tempestfan

Sure the leading edges are white not n/m? I don’t know either the kit nor its markings, but think the Matchbox kit indicated n/m way back when - which doesn’t have to be correct (if I remember it right in the first place...). I have the Detail & Scale at home ( plus the Squadron USN colors), and could check to confirm.

If @tony.t is who I believe, he did a series called Things under Wings way back when for SAM. While not really under wings, he may have covered it - I don’t recall...

Possibly, OTOH Sonoran has some weight to his argument of two different props on a twin. I tried to drag the pic larger on the phone, and the top tip seems to show a hint of outline - the other two not really, however.

Could it be the stbd prop has extreme tips in a different colour (red ?), making them all but invisible against the background ?

@DMC, really nothing to thank for. There aren’t that many sources where I may have picked up that info: D&S 707 and derivatives D&S KC-135 Stewart Wilson book, or a piece in SMI ca. 1985. Incidentally, I think your pic of the primered fuselage very effectively shows the influence of the surrounding surface finish - hardly any trace of the crease left. I suspect many of the contemporary paint schemes played a big part in making it disappear, it seems the flat grey of the Iberia scheme in the other thread ran right along the crease, so it would annihilate much of the reflections required to clearly perceive it. BTW, the husband of my godmother (?) was an LH 727 captain. I built the Revell 727 as a boy around 1981, and I never liked it. Those recessed windows hardly compatible with the decals, the unglazed cockpit, the rivets any Airfix hater would have left a comment on (if it had been an Airfix kit... Airfix airliners have always been clean), and that thoroughly unfit-for-purpose stand... Your 727 will unmistakably look like a 727. I don’t think LH -200s had the „white fin/small fried egg“ earlier scheme, or did they?

I am not an airliner guy but I ***think*** I read ***somewhere*** that later 707s had the crease faired over. No idea if there's any truth in that as it would mean some dead weight, OTOH it would slightly dminish the overall surface area and hence probably have a slight positive influence on drag. Again, not being an airliner guy, but Boeing's "8" cross section was I think used for structural reasons, with the "crease" in the position of the internal floor, which IIRC was advantageous from a weight perspective compared with a "fully" circular cross section. And as the main fuselage for the 07/27/37 was based on a kit principle, any lack of crease (unless faired over) would indicate a redesign of the fuselage. IIRC, both the Heller 1/72 and Airfix 144 707s (and the derivatives of the Heller kit - I'm thinking of the Airfix Sentry) have a rather pronounced crease. Edit: Here the crease is also fairly nicely visible, though it is quite subtle.

Good day, a friend over at another forum bought an anonymous 1/48 resin deux mille C. The pic he posted shows a prominent mould seam around the cockpit, hinting at a twin also being produced (or intended). Some detail parts are injected. As the Heller/Airfix 2000s came out ca. 1993, that resin kit will likely be a bit older than that (but post Esci and Monogram). Anyone able to identify ? TIA

Probably it was just meant to say the Iranians are having their fourth generation of F-5s... which the writer confused with a 4th gen fighter.

Boeing registered trademarks especially in the US and the EU (probably Japan too) for the names AND designations of all sorts of types by manufacturers they acquired over the years, including A-4 Skyhawk and P-51 Mustang. In order to be able to bloodsuck licencing fees from kit manufacturers, they had to do it for the "toy" category (but I think they also took a registration for P-51 Mustang and clothing). As they do not sell kits and toys (usually), any kit manufacturer could have claimed "non-usage" 5 years after the registration (in Europe at least), but then apparently there were enough willing to conclude a licence deal, and a licence deal counts as trademark use. IIRC it wasn't possible to trademark a government designation in the US up to a law amendmant in ca. 2006 - I remember there was an online petition available at HS to stop that law, unsuccessfully.

It possibly depends on how old your particular moulding is. As Troy says, it’s very heavily armoured but I think it compares well shapewise with the F40 drawings, like the rest of the kit except the nose intake and spinners. The Revell issue from some 20 years ago should be easy to get, and Revell claimed that they had the moulds cleaned up before their run was commissioned (though I have no idea if the Gannet canopy benefited).

The pic is not all that clear, but it appears the small section of 460‘s tailplane leading edge visible suggests it has wraparound.

The Monogram one at 199? Ouch, that’s serious money, but then I don’t think it was in the programme for long. Chances are the mould is among the lot bought by Atlantis, so if they consider a reissue, it might have a slightly lower price point... As the Testors kit was tooled by Italeri AFAIK and also boxed by them, it should be nowhere near as expensive.

Thank god it won’t be resin then!

What‘s a „vertical stabilizer“ ? Does she mean fin ? It’s diagonal anyway... How did Monogram‘s interpretation compare in sales?

It may depend on who pays for the museum. It is definitely legal to have it on a museum example, but a public one may have reservations on „promoting“ the symbol as an official act, so to say. It’s been a long time since I was there, but think e.g. the private museum at Laatzen has swastikas on the models as well as on the real planes. Well, apparently not (just looked up their homepage... BTW, is +EE above an E or F, for a change?