48th:

46.8 mm wide in 1/48th (1.84 inches):

Monogram kit, measuring through a CUT kit: 42.2 mm (1.66")...

My modification with widening spacers based from photographs: 45.5 mm (1.79")

46.8 mm is 10.9% WIDER than 42.2 mm...

My guess is they cut these moulds not knowing even the basic dimensions... They were just winging it on that one and does it ever show... No wonder I am up to my ears in putty on that one... I'll post some photos later...

G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.swannysmodels.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1324968537

4.6 mm wider is NINE inches in 1/48th scale: The entire Monogram fuselage needs a scale nine inch spacer between the entire contact area of the fuselage halves to be accurate (less so towards the tail)...

Well if it is ridiculous to know that, given the amount of work one can sink into the B-24, I'll leave you to your non-ridiculous pursuits...

Note though that 31 years of "experts" musings failed to point that out...

Gaston

So that's what all of this twisting and turning is all about. Now, let me give you a friendly pointer to another way to get an answer:-
Question: can anyone tell me the maximum width of the B-24's fuselage, please?
Answer: according to Detail & Scale, who used official measurements, it's 7'5".
There, you see, no cutting and slicing of an expensive kit, just a five minute perusal of a personal library item.
7'5" comes out to 1.854" (47.09mm) in 1/48th, and 1.236" (31.4mm) in 1/72nd.
Another 5 minutes of mathematics, and no histrionics; I'm now going back to my non-ridiculous pursuit of Spitfire researches.
Edgar

Monogram kit, measuring through a CUT kit: 42.2 mm (1.66")...

Hi Gaston

I think you must have a very undernourished kit, or not have sliced it at the widest point... my Monogram B-24J measures 46.08mm, so still a tad slim compared with the correct 47.09mm as scaled down from the real thing, but nowhere near as far off as you suggest.

All the best

Rowan

Might be to do with altitude and cabin pressurisation !?!?!

Huh? How wide do they need to be? You're measuring a tube barely over an inch in diameter! Have you never seen or used calipers before?

Oh, never mind..just for fun, here's the Academy 1/72 B-24 fuselage:



1.187" (30.15mm) which converts to 1.78" (45.22mm) in 1/48.

Hmm...a little on the thin side but not too shabby. I'll not lose any sleep over it. Looks like a B-24 to me!

Just so there's no doubt, yes, this is mine.





You mean pursuits like actually building models? I guess what is and is not "ridiculous" is a matter of opinion.

Cheers,
Eric

Hello Rowan,

You are partially correct in that I measured a kit that was modified and cut for assembly purposes, to which I substracted the thickness of the spacers I added: It is not quite the widest point on the Monogram fuselage as well, as there is some tapering I did not see, but that is only part of the issue...:



The main problem was I ignored the fact that I had used pliers to make the spine rounder: This had a more considereable effect in narrowing the modified fuselage than I expected: You can see here how much flatter is the Monogram spine: This flat spine is atrociously wrong and correcting it with (padded end) pliers does make the fuselage narrower...: You can see the stress marks from forcing the spine rounder:



You can see here how much rounder is the spine of the real aircraft on this C-87 factory shot by looking at the curve of the shiny metal braces (note as well the slope on which the two spine doors are, and the greater spacing between them), and also note the extremely wide appearance of the opened join area with the tailplane:



Here you can see how much narrower is the unmodified kit's join to its own tailplane: My modified kit with the spacers is close to correct, and there is a good 3 mm there....



Even taking all these variables into account, your measurement of 46 mm is not correct by a scale two inches: The kit is 45 mm under the wings and not a whisker more: The reason why you get 46 mm is because the slightest pressure in holding the fuselage in position for your calipers will change the measurement you get: Here I used a brand-new kit I had for comparison photos, and I am holding it by the bomb bay door frames so as to not alter the shape of the fuselage in any way:



Here it looks like it is under 45 mm, because of the ruler's thickness, but in fact it is 45 mm exactly...

Because of the corrected rounder spine, the amount of spacer needed on the top join is huge, and slightly larger than the bottom join... And I am still well short of 47 mm! I have another 1 mm or more to go...

The tail area has slightly less spacing added on my kit, but being narrower the overall effect looks even larger...

In any case the 2 mm discrepancy confirmed (4 scale inches) could be, for simplicity's sake, considered to be what is needed to add to the entire Monogram fuselage halves join (but only if you keep the horrible Monogram flat-as-a-pancake spine as is, otherwise it is at least 3 mm or more on top, and probably more).

And even then, there is yet another major factor I omitted: To correct Monogram's shoddy half-baked workmanship, I had to squash the left fuselage half (that is, left looking from the front) until a crack appeared on the upped fuselage join near the trailing edge level: This is because the Monogram fuselage is "blown" swollen on one side (because of the mould being the junk that it is) and restoring symmetry requires squashing that side narrower with very carefully applied brute force (no, boiling water won't get you out of the wood on this crap):



Don't be under any illusion your kit is exempt: It is the steel mould that is like that... Their B-17G is flawless in nearly every respect, so they knew they were putting out junk...

I managed to straighten it correctly with minimal damage after two tries, but it really stinks let me tell you... This accounts for the fact I probably need 4 mm (8 inches) of spacers on the bottom and 5 mm (10 inches) on top to even reach the 47 mm mark, still with perfectly straight and paralell sides...

The Monogram B-29 has the exact same "swollen" side nonsense, and it is even harder to fix, although adding the needed extra 8 mm in tail length (minus 2 mm in doghouse length, to reach the + 6 mm longer actual length of 99 ft.) allows solving the problem by tilting a second kit's ellongated tail to "squash" out the "blown" left side... It is still short in span by around 2-3 mm for the shortest wing version, but I am well past caring by this point...:



In any case, the wrong measurement you got with your calipers shows they are not always a foolproof way of measuring: You can flex these fuselages 1 mm in total without even knowing it...

Gaston

I know the feeling..................

Nige

[quote Even taking all these variables into account, your measurement of 46 mm is not correct by a scale two inches: The kit is 45 mm under the wings and not a whisker more: The reason why you get 46 mm is because the slightest pressure in holding the fuselage in position for your calipers will change the measurement [/quote]
If you squeeze the fuselage sides, while using calipers, you will get an under-measurement, not oversize; nobody would be daft enough to hold the two halves at the top and bottom, and press. You can twist and turn, all you like, but I'll take a caliper (used one for 30 years) over your guesswork, any day.


Only if you're a completely hamfisted ignoramus (and he isn't.)

Monogram's shoddy half-baked workmanship
(because of the mould being the junk that it is) and restoring symmetry requires squashing that side narrower with very carefully applied brute force (no, boiling water won't get you out of the wood on this crap):
so they knew they were putting out junk...
it really stinks let me tell you...
Do we really need this offensive language? This is a simple little box of plastic parts, that's all

Hi Gaston

Hang on, let me get this straight... you didn't measure your kit at the widest point, so any calculations based on comparisons with measurements taken by others at the widest point of their kits are meaningless.

Thanks for the tips on using the caliper. Darn it, I knew it was a mistake to squash the fuselage until I got the reading I wanted!




That's why I hate these blasted Monogram kits: you can't let them out of your sight for a moment or they keep changing! Your was only 42.2 mm yesterday.

All the best

Rowan