Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Recommended Posts

1/72 VC10 C.MK.1 all resin kit due for release in November 2019. This version is the grey and white colour scheme with opening cargo door and cockpit interior. Also to follow is the 1101 series BOAC speedbird colour scheme. Keep tuned in for updates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen the masters, and if Mach 2 issue one at Telford, I know which one will be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

Having seen the masters, and if Mach 2 issue one at Telford, I know which one will be better

The definition of "better" is of course a bit subjective. I would respectfully suggest however that price is likely to be the main factor determining purchase?

In any case, we don't know for certain yet what Mach 2 will be releasing at Telford so, comparison is perhaps premature at this point.

No, I haven't seen the masters for the resin kit and, yes I do have experience of Mach 2 kits! I still have nightmare about the Valiant!!😂

To each their own of course!😊

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally IM is always preferable as a kit, they are far easier to work with, they usually fit very well and of course we all grew up constructing plastic kits, especially the Airfix bag kits, which I always bought. On the topic of Mach 2, Bentwaters81tfw, I thought Mach 2 did not have the capacity to mould above a certain size, for instance the reason they cannot mould something the size of a Short Belfast is that it is too large or long; now if that is the case, how will they mould a VC10, without splitting the fuselage given that a VC10 fuselage is a lot longer? I have to admit I have no experience of Mach 2 kits but they do make some very good subjects that are largely ignored. However, in this day and age there is no reason why any manufacturer is not able to design and manufacture a reasonably good kit, without too many issues, its something I will have to ask Didier, if I see him at Telford. With the current level of technology available, its down to the design team to get it right and as they say, that's where the buck stops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Albeback52 said:

The definition of "better" is of course a bit subjective. I would respectfully suggest however that price is likely to be the main factor determining purchase?

In any case, we don't know for certain yet what Mach 2 will be releasing at Telford so, comparison is perhaps premature at this point.

No, I haven't seen the masters for the resin kit and, yes I do have experience of Mach 2 kits! I still have nightmare about the Valiant!!😂

To each their own of course!😊

 

Allan

Indeed. I also have a few Mach 2 kits in my possession. My baptism of fire was the Valium Valiant. The VC10 is 50% bigger than the Comet, so I don't know how Didier will manage. The Seamaster was about his limit, and that is still smaller than the VC10. Although each type of kit has it's merits, the Mach 2 issues offer a greater challenge than regular IM or resin kits. The Comet has windows out of line and jet pipes that are too small, but nothing a half decent modeller can't deal with. I still suspect a Beverley, after the Argosy, and even that fuselage is in 4 pieces. Didier spoke of doing a Hastings and Mel's master had been mentioned.  The Hastings isn't exactly Heavylift, and the Beverley is quirky enough to appeal to Didier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Albeback52 said:

The definition of "better" is of course a bit subjective. I would respectfully suggest however that price is likely to be the main factor determining purchase?

In any case, we don't know for certain yet what Mach 2 will be releasing at Telford so, comparison is perhaps premature at this point.

No, I haven't seen the masters for the resin kit and, yes I do have experience of Mach 2 kits! I still have nightmare about the Valiant!!😂

To each their own of course!😊

 

Allan

 

I'm not sure price is such a big factor with this kind of kits... we're talking about kits that are expensive in any case, as even a hypothetical Mach 2 VC.10 would not be a "pocket money" purchase. Both this and a resin kit would be generally aimed at more experienced modellers who have a particular love for the subject and many of these modellers may well prefer to spend say £130 for a good quality kit than £100 for an inferior one. If I'm already spending that kind of money, I'd rather spend a bit more and have a good product, more so as for me that would most likely be the only 1/72 VC.10 I ever build (all price figures here are totally fictitious, I have no clue of what these kits will cost... but I will sure keep an eye open for any information as I'd quite like a 1/72 VC.10...)

 

Of course a plastic kit would be better for most modellers, as it's a much easier material to work with, but I'm not so sure that a resin kit would be more difficult to build than a Mach 2 kit.. 😁

Edited by Giorgio N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we are on the theme of RAF Transports and the VC10 is probably one of the most graceful airliners to engage the sky above us, I do have its replacement, a 1/72 RAF Voyager MRTT Airbus 330 version but at 32.1 inches long, I think it may be too big for most modellers. Personally, I have always preferred the VC10, for it sheer elegance, speed and practicality; such is the march of time that the Airbus is a new generation that offers cost efficiency and payload. Love live the VC10.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

most likely be the only 1/72 VC.10

I have the Resin Anigrand version of a 1/72 VC10 K2 Tanker . Gets criticised by some but it's a kit and no kits are perfect . It looks good enough to me though. I'll be converting to Vicker's finest VC10 ,the unique C.Mk1 ( not 1K ) and the type I spent 20 years ish working on. Not started it yet but some areas need some playing with but nothing major except maybe cutting the extra PAX windows  , the tanker bits' locations , tail plane bullet reshape , the stub wings aren't C.Mk1 ( or Super) the wings look like they need 3 mm steel strip to keep them straight . Main and Nose legs don't look strong enough ,they're Poly . And then straight to Plan F the minute  I start it .

I paid £100 about 5 years ago from hannants ,Oulton Broad ( a  10-15 minute walk from my hut which I don't ! )  it's $148 from Anigrand now , not 100% sure Hannants sell it anymore

That fuselage is split just forward of the wing and has a cut out for a clear poly cockpit top about the window line to the crown .

AA2096_VC-10_parts.gif

 

https://www.anigrand.com/AA2096_VC-10.htm

Edited by bzn20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Magna and Anigrand VC10s can be made into good representations, with a little work and enthusiasm. Nothing has to be perfect, it just has to look right and from the models I have seen built up, who can tell the difference. Both basically look right and isn't that what modelling is all about, making it your own, therefore one puts the necessary work into it and hey presto. I still have some old Spitfire models that were wildly inaccurate but they still look great all painted up and on their wheels. I have a black arrows hunter, which I am proud of, inaccurate but still one of my favourite aircraft. We cannot allow others to deprive us of our enjoyment, I for one, will continue to collect inaccurate models because what they essentially represent is the spirit of things. There have only really been 3 VC10s - Airways, Magna and Anigrand and they all look good when built, remember, its spirit that counts, the memories we associate with them, no amount of criticism can take that away.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Alan... did I read earlier you have a 1/72nd Airbus A330..?

 

 Still my beating heart. 
 

Is it going to be available to buy?

 

 Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan,

 

A 1/72 KC-30B/Airbus 330 would be greatly welcomed by modeller.

 

With the success of the KC-30B with air forces around the world you'll have interest from near are far....include me. 

 

Cheers

 

Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Tom and Ryan,

 

The masters for the Airbus 330 Voyager, RAF version, are mostly complete, it requires all the detail to be completed and some adjustments, so there is still much work to be done but it is certainly feasible to develop it into a production model for those who require it. It is a large structure and the wings in particular are long and slender and I would have to carry a lot of calculations and static tests to ensure they maintain their structural integrity. Even so, I will still have to investigate alternative options to ensure it conforms to its real size sibling. 

This is a project that is close to my heart as I think it is the way forward for such developments and I have a vested interest to make it work; for me this will be also a new area to explore because it offers so many unknowns in the form of physical laws that will require a lot of time and resources to understand in order to take on such a project. This is an old project, which I started many years ago and decided to put it on the top shelf, where it has gathered dust; it is time to move it into the 21st century. The VC10 (also an old design, updated) has given me insight into how to approach a project of this scale. 

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Alan, it sounds like a wonderful project to me! I’ve wanted an A330 for many years - I was hoping someone like AIM or Anigrand might do one one day but to hear you are working on one, and having seen the quality of your kits, I’m delighted!

 

I think you’d have a good market for one - not just with the military guys but the civil modellers, too. Give us a couple of engine options (RR Trent and CF6) and I reckon you’re on to a winner. 
 

And then of course it won’t take that much extra work to do the A340... 

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a few who love to buy the A.330MRTT, as Europe bought 8. They will fly in Dutch markings from Eindhoven and Köln.

 

Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

Magna

I did a comparison of he Magna/Anigrand Tens  at Hannants' warehouse . One the great things about them , just wondering around in there in a hypnotic trance . Took one look at the Magna and decided either it was crap or probably I would be to get anything half decent out of it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the days in the military, I use to spend a fair bit of time moving around, courtesy of the RAF and the VC10 fleet. I liked the rearward facing seats in the VC10s, I don't know if that was standard across the fleet. The VC10s were not always available, so on operations we would often travel in the Tristars; we called them the big white whales, on account of how they looked but they always looked pristine. I mourned the passing of the VC10 and years after, I would go to Dunsfold and watch the VC10 do a fast taxi run on public days; such memories of a past glory; which brings me to the point, whilst we are on the subject of RAF transports and the VC10, quite a few people have asked if I could do a 1/72 RAF Lockheed Tristar but I wouldn't have thought there was that much of a following for the 'big white whale'? Having said, one of the main advantages of the Tristar, was that it was a lot safer and more stable than a DC10, on account of the centre line of thrust for the rear engine was neutral (in line with the fuselage) and when the power of the engines were adjusted, the aircraft was unaffected unlike the DC10, that had its engines offset (higher in the tail),  so any power thrust adjustments would upset the aircraft handling. RAF pilots did not seem to have a problem flying the Tristar as on a few occasions, we were greeted with ack, ack from small arms. 

VC10s in the early days use to go down to the Falklands, as I recall and they had a high subsonic cruising speed, a record they still hold to this day; they were and still are the fastest commercial airliners, Concorde was supersonic and not in the same category, and in any case there were over 50 VC10s built. The VC10 is a testament to the fine aviation industry of the time, even though the times were plagued with politics and economic blunders. 

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan, 

 

thanks very much for even doing the subject. Like others I to have been looking at the Anigrand version with it being 72 scale so a decent size. Now you’re adding to the choices and I’ll have a look at Telford on your stall. Like you I’ve spent some time flying around in the 10’s and in my experience unreliable Tristars. Are there any plans for the K prototype ZA141?.

 

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have this wee beastie... no idea just how old it is though...

 

IMG_1679

 

IMG_1680

 

Edited by Nocoolname

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/10/2019 at 09:54, bzn20 said:

I did a comparison of he Magna/Anigrand Tens  at Hannants' warehouse . One the great things about them , just wondering around in there in a hypnotic trance . Took one look at the Magna and decided either it was crap or probably I would be to get anything half decent out of it .

Hello bzn20,

What is the difference between the CMK.1 and K.2?

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original BOAC Standard VC10s were series 1101, without the inboard leading edge extensions.  Five were modified into K.2 tankers (designated type 1112) with seating removed and fuel tanks installed in the cabin.  The Mach 2 kit has the later wing with extended leading edges, which is incorrect for this version.

The original RAF C.Mk.1 were series 1106, with leading edge extensions, machined cargo floor, Conway Rco.43 engines and fin fuel tank.  Thirteen of these were redesignated as Series 1180 after conversion to C.1(K) by the addition of refuelling pods.

www.vc10.net is an excellent resource which gives the history and evolution of all VC10s.

Howard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Icelandic Fine Art said:

Hello bzn20,

What is the difference between the CMK.1 and K.2?

 

Alan

I can’t remember if it’s already been covered in this thread but the C. Mk. 1s had a main deck cargo door on the port side which was not present on the ex-BOAC jets that became the K. Mk. 2s.  The Mk. 1s were 2-point tankers with refuelling pods under the  wings only, whereas the Mk. 2s were 3-point tankers with a Mk. 17 HDU (Hose Drum Unit) fitted into the rear baggage hold  with a small fixed fairing below the rear fuselage through which the hose passed.  From about window 6 aft IIRC two out of every three windows on the Mk. 2s were blanked off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Icelandic Fine Art said:

What is the difference between the CMK.1 and K.2?

Hi Alan . I'll get back to you later , probably late afternoon /evening . Might be helpful to have your email for photos to illustrate points of difference too . Can you pm me your email address  please ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ho590hm said:

The original BOAC Standard VC10s were series 1101, without the inboard leading edge extensions.  Five were modified into K.2 tankers (designated type 1112) with seating removed and fuel tanks installed in the cabin.  The Mach 2 kit has the later wing with extended leading edges, which is incorrect for this version.

The original RAF C.Mk.1 were series 1106, with leading edge extensions, machined cargo floor, Conway Rco.43 engines and fin fuel tank.  Thirteen of these were redesignated as Series 1180 after conversion to C.1(K) by the addition of refuelling pods.

www.vc10.net is an excellent resource which gives the history and evolution of all VC10s.

Howard

 

20 minutes ago, stever219 said:

I can’t remember if it’s already been covered in this thread but the C. Mk. 1s had a main deck cargo door on the port side which was not present on the ex-BOAC jets that became the K. Mk. 2s.  The Mk. 1s were 2-point tankers with refuelling pods under the  wings only, whereas the Mk. 2s were 3-point tankers with a Mk. 17 HDU (Hose Drum Unit) fitted into the rear baggage hold  with a small fixed fairing below the rear fuselage through which the hose passed.  From about window 6 aft IIRC two out of every three windows on the Mk. 2s were blanked off.

Thanks Steve and Howard for the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...