Roden 1/144 720

[Jennings Heilig]

Finally had some time to sit down with the Roden 720 and some scale plans. My scale plans are done from 707/720 and KC-135 maintenance and structural repair manuals. The dimensions are scaled from dimensions given in the sections on the nacelles and pylons, which are generally given down to two decimal places (in inches). That's all to say that I'm confident that my drawings match the dimensions of the real 707/720 JT3C nacelles down to at least two decimal places. Not that they're perfect mind you, but they're to scale.

The bottom line is, the Roden 720 nacelles are significantly too large in all dimensions. The actual shape of them looks okay, just that they're far too large for 1/144 scale, being much closer to the size of JT4A nacelles from a 707-227/707-320 Intercontinental.

The shape of the pylons is fair, but not perfect. They appear anemic to me, but it's hard to put a finger on exactly what it is about them.

I really like the way Roden did the intakes and the organ pipe exhausts. Unfortunately there is zero indication of the cascade thrust reverser grilles on the aft part of the nacelles.

Here are some photos (sorry for the quality - I am a spammer, please report this post. camera). The vertical lines are drawn on the panel lines where the Roden parts are broken down (front and back ends of the nacelle proper, minus the nose/intake and the exhaust parts). Horizontal lines are references for the actual vertical dimension of the real JT3C nacelle.

Also, FWIW, there should be no horizontal panel line running across the middle of the nacelle on any JT3C nacelle.

The good news is, the fuselage shape and dimensions are pretty good. Close enough to scale that it's really not worth mentioning anyway. The detail is a bit iffy - there is no indication of the proper details of the rudder (the small indentations along the trailing edge), nor the details of the hinges, trim tab actuator arms, etc. My kit has several bites taken out of the trailing edge, and the upper trailing edge corner was broken off due to rattling around in the box. The shape of the vertical fin is just about spot-on though, and ***much*** better than the Minicraft 707 (which only looks like a 707 fin if you squint your eyes and stay more than 5 feet away from it).

The cabin windows are somewhat too small (even for the smaller 707 size windows), and are spaced incorrectly. No problem if you putty them and use decals, but a potential problem if you don't. The incorrect placement and spacing puts the escape hatch too far aft, and several of the windows are touching panel lines (most of which are in the wrong place), which they shouldn't do. The panel line I've highlighted in red closest to the nose is in the correct location on the fuselage, and that's the one (along with the nose) that I used as a reference. You can see that the rest don't match up with the ones on my drawing, which again, comes from maintenance and structural repair manual information.

Although it's hard to see in my photos, the fuselage is missing the lobe crease. There is a double-bubble cross section, but the lobe crease itself is missing (as if it's faired in).

I also still think the cockpit windows look wonky. The overall outside shape of the part is okay, but the shapes of the windows themselves are wrong and the frames between them are far too fat.

[pinky coffeeboat]

Thanks for the info.

I received my kits a couple of days ago and did notice the engines are a bit muscular. As for the cabin windows, I'm loathe to use decals so for my first I'll go with the kit provided openings and see how the finished article looks.

Is your research still ongoing or are these the *only* problems with the kit?

Jeff

[garryrussell]

^{Thanks fir that Jennings}

^{Of course anyone who knows a type intimately will spot things a mile off}

^{But, aside from this or rather despite this, if made up does it look like a 720 if built out of the box.}

^{Or, put another way, is it worth it??}

[Jennings Heilig]

if made up does it look like a 720 if built out of the box

Or, put another way, is it worth it??

Do you mean, is someone going to think it's a Whitley or a P-40? Then no, it looks "like" a 720. But that's not the point to me. To me it needs to be right.

For me, no, it's not worth it. I'm only ever going to build one 720, and this one just has so much wrong with it I'd rather spend the money and buy one of Kurt Lehman's jewel-like resin kits.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Jennings Heilig

[madaboutmodels]

Do you mean, is someone going to think it's a Whitley or a P-40? Then no, it looks "like" a 720. But that's not the point to me. To me it needs to be right.

For me, no, it's not worth it. I'm only ever going to build one 720, and this one just has so much wrong with it I'd rather spend the money and buy one of Kurt Lehman's jewel-like resin kits.

But in all fairness you are knit picking, it looks like a 720 to me and most other people.

you could probably show this to a boeing engineer and they wouldnt notice it in this scale, its just obsessive, if you think the kit has that many issues then bin it....

[andrewribs]

Does anyone know if Roden have plans for a 720B in the future?

Andrew

[stringbag]

But in all fairness you are knit picking, it looks like a 720 to me and most other people.

To be fair Bradley, Jennings does raise some valid points here which are much appreciated.

Based on Jennings' drawings, the engine nacelles are an obvious disappointment. These will have to be completely re-worked to more accurately represent the real thing, though I'm sure the aftermarket industry will be along soon to help out. With regards to the inaccurate panel lines and window spacing, these are issues that are easier to overcome.

The faults indicated certainly won't stop me getting one of these kits, but at least I won't be disappointed when I do.

Chris.

[pinky coffeeboat]

Yes indeed, to be aware of a kits problems does allow us to decide how much we are put off or not by them.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the after market guys to rush to our rescue with new corrected engines - I'm still waiting for a decent set of corrected engines for the Revell 737!

It would be good if Roden released the JT3D version 720, and expanded the range to a new series of 707. We can only hope.

Jeff

[garryrussell]

Thanks Jennings...yep so basically it requires some work to be right...is there already suitable AM, if not maybe there soon will be.

I do appreaciate how, what goes un noticed to some, scream out to those who do know...like me with Heralds and Viscounts, I can spot the issues with my eyes closed if you know what I mean.

Sometime models are close but just don't look right and the info you give can be used for those who don't know what it is, a chance to make it right.

Nothing wrong with making OOB, but nice to have info like this to use if one wants.

[Jennings Heilig]

But in all fairness you are knit picking, it looks like a 720 to me and most other people.

you could probably show this to a boeing engineer and they wouldnt notice it in this scale, its just obsessive, if you think the kit has that many issues then bin it....

No, I'm not nitpicking. As I've posted many times before, if you happen to think 'close enough' is good enough, then that's great for you. I don't happen to agree with you. But please don't belittle other people to whom accuracy *does* matter. It's not that one is right and one is wrong. To some people accuracy doesn't matter, and to others it does. If you think it's nitpicking, then don't bother yourself reading it. But don't feel obliged to call it nitpicking just because you don't agree with it, okay?

Edited September 7, 2013 by Jennings Heilig

[David G]

No, I'm not nitpicking. As I've posted many times before, if you happen to think 'close enough' is good enough, then that's great for you. I don't happen to agree with you. But please don't belittle other people to whom accuracy *does* matter. It's not that one is right and one is wrong. To some people accuracy doesn't matter, and to others it does. If you think it's nitpicking, then don't bother yourself reading it. But don't feel obliged to call it nitpicking just because you don't agree with it, okay?

Well said Jennings and thanks for taking the trouble with your original post.

There are people out there who think the Minicraft 757 is a decent likeness and if they are satisfied with it, good luck to them. The rest of us would rather know about accuracy issues so that we can take an informed decision to buy the kit in question or look elsewhere. It's not nitpicking (and it's certainly not "knit picking") - it's called wanting to build the best possible model.

[Jessica]

If it's only the engines, the problem is not insurmountable. If the problems extend to other parts my opinion may change (I'm a decal windows girl, so the windows don't worry me). I haven't read any mention of the wings and stabilisers. Are they acceptable, or do they have problems?

[Vesa Jussila]

I don't have drawings to compare, but I think Jessica is right. When I was looking first time Jennings pictures I was thinking is wing root in correct place?

[Blackrat]

I have the Roden 720 and the Welsh Models version, (SL193P) and have just had a good look at the engines for size comparison purposes. The Welsh set certainly look far closer to the correct size, even too small possibly but maybe there are other issues with the Welsh pylons etc. I believe Densil is usually willing to sell parts separately. Any views on this would be most welcome.

Thanks.

[Dr.Bunsen Honeydew]

Well, work for the "after market" folks never stops. How is the wing shape?

Two Six did nice sets for the colorful "AEROAMERICA" 720 fleet.

Have nice sunday

[GreenDragon]

Was thinking of getting an Aeroamerica 720, used to see them at Heathrow and Gatwick back in the late 70'S and Two Six still do them. Quite like the Geen and Blue N730T.

Paul Harrison

[Jessica]

Roden are known to like wild colourful colour schemes. It seems that this one is made for Ecuatoriana's far-out schemes : )

And since it's a -B there's hope for proper-sized engines.

[Kev1n]

Has anybody told roden about the engines?

maybe they will do a revell and re-do them

just a thought

[F-RSIN]

Hi Kev1n,

Manufacturers hardly ever correct faulty moulds. When they're done, it's too late. They think possible mistakes won't prevent the kit from selling.

Laurent

[Jennings Heilig]

And they're right (as comments above bear out).

[Jessica]

And they're right (as comments above bear out).

Likely because we airline modellers are so used to getting crap from the manufacturers that we're willing to put up with kits which need correcting. After all, a kit needing correcting is still much better than no kit at all. I've seen very few airliner kits which can be built right out of the box without needing extensive correction work. A few of Zvezda's latest are the only ones which come to mind.

Getting back to the 720, did the wings work out? Do they at least match the drawings?

[David G]

I've seen very few airliner kits which can be built right out of the box without needing extensive correction work. A few of Zvezda's latest are the only ones which come to mind.

Revell ARJ-85? Revell Fokker 100? Revell Airbus narrowbodies generally (apart from the winglets)? Doyusha F27? Minicraft DC-4? Daco 737s?

Edited September 11, 2013 by David G

[Jessica]

Revell ARJ-85? Revell Fokker 100? Revell Airbus narrowbodies generally (apart from the winglets)? Doyusha F27? Minicraft DC-4? Daco 737s?

Revell RJ-85 has very fiddly construction and if you don't get it right your model will end up being twisted.

Fokker 100 needs the tailplanes cut in half and inserted after the fuselage is closed up

Revell Airbice are tricky, the moulds are getting old which makes construction difficult and only the -321 has a correct wing out of the box.

Doyusha F27 is chunky. Almost every part needs refining.

Minicraft DC-4. Well okay, this one is pretty good. So is the DC-8 for that matter.

Daco 737s are beautiful, but they don't fall together like a Tamiya kit does.

Still, it's a pretty short list and these are the best of the bunch.

[GreenDragon]

Did a review for SAMI of the Minicraft DC-4 a long time ago. The only problem I found was the engines have too many cylinders IIRC, think they used the DC-6 ones.

Paul Harrison

Edited September 11, 2013 by GreenDragon

[David G]

Revell RJ-85 has very fiddly construction and if you don't get it right your model will end up being twisted.

Fokker 100 needs the tailplanes cut in half and inserted after the fuselage is closed up

Revell Airbice are tricky, the moulds are getting old which makes construction difficult and only the -321 has a correct wing out of the box.

Doyusha F27 is chunky. Almost every part needs refining.

Minicraft DC-4. Well okay, this one is pretty good. So is the DC-8 for that matter.

Daco 737s are beautiful, but they don't fall together like a Tamiya kit does.

Still, it's a pretty short list and these are the best of the bunch.

Yes but is it really fair to describe these kits as needing "extensive correction work"? Building a non-twisted ARJ-85 is what we're meant to do in the first place and correcting the A319/320 wings is a couple of minutes work.