ho590hm

The EC-24A sprues are the same as those shown further up the thread, apart from lack of the alternate engines, plus a small extra sprue with the various extra fairings.

From the plan view, it looks like the fillet may be moulded as part of the one piece tailplane - there seems to be one with and one without. Howard

Just received EC-24A from Hannants. Although I have not yet sawn the major parts off the sprue, first impressions are relatively positive on shape, with some misgivings about the wing cross section which appears to retain the curved underside all the way to the tip, whereas the outer pylon has a much flatter intersection with the wing. Also looks a bit blunt on the leading edge - need to check whether the kit includes the 4% chord extension. Apart from that, standard Mach 2 product which responds to attention to thinning trailing edges, etc. Couple of cases of short shots on the extra sprue - just the wing probes which I would have replaced anyway. Canopy may be usable...... Windows more in line than VC10, Britannia and Comet - OK for the row of 6 on the EC-24A I have not yet done a comparison with the Minicraft 1/144. Thanks to janneman36 for the comparison image for the grey. The EC-24A looks slightly lighter than the C-135, which is pretty certainly FS 16473. I have done a bit more research, discovering that FEWSG also operated two NKC-135A on loan from the USAF modified for air warfare. See image at https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/Boeing-EC-135Y-717-100A/1826849. This one looks a similar colour to the EC-24A but is darker than the C-135 in front of it. This may just be due to fading in the desert sun round Tucson. I also referred to the trusty MIL-STD-2161, which gives the rules for painting US Navy aircraft. The earliest I can find is revA which dates from 1993 and was therefore current at the time these aircraft were operated. Although it gives specific details for many US Navy types, as well as all the standard stencils, neither EC-24A nor NKC-135A get a mention. I thought the C-9B might help, but the standard scheme calls out FS 16440 which looks wrong on the EC-24A. What it does include is all the US Navy standard colours that are permitted for general use. The only lighter grey that is mentioned is FS 36495, which could be a possibility as a permitted tactical colour. FS36375 is permitted, but darker than 36473 according to my FS595 fandeck. Then I looked at the later revB, where an exception seems to be the use of Boeing BAC707 as the standard grey on the Navy C-40. Any other thoughts welcomed.

Thinking positively while awaiting delivery from Hannants, based on the sprue images that are available, does anyone have an indication of whether the underside grey is FS36440 or something else? Thanks. Howard PS - Anyone want a Mach 2 Atlantic, superseded by the Revell one?

These are the Mirage IIIC components....

Didier did not mention a cost......nor did the other thread.

Apparently a revised part has been produced. Just had an email exchange with Didier, and a revised canopy is on its way to me. Contact details over on airlinercafe.com. I await with interest and will report accordingly after recovering the model from the stash. Howard

I think the drawing is more off shape than the kit. Before making my original assessment, I enlarged a side view of the nose of XV107 to match the fuselage depth of the kit and held the kit against the screen. The lower profile is good but the upper line becomes too low at the base of the screen which only emphasises the ugly step. The giveaway on the drawing is that the tip of the nose is below floor level, not in line as per the image.

I have been looking at the plastic relative to images and some of the original drawings. Still need to pull out the actual GA of the windscreen, but working on it. The maintenance manuals and Illustrated Parts Catalogue do not provide enough help. The fuselage, fin and wing profiles are not bad, subject to my comments above. Viewed in isolation the angle between the front windshield and the profile of the canopy is good, but bears little relationship to the side windows, hence my comment about rotation the canopy backwards, and the width of that central panel throws the shape out further. The upper line of the nose is also a bit flat below the front screen. But as I discussed with colleagues at IPMS Farnborough, we are modellers...... The C. Mk. 1 (K) boxing is the closest to an IM VC10 to date, and I will try and get hold of some decent drawings for the cockpit glazing around which the rest will fall into place - possibly with the application of some Milliput. Howard.

To be clear the Brabazon was done over a decade ago, and required attention to sand out the grain marks from the wooden master - a job I still need to complete!

A couple of them on the Airfix stand at Telford....... Getting ready to flatten the inboard underside of the wing.

Picked up one of these resin monsters at Telford. First impressions very good, although a couple of bubbles to deal with. Much better quality than their Brabazon, where you could see the grain in the wood from the master. Instructions and decals to follow. Beaching gear included. I always remember seeing the mothballed airframes at Cowes and on the Solent before they were scrapped. Howard

I purchased the low-viz VC10 XV107 from Didier at Telford, and have been comparing against references, including images of XV107. While there is more work to be done to check everything, I am very pleased with the overall outline of wing, fuselage, fin and tail, and the washout of the wings. I am encouraged that such subtle features as the non standard spacing of the rear window on the port side has been faithfully captured. Observations to date: The wing-body fairing seems to come a little too far forward and will need to be cut back - no more than 0.5cm The fin fillet leading edge is not sharp enough The nib between the engine exhaust seems a little shallow The characteristic twist in the engine pylons needs care to introduce - flat as moulded but within scope of bending the plastic The windscreen looks odd because the central panel is twice as wide as it should be - easy to cut but may have other implications on the nose shape. I also think the cockpit transparency needs to be tilted back a bit, but this requires assembly to test. Usual challenge of cabin window alignment Fin vortex generators need to be added On the whole - looks pretty good.

Two rotor blade types included - I assume the constant section one is the metal blade, but the chord seems a bit wide against the images that I have for the RN examples. Any thoughts anyone?

Google translate indicates product not available.

Was up close to one of these at Marham. I have to note that the surface is not completely smooth - certainly the panels round the nose are raised by more than the thickness of a decal in 1/72 - though massively less than the Italeri mouding which would be a trip hazard in real life. Howard

Not just you - see my post of yesterday. The VC10 holds a place in my heart as my grandfather took me to see the production line in 1963 when I was nine - prompted me to spend nearly half a century in the industry. Having agreed that the planform fits the Series 1106 version, next thing to look at is the wing thickness/dihedral, the engine pylons and the shape of the nose and tailplane bullet - and whether the windows are in a straight line, based on experience with the Comet. I hope Didier has not followed the Airfix 1/144 nose shape which is horrible. Didier - do you want to take my money in GBP or EUR? Howard Mason Heritage Manager, BAE Systems

The pictures look like a VC10. The build pictures highlight one common issue with VC10 kits in terms of the inboard leading edge extensions. The early BOAC standard VC10s (series 1101) were delivered without these mods, and ZA141 (which is the only grey/green camouflaged aircraft) was a converted 1101 (G-ARVG). The built image shows leading edge extensions which applied to series 1102/1103 (like the preserved aircraft at Brooklands) and the military 1106 as well as the Supers. The grey camouflaged example seems to be XV107, which is a series 1106 delivered with extensions. Notwithstanding that I will be at Telford to get a grey one on 9 November. www.vc10.net is a great resource. Howard Heritage Manager BAE Systems

Interesting Luft 4x subject. Any bets on whether it gets issued before the York and K-7?

If heavy lift, then only options would seem to be Hastings, Beverley or Belfast. But I would respond very positively to a VC10, Tristar or Voyager. Just hope we do not get anything like the Comet/Nimrod cross that we got last year - just look at the engine fairings. Howard

There are a few pages on this aircraft in the William Green "Warplanes of the Second World War" Vol 9 - summarised in Wikipedia. I wonder if they will do optional noses for the first eight civil 'A' variants - two of which got converted to the glazed nose 'B' standard.

Perhaps because Huma already did the single seater......

+1 on the question of separate availability of the sheet - for Anigrand as well as ARK models that have already been purchased with the basic set. I am up for two sheets. Howard

Holding the plastic, the images above are correct. Both front and rear fans are mirrored - just look at the curvature of the blades. Both parts should be identical. They even have the same part number on the sprue map but are not identical. The front fan nearest the main gear on the sprue is correct. If the BR710 works like other multishaft engines, then the rear fan nearest the nose gear is correct, since it would rotate the same way as the front fan (facing the other direction)

Thanks for the colour detail - although it looks closer to the Presidential dark blue....X164 Just noticed that the decal sheet does not match the box art. It shows 10065 for the USAF scheme, which is a C-37A, whereas the box is correct with 60500 as a C-37B.