Thank you for taking the time to watch my review, i hope you found it informative. Please take a moment to make a comment and tell me what you liked or disliked and remember to subscribe and press the bell icon.
What a great Demo. My Uncle flew the B17F in 1943. I wish he few the G version if he had he would have had a better chance of coming home. His story is found on RUclips “3 Days in May 1943”. Love your video
Just saw this….good review. I built the Monogram kit when it first appeared (I was in High School). Looking back I think it’s safe to say this kit was sort of the first wave of “mature” kits. In other words kits produced for mature modelers and not as toys. I think this is one of the first kits I had to go to a Hobby Shop to buy. Prior to that I got kits at a drug store or a 5 and dime.
Having just built the Academy 1/72 version of this kit, I’m very glad the unbuilt 1/48 version of this bomber I have in my stash is the Monogram kit. I build most of my models buttoned up, so most of the interior detail is not visible except under the larger plexiglass areas. I devote most of my time to the exterior painting, decals, and weathering, and find the super detailed interiors are a waste of money and time for someone with my type of display objectives. For the same reason, I prefer Tamiya tank models with their one-piece rubber tracks instead of the infernal time consuming and eye-sight straining individual link style. Different strokes for different folks. Btw, that was an excellent comparison video you just put up there. Cheers.
Even tho the HK Kit is arguably better in alot of aspects, i would still go with the Good ol' Monogram kit. I mean for a 1970's kit. It ain't bad at all.
The Monogram is literally ten times more accurate: Main gear sit, outer nacelle shape, nose, rear fuselage cross-section, wing airfoil (symmetrical in reality, just as Monogram did!)... The Monogram needs Squadron clear parts, resin wheels and metal guns, that's about it.
Yep, the main failure of Revell/Monogram is the finer Details, Eduards has PE kits and such that fix this but it is an additional cost, one cost I truly recommend however ;)
One can tell from the video that the Monongram molds are past their prime time. I built this kit on the 80ties and there was no flesh on the parts and especially the figures were top notch...for their days. It was a great kit and if I went for another one I would look for an old example off E-Bay.
Cutting bulkhead doors. I have done this on both Monogram and HK. The HK cuts nice and easy. Takes about an hour and cleans up nicely but be very careful with the Radio operators compartment rear door on both Monogram and HK due to being so close to the edge around the gun mount. Monogram plastic is i think a little thicker and makes cutting them out just a little harder as i recall but is worth the effort as it gives slightly more view of the interior when the model is closed up. I did this on the 1/32 scale B-17 and am glad that i took the time to do it. Thank's for the comparison video!
@@ModelOfficer I just picked up another Revell (Monogram) B-17 two days ago from Hobby Lobby for $26.00 after 40% off. I have built it I think six times since i was a kid and still enjoy it. As my skill evolves the kit just keeps getting better and better. The HK kit is probably much better but i'd like to note that the decals are lacking the stencils. On the 1/48 kit it'snot that big of an issue but on the 1/32 it's really disappointing on such an expensive kit. Even the aftermarket stencil fall short of the old Monogram kit. I just subscribed to your channel Thank's again. Have a good day!
“Colonel Bogey's March”, from The Bridge Over the River Kwai (1957, Columbia Pictures, David Lean, Malcolm Arnold), starring Alec Guinness and William Holden, plays in the background of the documentary at the beginning of this video.
Comparing these kits is like comparing a F-15 with a F-22. Both are excellent fighters but obviously the F-22 is superior because it is a newer fighter. I love the Monogram model. It was the first model I ever built back in 1974 when I was 12. I didn't even paint anything. Just glued it together the way it was coming out of the box. Back then the detail was amazing. It still holds up today. I have built this kit 5 times I think. Of course each one got better and better. My last one was over 25 years ago and had interior lighting in the front, cockpit and radio compartments so all the detail could be seen better. I had the front hatch between the cockpit and bomb/nav compartment open as well as the main crew door near the rear. I added ammo belts, flooring to the waist gun area, upgraded machine gun barrels and little gunsights on all the machine guns. Seat belts and buckles on all the seats with extra detail in the radio compartment and realistic battle damage. One engine shot up and had a feathered prop. It was on a nice custom stand I made for it and covered by a clear plastic cover my uncle made for it. He had a plastic company so it was professionally done. Look great. I had several figures around it that included the entire crew, radio operator still in his seat in the aircraft and with the large window above it and lighting, it all can be seen easily. Also had several ground crew doing different things. Mostly looking at the different areas that were damaged. It was sitting on a dirt runway with a couple very realistic trees nearby. I also had an anti-aircraft double .50 calibur machine gun pit with 2 soldiers manning it off the side of the runway surrounded by grass. There were 3 hidden switches for turning on the 3 interior lights. It was really a beautiful diorama. Had it in my first sons bedroom when he was born for several years. Then sadly had to put it in storage and after several years, from the heat I guess, one of the wings bent upward quite a bit and pretty much ruined it. I am glad that finally there is another choice for this famous bomber in 1/48 scale but the Monogram kit will always have a very special place in my heart. I know there is enough after market flight and ground crew figures available but the ones that come with the Monogram kit, just like the kit itself, will always be my favorite figures and I still have all twenty of them. Of course only 5 are in their original poses. The others have been changed. You know different arms or heads. Can't have two of the same ones. hahhah
Superb review, nice touch with the side by side. I think the nose and possibly the cockpit roof being separate is for them to release different marks at a later date. I for one am looking forward to getting the Belle once she's inevitably released.
Thanks Gaz for the comment really grateful for you taking the time. Yes I sure that different types will be added and these parts do change in the different variants
I'm currently building the HK B-17, and have developed a love-hate relationship with the kit. Pros. -- Fantastic surface detail that I'm sure will look terrific. -- Very good instructions with multiple paint call-outs -- Nice clear parts. The Eduard mask set is a must. Cons -- Significant fit issues with the upper fuselage and nose section. Had to use a lot of putty to get it to look ok. -- Injector pins in bomb bay doors and on the inside of the flaps. Boo! I ended up closing the bomb bay doors as there wasn't a really good way to get them to show up. -- Interior detail showed some shortcuts. -- Engine detail lacking, but you don't see much of it anyway. -- Lots of guns, but no ammo belts. -- No poseable control surfaces. Others have commented on fit issues with the wings. I haven't experienced that. Perhaps there was a manufacturing defect in some kits. My rating: 6/10
It’s really great to hear your feedback thank you so much. If you’re ok with Facebook come join the model officer mess group page and post loads of pictures of your build would love to see it
That B-17 in the begin of video “Liberty Bell” burned to the ground a few years ago. Took off from Aroura Airport in ILLINOIS “USA”. Few mins later it was down in a corn field. All 7 souls got out unharmed.
I believe the Old Monogram kit is better proportioned and has a better overall look than the newer kits.. I say "kits" because the 1/32 B-17's from HK are not good on overall shape.
@@janehill9764 the nose may be the correct length but every clear piece in the nose is out of position and the side glazing is too large on the G variant. The whole fuselage is also too fat hence why you may think the nose looks too short?
@@janehill9764 I have done mine by removing material from the centre then adding material top and bottom on the inside to all ow the diameter to be reduced from the wing back. It is soul destroying and then once you are done you have to fit the top on which is too tall and the windscreens need reshaping because the nose is round and should be flat topped. It just goes on and on and on.... then you find the wing chord is incorrect and the outboard engines are too low in relation to the wing centreline....
@@NigelsModellingBench wow. it sounds terrible. you are practically reshaping the entire model. should hk be notified of these discrepancies? i am no longer going to buy one, now that i've read your problems with the kit. it's too much money to spend, if you are a purist like me. tx...jane..p.s. out of curiousity, how did your 1/32 scale b-17 project turn out?
Only 2 marking options in the HK kit - the drawings are 4-view, (both side views (L&R) and upper and lower views. Like the Revellogram kit, 1 is NMF and the other is OD/NG.
LG-Q 8th Airforce 91st / 322nd Bomb Group, 21st June , 1944 on route to target Berlin (Friedrichstrasse) but sadly received damage to left wing as the formation was attacked from the rear as they were coming in via the Baltic Sea heading south east towards Berlin. This specific B17G piloted by O'Bannon is lying in a lake in the former German village Stolzenburg in Mecklenburg Vorpommern today Poland Stolec. The lake is today half German and half Polish ! The larger parts of the fuselage are still in the lake at a depth of approx 3-5 mtrs. whilst the engines would have on impact buried themselves much deeper into the silt of the lake. I have a friend who has some parts off of this B17, there are larger parts which were salvaged by Poles back I think in the eighties and which are at a small museum in Gdynia or Gdansk. According to some historians Russian Army divers and engineers were the first to salvage parts not forgetting that Poland was occupied by Russian Forces at the time. I was actually also on site a couple of times and also retrieved some smaller items. The entire radio equipment and.larger parts of.the Ballturret etc were salvaged a couple of years ago and a friend.had these as.he was.going to display these one day at his very own museum. According to another Pole who I had the pleasure of meeting and who actually wrote a book on the topic the plane was ditched due to the initial fire damage to the left wing caused by the ME110's 20mm or 30mm rounds impacting. However although other bomber crews wh were together on this specific mission reported it wasn't an engine fire but rather the fire was burning between engines 1 + 2 so my guess was the fuel line or hydraulic lines were hit. The crews also reported that the Bomber hadn't dropped its bomb load this it also had to be jettisoned on route towards Sweden as this was the evacuation routing LG-Q took. Furthermore it was reported that all except one crewmember evacuated and parachuted to safety and that the plane was stable but losing altitude. Some even commented the plane was left switched to Autopilot crewless. Hardly believable to me however especially as I had witnessed seeing the left wing and a larger hole which could only be caused by a bomb or flak impact. This hole was located directly where the wing connets to the fuselage! I had even seen a copy of an original Flak report of the unit who had claimed to have shot and hit LG-Q, these were situated at the village named Rothenklempenow and which is literally a couple of Killometres from the lake Stolzenburg. According to all of the other many people who had either seen the remains of LG-Q or had read reports by others there had been NO anti-aircraft attack nor shelling taken place. Anyhow I know what I read and as it was an original German Flak Abschussbericht and the fact Im half German (English) I fully understand the language!!! According to a Pole who wrote a book about LG-Q and even had contacted actual living crew members and or daily members of such, there had been no such Flak attack. My very own theory is that at least O'Bannon were still inside of the aircraft as firstly they still had their full bombload as they hadn't made it to the target before coming under attack thus they'd have headed North-West which would have brought them very very close to the town of Poelitz (today Police) where there was one of the largest synthetic fuel manufacturing plants after the one at Leuna and there they could have jettisoned their bombload or over the Baltic on evacuation route to England.
15:36 :That flattened HK wing profile, hugh... When the symmetrical wing airfoil was a fairly unique feature for a WWII design, a specific B-17G oddity that Monogram captured perfectly, while HK had to re-invent a more boring and completely inaccurate fiction... And then there is the HK's outer engine nacelles, pointed out as wrong years ago, on their 1/32 kit...
The sprues look a lot like the Monogram kit (however, better in some respects)! Almost like HKM used the Monogram kit as a basis for their kit. Dumb question: Has anybody held up the right half of a HKM B-17 Fuselage (in 1/48) to the classic Monogram left half to see if they match up (like the Monogram model does with the Revell model)??? Just wondering about the possibility of kit bashing for a D model b-17...
The Revell kit is a later release--post Monogram. I have the original Monogram release, and, at that time, there were NO plastic bags for ANY of the parts; the sprues were just stacked in the box. Also the box did not come sealed with shrink wrap, or even scotch tape. The tight fit of the lid to the box bottom prevented parts falling out. And, there were ALWAYS a few parts that had fallen off the sprues--smallish sprue gates. BTW, no flash. Whenever I see the new kits with the high tech CAD & slide moulding, but have indifferent attention to detail, or lack of precision, I think of a lack of commitment to high standards on the part of the design staff, and I wonder how much of enthusiasts they even are to this hobby, or even aviation, armor, etc. Is it just another job to them, do they even care? One never had to wonder about that with Monogram. Whatever the limits of the old technology they had to work with, they used it to the max, consistent with trying to make a reasonable return on investment.
Great Video And Inbox Review I Built This kit It Is Disapointing In some Respects Ejector Pins Inside the bomb Bay Flap Wells Inside the Interior Of the fuselage Their 1.32 Scale Kit Is Better Between the Both kits I Take the Monogram kit, Frankie Day
@@40intrepid why woud it be called a dinghy when its clearly a lifeboat?...oh.i get it. any resue device the 17 carries underneath is simply called 'a dinghy.' interesting fact.i did not know that.... thanks ... btw, for your info, in the postwar 1946 movie drama 'SEVEN SURVIVED', there are some excellent scenes of a search and rescue b-17 dropping the life boat (dinghy) to suirvivors...
Thanks for you question depends on the modeller. Yes I would say but a few extras would make it better. But if your the modeller would want all the PE and resin bits maybe better off with the older kit. That way you can throw everything at it to make it more a challenge
A lot of the details on the hk is nice but your not going to be able to see most of those details. Built the old monogram kit years back and to me even with age is a great kit. Also the price for has a lot to do with it for me. Hk about 160.00 monogram 55.00 can always make a 55.00 kit look like a 160.00 kit......
The facts aren't complete even today they're not although some of the so-called historians reckon the story is solved and thus have moved on. Sadly the fact regarding the Flak damage to the left wing-stem is being fully denied although.I had even screenshotted the original as it was actually online a couple of years ago. However firstly I can't retrieve the copy and secondly when I again looked for the document in the net I couldn't find and so the people didn't believe me. Only one other person who had actually introduced me to LG-Q had seen the screenshot when I had taken it.
The panel welds on the outside would never be flush so there will always be a slight raised area between them which is evident on the real plane. This whole recessed panel line is not only incorrect but structurally false and would cause the plane to come apart. Panel lines are optical aspect at the panel connection points and were NEVER recessed on the real plane, Hobby folk need to get over themselves and start building them correctly. The reason Revell and other made them raised was for there to be a tad left after a good sanding and thus have correct lines where the joints of the panels were. Recessed kits look toyish and would never fly in the real world under the stresses these planes were under.
Wow this is great info thanks for taking the time to reply. Not being an expert and just a modeller this explanation of the raised panel lines on the Revell kit makes sense. But the optical aspect of a model I guess is why recessed lines allow us to bring that optical allusion to life. The problem with scale is that somethings on any subject can be lost. After all a model is only a representation of the subject. Your comment has inspired me to look a little closer and the real thing. Thanks
@@ModelOfficer To be honest it's an honest opinion, I was in the Navy and the Jets were right there on the carrier deck and in the hangers. The plates meet flush but there is not "Groove" cut between them, the line is visible but it's not sunk in like on current models. I've always sanded them down just close enough so they weren't gone completely, the light creates the shadows at the joints like on the real deal. Yes the raised panels are out of scale so a careful sanding brings em down, but recessed panels with a pigment in between just looks so toyish and is not how the real planes look up close. One could argue it's an effect to simulate these but it never looks real at least as the reality I saw.
thank you for championing raised panel lines. you are totally correct. and especially about the sanding...i wish people would visit or view REAL aircraft to see for themselves that raised panel lines are accurate and authentic.
Havent watched all the video yet, but ok tell everyone now the Revell model is a piece of shit, motors look line a 1st grader did them. I threw the thing away just bought it 3 days ago and upon opening box it was thin flinsey, plain have parts, the injection molding is upwards to 1/4”wide on the wings abs broke unevenly abs I would hv had to use puddy if built didn’t wast my time. ZERO rivets, raised panel lines, that’s cool but no rivets is Bull shit lazy fucking work. DO NOT WADTE YOUR MONRY ON REVELL
Hmmm... Monogram seems to be getting more good comments. Mine turned out awesome. Still have have it after 20 years later. Easy build. Everything aligned great. Maybe you got a bad one....Happy new year!
i've built six monogram b-17s and they are great. raised panel lines are authentic. you can place rivets in the model. that's why you are a modeler and not a toy collector. and youre not wasting your money on revell. but hk models is too high a price for a 1/48 kit. you can jazz up the monogram kit to be like the hk kit. it just takes the proper modeling tools, time, work and dedication...
Thank you for taking the time to watch my review, i hope you found it informative. Please take a moment to make a comment and tell me what you liked or disliked and remember to subscribe and press the bell icon.
What a great Demo. My Uncle flew the B17F in 1943. I wish he few the G version if he had he would have had a better chance of coming home. His story is found on RUclips “3 Days in May 1943”. Love your video
Just saw this….good review. I built the Monogram kit when it first appeared (I was in High School). Looking back I think it’s safe to say this kit was sort of the first wave of “mature” kits. In other words kits produced for mature modelers and not as toys. I think this is one of the first kits I had to go to a Hobby Shop to buy. Prior to that I got kits at a drug store or a 5 and dime.
Having just built the Academy 1/72 version of this kit, I’m very glad the unbuilt 1/48 version of this bomber I have in my stash is the Monogram kit. I build most of my models buttoned up, so most of the interior detail is not visible except under the larger plexiglass areas. I devote most of my time to the exterior painting, decals, and weathering, and find the super detailed interiors are a waste of money and time for someone with my type of display objectives. For the same reason, I prefer Tamiya tank models with their one-piece rubber tracks instead of the infernal time consuming and eye-sight straining individual link style. Different strokes for different folks. Btw, that was an excellent comparison video you just put up there. Cheers.
Even tho the HK Kit is arguably better in alot of aspects, i would still go with the Good ol' Monogram kit. I mean for a 1970's kit. It ain't bad at all.
Yer both kits indeed have plus points
The Monogram is literally ten times more accurate: Main gear sit, outer nacelle shape, nose, rear fuselage cross-section, wing airfoil (symmetrical in reality, just as Monogram did!)... The Monogram needs Squadron clear parts, resin wheels and metal guns, that's about it.
Yep, the main failure of Revell/Monogram is the finer Details, Eduards has PE kits and such that fix this but it is an additional cost, one cost I truly recommend however ;)
One can tell from the video that the Monongram molds are past their prime time. I built this kit on the 80ties and there was no flesh on the parts and especially the figures were top notch...for their days. It was a great kit and if I went for another one I would look for an old example off E-Bay.
Thank you for helping me make up my mind, Monogram.
Glad to hear, please do post some pictures in the Mode Officers Mess Facebook page
Cutting bulkhead doors. I have done this on both Monogram and HK. The HK cuts nice and easy. Takes about an hour and cleans up nicely but be very careful with the Radio operators compartment rear door on both Monogram and HK due to being so close to the edge around the gun mount. Monogram plastic is i think a little thicker and makes cutting them out just a little harder as i recall but is worth the effort as it gives slightly more view of the interior when the model is closed up. I did this on the 1/32 scale B-17 and am glad that i took the time to do it.
Thank's for the comparison video!
Thank you for the tips very helpful and thanks for taking the time to comment
@@ModelOfficer I just picked up another Revell (Monogram) B-17 two days ago from Hobby Lobby for $26.00 after 40% off. I have built it I think six times since i was a kid and still enjoy it. As my skill evolves the kit just keeps getting better and better. The HK kit is probably much better but i'd like to note that the decals are lacking the stencils. On the 1/48 kit it'snot that big of an issue but on the 1/32 it's really disappointing on such an expensive kit. Even the aftermarket stencil fall short of the old Monogram kit. I just subscribed to your channel
Thank's again. Have a good day!
@@pcj3405 Thanks for your subscribing to the channel
“Colonel Bogey's March”, from The Bridge Over the River Kwai (1957, Columbia Pictures, David Lean, Malcolm Arnold), starring Alec Guinness and William Holden, plays in the background of the documentary at the beginning of this video.
Very nice review, I always enjoy the history part as well!
Thanks glad you enjoyed it. Hope to get some more out soon
Comparing these kits is like comparing a F-15 with a F-22. Both are excellent fighters but obviously the F-22 is superior because it is a newer fighter. I love the Monogram model. It was the first model I ever built back in 1974 when I was 12. I didn't even paint anything. Just glued it together the way it was coming out of the box. Back then the detail was amazing. It still holds up today. I have built this kit 5 times I think. Of course each one got better and better. My last one was over 25 years ago and had interior lighting in the front, cockpit and radio compartments so all the detail could be seen better. I had the front hatch between the cockpit and bomb/nav compartment open as well as the main crew door near the rear. I added ammo belts, flooring to the waist gun area, upgraded machine gun barrels and little gunsights on all the machine guns. Seat belts and buckles on all the seats with extra detail in the radio compartment and realistic battle damage. One engine shot up and had a feathered prop. It was on a nice custom stand I made for it and covered by a clear plastic cover my uncle made for it. He had a plastic company so it was professionally done. Look great. I had several figures around it that included the entire crew, radio operator still in his seat in the aircraft and with the large window above it and lighting, it all can be seen easily. Also had several ground crew doing different things. Mostly looking at the different areas that were damaged. It was sitting on a dirt runway with a couple very realistic trees nearby. I also had an anti-aircraft double .50 calibur machine gun pit with 2 soldiers manning it off the side of the runway surrounded by grass. There were 3 hidden switches for turning on the 3 interior lights. It was really a beautiful diorama. Had it in my first sons bedroom when he was born for several years. Then sadly had to put it in storage and after several years, from the heat I guess, one of the wings bent upward quite a bit and pretty much ruined it. I am glad that finally there is another choice for this famous bomber in 1/48 scale but the Monogram kit will always have a very special place in my heart. I know there is enough after market flight and ground crew figures available but the ones that come with the Monogram kit, just like the kit itself, will always be my favorite figures and I still have all twenty of them. Of course only 5 are in their original poses. The others have been changed. You know different arms or heads. Can't have two of the same ones. hahhah
i absolutely loved your review. loved it. want to see more....
Thank you
Superb review, nice touch with the side by side. I think the nose and possibly the cockpit roof being separate is for them to release different marks at a later date. I for one am looking forward to getting the Belle once she's inevitably released.
Thanks Gaz for the comment really grateful for you taking the time. Yes I sure that different types will be added and these parts do change in the different variants
I'm currently building the HK B-17, and have developed a love-hate relationship with the kit.
Pros.
-- Fantastic surface detail that I'm sure will look terrific.
-- Very good instructions with multiple paint call-outs
-- Nice clear parts. The Eduard mask set is a must.
Cons
-- Significant fit issues with the upper fuselage and nose section. Had to use a lot of putty to get it to look ok.
-- Injector pins in bomb bay doors and on the inside of the flaps. Boo! I ended up closing the bomb bay doors as there wasn't a really good way to get them to show up.
-- Interior detail showed some shortcuts.
-- Engine detail lacking, but you don't see much of it anyway.
-- Lots of guns, but no ammo belts.
-- No poseable control surfaces.
Others have commented on fit issues with the wings. I haven't experienced that. Perhaps there was a manufacturing defect in some kits.
My rating: 6/10
It’s really great to hear your feedback thank you so much. If you’re ok with Facebook come join the model officer mess group page and post loads of pictures of your build would love to see it
That B-17 in the begin of video “Liberty Bell” burned to the ground a few years ago. Took off from Aroura Airport in ILLINOIS “USA”. Few mins later it was down in a corn field. All 7 souls got out unharmed.
I so glad to hear everyone was ok. thanks for tuning in and leaving a comment
they are rebuilding it to airworthy condition again. i think the facbook page is called hangar 13 or something like that, i cant remember
I wish the HK kit shared the same profile as the Monogram. While the Monogram kit shows its age it still has a more accurate dimensional profile.
I believe the Old Monogram kit is better proportioned and has a better overall look than the newer kits.. I say "kits" because the 1/32 B-17's from HK are not good on overall shape.
yes.i still think the b-17 nose section from windshield to glass nose on their 1/32 scale kit is too short.
@@janehill9764 the nose may be the correct length but every clear piece in the nose is out of position and the side glazing is too large on the G variant. The whole fuselage is also too fat hence why you may think the nose looks too short?
@@NigelsModellingBench i did not know this. interesting. can this fatness be cured, perhaps by sanding the fuselage halves?
@@janehill9764 I have done mine by removing material from the centre then adding material top and bottom on the inside to all ow the diameter to be reduced from the wing back. It is soul destroying and then once you are done you have to fit the top on which is too tall and the windscreens need reshaping because the nose is round and should be flat topped. It just goes on and on and on.... then you find the wing chord is incorrect and the outboard engines are too low in relation to the wing centreline....
@@NigelsModellingBench wow. it sounds terrible. you are practically reshaping the entire model. should hk be notified of these discrepancies? i am no longer going to buy one, now that i've read your problems with the kit. it's too much money to spend, if you are a purist like me. tx...jane..p.s. out of curiousity, how did your 1/32 scale b-17 project turn out?
Only 2 marking options in the HK kit - the drawings are 4-view, (both side views (L&R) and upper and lower views. Like the Revellogram kit, 1 is NMF and the other is OD/NG.
LG-Q 8th Airforce 91st / 322nd Bomb Group, 21st June , 1944 on route to target Berlin (Friedrichstrasse) but sadly received damage to left wing as the formation was attacked from the rear as they were coming in via the Baltic Sea heading south east towards Berlin. This specific B17G piloted by O'Bannon is lying in a lake in the former German village Stolzenburg in Mecklenburg Vorpommern today Poland Stolec. The lake is today half German and half Polish ! The larger parts of the fuselage are still in the lake at a depth of approx 3-5 mtrs. whilst the engines would have on impact buried themselves much deeper into the silt of the lake. I have a friend who has some parts off of this B17, there are larger parts which were salvaged by Poles back I think in the eighties and which are at a small museum in Gdynia or Gdansk. According to some historians Russian Army divers and engineers were the first to salvage parts not forgetting that Poland was occupied by Russian Forces at the time. I was actually also on site a couple of times and also retrieved some smaller items. The entire radio equipment and.larger parts of.the Ballturret etc were salvaged a couple of years ago and a friend.had these as.he was.going to display these one day at his very own museum. According to another Pole who I had the pleasure of meeting and who actually wrote a book on the topic the plane was ditched due to the initial fire damage to the left wing caused by the ME110's 20mm or 30mm rounds impacting. However although other bomber crews wh were together on this specific mission reported it wasn't an engine fire but rather the fire was burning between engines 1 + 2 so my guess was the fuel line or hydraulic lines were hit. The crews also reported that the Bomber hadn't dropped its bomb load this it also had to be jettisoned on route towards Sweden as this was the evacuation routing LG-Q took. Furthermore it was reported that all except one crewmember evacuated and parachuted to safety and that the plane was stable but losing altitude.
Some even commented the plane was left switched to Autopilot crewless. Hardly believable to me however especially as I had witnessed seeing the left wing and a larger hole which could only be caused by a bomb or flak impact. This hole was located directly where the wing connets to the fuselage! I had even seen a copy of an original Flak report of the unit who had claimed to have shot and hit LG-Q, these were situated at the village named Rothenklempenow and which is literally a couple of Killometres from the lake Stolzenburg.
According to all of the other many people who had either seen the remains of LG-Q or had read reports by others there had been NO anti-aircraft attack nor shelling taken place. Anyhow I know what I read and as it was an original German Flak Abschussbericht and the fact Im half German (English) I fully understand the language!!!
According to a Pole who wrote a book about LG-Q and even had contacted actual living crew members and or daily members of such, there had been no such Flak attack. My very own theory is that at least O'Bannon were still inside of the aircraft as firstly they still had their full bombload as they hadn't made it to the target before coming under attack thus they'd have headed North-West which would have brought them very very close to the town of Poelitz (today Police) where there was one of the largest synthetic fuel manufacturing plants after the one at Leuna and there they could have jettisoned their bombload or over the Baltic on evacuation route to England.
15:36 :That flattened HK wing profile, hugh... When the symmetrical wing airfoil was a fairly unique feature for a WWII design, a specific B-17G oddity that Monogram captured perfectly, while HK had to re-invent a more boring and completely inaccurate fiction... And then there is the HK's outer engine nacelles, pointed out as wrong years ago, on their 1/32 kit...
The sprues look a lot like the Monogram kit (however, better in some respects)! Almost like HKM used the Monogram kit as a basis for their kit. Dumb question: Has anybody held up the right half of a HKM B-17 Fuselage (in 1/48) to the classic Monogram left half to see if they match up (like the Monogram model does with the Revell model)??? Just wondering about the possibility of kit bashing for a D model b-17...
I believe I did at the time and it didn’t
The Revell kit is a later release--post Monogram. I have the original Monogram release, and, at that time, there were NO plastic bags for ANY of the parts; the sprues were just stacked in the box. Also the box did not come sealed with shrink wrap, or even scotch tape. The tight fit of the lid to the box bottom prevented parts falling out. And, there were ALWAYS a few parts that had fallen off the sprues--smallish sprue gates. BTW, no flash.
Whenever I see the new kits with the high tech CAD & slide moulding, but have indifferent attention to detail, or lack of precision, I think of a lack of commitment to high standards on the part of the design staff, and I wonder how much of enthusiasts they even are to this hobby, or even aviation, armor, etc. Is it just another job to them, do they even care? One never had to wonder about that with Monogram. Whatever the limits of the old technology they had to work with, they used it to the max, consistent with trying to make a reasonable return on investment.
Thank you you time to write a comment. With everything new does not always mean best.
Great Video And Inbox Review I Built This kit It Is Disapointing In some Respects Ejector Pins Inside the bomb Bay Flap Wells Inside the Interior Of the fuselage Their 1.32 Scale Kit Is Better Between the Both kits I Take the Monogram kit, Frankie Day
Frankie Day Models thanks for you comment. I have the 1/32 kit in the stash, but I will be making the 1/48 first to help get the full enjoyment.
B-17G is cool all day, but I wonder why no one kits a B-17H search and rescue Fortress with the dinghy underneath, or a YB-40 version.
That’s a great question and idea
you mean with the lifeboat underneath..
@@janehill9764 Yeah, it's called a "dinghy".
@@40intrepid why woud it be called a dinghy when its clearly a lifeboat?...oh.i get it. any resue device the 17 carries underneath is simply called 'a dinghy.' interesting fact.i did not know that.... thanks ... btw, for your info, in the postwar 1946 movie drama 'SEVEN SURVIVED', there are some excellent scenes of a search and rescue b-17 dropping the life boat (dinghy) to suirvivors...
Is it worth $140 over $40 though?
Thanks for you question depends on the modeller. Yes I would say but a few extras would make it better. But if your the modeller would want all the PE and resin bits maybe better off with the older kit. That way you can throw everything at it to make it more a challenge
A lot of the details on the hk is nice but your not going to be able to see most of those details. Built the old monogram kit years back and to me even with age is a great kit. Also the price for has a lot to do with it for me. Hk about 160.00 monogram 55.00 can always make a 55.00 kit look like a 160.00 kit......
The facts aren't complete even today they're not although some of the so-called historians reckon the story is solved and thus have moved on.
Sadly the fact regarding the Flak damage to the left wing-stem is being fully denied although.I had even screenshotted the original as it was actually online a couple of years ago. However firstly I can't retrieve the copy and secondly when I again looked for the document in the net I couldn't find and so the people didn't believe me. Only one other person who had actually introduced me to LG-Q had seen the screenshot when I had taken it.
The panel welds on the outside would never be flush so there will always be a slight raised area between them which is evident on the real plane. This whole recessed panel line is not only incorrect but structurally false and would cause the plane to come apart. Panel lines are optical aspect at the panel connection points and were NEVER recessed on the real plane, Hobby folk need to get over themselves and start building them correctly. The reason Revell and other made them raised was for there to be a tad left after a good sanding and thus have correct lines where the joints of the panels were. Recessed kits look toyish and would never fly in the real world under the stresses these planes were under.
Wow this is great info thanks for taking the time to reply.
Not being an expert and just a modeller this explanation of the raised panel lines on the Revell kit makes sense. But the optical aspect of a model I guess is why recessed lines allow us to bring that optical allusion to life. The problem with scale is that somethings on any subject can be lost. After all a model is only a representation of the subject.
Your comment has inspired me to look a little closer and the real thing.
Thanks
@@ModelOfficer To be honest it's an honest opinion, I was in the Navy and the Jets were right there on the carrier deck and in the hangers. The plates meet flush but there is not "Groove" cut between them, the line is visible but it's not sunk in like on current models. I've always sanded them down just close enough so they weren't gone completely, the light creates the shadows at the joints like on the real deal. Yes the raised panels are out of scale so a careful sanding brings em down, but recessed panels with a pigment in between just looks so toyish and is not how the real planes look up close. One could argue it's an effect to simulate these but it never looks real at least as the reality I saw.
thank you for championing raised panel lines. you are totally correct. and especially about the sanding...i wish people would visit or view REAL aircraft to see for themselves that raised panel lines are accurate and authentic.
Havent watched all the video yet, but ok tell everyone now the Revell model is a piece of shit, motors look line a 1st grader did them. I threw the thing away just bought it 3 days ago and upon opening box it was thin flinsey, plain have parts, the injection molding is upwards to 1/4”wide on the wings abs broke unevenly abs I would hv had to use puddy if built didn’t wast my time. ZERO rivets, raised panel lines, that’s cool but no rivets is Bull shit lazy fucking work.
DO NOT WADTE YOUR MONRY ON REVELL
Hmmm... Monogram seems to be getting more good comments. Mine turned out awesome. Still have have it after 20 years later. Easy build. Everything aligned great. Maybe you got a bad one....Happy new year!
i've built six monogram b-17s and they are great. raised panel lines are authentic. you can place rivets in the model. that's why you are a modeler and not a toy collector. and youre not wasting your money on revell. but hk models is too high a price for a 1/48 kit. you can jazz up the monogram kit to be like the hk kit. it just takes the proper modeling tools, time, work and dedication...
toooo long review ....boring
Da Mav thank you for taking the time to comment.