Okay, so I just did an interesting exercise trying to figure out what a Flying Hour (FH) is worth. The value isn't fixed because the same number of FHs gets you any kit in two or three series, and that covers quite a wide price range. Also, the progression of the number of FHs needed for each bracket is non-linear. Here's what I got:

16 Flying Hours - Series 1 or 2 kit: 1 x FH = Min: 44p, Max: 75p, Median: 59.5p
30 Flying Hours - Series 3 or 4 kit: 1 x FH = Min: 53p, Max: 80p, Median: 66.5p
40 Flying Hours - Series 5 or 6 kit: 1 x FH = Min: 72p, Max: 85p, Median: 78.5p
60 Flying Hours - Series 7, 8 or 9 kit: 1 x FH = Min: 62p, Max: 78p, Median: 70p

Bear in mind also that the P&P cost is fixed at £3.95 for any one FH order, so that adds a LOT more proportionally to a cheap Series 1 than it does to an expensive Series 9.

Clearly, if you want "bang-for-your-bucks" when using FHs, the best thing to get is the most expensive Series 6 kit, while the worst is the cheapest Series 1.

Obviously this is meaningless unless you actually want several kits ranging across several Series. If the only thing you want is a P.1127 (cheap Series 1) then you're still getting it for £cheap, just not as £cheap as if you wanted a 1/48th Meteor (expensive Series 9).

This has come to my attention & is now well entrenched in my mental wish list!



https://uk.airfix.com/products/consolidated-b-24h-liberator-a09010?

https://uk.airfix.com/community/blog-and-news/workbench/b-24-liberator-retribution-skies

Must admit I was surprised to see that in the catalogue and even more surprised to see it was a completely new tool    I'd assumed it had been "re-worked".

I also noticed that the parts breakdown will allow the production of quite a number of other models/marks by replacing only a few sprues.

Quote from: Old Wombat on March 03, 2024, 02:15:06 AMI also noticed that the parts breakdown will allow the production of quite a number of other models/marks by replacing only a few sprues.

Yup does look well thought out 

Always preferred the B-24 to the B-17.

Quote from: kitbasher on March 03, 2024, 10:37:28 AMAlways preferred the B-24 to the B-17.

Same.

But I do acknowledge that the B-17 was the better aircraft.

However,  B-24s dropped more bombs.

I've already lost the will to live.

Quote from: Old Wombat on March 03, 2024, 02:07:27 PMBut I do acknowledge that the B-17 was the better aircraft.

Define 'better'?

Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 04, 2024, 04:09:18 AM

Quote from: Old Wombat on March 03, 2024, 02:07:27 PMBut I do acknowledge that the B-17 was the better aircraft.

Define 'better'?

Compared to the box it came (the B-24) in, the 17 was easier to fly and more apt to bring its crew home no matter how serious the damage.

Granted, not many aircraft had the level of survivability as a Wellington but a Fort came close.

That sounds about right, yes.

But as a pure aeroplane the B-24 was better, lower drag, more lift, longer range etc. but in wartime there are other things to think about too.

One of the things that's really interesting when looking at the WWII heavies is that the B-17 is the oldest design, its first flight being on average four years before the rest. It even predates the Wellington.

That it was in US service until 14 October 1959 when the last Coast Guard PB-1G was retired is all the more remarkable.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 04, 2024, 04:47:25 AMThat sounds about right, yes.

But as a pure aeroplane the B-24 was better, lower drag, more lift, longer range etc. but in wartime there are other things to think about too.

There are always trade-offs

I remember reading, and I can't for the life of me remember where, that B-17 crews called the Liberator "the best long range fighter escort they had"

Quote from: Old Wombat on March 03, 2024, 02:07:27 PM

Quote from: kitbasher on March 03, 2024, 10:37:28 AMAlways preferred the B-24 to the B-17.

Same.

But I do acknowledge that the B-17 was the better aircraft.

Hmm! Well, with all due respect, that's a pretty subjective comment .! How does one quantify "better"? I had an uncle , now deceased who was a navigator in a Halifax III and, he (and apparently a lot of his comrades) were of the the firm belief that the often underrated Halifax III  was actually a better aircraft than the Lancaster.  Seriously though, I think a lot of  discussions over which aircraft is better than another are essentially insoluble.    After all, people still argue over whether or not the Hurricane was a better fighter than the Spitfire....!  

Quote from: Beermonster58 on March 05, 2024, 02:47:01 AM

Quote from: Old Wombat on March 03, 2024, 02:07:27 PM

Quote from: kitbasher on March 03, 2024, 10:37:28 AMAlways preferred the B-24 to the B-17.

Same.

But I do acknowledge that the B-17 was the better aircraft.

Hmm! Well, with all due respect, that's a pretty subjective comment .! How does one quantify "better"?...

Dogfight?

Looking at the CAD pictures the new Airfix Lib has too much internal detail for my liking.  But that's how Airfix design them now.