Vickers Viking - Royal Flight, make that VL247

[Mjwomack]

Already I'm wondering if I've bitten off more than I can chew, but more on that later! I'm in with the Valom Vickers Viking C.2 (Royal Flight), already I think three V's in an alteration is worth something.

 

It comes in a proper box with a lift off lid and is so solid no cat will be able to resist sitting in it! So, let's get the bits and bobs out and make room for the cat...

 

 

 

It's not just the cat that's happy; there's a little sheet of etched brass that's got the carpet monster happy as well! And a spare fuselage (could be handy for the 

 proposal)

 

Decals and instructions

 

A choice of VL233 for Queen's flight (1956) or VL247 King's flight (1947). This is going to be easy isn't it? VL233, biff bash boff proper job and off to the pub before you can say Platinum Jubilee!

 

Ah yes though, I did say I wondered if I'd bitten off more than I can chew.  Good job I'm not doing VL233 for the king isn't it? Because the decal options are wrong. Decal 16 is actually a common for both as an instrument panel. Only decal 8 for Queen's Flight is provided. And this matters because tucked away in an unused part of my memory is that a 'queens' crown  and 'king's one are different. Google agrees, basically a Kings one goes up and a Queens has a 'dimple' plus the decal is for EIIR.

Obviously none of this is a problem because this is all about the Queen's flight option and its a lovely looking decal for that. No, the real problem is VL233- I can't find the clinching photo of Queenie-love with it, only of VL 247, and that's only of the tail so I don't know what the markings should be.

What I need is a gallant knight of the realm to confirm that VL233 was used by HM and I'm back in the clear..

...Otherwise, I'm in deep about markings

We'll worry about bare metal finish later!!!

Edited June 2, 2022 by Mjwomack
Title change

[Black Knight]

Having checked through my two books; VL233 was used as a support aircraft and for crew training.

HM would not have flown in it as the interior was not fitted out for VVIPs

As for markings; standard RAF makings in 8 places. Serial numbers under the wings and at the tail.

No special paint job, no cheat-line, they were just very highly polished

The only special marking was the Royal Cypher put on under the cockpit side windows when the aircraft was actually carrying a member of the 'Firm'

[Mjwomack]

9 hours ago, Black Knight said:

VL233 was used as a support aircraft and for crew training.

HM would not have flown in it as the interior was not fitted out for VVIPs

Thanks. I was wondering if the passenger cabin was a state secret because it's completely devoid of even a floor! I'm sure I can fog the windows enough that it won't be a problem, or maybe curtains/ blinds.

By contrast the cockpit comes with lots of little bits waiting to be lost- teeny weeny itchy itchy throttle leavers etc.

[Mjwomack]

9 hours ago, Black Knight said:

As for markings; standard RAF makings in 8 places. Serial numbers under the wings and at the tail.

No special paint job, no cheat-line, they were just very highly polished

The only special marking was the Royal Cypher put on under the cockpit side windows when the aircraft was actually carrying a member of the 'Firm'

Brilliant info thanks,

VERY highly polished, oh joy! Again we'll worry about that later. The colour call out is a mere Highly polished😆. Maybe metalcote and buffing until you can see your face in it, like parade boots.

 

Seems it's going to be VL246. royal cypher is fine, but only under wing registration for VL233 is provided. To the decal stash! 

 

I also notice that the font for the tail registration of VL233 is a lot thinner than those provided for VL246, so that might not be straightforward 'move across' either. I think I'm going to be calling on the wisdom of the massive a lot for the markings on this one.

[Mjwomack]

Found the necessary photo of HMQ disembarking from VL247

http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/valiants/207valiant_album_56std.htm 

This web page also opens the door for Valiant and Canberra!

 

And on this page is VL247 being maintained and referred to as the one allocated

https://www.benson-village.co.uk/Armed-Forces/RAF-Benson/Aeroplanes/

 

So, VL247 it is. And there was me hoping to just whack some decals on when the time came!

[Dave Swindell]

VL246 was the King's aircraft, VL247 was the Queen Mother's, they weren't allowed to fly together. Both were fitted out in a similar plush style with 2 four seat cabins, each with 4 seats, 2 facing forward and 2 facing aft. The cabins were separated by wardrobes and there was a stewards compartment and toilet at the rear.

VL245 was a staff transport and fitted out in similar fashion to that of a standard airliner

VL248 was fitted out as a maintenance workshop.

These 4 aircraft were used for the Royal Tour of South Africa in 1947, the royals travelled out by sea and used the aircraft to tour the country

 

[Mjwomack]

I understand royalty bath in milk, plastic kits and I make do with soapy water. Bath time and hopefully onto splash it all over primer tomorrow. 

One of life's wild cards has been dealt and our dog might be discharged from vet hospital after massive spinal surgery in the morning. And, purists look away, dog comes first over model

[Bertie McBoatface]

13 hours ago, Mjwomack said:

 

And on this page is VL247 being maintained and referred to as the one allocated

https://www.benson-village.co.uk/Armed-Forces/RAF-Benson/Aeroplanes/

 

There's something about that picture of the Argosy from the Argosy that makes me want to try jumping from one to the other. 😱

[Mjwomack]

18 hours ago, Bertie Psmith said:

There's something about that picture of the Argosy from the Argosy that makes me want to try jumping from one to the other. 😱

Very James bond! Obviously Daniel Craig has been filmed with HMQ so that's another avenue of possibilities

[Bertie McBoatface]

On 6/1/2022 at 9:54 PM, Mjwomack said:

And a spare fuselage (could be handy for the 

 proposal)

 

Oh that's interesting! (Thanks for the plug!)

[Mjwomack]

Yeah! Sticking things together...

 

 

I have a thing (one of many tbh😛) about getting the wheels put together, as Valom instructions make sub assemblies first this meant I actually started with stage 1 which is simply glue the wheels together. another little thing is that I like to flatten part of the rim for sitting on the ground. Again Valom do this for you; not fully 'weighted' with some flab, but as good as I ever do. I've jumped stages 2-5 because they're the cockpit and fiddly on then to the u'c bays

 

A picture paints a thousand words, but in this case I'd have taken 500 words (and Google translate if need be)! Not expecting any locating lugs, I sanded all the 'flash' off part 30 before realising that it actually did have the tiniest of locating lugs moulded on- whoops! I convinced myself that party 32 has the tiniest of tapers on it's edge and sits better one way round.The fun really starts with part 31, now you probably all know this, but it doesn't go on the side of the bay despite the illustration but across it. After looking at some of the other steps of the u/c assembly I worked out that it's trying to tell me that this little ridges are meant to be there for the u/c brace and not filed off as flash. Part 34 is really 36 (detail) but where do these walls go? The lugs would seem to make excellent support for them to go inside, and make a lovely smooth interior to the bay. But that makes part 31 too big. Putting them outside of the lugs seems to make the outer one too tall for the wing to go together neatly along the trailing edge.🥴 I'm edging towards following @Bertie Psmith advice, no not treading on it in the manner of the ill-fated HMS Victory build, but focusing on the bits that interest me and taking them out to get a nicer wing🤔😃.

 

On that basis, the bit that interest me is a smooth fuselage and paint finish- both of which will be challenging enough. To that end, Im using the spare fuselage to practice

 

 

 

In the case of the fuselage there genuinely aren't any locating lugs. As you can probably see through the cockpit cavity, I've gone with the vacform trick of using Evergreen strip to make lips and it's not gone together too badly. The underside is actually an even neater fit.

 

Hopefully crack on a bit with this before the Revell. Monogram GB distracts me- I've already got one entry for this year's KUTA!

[Bertie McBoatface]

5 minutes ago, Mjwomack said:

treading on it in the manner of the ill-fated HMS Victory build

 

The most memorable part of my year's model making achievements, I suspect. 😏

[Mjwomack]

 

At top the horizontal stabiliser parts, and they look exactly like this on the sprue. Below are the spares in the box, which I assume are for making a Valetta. In all cases the reverse face is completely smooth. So there's no way 57 can go with 59 and look plausible, equally if 57 goes with 58 then they become very asymmetrical and that feels all wrong.

 

Hoping there's a Viking expert out there who can put me right (Google is very keen that I know how Viking cruises go into Valetta!) Otherwise, I'm going with the Valetta parts. Looking at the only built example I've found on the t'internet, I won't be the first person to take this option.

[Dave Swindell]

11 minutes ago, Mjwomack said:

equally if 57 goes with 58 then they become very asymmetrical and that feels all wrong.

It may feel wrong but it is right. 57/58 are top & bottom of the stbd tailplane, 59/60 are top & bottom of the port tailplane - check the plan views in the painting guide they show the assymetric tips. 

It's an aerodynamic fix for something that escapes me at the  moment ( @Graham Boak?) and wasn't uncommon on aircraft of the era DH used it on the Dove and Heron for example.

[Mjwomack]

Huge thanks. A case of so wrong it's right 😁

[CliffB]

It's nice to see a Viking making a rare appearance.  It's not the world's 'sveltest' aircraft, but it has a certain appeal nevertheless 

[Mjwomack]

On 6/11/2022 at 6:05 AM, CliffB said:

It's nice to see a Viking making a rare appearance.  It's not the world's 'sveltest' aircraft, but it has a certain appeal nevertheless 

Or as my children are fond of quoting from the film Madagascar, 'Gurl, you chuunkeee'!  The longer Valetta fuselage is definitely better proportioned. 

 

Meanwhile, this is just nasty

 

A little bit of thought in production planning and those equally chunky lugs wouldn't need removing to get the engines in

[Graham Boak]

On 6/9/2022 at 7:46 PM, Dave Swindell said:

 

It's an aerodynamic fix for something that escapes me at the  moment ( @Graham Boak?) and wasn't uncommon on aircraft of the era DH used it on the Dove and Heron for example.

The rotation of the prop(s) meant that air was deflected upwards on one side of the fuselage and downwards on the other, so the shape of the aircraft had to be modified in some way to prevent the aircraft rolling.  Other answers were to mount the fin at an angle (Swordfish, Hart family, Hurricane), give the vertical tail an aerofoil section, or even make the wing longer on one side (Macchi fighters).  The most obvious one of these is probably the large twist in the tail of the Skyraider.  I do recall one modeller complaining about the amount of work required to correct this appalling error on Airfix's part - after all the Monogram Skyraider had nothing like it!

 

You will find other terms mentioned such as the gyroscopic effect of the propeller or engine/propeller torque. 

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The rotation of the prop(s) meant that air was deflected upwards on one side of the fuselage and downwards on the other, so the shape of the aircraft had to be modified in some way to prevent the aircraft rolling.  Other answers were to mount the fin at an angle (Swordfish, Hart family, Hurricane), give the vertical tail an aerofoil section, or even make the wing longer on one side (Macchi fighters).  The most obvious one of these is probably the large twist in the tail of the Skyraider.  I do recall one modeller complaining about the amount of work required to correct this appalling error on Airfix's part - after all the Monogram Skyraider had nothing like it!

 

You will find other terms mentioned such as the gyroscopic effect of the propeller or engine/propeller torque. 

Thanks Graham, I'd forgotten it was for that. I knew of the other fixes but somehow didn't associate the assymetric tailplane with a fix for the problem.

[Graham Boak]

It's only my assumption in the end, not having seen it discussed.  There may be some more specific peculiarity of the Dove, but the most obvious reason is usually the right one.

[Mjwomack]

Even allowing that I skipped the throttle levers and three parts of the seat harnesses completely disappeared (the carpet monster denies it so maybe they're stuck to the cat), this is still the most detailed flight deck I've ever done. 

 

 

Shame most of it will soon be out of sight but it was a bit of fun. Also bizarre how there's a complete lack of cabin detail the other side of the cockpit door.  Given how large and clear the cabin windows are, this even more of a pity. 

 

The notorious centre spar is there, apparently this made the plane unpopular with cabin crew whereas a certain type of business traveler was very keen on certain seats. Presumably HMQ never clambered over it to visit the crew!

 

Anyhow bit more curing time in the hot sun and it'll be getting joined up. 

[Mjwomack]

And another view as one of the main wings does some sunbathing as the cement sets

 

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Hey, @Mjwomack!  You're making great progress on this, and as a veteran of the Valetta kit, I can confirm that you have the right idea about treating this as you would a vac-form.  I would only caution that the plastic thickness on the fuselage top and bottom can vary between the right and left halves, which means that you might get an uneven surface after you assemble it, so check your fit carefully.  The windows are incredibly clear, so protect them carefully.  I see you have the wings together, and that's good, but be prepared for a "fight" to align at the wing root with the spar.  On mine, I needed to add 1mm of plastic to the wing leading edge inboard of the engines so that it would align neatly with the fuselage wing stub fairing.  Remember that there is a slight raised lip on the fuselage around the entire wing representing a doubler plate, so leave that intact. Also, regarding the engines, you just might want to substitute the engines, nacelles, and cowl flaps with those from a Wellington III or other Bristol Hercules-powered Wellington variant.  If you do that, be advised that you'll need to trim back the engine stubs on the wing nacelle to account for a new "firewall" location.  Otherwise, use the kit's engines, but sand the cowl flaps at the top until they are exactly even up and down--the kit's cowl flaps represent a Valetta.  The engines themselves are a little squirrelly when it comes to keeping them on the wing.  What else?  Well, if you're ambitious about the shape of the cockpit roof and forward fuselage, I would add some plastic and filler to the "eyebrow" area just above the windshield, as well as carefully sand the upper fuselage to avoid a "flat" roof.  The real thing had a slightly ovoid cross-section, and the roof of the fuselage was crowned fore-to-aft.  Don't worry about a navigator bubble, as these Viking C.2s didn't have one.  Best!  Alex

[Black Knight]

How are you getting on with this?

1 month has gone already!

[Mjwomack]

6 hours ago, Black Knight said:

How are you getting on with this?

1 month has gone already!

Ah yes! Thanks for the reminder, alas I knew this because the idea was to crack on with things in the month before the Revell classic GB started and I got distracted. Instead I've now got 2 builds on the go and make no progress on either because I get distracted by the other 😉

Actually there is some progress (and regress) but a full sitrep tonight; because writing a report is always a distraction from action 😭