RAF Tristar 1:144 scale - Airfix, Revell or Eastern Express?

[bootneck]

I would like to build the RAF version of the Lockheed Tristar but don't know which kit would be nearest to the RAF version.  Anyone know if any of these kits are better for the RAF version, or are they all identical?  Any benefits or pitfalls in trying to do the RAF version?

 

cheers,
Mike

[Dave Swindell]

The RAF Tristars were ex BA Tristar 500's, shorter fuselage and longer wingspan than the other versions

Eastern Express have moulded a 100/200 kit and a 500 kit, they did an RAF boxing of the 500 kit which S&M Models also released with their own RAF decals

The (much) older Airfix and Revell kits have been reboxed by others and are the 100/200 version, so as well as any updating to modern standards you may want to do, they also need converting to the correct version.

Welsh Models also do an RAF Tristar, this may be the easiest 500 to get hold of currently.

The Eastern Express kit is relatively recent (2017) and is one of their better short run kits though quite expensive if you can find it

[bootneck]

Thanks Dave.  I have the Airfix [06176] , Revell [H-124] and Eastern Express [144114] kits which, by the sound of it, are all L-1011-200 versions.  I'm not going to be buying yet another Tristar for this so I'll probably stick with doing an airliner. 

Thanks for the information on variants.

 

Mike

[Dave Swindell]

5 hours ago, bootneck said:

Eastern Express [144114]

That kit number has been used for several liveries, Pan Am, LTU, Air Transat, United and ATA, these were all 500's so should be good for an RAF Tristar, you'd just need to source decals and possibly a refuelling probe. Welsh models may be able to provide both if you ask nicely 🙂

Edit:- also required 2 x HDU's under the rear fuselage for K1 or KC1

C1's were ex BA 500's, passenger only

C2's were ex Pan Am 500's, passenger/cargo with a large main deck cargo door.

Edit see post below.

[bootneck]

Ah, right.  I've just checked and the Eastern Express is indeed an L-1011-500 Tristar, with Pan Am decals.   I'm sure that I could fashion a refuelling probe and make some decals and things are looking positive.  Thanks again for that additional information, it has helped a lot.

 

Edit: I can see why I got confused with the variant now,  the front page of the instructions say it is an L-1011-200 Tristar and the back page says L-1011-500 Tristar! 

 

 

 

 

Mike

[klubman01]

2 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

That kit number has been used for several liveries, Pan Am, LTU, Air Transat, United and ATA, these were all 500's so should be good for an RAF Tristar, you'd just need to source decals and possibly a refuelling probe. Welsh models may be able to provide both if you ask nicely 🙂

Edit:- also required 2 x HDU's under the rear fuselage for K1 or KC1

C1's were ex BA 500's, passenger only

C2's were ex Pan Am 500's, passenger/cargo with a large main deck cargo door.

Correction to the type numbers;  There were no C1's.  The K1's were tanker variants based on ex-BA -500's.  The KC1's were like the K1's but also had the large cargo door on the port side.  The C2's did not have the large cargo door - they were solely passenger role, and were simply repainted ex-Pan Am -500's (with changes to the flight deck instrumentation to achieve commonality with the ex-BA machines.  Made it simpler for the crews when flying the different variants and also meant only one simulator required).

Trevor

[bootneck]

The EE kit I have shows a large cargo door lower right, behind the front wheel.  I am presuming this means I have a -500 variant and could do a C2.

cheers,
Mike

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, klubman01 said:

Correction to the type numbers;  There were no C1's.  The K1's were tanker variants based on ex-BA -500's.  The KC1's were like the K1's but also had the large cargo door on the port side.  The C2's did not have the large cargo door - they were solely passenger role, and were simply repainted ex-Pan Am -500's (with changes to the flight deck instrumentation to achieve commonality with the ex-BA machines.  Made it simpler for the crews when flying the different variants and also meant only one simulator required).

Trevor

A bit more digging 

At least 2 (ZD948, ZD952) possibly more of the ex-BA 500's operated in BA configuration with RAF titles, serials, roundels etc over the basic BA scheme as C1's before going to Marshalls for conversion to KC1's

There were 2 K1's which could operate in either passenger or tanker role (ZD949 & ZD951) ex BA-500

There were 4 KC1's which could operate as either passenger/cargo or tanker, as you say, these had the port side cargo door (ZD948, ZD950, ZD952 & ZD953) ex BA-500

There were 2 C2's which could operate as passenger/aeromed role (no large cargo door, but could take underfloor freight) (ZE704, ZE705) ex Pan Am with modifications to instrumentation to match the ex BA fleet

There was one C2A which could operate as passenger role (no large cargo door, but could take underfloor freight) (ZE706) ex Pan Am with modifications to instrumentation to match the ex BA fleet extra avionics and new interior.

[Dave Swindell]

27 minutes ago, bootneck said:

The EE kit I have shows a large cargo door lower right, behind the front wheel.  I am presuming this means I have a -500 variant and could do a C2.

cheers,
Mike

You could do a C1, C2 or C2A straight form the box with just a paint and decal job.

The K1 and KC1 require the HDU's adding, IFR probe if appropriate scratch of 3d print project?!?!? and the large cargo door adding for the KC1 (scribed or just a decal)

The large underfloor cargo door on the stbd side is standard civil luggage/cargo access common to all Tristars - there's a small one aft of the wing fairing as well.

[klubman01]

Yes, the RAF operated initially with BA machines with the names and logos overpainted, with white upper surfaces and blue lower surfaces.  The ex-BA machines then went through conversion at Marshalls of Cambridge.  The K1's didn't get the cargo door - a budget decision IIRC.  BTW, the cargo door of the KC1's was cunningly designed to be just a bit too small to be able to load a RR RB211 engine!  If we needed an engine change away from base, it had to be brought out by a Hercules - oh, the humiliation! 🥵 Mercifully, an engine failure was a very rare event.

Trevor

[junglierating]

5 hours ago, bootneck said:

Thanks Dave.  I have the Airfix [06176] , Revell [H-124] and Eastern Express [144114] kits which, by the sound of it, are all L-1011-200 versions.  I'm not going to be buying yet another Tristar for this so I'll probably stick with doing an airliner. 

Thanks for the information on variants.

 

Mike

Thats a much better idea ....horrible things designed specifically to flash up matelots most uncomfortable thing pusser designed ....and they break 

....VC10 to the rescue every time ....wonder what the Voyagers are like🤔

[RAF4EVER]

15 minutes ago, klubman01 said:

Yes, the RAF operated initially with BA machines with the names and logos overpainted, with white upper surfaces and blue lower surfaces.  The ex-BA machines then went through conversion at Marshalls of Cambridge.  The K1's didn't get the cargo door - a budget decision IIRC.  BTW, the cargo door of the KC1's was cunningly designed to be just a bit too small to be able to load a RR RB211 engine!  If we needed an engine change away from base, it had to be brought out by a Hercules - oh, the humiliation! 🥵 Mercifully, an engine failure was a very rare event.

Trevor

I am sure I saw, a Tristar at BZN, outside Base Hangar, with a spare engine in a pod,under the Stbd wing inboard of the engine.

[klubman01]

Yes, there was provision to carry a spare engine on that extra pylon but, AFAIK, it wasn't cleared for squadron use.  Daft decision, IMHO.  I never saw it in use during my time on 216.

Trevor

[Jabba]

58 minutes ago, klubman01 said:

Yes, the RAF operated initially with BA machines with the names and logos overpainted, with white upper surfaces and blue lower surfaces.  The ex-BA machines then went through conversion at Marshalls of Cambridge.  The K1's didn't get the cargo door - a budget decision IIRC.  BTW, the cargo door of the KC1's was cunningly designed to be just a bit too small to be able to load a RR RB211 engine!  If we needed an engine change away from base, it had to be brought out by a Hercules - oh, the humiliation! 🥵 Mercifully, an engine failure was a very rare event.

Trevor

I did see an engine blow on take off from Mount Pleasant after waiting most of the morning for the weather to clear. There was a big shoot of flame and the aircraft could not return to the airfield as the weather closed back in again so it diverted to Rio.

[klubman01]

Was it the number two engine, the one mounted in the tail?  Due to the prevailing crosswind at MPA, combined with the curved duct from the intake to the engine, it was not uncommon for the number two engine to stall, and occasionally surge.  Sometimes it would be a slight "coughing" of the engine (mild stall), and occasionally a massive bang (surge).  If you saw a flame, then I think you witnessed a full blown surge.

Trevor

[canberraman]

I did two recent photo essays on RAF Tristars that may help

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235082700-the-lockheed-tristar-in-raf-service/&tab=comments#comment-3875636

 

 

and

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235082705-the-lockheed-tristar-in-raf-service-pt-2/&tab=comments#comment-3875701

 

Hope these are useful if you do go with an RAF version..

 

Mark

 

 

[Jabba]

20 hours ago, klubman01 said:

Was it the number two engine, the one mounted in the tail?  Due to the prevailing crosswind at MPA, combined with the curved duct from the intake to the engine, it was not uncommon for the number two engine to stall, and occasionally surge.  Sometimes it would be a slight "coughing" of the engine (mild stall), and occasionally a massive bang (surge).  If you saw a flame, then I think you witnessed a full blown surge.

Trevor

No it was one of the wing engines.

[klubman01]

Unusual occurrence for a wing mounted engine.  Bird strike on departure, maybe?

Trevor

[Truro Model Builder]

I seem to recall that initial RAF Tristar flights were carried out by a mixture of BA and RAF crews, and there is a photo somewhere of (I think) ZD953 wearing full BA markings with a military serial number.

[klubman01]

4 hours ago, Truro Model Builder said:

I seem to recall that initial RAF Tristar flights were carried out by a mixture of BA and RAF crews

Yes, in the very early days they operated a mix of crews.  Part of the initial training process until sufficient RAF crews were able to train other RAF crews.

Trevor

[bootneck]

On 24/02/2021 at 12:58, Dave Swindell said:

The RAF Tristars were ex BA Tristar 500's, shorter fuselage and longer wingspan than the other versions

Eastern Express have moulded a 100/200 kit and a 500 kit, they did an RAF boxing of the 500 kit which S&M Models also released with their own RAF decals

The (much) older Airfix and Revell kits have been reboxed by others and are the 100/200 version, so as well as any updating to modern standards you may want to do, they also need converting to the correct version.

I have just done a comparison check with the other producers, to make sure that I have a 500 series, and the EE kit is indeed the 500 series version. 

EE (grey) and Revell fuselages:

 

EE (grey) and Airfix wings

 

Happy now.

Mike

[busnproplinerfan]

So the -500 series would have been the last and longest series built, correct? then the MD-11 came out which is still a different airframe yet?

[Dave Swindell]

27 minutes ago, busnproplinerfan said:

So the -500 series would have been the last and longest series built, correct? then the MD-11 came out which is still a different airframe yet?

The MD-11 is a derivative of the Douglas DC-10, not related in any way other than configuration to the Lockheed Tristar

The -500 Tristar had a shorter fuselage and longer wings than all the other Tristar variants which all had the same basic dimensions

[busnproplinerfan]

4 minutes ago, Dave Swindell said:

The MD-11 is a derivative of the Douglas DC-10, not related in any way other than configuration to the Lockheed Tristar

The -500 Tristar had a shorter fuselage and longer wings than all the other Tristar variants which all had the same basic dimensions

Oh ya, brainfarted there about the MD-11. Give me a penquin for that. Guess I got confused because the higher the number series the larger the plane usually.

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, busnproplinerfan said:

Give me a penquin for that.