Philbky

Still not decide which airline will be represented by the finished model but have made a start. Photos and any further updates will be on the Work in Progress Forum

Torpedo removed and aerial wire replaced with fine fishing line. Thanks for the helpful comments.

Excellent extra detail from a current insider - its 13 years since I last worked with the industry. I'd be interested in an insider's view on what the average life of the current A320 fleet will be - especially the early 200srs given the 100srs is now almost defunct. One further point regarding the use of the A320 family by European airlines: The thinking that this is either Politically or politically (get the difference?) motivated is actually absurd. The European airlines didn't move almost en masse from the late 1980s from Boeing/MDD to Airbus without sound economic reasons, given their long and satisfactory relationships with both companies - the same reasons that Northwest, United, US Airways, Air Canada and Jet Blue have large fleets of the A320 family, soon to be joined by American. Boeing have for decades had a massive spares/back up operation in Europe which once served the majority of short/medium haul aircraft across the continent. That fleet is now massively diminished. Airbus has a similar operation in North America so it is no harder/easier for an airline to operate types from one manufacturer than the other.

True enough but BA has stated that the aircraft are stop gaps to cover the delay in delivery of B787s and their own late decision to order the A380. They are meant to leave the fleet on a one for one basis with the arrival of the 787s. It could well be that they will stay in service for many years to cover any further delays, 747-400 early retirements due to problems or even increase in demand for aircraft given the long delivery slot position at both Boeing and Airbus. Let's face it, the industry thought - as did many in BA management - that the BCAL A320s would be quickly removed from the fleet after the takeover by BA. It didn't happen and BA went on to standardise on the A320 family. It will depend on how the airframes have been financed, the terms of the end of finance arrangements and the needs of the airline at any stage.

No, what you said was and I gave you two examples of legacy carriers which don't use the A320 family. Citing KLM's use of A330s won't do as they aren't a member of the A320 family and were purchased for long haul routes, only very, very rarely appearing on intra European routes when loads are exceptional or a short haul aircraft fails and no other replacement is available. They don't even schedule the type on Heathrow peak hour routes unlike in the past when DC8-63/A310 and B767s have all been scheduled over the years.As far as Ryanair is concerned, in a way it is the exception that proves the rule - for now. In 1997 Ryanair wanted to expand but had a fleet of ageing, second hand 737-200s, some of which were being trialled with the latest hush kits. A small order for B737-800 series was placed at was reported as "within the standard price range at the time". Ryanair bought the aircraft outright. A second order was placed after discussions with Boeing and Airbus as Boeing could offer quicker delivery and were prepared to offer a better deal. Again the aircraft were bought outright. Then came 9/11 and the collapse in confidence and almost a disaster for Boeing. Faced with the possibility of having to close the B737-800 production line at worst, or laying off thousands of workers at best Boeing was happy to offer bargain basement prices to Ryanair and, when the airline couldn't buy outright, arrange very advantageous leases. From what has become public knowledge, Ryanair signed orders, options and letters of intent over the period 2002/2003, the results of which are still being delivered. Boeing publicly acknowledged that the Ryanair deal saved jobs and kept the line going in the 2002-2004 period. Ryanair has rotated the aircraft out of the fleet after around eight years and, as delivery times for the 737 have got longer (up to 2015 at present) have had no difficulty in selling the aircraft it has owned, at premium prices. Over the years it has also sold aircraft it has owned to leasing companies and immediately leased them back and it is known in the industry that the prices the aircraft realised in such deals were greater than the original purchase price. All of this has meant that the penalties incurred by using the 737-800srs on their network, compared to the A319, have been negated. This position will come to an end during the period 2012-2020 when the last of the cheap aircraft serve their time. During the next few years - indeed in a very short time - Ryanair will have to bight the bullet and order at the best prices it can negotiate - in a period where delivery times are getting longer and production lines are full. The decision (regardless of the O'Leary hype about looking to Comac and Sukhoi) will be between the next generation 737or next generation A320 family. As market prices are likely to dominate I wouldn't bet on Ryanair staying as a Boeing customer as indications are that the Airbus offerings, as now, will be more suitable for intensive, low cost operations .

KLM for one, in terms of Western meaning EU members you can add LOT, and then of course the biggest airline in Europe, in terms of route mileage, short haul fleet and total passengers - Ryanair - is all Boeing 737.

OK, so the photo I posted shows a fuel tank. Interesting that over the years most companies offering the type as a model have gone done the same road of showing the empty rails plus torp. The problem is easily cured by removing the torp. Point taken Wayne rc regarding the wire and yours is a nice solution. As She Who Must Be Obeyed is always leaving hairs on the car headrest, that won't be a problem! As far as the invasion stripes go I wanted to replicate the fact that, as Wayne rc says, they were normally painted by some "erk" often with inferior quality paint or, in the case of the white, even a thickened sort of whitewash.

I deliberately bought the Trumpeter kit after reading a great number of build reviews of both. Both have faults. The Trumpeter kit's main problems are relatively easy to cure. I've already bought the replacement rudder and cowlings. The other problem is that the side cockpit windows are a fraction short in the front to back dimension. Easily cured by a judicious bit of filing and a piece of acrylic. There was a time when the kit first appeared that people said the props were each a different length. I've measured mine and all are equal length. There is also a debate about the wingspan and length of the fuselage. The problem seems to be that, on the fuselage, people are measuring the kit against C-47s with or without the tailcone or against the DC 3 - each length is marginally different in life. The kit seems to be a compromise but even in this scale its hardly visible and the Monogram kit is also reputed to be out of scale. Similarly the Trumpeter wingspan looks to be a compromise. There seems to be a sharp divide between Monogram and Trumpeter fans. I'll decide on the Trumpeter when I've finished it. Now if someone can help with my questions........

Sorry Mike and Edgar but: 1 the model is only carrying a torpedo - there are no rockets on the rails 2 Beaus did carry torpedos and empty rocket rails so that missions carrying either could be rotated swiftly see:- http://www.flickr.com/photos/alimarante/51...in/photostream/ It's a Tamiya 1/48th finish with Tamiya acrylics. The invasion stripes are sprayed on, not kit decals.

Built OOB

First model (apart from a Wildcat built as a test) for 40 years. Built in early 2011 its a 1/48th Tamiya finished with Tamiya acrylics. Modelling has changed a great deal in 40 years in terms of accuracy, tools/materials available and sources of reference. Built with addition of some ignition wires, brake and wheel well pipework and antenna, this aircraft represents an inhabitant of Henderson Field during the Guadalcanal campaign. It's very dirty - because many aircraft that survived for any length of time were. Coral dust, mud, spilt fuel and the famed Corsair fuel leaks made aircraft that survived more than a few weeks very dirty and there wasn't time in the early and middle part of the campaign to keep them clean - something box art and many modellers seem to overlook. Pictures at the time show some really filthy aircraft amongst cleaner ones - the former being survivors from the early part of the campaign. Navy aircraft, operating from carriers were much cleaner than the Marines' aircraft operating from airfields. The guys who flew them were real heroes - if it could get into the air an aircraft was deemed flyable. I'm old enough to have met some of those pilots who survived when they were still yopung enough to talk in detail and their tales of what they had to put up with would make many of today's jet jockeys turn pale. My father was in another theatre - Burma - and when I was making models as a lad, always turned out in factory fresh condition, he would shake his head and tell me "they didn't stay like that for long".

Most aircraft cabins can be re-arranged relatively easily and often are, either when aircraft have a mid life upgrade in service or when sold. The A series 777s are no different in that regard - the difference is the cost would not help with any sale given the lack of range and the lower powered engines. Willie Walsh has a point. If you are a launch customer you can get a good discount but you also buy a lot of problems.

BA used their A series 777s to the Middle East from the start. They also ventured to the Eastern seaboard - and still do. The GE engines' gear boxes gave trouble at first and over water flights under the 120 minutes ETOPS rule had to be abandoned until GE solved the problem. Other than being a launch customer and showing support for Boeing at a time when BA was a committed Boeing purchaser, it's difficult to know why they bought the A model as they didn't expand the fleet and it doesn't fit economically into much of the route network. The follow up order for 200ER series had uprated GE engines (noisier to the passenger than the RR engines on later models ordered) and is much more usable across the network. There isn't too much of an engineering fit between the two GE engined series, making the A models something of an orphan batch. The cabin fit can be varied on all models but BA retain the larger first class on the A models for the Middle East and also Washington and New York runs on which they regularly appear on a one or two a day basis. The6 B777-300s BA are placing in service to cover for late A380/B787 deliveries may likewise become orphans in due course although the range and passenger capacity would make them much more saleable if BA don't want to keep them.

The ER versions have a long and useful life ahead of them. Agree with you re the CO scheme, but doesn't watching/photography at IAH get tedious. In summer BA use 777-200ERs to IAH (both GE and RR engines), in the winter 747-400s, many of which are getting old, in fact BA have scrapped its first 400 at Cardiff in late 2011.

With Boeing and Airbus having full order books for B737 and A320 families until around 2015, with the A330 coming toward the end of its production life making way for the A350 and the 767 tanker going into production there is going to be a great deal of pressure on spares for these types so expect more "early" scrappings as prices rise and banks and leasing companies try to maximise the income from their assets. It's almost a perfect storm brewing for smaller and medium sized airlines which are strapped for cash, with cheap leases or purchases of new and second hand aircraft becoming a thing of the past due to full order books and mid life aircraft being reduced to spares.

As a matter of fact easyJet decided to change to the A319 purely for economic reasons - nothing to do with politics. Their B737-700s were seated to the maximum acceptable capacity with 149 seats. As with Ryanair and their 737-800s which can seat 189, because of sector lengths, weight and balance and fuel tanking arrangements around the route system the aircraft were rarely flown at capacity, sometimes 6 or more seats being left empty. When Airbus agreed to meet easyJet's request for 156 seats at 29" pitch with the extra overwing exits demanded by the CAA and the leasing costs were cheaper than for the 737, the change to an all Airbus fleet was set in train. An added advantage to the A319 is it doesn't suffer as many weight and balance and tankage restrictions on certain easyJet sectors as the 737 so can be flown more often with all seats occupied.

If you go back to the era immediately before jets/turboprops took over almost all scheduled services, i.e. before 1970, you'll find many types did well if they had more than 7 or 8 years in front line service. If at the end of that period work couldn't be found for them on second rank services or buyers couldn't be found, they either lay derelict for years and were then scrapped or were scrapped immediately. Some DC7Cs and Starliners were scrapped before they were 10. In retrospect many freight haulers had cause to regret the early scrapping of DC6s, Electras and Constellations when cheap airframes were required for stripping out as freighters from the mid 1970s onwards. The longevity of the examples that survived, and are indeed still flying, shows how good the aircraft were and how instant reaction to short lived economic circumstances doesn't always pay. Boeing built very sound and sturdy passenger jets from the off - based on engineering developed for the B-47/52/C-135. Others such as Douglas, Sud Aviation, BAC and Hawker Siddeley followed suit and airliners built between 1958 and today have generally had long lives. The BAC 1-11 500 series could well have still been flying in numbers today if it hadn't been for the continual rise in fuel prices and ever vigilant noise regulations. The same could be said for vast numbers of 727s and just look at the average age of Northwest's DC9s in the period 2000-2007. Airbus changed the rules. The A300 wasn't built as a disposable airplane and many survive as freighters well into their 3rd decade but developments of the type saw many withdrawn and replaced after quite short lives. The A320 family has been built for medium life as was the BAe146 family. The A330 early builds are likely not to go on much beyond 20-23 years. For Airbus, with production facilities in many countries to fill it makes sense. By keeping the price down and continually improving the breed they have been able to become joint leading player with Boeing - Douglas, Convair and Lockheed suffering as a result. As for the 777, Boeing had worked closely with airlines to design the type - maybe too closely, a fault the British made with the VC10 and Trident - and the early A series frames for All Nippon, United and BA could almost be classed as "in service proof of concept aircraft" and were never destined to have long lives as the needs of other airlines brought forward later, longer range and more developed models early enough in the production run so as to make the early production A model examples difficult to sell on. Later A models overcame some of the problems the early frames had but are still short on range and most of the 88 A models built will probably be scrapped when their initial purchasers/lessees are done with them. Economics has raised its head again - A B737-700 series was broken up at Kemble in June this year at 7 years old. Having ended its lease with easyJet the lessor found the aircraft difficult to quickly place with a new lessee or owner and, given the low life of the parts and the ability to zero life some of them quite cheaply, broke up the aircraft and made more from the parts than they could have done from selling the aircraft or leasing it for another 7 years.

Newbie here, back to modelling in 2011 after a gap of 40 years. I've bought myself a 1/48th Trumpeter C-47A as a slow build project. I've the Quickboost replacement cowlings and rudder and had initially decided to finish the aircraft as a Buffalo Airways C-47. The Leading Edge site shows new decals as "available December" but the decals can't be purchased at present and I'm told the registration(s) available won't match one of their aircraft with the astrodome as featured in the model. My second choice was Aer Lingus's EI-AHG which I flew on in 1963 and for which I can obtain decals, but again it did not have an astrodome. I'd prefer not to have to delete the astrodome and plug the opening. Having been an aircraft enthusiast for almost 56 years and a photographer for over 40 years I've a wealth of photos and reference materials and I'm surprised at how few C-47s in civilian service retained their astrodomes. Even fewer had an astrodome and an attractive colour scheme. If anyone has any suggestions for a colour scheme and can point to the location of suitable decals, I'd be grateful. Two other questions. Where does the clear panel in the cockpit roof in the kit come from? I don't recall ever seeing a C-47/DC3 or Li-2 with such a panel either in life or in a published photo. Finally the replacement cowlings come with solid plugs at the front end. They can be sawn off flush but what would be the best method of safely removing the material from the opening?