Interesting read.
But what about an answer to 'how to model the beast?'

_________________
on bench:
Italeri HU5 Wessex 1/72
Lindberg General Belgrano 1/600

I would opt for balsawood as in 1/72 scale this would be a pretty large model.

By all accounts the Nimrod R1 is a better SINGINT platform than the Rivet Joint anyway - possibly why they have decided to keep them in service for a bit longer, what with the situation in Libya etc.
Nice that the Voyagers are finally in service. I'll miss the VC10s but all good things must come to an end.

 :love: I feel another VC10 build coming on  :lol:

Andy

_________________
You'll not see nothing like the mighty Fin !!
111 Sqn "The Last Of The F3W"
Airfix Club Member 501279
IPMS Cleveland and UK Member
Tornado SIG Leader

'In a small scale' would probably be the most practical answer... 1/144 would be the size of a 1/72 Lancaster so easily within most people's shelf limits. Still, I'm sure someone will tackle a 1/72 version one of these days. It wouldn't be as big as the Monogram B-36, for example. Even so, GRP for the main parts might not be out of order. I have a model Tu-142 in the stash which has GRP fuselage and wings. Lighter and much stronger than styrene. Or even vacform, not that many people are working that way these days. In fact, having done a bit of checking it seems this is the way 'Transport Wings' has gone - http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/TWE72002
Revell has a 1/144 A330 but I've no idea what conversion might be needed to that to make an accurate Voyager.

I might have a bit of trouble sneeking that past the missus through the front door.

Howard

_________________
Models on the go:Revell  all 1/72 Vaught crusader, Revell Ardo 234, Revell AW Merlin HC3. Pluus buiding a Mini cooper with my daughter(12)

Nice thread XN923....that's a smart looking kit.

_________________
Half a league half a league, Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade! Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.

Eek! Well, the Revell kit is of the longer bodied A330-300, whilst the Voyager is the shorter bodied A330-200, so unless you fancy a cut 'n shut both forward and aft of the wing - and that's before you start adding the tanker specific parts - it'd be best to wait for someone to produce a model of it 'officially'.

Dan

_________________
Airbusians.

The kit linked to is in fact vacformed and pre-cut, which takes away the 'fear factor' of cutting out. Plus resin parts etc, and metal as needed too.

_________________
Pax Britannica
                    IMPORTANT
Chaps and chapesses:
Get those symptoms checked NOW Look silly a dozen times, that next time might be the  important one.

I was just reading about Nimrod R1 and Airseeker in the latest Airforces Monthly. I agree, Airseeker would struggle to be as good as Nimrod but they can't keep them going forever.
Voyager is nice. I was lucky enough to see a VC10 at Biggin Hill last year. A beautiful aeroplane. It's a shame no one makes large airliners with rear mounted engines anymore.
Also it seems that the designation will be Voyager KC2. What happened to the KC1 (and AFM ask that too)?

_________________
'Cause he loves the models and he hugs the models
Goes to lunch with models 'cause he's trying everyday
And when he sleeps with models then he dreams of models
Wants to be a model 'cause it's all he's got to say

Probably no KC1 because of the Tristar KC1  

Andy

_________________
You'll not see nothing like the mighty Fin !!
111 Sqn "The Last Of The F3W"
Airfix Club Member 501279
IPMS Cleveland and UK Member
Tornado SIG Leader

The '1' refers to the specific mark of the aircraft type (whereas the K indicates tanker and the C indicates transport) so it won't be because of the Tristar. I presume that there may have been a prototype or pre-production version that has been retrospectively dubbed MkI. There is a precedent - the production Blackburn Skuas were all MkII and the two prototypes were the only MKIs. Can't think of another example but I'm sure that can't be the only one.
Sometimes mark numbers refer to 'paper' aircraft as well, so it could be that the RAF were originally considering, say, two engine types or two fuselage configurations, e.g. short and long, and dubbed one the MkI and the other the MkII, but before any metal was cut decided to go for the configuration they had called mk'2'.

That's where I took the photos above. Great show, but who had any idea it would be the last Biggin Hill Air Fair?

I thought the lighting in the photos looked a bit familiar.

_________________
'Cause he loves the models and he hugs the models
Goes to lunch with models 'cause he's trying everyday
And when he sleeps with models then he dreams of models
Wants to be a model 'cause it's all he's got to say

I'm one of the lucky ones at the mo then.
VC-10, a brace of Nimrods and their smaller cousins (Sentinels) living at the end of my garden.
One last Hurrah.

_________________
on bench:
Italeri HU5 Wessex 1/72
Lindberg General Belgrano 1/600

One thing puzzles me. Why is the MoD replacing the Nimrod, which entered service in 1969, with the RC135, which entered service in 1961? And, if we are having these enormous budget cuts, why spend £10.5bn on new tankers?

_________________
On the Workbench: Avro Vulcan 1:72, Spitfire MkVB plus the club kits (MiG15, F86 Sabre), ME262 & Mosquito VI (dogfight double kit)

Airfix Club Member No: 599948

Nulla Rosa Sine Spina

For the Nimrod, I guess there aren't any newer airframe designs about for the ELINT mission. Developing a new design would probably be more expensive than taking a some surplus KC-135s* from the US. Consider that the costs to remanufacture an aircraft had a lot to do with the MRA4 becoming so expensive.

As for Voyager, a new fleet of tanker/transports was needed and the A330s were already being converted. I don't see the logic behind some of the SDSR decisions, but not touching the Voyager programme is a good choice IMO. It could have cost them just as much in compensation to EADS had they cancelled.

*The Airseekers are being converted from KC-135 tankers rather than taking on aircraft that are already in service as RC-135s. The first is former 64-14833 of USAF 91st Air Refualling Squadron.

_________________
'Cause he loves the models and he hugs the models
Goes to lunch with models 'cause he's trying everyday
And when he sleeps with models then he dreams of models
Wants to be a model 'cause it's all he's got to say

The Voyager deal is a PFI contract with a consortium called Airtanker. I imagine being a PFI it has lower initial costs, and would be more expensive to get out of. We can't do without tankers anyhow, and the current crop are getting elderly.

Spoke to someone from 612 VGS at the Abingdon airshow today, who said she had wanted to be a Nav on Nimrods, until the SDSR put paid to that. That for me is one of the saddest things of all, how the plans and hopes of a generation of young RAF personnel have taken a big hit.

[quote="I trust we are to be the refuelling section of the new EURO-Military Force.  :?:[/quote]

Wash your mouth out immediately!

_________________
26FX - The Fasted Aircraft in Transport Command!

Why not buy more Airbus A-330 airframes and convert them for the task. Training, engineering and logistics savings logic me thinks!  :?:

_________________
26FX - The Fasted Aircraft in Transport Command!