KC-135R 100ARW Mildenhall

[nickandrews7]

Had this one in build for quite some time now, nearly complete, but a few details like the cargo door and boom end, plus aerials and stuff to finish her off...

[Richard E]

A very smart looking "Quid" Nick - if I could offer one constructive comment there's something about the shape of black nosecone doesn't look quite right to my eye: it might be the original AMT kit or jut the angle that you've photographed it from but it looks like it might need a shorter more pointed profile ?

 

  

[bar side]

@Richard E your picture has the earlier engines whereas @nickandrews7 has the more recent turbofans.  Do you have a date range for the colour scheme?  I remember them in the old white & grey as well as the green over grey.  And of course today’s grey scheme.  
 

[Richard E]

14 minutes ago, bar side said:

@Richard E your picture has the earlier engines whereas @nickandrews7 has the more recent turbofans.  Do you have a date range for the colour scheme?  I remember them in the old white & grey as well as the green over grey.  And of course today’s grey scheme.  

 

The A model picture dates from 1991 and the colour scheme is based on that worn by the KC-10A Extender, there's a reference in Dana Bell's USAF Colors and Markings in the 1990s which refers to the scheme as "Baby Shamu" and that it was replaced by the current overall grey scheme in the early 1990s.

 

This picture of an R model in the same scheme may, or may not, help

 

[bar side]

The Baby Shamu scheme must have come in some time during the 80s as I am sure I remember seeing it at the old Mildenhall Airfetes.  Can’t remember if they used to carry the tail D back then as well.  Must have a look through my old books.  I am lucky enough to work under the flightpath for the Hall & get an almost daily fix of KC-135.

[Richard E]

6 minutes ago, bar side said:

The Baby Shamu scheme must have come in some time during the 80s as I am sure I remember seeing it at the old Mildenhall Airfetes.  Can’t remember if they used to carry the tail D back then as well.  Must have a look through my old books.  I am lucky enough to work under the flightpath for the Hall & get an almost daily fix of KC-135.

 

It looks like they did wear the tail D: photographic proof here

 

Lucky man - I'm hoping to take another trip to John's Field when some of the local lockdown restrictions are lifted.

[bar side]

2 minutes ago, Richard E said:

 

It looks like they did wear the tail 😧photographic proof here

 

Lucky man - I'm hoping to take another trip to John's Field when some of the local lockdown restrictions are lifted.

Yes, lots of Hercs on circuits plus RC & KC-135s.  Less frequent are the C-17s & AWACS.  C-5s tend to come straight in.  Nice low Chinook the other day scooting under the low cloud.  Sometimes you get the a Lakenheath F-15s divert too.  Until a couple of years ago you would get the occasional Tonka in to Marham, but the F-35s don’t seem to venture so far down.  And of course the Apaches out of Wattisham and the Ospreys.  Even seen the Antonov in to Wattisham.  I really can’t complain!

[nickandrews7]

11 hours ago, Richard E said:

A very smart looking "Quid" Nick - if I could offer one constructive comment there's something about the shape of black nosecone doesn't look quite right to my eye: it might be the original AMT kit or jut the angle that you've photographed it from but it looks like it might need a shorter more pointed profile ?

 

  

Thanks Richard, and yes you've got me thinking about the nose now, almost looks RC135 like on the kit as is! 

[nickandrews7]

10 hours ago, Richard E said:

 

The A model picture dates from 1991 and the colour scheme is based on that worn by the KC-10A Extender, there's a reference in Dana Bell's USAF Colors and Markings in the 1990s which refers to the scheme as "Baby Shamu" and that it was replaced by the current overall grey scheme in the early 1990s.

 

This picture of an R model in the same scheme may, or may not, help

 

Yes, I like the baby shamu scheme though it didnt have a specially long life, late 80's to early 90,s only.  My model is an attempt to depict 58-0100 from around 1991, but unfortunately the decals I had were not an exact match, so a bit of artistic license there!

[bar side]

Think some artistic license is allow @nickandrews7.  It always surprises me that the same airframes I first saw in the late 70s are still active doing much the same job today.   That must mean that most combinations of airframes & colour schemes have happened at some time

[Lord Riot]

Beautiful KC that! I'd love one of these with the Big D tail markings. 

 

@bar side you're so lucky living near the 'Hall and 'Heath! I bet it was unbelievable in the 80s. Always wanted to but for various reasons never been able to move down that way, so trips to Norfolk to see my mum have to suffice. My missus wants to move to the Cotswolds in a few years though, so obviously I'll be looking for a nice place near Fairford. I'll pretend to be as surprised as her when the B-52s fly over the garden! 😂

[bar side]

Or near Brize @Lord Riot.  Used to holiday down there as a kid. Had a relative in Wotton Bassett & used to go to the Fairford steam rally each summer in the late 70s / early 80s.  So Lyneham Hercs and Fairford KC-135s plus Brize VC-10s.

Sorry @nickandrews7 think we are taking over your thread!

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Good of you to tackle this one.  This is a tough kit to really master because of how it's engineered, and until others raised the issue, I'd never noticed anything "off" with the nose.  Perhaps I should take a profile shot of my 1995 build and post it here.  What is definitely off with the kit (and not your build per-se) is the wing dihedral, which is too shallow.  When viewed nose or tail-on, the wing undersides and horizontal stabilizer undersides should be almost perfectly parallel to each other, or 7 degrees relative to horizontal.  There is always some variation, of course, but it is probably very slight.  The original AMT/ERTL kits often had warped wings, which made things even more difficult.

[Romeo Alpha Yankee]

Looks good Nick, not a fan of the Shamu scheme but I do like your build!

[nickandrews7]

16 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Good of you to tackle this one.  This is a tough kit to really master because of how it's engineered, and until others raised the issue, I'd never noticed anything "off" with the nose.  Perhaps I should take a profile shot of my 1995 build and post it here.  What is definitely off with the kit (and not your build per-se) is the wing dihedral, which is too shallow.  When viewed nose or tail-on, the wing undersides and horizontal stabilizer undersides should be almost perfectly parallel to each other, or 7 degrees relative to horizontal.  There is always some variation, of course, but it is probably very slight.  The original AMT/ERTL kits often had warped wings, which made things even more difficult.

Yes, good point on the wings, I used some steel rod to strengthen and try to prevent excessive wing droop especially on the outer edges.  Probably not perfect, but the engines are just about clear of the ground

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Would you mind if I posted some comparison photos of the Heller 707 and AMT KC-135 on your thread, or would you prefer if I put it in "Aviation Chat?"  I don't want to hijack your subject!

[nickandrews7]

2 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Would you mind if I posted some comparison photos of the Heller 707 and AMT KC-135 on your thread, or would you prefer if I put it in "Aviation Chat?"  I don't want to hijack your subject!

not at all @TheyJammedKenny! please be my guest

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Thanks, sir!  Here is my 1995-built KC-135 nose and wing, compared against photos of the real thing.  I did my best to increase the dihedral, but to little avail.  The nose does look a little blunt, but farther down you'll see that it's a remarkable improvement over the Heller 707, so much so, in fact, that at least one modeler on an Australian commercial airliner site has substituted the -135 nose section for that of the 707.  When/if you decide to build a -135 in the future, you might consider sharpening it.  My KC-135 is "long in the tooth," and you can see that it's overdue for overhaul, and that might include slightly sharpening the nose contour.

 

 

 

Here are the wings.  These are much harder to fix:

 

 

And here are photos of the real thing.  Photo angles are not the exact same ones, but you can see that the wing tips are higher up in relation to the fuselage:

 

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Here's the comparison of Heller's nose with AMT's.  The 707 windscreen is a little high, and slightly tilted upward, whereas it should be perfectly straight like on the -135.  I had to impart a "swoosh" to the cheat line from the passenger window line, which I should not have had to do if the windscreen were at the right height.  I also tried to narrow the windscreen by clever use of silver decal sheet.  As you can see, it's a bit wonky--and I've made note of it for future projects.  I built this 707 22 years ago and the decals still have not yellowed!  They were from Liveries Unlimited, but are now sadly out of production.  Can't beat them for quality.

 

 

 

On the other hand, you cannot fault Heller for their wing dihedral.  They replicated it perfectly--you just need to add plastic shims to the wing-body join to fill the large gaps:

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by TheyJammedKenny!
Added photo

[Richard E]

40 minutes ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Here are the wings.  These are much harder to fix:

 

 

 

There are several ways to correct the wing dihedral, this is a link to Major Chuck Davenport's – USAF (Retired) fix which I have filed away for the day I gret round to building my KC-135.

[TheyJammedKenny!]

@RichardE: IRC, I used his IPMS article back in 1995 as a reference--I had a xerox from a friend, I think.  My KC-135's wing interior contains square cross-section, telescoping lengths of brass rod to reinforce it, as well as layers of plastic card at a critical junction between the inboard and outboard wing assemblies, above the inboard engines.  As you can see, it's still arrow-straight after 25 years.  Chuck's article does not, however, address the kit's dihedral.  To increase dihedral would require cutting the the kit's "wing spar" to a higher angle (where the spar meets the lower wing center section) and scoring the inside of the lower wing center assembly fore-to-aft so that each wing can be bent upward without also distorting the half-circle fuselage cutout integral to the assembly.  It gets more involved, because of the complicated wing-body fairing.  This fairing, integral with the fuselage halves, must be carefully pared back to allow the wing to join the fuselage at a steeper angle than the kit's original engineering.

[Smudge]

Nice work on the 'tanker.

 

I'm a big fan of the -135 so found this very interesting. I have the original AMT KC-135A and I'm always on the lookout for a KC-135R to do as a 100th machine.

 

I am surprised about the issues with the wing. I always felt the wings did droop a little towards the tips when the aircraft is at rest. Maybe it depends on the angle at which you look at it? Same for the nose shape, its kind of oval when viewed from the front, so the shape looks different if not viewed exactly side on. (sorry if that doesn't sound right, hard to explain what I mean). When I look at the nose of the model at the top of the post it does look odd, but the picture of the one behind the Pan Am 707 looks ok, but its the same kit!

 

It can get very confusing!

 

Cheers.

 

found this whilst trying to find some pictures to help understand the wing and nose issues

 

http://airpigz.com/blog/2010/8/16/kc-135-ride-434th-arw-grissom-air-reserve-base-thirsty-b-52.html

 

Hope people find it enjoyable.

[TheyJammedKenny!]

@smudge: thanks for the article reference!  Great photos.  One minor correction: the cockpit entry "hole" the author refers to sits across from the former navigator's station, not the FE station!  KC-135s never had flight engineers.  Some C-135s did, however.  Also, I have a separate entry under WIP that details how to correct the shallow dihedral on this kit.

[SAT69]

I've built the AMT/ERTL KC-135A, a KC-135E (made from the EC-135 kit) and am completing a KC-135R. I used brass tubing to reinforce the wings but apparently the tubing I used was too narrow as the wings drooped after they were assembled. The fuselage halves on all three kits were warped and I used pieces of plastic picnic plates and even some flat brass pieces to create alignment strips to get the fuselage halves to come together. My builds don't look nearly as good as yours and you're to be commended for such fine work. I would, on the other hand, love to see an updated 1/72 KC-135 produced by the likes of Modelsvit or Zveza. I was a crew chief on KC-135A tankers at Altus AFB, Oklahoma in the mid 70s and had a great time on those old birds.