skippiebg

Well, its all very good me hacking away at it, but where would I don't know... Would anyone publish it, so at least I get some reward for my work? And, anyway, people would naturally think I just looked at the F-RSIN kit and drew that. Plenty to ponder, especially the publishing aspect.

Good news! Wish you success with sales. Was drawing the Tridents for those who have stashes of Airfix kits, but your kit pre-empts much of my efforts

Did this sketch of window, emergency exit, door and emergency/cabin supply door differences between marks. The point is, it wasn't just "short versus long fuselage" Tridents... Am working with less-than-perfect source material, so E&OE, as usual... Have uploaded a revised version, with minor differences from yesterday's highlighted with red arrows. The file is way over the usual limits, so apologies are due to the moderators! If it's a nuisance, I shall gladly take it down (please advise).

Here is a sketch of the visible structural and aerodynamic repairs after crack discovery on 3Bs in 1977. Wing underside shown. The four doubler plates were quite thick at half an inch-odd and their external edges were bevelled at 45 degrees (where the plates butted-up to each other, the join was flush, however). The Duxford Trident 2E displays them quite clearly:

Did some more research and amended the earlier posting on the visual (shape and livery, to an extent) differences between Trident marks, rearranging it in the conventional sequence of wing-fuselage-empennage-powerplant-undercarriage. I can keep editing this posting (unless it is a nuisance: do please let me know!) as and if I uncover other titbits, with the hope that it can become a repository of all Trident modelling info.Trust of help and interest and sorry it is so long! Do let me know (off-thread, please) of any errors or unclear bits. Likewise, would love to hear of your "finds"! Thanks in advance! Trident 1C; the "datum mark" Wing - Flight test specimens featured variations to leading edge (LE), aerodynamic fences (including one with a locally unswept leading edge portion and increased chord), wing/fuselage fairing, ailerons (initially, two ailerons per wing, outboard ones extending to wingtip, with aerodynamic compensation horns, per Airfix). - Till mid-1965, fence extended to drooping LE but short item not covering LE subsequently made standard. - Wing/fuselage fairing "handed": shorter portside to clear aft underfloor luggage door. Powerplant - External fuel pipe housed within strake running from starboard wing/fuselage fairing to tailcone featured on all aircraft, including earliest examples and therefore cannot be related to APU. Cannot find anything more on it but would welcome information off-thread. - From mid-1965, APU moved from wing centre section to spike-like nacelle at base of fin (many machines like this from new). Significant centre section and tailcone skinning changes. - In 1971, APU changed from the small, neat Artouste to larger, “warty” Garret AiResearch unit with prominent vent/drain pipe directly above centre engine exhaust and entirely different intake arrangements. Empennage - Rudder reduced in height in service, to accommodate APU. - With no hydraulic pressure tailplane canted back markedly and ailerons drooped by 1-2 degrees. Equipment - Early/late and aerial fit differences. More detail needed! Customers - BEA Red Square and Flying Jack liveries (I was wrong to state that all had grey-painted underbellies in service: paint was factory-applied from late1964, in-service machines brought up to standard soon) and successor British Airways (Negus "British airways" and "British" liveries). Sales campaigns with Ansett (exeunt), Zenniko (All Nippon Airways), Malta Airlines (exeunt), KLM. Demonstrated to Alitalia, SAS. Trident 1E Wing - Extended span (62in -- 31in each side) and chord. 3 per cent more chord at root (added to leading edge; nil per cent at the tip; i.e., actual [not theoretical, which is measured at 25 per cent chord] leading edge sweep increased marginally) and straight leading edge (the 1C had a slight link at 1/3 span). - Leading edge devices now slats, rather than droops (however, the Trident 1C's inboard leading-edge Krueger flap was retained in a highly-modified form). - Longer aerodynamic fence (including the slats). - Trailing edge has two kinks: one where the 1C wing kinked, plus a new one at the outboard flap. - Aileron moved outboard 18 inches/45cm. Fuselage - Starboard (right) nose gear door now closed when landing gear down. - Both pax entry doors’ height increased from 62in to 73in. Doors stow under cabin roof, instead of folding inwards into vestibules. Rain gutters extended marginally forwards. Customer differences in door opener, door window, depressurisation valve layouts. - Forward cabin windows, midships pax entry door, and wing inspection lights moved forward by two frames, aft cabin extended forward by extra window, within identical-length fuselage. - Centre cabin supply door deleted and forward starboard door now serves as cabin supply door (also see below). - Channel (and BKS/Northeast) machines had midhsips hatrack-high emergency exits and no starboard side wing inspection light. - Four, instead of two, overwing emergency exits. - Window spacing changes in the aft cabin and entire starboard side. - Portside angle of attack indicator moved forward to between flightdeck 'teardrop' window and forward pax entry door. Empennage - Alternator and constant speed drive air inlet projects from fin leading edge approximately 1/4 of way between centre engine intake and tailplane bullet. Powerplant - Side engine nacelles longer by 4.6in (11-12cm or a tad under 1mm in 1/144 scale) - Centre engine noise suppressor deleted, possibly to boost thrust marginally (off-thread information welcome!). - All machines were accepted (airliners are never delivered!) with APU spikes housing Artoustes, though at least one test-flew without APU. In BA service, APU replaced by AiResearch unit. Undercarriage - Nosewheel tyres 1in larger diameter (now 29x8-15). - Nose undercarriage door (the starboard thing; Hawker Siddeley called the portside one "leg fairing") now closes instead of remaining open once nose undercarriage is down and locked. - Mainwheel tyres 1in larger in diameter and 1in greater in width (now 35x10.5-18). - Main undercarriage doors reshaped (the inboard ones; Hawker Siddeley called the outer ones "leg fairings") -- the 1C had a bulge added to them early in service to accommodate a geometry tweak to make landings smoother, plus a strake. The 1E did away with the fairing and strake, and the entire door bulged slightly. Equipment - Early/late and client-specific aerial, drain mast differences. Most non-British machines had basic avionics fits and fewer aerials. Customers - Channel Airways, BKS Air Services (BKS and Northeast liveries), Cyprus Airways, Iraqi Airways, Kuwait Airways, PIA/Pakistan Air Force (all sold 1970 to Zhongguo Minyong [CAAC/PLAAF]), Air Ceylon. There were sales campaigns with Olympic and possibly others. British Airways (Negus) operated ex-BKS/Northeast and post-1974 war repatriated Cyprus machines. Trident 2E Wing - Flared Kuchemann wingtips, extending span by further 36in (18in each side). - Outboard flaps extended in span, changing planform by moving the outboard kink further out. - Tips on British machines reverted to a design similar to the 1E (but different in detail) in 1978/9 as precaution after fatigue cracking discovered in 1977 on Trident 3Bs. Large skin doubler plates on wing underside at Rib 8 (the dihedral change area). - Longer ailerons. Fuselage - Starboard aft fuselage fuel pipe suppressed, though stub remains. - Fwd and aft pax entry door window and opener layout made identical. - Narrower-than-standard window inserted aft of rear overwing emergency exit. - Extra cabin window added opposite midships pax entry door, 'joining' fwd and aft cabin starboard windows. Empennage - Tiny air intake on fin LE (see Trident 1E) deleted Powerplant - Aerodynamic covers over the thrust reverser grilles (soon removed in service). - All machines built with APU spikes housing Artoustes. These Artoustes were different to those fitted to 1Cs and 1Es: they had a hooded exhaust and a new forward-facing intake along the port side of the fin, for airborne operation. In later BEA and BA service (1971 onwards), the Artoustes were replaced by AiResearch unit. - APU fuel pipe suppressed (though a visual trace of it remained and the fairings remained "handed"), along with the fin-top aerial and screenwiper mechanism teardrop pods. Empennage - Fin/tailplane bullet subtly flattened viewed head-on; associated minor changes to tailplane root. - No tail lamp on tailplane bullet. - Winching hooks deleted from fin/tailplane bullet. - Outboard elevator hinge fairings added to tailplane (twice the size of the midships and inboard ones) -- one per side. Equipment - Pitot head and drain mast differences from 1E, many aerials suppressed. - Customer-dependent aerial fit differences (CAAC examples had navigator stations) Customers - BEA (Red Square initial acceptances, Flying Jack later) and British Airways (Negus livery) (a retired example received Landor colours), Cyprus Airways (livery differed from 1E in "Sun Jet" signage details), Zhongguo Minyong (CAAC/PLAAF; individual examples passed onto independent Chinese airlines in the late 1980s). Transient interest from Chosonminhang ("CAAK", today Air Koryo). Trident 3B Wing - Incidence 2 degrees 35 minutes greater (rotated clockwise viewed from port), leading edge staying where it was and trailing edge dropping). - Much elongated outboard flap. - New ailerons shorter than those of the 2E. - Outboard flap and spoilers enlarged, outboard wing kink moving nearer wingtip. - Kuchemann tip removal and skin doubler addition post-1977 per 2E above. Fuselage - Significantly changed wing/fuselage fairing: all trace of external fuel pipe deleted, non-handed. - Stretched 22in (one window) at fwd end of cabin, 79in (four windows) ahead of centre door and 96in (five windows) aft of wing. - Reverted to two overwing emergency exits plus a 48x24in “hatrack” exit starboard at aft end of cabin, plus a 48x24in service door starboard amidships. - Radio equipment hatch added to underside centreline. Powerplant - Aerodynamic covers over reverser grilles (soon removed in service). - Centre engine noise suppressor reinstated. - APU spike replaced by take-off booster engine. - APU now atop centre engine intake; first Trident to use AiResearch APU prior to refits of earlier marks. Undercarriage - Main undercarriage doors re-profiled to accommodate wing incidence angle change. - Mainwheel tyres now 36in diameter. Customers - BEA (Flying Jack livery) and British Airways (Negus livery) (a retired example received Landor colours), Zhongguo Minyong (CAAC/PLAAF)

... and a couple of superb photos showing the Trident 3B's modified wing/fuselage fairing: http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1125923 Note (top link) the "tucked-in" shape of the inboard flap at its inboard (fuselage) end: all Trident marks had that "tuck."

Jens, I've tried that.Takes a long time and in my case, the result was uttely disastrous. One big reason for the disaster is that the trailing edge should be straight, but if you cut the wing, it goes all askew... I found it much, much easier and light years more realistic simply to sand the Airfix wing. Takes just 15 minutes start to finish (both sides, including tweaks to make them equal!) and the wing then screams "Trident" at you Incidentally, you are right about the wing being too thick and needing sanding anyway!

Here is that elusive leading edge kink on the 1C which disappeared on later marks. Airfix does not show it but it is easy enough to add, if you are in a fanatical mood: Here's some links to photos that show it very clearly:

Woody37, here's something that might help (Trident wing undersides): - the 1C had the base wing, with a very small planview kink at Rib 8 (Airfix does not show this) - the 1E had slats added, resulting in a straight leading edge and a slight chord extension forward of the 1C's leading edge. The aileron was moved outboard by 18 inches/45cm. The flaps had longer chord, resulting in a second trailing edge kink in planview - the 2E had the 1E's wing with a longer aileron and the Kuchemann wingtip. The Kuchemann 'tip was removed in BA service 1977-'79, but retained in CAAC service. Alongside removal of the flared wingtip, a complex-shaped and fairly thick (circa 0.4in/1cm) skin doubler was bolted to the wing underside beneath Rib 8 - the 3B had its wing incidence increased by 2 degrees 35 minutes. This involved moving the trailing edge downwards, while the leading edge remained where it had been on prior marks. The wing/fuselage fairing changed significantly, being deeper than before. This is covered in the article above. (School geometry confirms that the incidence change would have changed wing sweep a tad, though aerodynamically it remained identical to prior marks.) The 3B also had a longer outboard flap. Details of the wingtips, operator differences and doubler plate are exactly as per the 2E above.

Early Trident 1s had natural metal undersides and test-flew like that. All test machines were grey-painted before BEA acceptance and no Trident 1s had natural metal undersides in service. Moving onto the wing kink, below I'll try to post (fingers crossed) a photo and a sketch showing how it looks and how it can be handled...

Information changed: see new message on this topic on Page 4 in this thread! Thank you!

Jennings, yes, incredible landing gear! The NG folded sideways to 1. make room for the electronics bay, 2. reduce the unpressurised bay since "pressurisation forces are easier to contain in the hoop, rather than the lenghtways, sense", and 3. keep tha pax and service doors within the same portion of fuselage, for the same reason (Aircraft Engineering magazine, Spring 1964). No parts count or complexity increase, however -- this is not affected by the way in which the gear stows. Each MG strut had two wheels with two tyres each (looking to all the world like four wheels) and rotated through 90 degrees while retracting, so the axle would lie parallel with the aircraft centreline. This did make the main gear bay very slim indeed compared to other designs (the same 1964 article claimed it was "conformal," though there is a small bump at the body-side door). All the same, the Trident always landed very harshly, as I clearly recall from many dozens of flights in it. This was possibly due not only to the gear's geometry, but also to the type's refusal to quite touch down (ground spoiler was regularly raised with the machine flaring and loitering 3-4ft in the air well past the touchdown point). Joy, most of the corrections are quite doable without displacing any decals. Must, if I get the time, do a featurelette. The wing can be sanded to show the kink within 15 minutes for both sides and positively screams "Trident!" at you afterwards. Still, the gorgeous Iraqi 1E shown above and the equally gorgeous CAAC 1E in the build thread posted above weren't redone to almost any degree and they still look like Tridents!

SteveSIG, your article has given me many, many hours of pleasure while whittleing away at my endless succession of (sadly, dud) Tridents! My observations aren't really the acme of computing or the internet -- just a Photoshop excercise with half an Airfix fuselage, a scanner, and an old Hawker Siddeley brochure acquired at a swapmeet many, many years ago

Just to add to what has been written above: Items for correction visible on the image above: 1. flightdeck canopy too far aft by about 1.25mm 2. nosecone too thin at its forward end (the radome) and too fat further aft (to the nose gear bay) 3. fuselage lacks the small but distinctive dip just ahead of the centre engine intake 4. centre engine intake way too small and thin 5. tailcone taper needs attention (this is especially true where it meets the fin -- there is a bulge there that ought to be eliminated; for more, see Item 8 below) 6. rudder about 4.5mm too short of chord 7. APU spike about 1mm too high and way too fat. Items for correction not visible on the image above: 8. fin is far too thin (in a sense, Airfix did to the Trident what they should have done to the TriStar...): needs a slab of plastic card cemented to each side to give it the correct thickness 9. wing, viewed from the front, lacks the _very_ distinctive leading edge kink at about 1/3 span where there is a change from anhedral (inboard) to dihedral (outboard). The above remarks (and the corrections they advocate) might strike you as more than a tad excessive, but I make them in good faith, as a died-in-the-wool Trident fanatic. Yufei Mao did not correct almost anything on his stock Airfix Trident and it still looks a winner. The only real criterion on what to do or not is what pleases you

Here's something that might help...

Have a look at the last item on this page: http://www.modelsforsale.com/catalog/index...t=3a&page=3 BTW, I'm a Russian speaker (got a bloody degree in it...), so if you need any help working out what they reply, do ask.

It's getting bloody rare (as is Tippex :-( ), but I picked up a bubblepack of five from a massive hobby shop by the side of Ramsbottom station t'other day. I think you can pick up similar (or the same) products from Hobbycraft which is a chain of huge hobby shops around the UK. You can also try the makers at www.aroundtheblockproducts.com Good luck!

BAC, yes, forgot the Airfix engines hoovering up the ground. The Revell ones tend to do the same, 'coz the flimsy bloody wing droops something rotten (you end up with something with a Tupolev stance, with bird of prey wings). Next time, I'll try making "spars" from paperclips or something... And you're right, not much filling to the Airfix. Revell needs a bit.

1. Airfix (vintage 1982): this is a DC-10-30/40 as built until 1978 when a Performance Improvement Package (PIP) affected the Ten's shape in detail. Blobby, tough, somewhat overinflated/too-rounded feel that hides loads and loads of early-80s sod-it-nobody-f***ing-cares sloppy detailing. Nose profile is good, spoiled by a locator pin protrusion on the lower seam, below the windscreen. However, nose and especially radome/nosecone cross-section is seriously "pinched". Dull, indistinct transitions between tapered and constant section portions of fuselage. Window line is a tad low, as mentioned by Keefr22. Indistinct wing/body fairing whose contours you have to _really_ squint to see. No attempt whatsoever to represent the tailplane/body fairings. Centre engine intake is fine (well, many would say it is a Series 40 intake, which was flared. According to my measurements, it is halfway between Series 30 and 40); however, its rear end and pylon (below the fin trailing edge) is midway between the Series -30 and -40. Fin 1-2 mm too high, has 1-2 degrees less sweep than it should. Wing trailing edge has a bodged kink at the inboard ailerons which is marked on the real Ten. Landing gear is toyish. Fit is okayish on the fuselage, _atrocious_ on the wing and tailplane halves and pretty poor elsewhere. Most Airfix Tens I've seen seem to have been spattered with machine oil on release from the moulding machine and need a damn good washdown with detergent. 2. Revell (vintage 1972? Well, that's when I first saw it in SAS drag [nice!] in an Indian newsagents on the London Rd Mitcham [box said "DC-10 Airbus" which is pretty hilarious nowadays!]): the Laker pack is a DC-10-10 as built until 1978-ish (key-shaped reverser afterbodies on engines, no centre landing gear, short wing, short wing/body fairing). Occasional Laker-labelled packs have long wings and centre landing gear, but still the short wing/body fairing and early engines. The KC-10 is a proper 30 (like the Airfix) but _not_ a proper KC-10 which has all the PIP recognition points (bulbous wing/body fairing forebody, revised tailplane/body fairings, "twirled" junctions between tailplanes and body and fin and centre engine intake). To make an early 30 of the KC-10, you have to castrate the kit fuselage :shithappens: Feel is flimsy, not helped by the five-piece wing. Fidelity is surprisingly good overall, _except_ for the nose (looks like a, er-r... marital aid, shall we say... I better shut up, 'coz Ann Summers will be around, byuing 'em all up) which has to be got rid of and replaced with the Airfix item. Also poor is the centre engine intake which you can also replace with Airfix. The fin is a tad too short and lacking in chord at the top (the opposite to the Airfix kit). Engines are _frightening_ and shoud likewise be replaced with Airfix ones. The window strips are a joke: fill them up with Milliput and use window decals. Overall, though: nice! The wing is beautifully crisp, if you can ever persuade it to fit together... Landing gear is a tad overdone and fanciful but on the whole better than Airfix. Fit is pretty poor-to-appalling throughout, not helped by flimsy/thin/springy parts and lack of bulkheads inside jellyfish/springy fuselage. Kinda wobbles... Err-r... that's about it! Oh, almost forgot! Anyone who makes a Revell Ten with all wheels touching the ground gets my vote for Life President of IPMS. (Still, you can claim they built the real thing like those juggernauts that have some wheels hovering off the road when in lightweight mode :-) ) Basically, bash the two togevver, shake'em and something real nice may happen. Kit decals are beyond redemption (both Revell and Airfix). You're best off getting one of the smashing markings by 26 Decals or F-DCAL. Pick up some nice detailing decals while you're at it. Another alternative is, just paint the Revell all greyish-pink and sell it to Ann Summers (you won't have to bother with the wings or any other troublesome bits). And pop round to airlinercafe.com to ask questions or just have a peek.

Madman, tried nail varnish earlier this evening while wathing a telly ranking of dangerous drugs (the things we do for science!). A thin smear acts as a barrier coat (plastic card surface definitely reacts a bit, though), but my wife's brand at least fails to build up much of a body. It's the later painting and finishing that worries me, too. Glass hard and definitely self-coloured. (Plus, I'd definitely bottle out of asking for it at the chemists! ) Anyway, did the deed earlier tonight with jolly old Tipp-ex. Can't beat the stuff, even if it occasionally chips off (due to my grubby finger oils!)

Mike, yes, used all three Mr Surfacer grades bought from Hannants. Found 500 the most useful one, and the 1200 grade dried off before being used up. Not having a my own modelling den and sharing tables or desks with the resto of the family means no smells and no chemicals. Tippex gives more or less the same effect and is a cellulose suspension (which I suspect Mr S is also), but smells a lot less.

Thanks, Madman and Mike! Madman, Milliput is actually the only filler I've used for more than 20 years now (well, plus the odd glob of gel superglue and the odd bottle of Tippex, which reminds me it's getting hard to get hold of), but smearing it that thin (we're talking microns here, guys ) is unrealistic. Mike, nice to know I'm not alone in using paint for really tiny filling jobs.

I want to:- - make a model airliner's nose fatter by a very small amount; - sharpen/emphasise the angles ("prows") between individual facets of the airliner's windscreen, without having to remove any more material. In the past, I have done things like this by brush-painting undiluted primer (all around the nose, in a careful stroke or line where the angle needs emphasising). Once dry, I sand (or use a scalpel in a shaving motion) very carefully to "feather" the paint into the surrounding surface. I have used typewriter corrector fluids (cellulose suspensions like Tippex, etc) for such jobs. I seem to recall that Mr Surfacer is tailor-made for this, but am too far from any stockist and can't be bothered with mail ordering. A problem with this technique is that paint/Tippex can chip off, necessitating reapplications. More than one reapplication is necessary sometimes. On rare occasions, entire small "prows" between winscreen panes have broken off, despite prior surface preparation with detergent/water. Another problem is that the paint/Tippex is too soft and too easily sanded off, even using very fine sandpaper pressed very gently. I would be very interested to read about people's alternative techniques.

The 747 is quite good and is based on the same prototype as the Revell 1/144 scale 747-100: the most faithful short-hump 747 out there. The upper deck hump is too low by about 1.5-2mm, though (as in the Revell kit where, due to scale, the difference is just over 1mm). Has a full interior included so you can use it as structural strengthening (not a bad idea as the kit is large!) or chuck in the spares box. The 707 is superb and is reckoned as one of the two best kits of the subject alongside the Heller/Airfix 1/72 scale one. Has an additional set of clear engines and a clear flightdeck canopy. This is a 'sleeper' kit, so even if you don't need it, get one 'coz supplies are getting really low and you can always flog it on Evil Bay. In my opinion the Airfix/Heller Concorde is so dreadful and its errors are so huge, you're better off scratchbuilding it.