Such a venerable aircraft has not been served well by the modelling industry. We now have an excellent choice of decals, but no decent model to put them on. Neither the Monogram nor the Airfix/MPC kits are an accurate depiction of the B-1. Until someone has the decency to give us the kit we all deserve, these toolings will have to do. If you can only afford to buy one kit, buy the Monogram tooling, because it has more useable components than the Airfix tooling. Be prepared to scratchbuild almost the entire fuselage, though. The truth lies somewhere in between the two brands. The two were checked against the drawings in Detail & Scale and Rockwell PR drawings (NA-73-400, Rev 9-83; neither of these drawings are completely correct either). Detailed descriptions of the kits can be found in the Detail & Scale book.

The most serious problems in trying to model an accurate B-1 arise around the wing pivot area. Both kits are just as inaccurate as each other, but in different ways. The Monogram kit's wings are too thick and too short in span, the wing pivot fairing is too thick, and the under-fuselage cross-section at the pivot point (FS 992) tapers up too steeply to meet the wings. The under-fuselage of the Airfix tooling is much flatter, the pivot is close to scale thickness, but the geometry of the wing sweepback is completely incorrect, being substantially less than the correct angle of 67.5°. The underside of the Airfix wings are completely incorrect as well, having a concave aerofoil section rather than flat or slightly convex. Monogram's tailplane pivot mounting is the best engineered on a kit of any type (not just the B-1) and is highly commended. In top view, the Monogram fuselage is correct except for the placement of the APU exhaust fairings. Length overall is correct, but when referenced to panel lines on the drawings, is 4mm too short.

The rear radome is too teardropped, and should be more cone-like. In comparison, the Airfix kit is too narrow at the front and too wide at the back, although it matches the Rockwell drawings. The rear radome is too beefy. The fuselage length exactly matches drawings. Correct cross section at FS 992, although both kits too narrow by approx 5mm. From the side, the Airfix kit has the correct flat underside line & correct nose profile, while the Monogram kit 'bows' up 3mm from FS 850 to the nose. The profile at the top of the spine appears correct on the Monogram kit, and marginal on the Airfix kit. Neither brand component features the straight spine section amidships. Airfix component rear spine inclines too steeply from mid to rear. Monogram one appears correct except at the point where it curves up into fin, see drawings. In section, the Airfix component is too sharply radiused and slab-sided at the front. The cross sectional profile curve at FS 900 down towards the overwing fairing appears to be better than the Monogram one. The Monogram component is too gently blended, the wing pivot sockets sit too high above the underside. The overwing fairings appear to be too large, are placed too far forward, and the filleting is too gentle. The 'kink' shown in the upper fuselage just behind the rear cockpit stations is not depicted in either kit. There is just a single gentle un-interrupted curve. Recommend a completely new fuselage.

The size of this subject cries out for super detailing, and the recent release of the new jet nozzles by Cutting Edge is a step in the right direction. We would like to see someone release a full resin set comprising all wheel wells, bomb bays, cockpit, crew entry, and wing flap details. Better still, a completely new injection moulded tooling of the B-1 would be most welcome. If you agree that a new tooling of the B-1 is in order, please take a moment to sign our