PBoilermaker Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 I think the cockpit and windows were based on a DC10 at some stage in life, I've never seen anything official, but it looks nearly identical to me (minus the eyebrow and cheek windows): http://tinyurl.com/5fynwj http://tinyurl.com/6rubc9 What does this mean for modelers? You could probably use 1/144 DC-10 decal windows for the cockpit if the clear versions aren't to your liking. I imagine most will leave them clear, however. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted December 15, 2008 Share Posted December 15, 2008 Now im confused! It was reported recently that due to the heavy utilisation of the RAF jets, we now have the highest hours airframe of all C-17's, & one of the RAF pilots is also the highest hours pilot on type! Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBoilermaker Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Indeed, in 7 years we have beaten the 15 years of the U.S jets in airframe hours, and thats why we now have them on a permanent basis, cant say about hours for pilots though, i'll have to ask... Might want to get more of them, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Might want to get more of them, eh? Easier said than done Mike... defence spending is not de rigeur these days in the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ursa_major Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Might want to get more of them, eh? I'd have thought at least 1, maybe 2 in the short term? G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg B Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Cant even afford housing never mind airframes! Bear in mind with the Yanks, last time I transited through Incirlik, there were more USAF C-17s sitting there awaiting spares than we had in our whole fleet. I can see why revell made that decision, add to that the liscencing costs for the roundels etc and there you go. I'd have thought at least 1, maybe 2 in the short term? G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBoilermaker Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Easier said than done Mike... defence spending is not de rigeur these days in the UK Unfortunately, US defense spending hasn't kept pace with operational requirements either. The silver lining is probably that Boeing is gathering some great fatigue data on those RAF airframes. That and you guys have bragging rights. Are RAF birds all LAIRCM-euipped? I didn't see that option in the Revell kit. Looks like NATO is eyeballing 3 C-17's for purchase, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBoilermaker Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 The LAIRCM blisters appears to be moulded into the kit, not an option, but no turrets. And yes all of our have it, an operational requirement. Seems simple enough to scratch the turret in 1/144... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 Seems simple enough to scratch the turret in 1/144... Not too tricky at all. I've just been reading about our C-17s, and they're structurally & functionally identical to their US counterparts... only difference being those roundels and in addition to coffee, tea is also served on the Brit ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 in addition to coffee, tea is also served on the Brit ones And i imagine it looks a bit like this (sorry Jonathan, it's reared its ugly head again! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted December 16, 2008 Share Posted December 16, 2008 And i imagine it looks a bit like this (sorry Jonathan, it's reared its ugly head again! ) Isn't that how tea is supposed to look........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester12 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 So basically the decal sheet has more than is actually shown in the pictures (!?) Also, ZZ173 has been attacked by Aussies with a paintbrush while away in the last two weeks, so now has rearing black stallions painted on the intakes and tail! While not possible to put graffiti on a decals sheet, it may have to be added to mine! Black stallions on the intakes? Do you have any pics? Or do you mean the intake covers? If I could work out how to post images, I'd post a shot of the intake covers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie_superbug Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I put mine on order on Friday just gone, as they aren't over here "Down Under" yet, so it will be here after Xmas. My wife brought it for me for Xmas, what a lovely Girl she is, At the asking price of $57 Aussie dollars Brendon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie_superbug Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 So basically the decal sheet has more than is actually shown in the pictures (!?) Also, ZZ173 has been attacked by Aussies with a paintbrush while away in the last two weeks, so now has rearing black stallions painted on the intakes and tail! While not possible to put graffiti on a decals sheet, it may have to be added to mine!I think the cockpit and windows were based on a DC10 at some stage in life, and if you're building a jet with LAIRCM full fitted, you will need to add the front two turrets! Who Said Australians Don't have Humor , so to all the Brits if we win the next ashes series, you can keep the urn.......... We'll take the C-17 instead. Brendon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 I've never seen anything official, but it looks nearly identical to me (minus the eyebrow and cheek windows): I have. It uses the same McDD (sorry, Boeing) part number for the windscreen frame forging as the DC-10 and MD-11. It's absolutely, 100% identical. The windshield glass also uses the same part numbers. What does this mean for modelers? You could probably use 1/144 DC-10 decal windows for the cockpit if the clear versions aren't to your liking. I imagine most will leave them clear, however. Probably not. Remember, models are not tiny airplanes, they're sculptures. I absolutely 100% guarantee that no 1/144 DC-10 windshield decal is going to accurately fit this kit. Absolutely guarantee. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 So basically the decal sheet has more than is actually shown in the pictures (!?) Huh? I have not the *faintest* clue what you're talking about. I had hundreds of photos of RAF (and RAAF, and CAF, and USAF) C-17s, plus the paint shop diagrams from Long Beach. I put *exactly* what's on the real thing on the decal sheets. If someone added graffiti after I did the decal artwork, it would be hard for me to have anticipated that and included it. Otherwise, what you see on the decals is exactly, precisely, no more and no less than what's on the airplane. When you know the tasking we carry out and take part in it, please feel free to judge, its nice to know we're appreciated sometimes. Did I *EVER* say anything about utilization, relative worth of you, me, the RAF, or the price of tea in China? No, I said that in terms of sheer numbers, the RAF's fleet is microscopic compared to the USAF's fleet. That's pure, simple mathematics my friend. I didn't say the RAF weren't doing a bang-up job with them, did I? I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth, thanks... J PS: Merry Christmas! Peace and good will to one and all (even if they insist I have ulterior motives) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 Huh? I have not the *faintest* clue what you're talking about. I had hundreds of photos of RAF (and RAAF, and CAF, and USAF) C-17s, plus the paint shop diagrams from Long Beach. I put *exactly* what's on the real thing on the decal sheets. If someone added graffiti after I did the decal artwork, it would be hard for me to have anticipated that and included it. Otherwise, what you see on the decals is exactly, precisely, no more and no less than what's on the airplane.Did I *EVER* say anything about utilization, relative worth of you, me, the RAF, or the price of tea in China? No, I said that in terms of sheer numbers, the RAF's fleet is microscopic compared to the USAF's fleet. That's pure, simple mathematics my friend. I didn't say the RAF weren't doing a bang-up job with them, did I? I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth, thanks... J PS: Merry Christmas! Peace and good will to one and all (even if they insist I have ulterior motives) Thanks for the work on the decals Jennings. Mine arrived today from Hannants with the corrected Canadian stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBoilermaker Posted December 29, 2008 Share Posted December 29, 2008 I have. It uses the same McDD (sorry, Boeing) part number for the windscreen frame forging as the DC-10 and MD-11. It's absolutely, 100% identical. The windshield glass also uses the same part numbers.Probably not. Remember, models are not tiny airplanes, they're sculptures. I absolutely 100% guarantee that no 1/144 DC-10 windshield decal is going to accurately fit this kit. Absolutely guarantee. J Good to know, thanks. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElectroSoldier Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 That's because that was an Anigrand resin kit on display at Telford last year... Believe me, the Revell kit plastic is about as close to the McDD factory drawings as any kit is ever likely to get. Down to about 3 decimal places.Economics, pure and simple. The RAF has five airplanes. The USAF had hundreds. It's as easy as that. Revell knows where the market is. In the grand scheme of the universe, if you want to do an RAF one, an extra 7 quid isn't that much to forfeit. J Seems to have created quite a buzz this lil kit. I wont be buying one myself, wrong scale, but it seems odd that Revell would produce a kit with a decal sheet with an after market supplier in mind. Shame that the 3rd party sheet is so expensive compared to the kit too. Any idea what the two mistakes on the xtradecal sheet were about? not like hannants to make a mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atdb27 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Any idea what the two mistakes on the xtradecal sheet were about? not like hannants to make a mistake Canada introduced a larger roundel and they forgot the Royal Air Force wording. Got 2 kits and both decal sets + addendums. But 1 of my kits had a mis 'cast' on the upper nose with a short coming in plastic. Recoverable but 'one that slipped' quality control!!!! Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyp Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Black stallions on the intakes? Do you have any pics? Or do you mean the intake covers?If I could work out how to post images, I'd post a shot of the intake covers. I'd like to see a picture of their handy work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Canada introduced a larger roundel and they forgot the Royal Air Force wording. "They" is me. And FWIW, the reprint of X44006 has the offending items corrected on the main decal sheet. It should be hitting the streets shortly. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now