nchrome

Well here we are another building season and I guess I'm finally going to do it. I just have one problem I need a three view of a B-52. I have photos and loads of information. I plan on using eight OS 25s or mabe even eight mag thirties. Dont know for sure yet depends on the three views that I can find. I've already checked the web and only got some soccor team. Not exactly what I had in mind. I do think the wing span will be about 11'. Cause I plan on makeing the jet pods about eight inches wide and about 16" long. I hope to keep this beast under 50# but I guess we will see. Can any one help with the three views that I need. I hope to have most of it framed up and to show by spring. I will also post similar on the multi engine posting.

crashnburn

My Feedback: (1)

I wish you the best. You most certainly have chosen a difficult path! What model are you considering? I always thought an "A" model with the original Green House canopy similar to the B-47 would be nice, but the "D" model would probably be my favorite as the tail gunner actually sat in the tail and had a greenhouse canopy right behind the verticle stab. Good luck and I will watch this thread for your progress. I worked the B-52, D-models and G-models, for eight years in the Air Force. They will always hold a place in my heart.

begun

As you wanted ...

flyingwings

I have AutoCad drawings of the B52. Attached is a photo of the free flight version I built from the drawings.

Paul

coxsairforce

My Feedback: (2)

I to have dreamed of this one. I crewed b52 in the air force and they are still in my . I though of just using 4 duct fans and making it look like 8. Hope you post photos of it as you go. Good luck!
Regards Mickey

crashnburn

My Feedback: (1)

If money wasn't an option you could probably do just fine with a couple of the new, smaller turbines-one on each inboard pod with bi-furcated inlets and exhuast outlets. Dummy's on the outboard pods. Damn, we modelers and our imaginations. I can sure get complicated and expensive in a hurry! Mickey, I cant remember the tail number of the D-model that shot down the two Migs that day in NAM, but I worked on it. It sure did look cool with those two red stars on the nose!

Balsa Master

kinda what you have, but good x reference

Balsa Master

i second the DF idea, i think that 8 .25 is gonan be a little... is painfull a good word?

dcairns

If you are going for a very scale look, then don't use the three views that are posted here. These three views seem to be commonly passed around on the internet, but have a significant error. Look at the front view, the sides of the fuselage should not be parallel with each other. The fuselage is supposed to be wider at the top than at the bottom. It is kind of subtle, but is noticeable. I know this for a fact, as I have studied many photos and even taken my own photos of a B-52 D at March Airforce Base Museum. Spend a few bucks and get a book or two. I think the Squadron Signals Walk around book has a good three view and can be obtained rather easily. I also found building the Revell plastic model to help in my efforts.





I am building a 1/17 scale B-52 D for slope soaring. My projected weight is 15-20 lbs.

Here is how the fuselage is being made. Spray gluing Blue Foam slabs to make a hollow box and then using templates and a hot wire cutter to make the final shape. (tail section is closest to the camera in this shot)



Here is the fuselage prior to fiberglassing.





The elevator is big enough to be a wing on a smaller plane!!

nchrome

Your doing a great job there I really haven't started mine yet. But with how you have started you gives me an idea on how to start mine. I guess I'll have to buy a nonogram model to get better ideas for mine. Keep me posted on your progress cause I'm very intersted in what you have done so far[8D]

Dago Red

My Feedback: (11)

dcairns
Thanks for hose pics. Wasnt sure how I was going to build the other 2/3rds of my (top secret) plane. Question though, how did you fiber glass it and make it look so nice, I can get mine to look near as good.

D.R.

Mike James

Here's a source for some nice drawings, from another thread:
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/b52h.html

dcairns

You guys had to get me started... Sorry about the size of this if you are on dial-up.

Dago- Since the B-52 fuselage is fairly straight from front to back, I used a variation of vacuum bagging to do the
fuselage. Should save me alot of sanding and priming work If you are familiar with vacuum bagging wings, you
know how the stiff mylar sheet is used to give the smooth surface on the wing. I did the same, wrapping the fuselage. I
did it in two steps, first the bottom, with the top and sides masked off. Then I fiberglassed the top and sides, with the
bottom masked off. Naturally there is about an inch overlap and I placed the overlap on the lower curved surfaces, so it
will be easy sand the transition and hide any artifacts of the overlap. This made for a pretty big layup on the top and
sides of the fuselage. 6ft x 2 ft of 6 oz fiberglass, in two layers, alot of work to do in the 60 minutes of working time the
resin gives me.


This pictures shows how different the surface is when using the mylar sheet compared to just the vacuum bag on the
nose. The wrinkles are mostly resin and can be sanded down. But it will need another coat of resin and sanding before
it looks close to the fuselage.



nchrome -I have a construction thread going over at RCGroups, if you want to see all the gory details :

[link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=173652&perpage=15&pagenumber=1]B-52 Project[/link]

If you are doing a EDF version, you would want to go lighter on the fiberglass than I did.

If you need some more inspiration, here are some pics I got from a Jose in Spain. He built this great EDF B-52 with
some fancy CNC foam cutter. Here are a couple of his emails to me that might be of interest to you.


Here are some photos Jose sent me of his EDF B-52:





























Hope this gets the creative jucies flowing on your project

Doug D.

WOW !!!
Worked around them for almost 20 years. I never considered building a model of the old "BUFF".
Dcairns that looks pretty decent. Why the NASA scheme? A lot of guys would have opted for the Vietnam era.
The neatest thing about the full size B-52 is it's ability to land at about a 45 degrees to the runway. Pilots that I've talked to told me it was an strange feeling to look out the side window when landing.
Here's one discription I read about the B-52;
It has the power of over 10 locomotives.
It has enough wire in it to stretch over 25 miles.
And enough aluminum to make over 100 thousand trash cans.
And it flies like 10 locomotives pulling 100 thousand trash cans with 25 miles of wire.

All kidding aside. I is still a pretty awesome old bird.
[&:]

dcairns

The NASA B-52 is Jose's plane, not mine. I was corresponding with Jose as I started dreaming up my own B-52 project. My B-52 D is the one still under construction and will be a slope soaring plane, done in the early 60's SAC scheme with a white bottom, bare aluminum top, and of course, an atomic bomb or two in the bomb bay I chose the D model because of the cleaner aerodynamics compared to later models. The NASA mothership seems to be frequently modeled, so I am avoiding that plane. But is sure is tempting to do an X-15 drop .
I did made smaller slope soaring B-52 about 10 years ago that was a G model (more or less) in Vietnam era colors (white bottom / camo top). It was about a 40" span and my second scratch built plane. Not too bad considering my experience at the time.

Doug D.

That one looks cool Also !!!!
Your camo scheme on your slope bomber is post Veitnam. No G models went over there. No F or H models as well.
Looks good just the same.
[&:]

dcairns

It's kinda hard to argue with someone who actually worked on them but I have it in my head that they did use Gs later in the war. So I went back to this website that has some detailed history.
[link=http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b052-19.html]Boeing B-52 Stratofortress [/link]

I suppose this guy could be wrong, but I think I recall reading the same in some of my books as well. As to whether or not any of the Gs had the color scheme of my first plane in Vietnam, that is a good question, I would have to go back and look at my book on the G model. Right now my head is full of D model stuff I did not do as much research when I built that first plane have obtained more books since then.

What kind of B-52's did you work on? Any good stories? All the research on this plane has caused me to develop a taste for trivia about B-52s. I have found websites that some bomb wings have put together and it really makes it personal when you see the names put to the faces in the photos. These were the guys out there maintaining the planes, putting countless hours in the air in uncomfortable conditions. on 24 hr alert, etc. Gotta give them a big hats off.

I went and photographed a B-52 D at March Airforce Base Museum (Southern California). It was painted in Vietnam colors (black underside, camo top). My wife could not believe anything that big could fly! And she was afraid to go inside the bomb bay, thought it might be radioactive or something . I really would have loved to have got inside and see what the cockpit looks like in person (darn locks )
If my finish on my current plane does not come out smooth enough for the aluminum finish, I will use the camo scheme. It hides the warts pretty good

Doug D.

Yes I double checked and a few G's did make it over there. The first G's that I worked on didn't have the full ECM package or infared cameras under the nose.
I was an engine specialist. Most of my stories would be maintance stories. I worked on D's, F's, G's, and H's.
One of our fellow club members here was a BUFF driver and flew a bunch of missions in NAM. I like listening to his stories when we get time to chat. But a lot of the times he ends up talking about the women where he was assigned.
Besides B-52's I also worked KC-135's. With the newer CFM56 engines the R models are impressive.
The SAC museum near Omaha, NE. has a cockpit from an old trainer or simulater set up. And I understand Castle AFB museum at Atwater, CA. is supposed to get one or has one. Don't know for certain. I was stationed there for thr first 6 years of my career.(Castle)
The B-52 D cockpit seemed cluttered, as did the F's. The G's and H's were roomier, but I've been told the they have filled them up with more avionics since I retired in 93.
[&:]

Johng

My Feedback: (4)

That Spanish B-52 is nice but the location of the gear looks strange to say the least. I see why he did it though. Standard location of the gear does not allow rotation for takeoff, but depends on the flaps for lift on the runway. With no flaps, the plane must rotate for takeoff, so the gear must be moved. I think I would have either added flaps or built the thing with a launch dolly to avoid the non-scale look. That's assuming I would at some pont make a B-52 the size of a canoe with wings so who am I to criticize?

dcairns

That is a good observation for anyone thinking about an EDF B-52. The real B-52 depends on the flaps and the wing having a positive angle of attack in relation to the fuselage, in order to compensate for it's limited ability to rotate on take off. It looks like Jose used the same approach I did, and made a flat wing saddle and set the trailing edge of the wing on this level surface. Unfortunately, he used a near flat bottomed airfoil, and has very little built in angle of attack when rolling for a take off. Apparently his solution was to move the rear wheels forward to allow some more rotation.

While I don't need to worry about that for my slope glider (just chuck it off the cliff), I am using a semi-symetrical airfoil that gives me a 3.8* angle of attack, not as much as the real B-52, but enough. I did this to mimic the look of the actual plane and to a lesser extent the "nose down" attitude it has in flight.
The incidence of the wing is visually important to making a model of the B-52, it gives the swept wing a even more droopy look when on the ground. The wing does flex down when on the ground and raising the leading edge of the wing causes the tips to be closer to the ground, giving the appearance of even more droop. Since we usually don't make our wings as flexible as real planes, we generally lose the effect of wing droop due to flex. This is missed all the more on the B-52 when the incidence in the wing is not there.