Mcdonall Douglas KC-11 et all

[PR19_Kit]

The Decals...... on their way to PR19_Kit as I will not be using them

Arrived in this morning's post Alastair, yummy, yummy! 

Thanks very much, I've wanted to do a Skytrain Ten for ages, and Revell only moulded one batch in that scheme AFAIK.

[NARSES2]

Gord, I flew Skytrain on my first ever trip to the US - I'm old 

[NARSES2]

Looking good.......didn't realise those kits were that exy.....

exy ?

Gondor

If he types like he texts, he probably means "sexy" 

[Gondor]

Been looking at making sure the tail angle is correct.



The drawing shows a dark line which was traced around the fuselage and tail of the kit with the thinner lines showing the projections of the roof line and the fin leading edge. although the radii and angles are marked in roughly they are the angels shown on My protractor.

Next thing to work out is whether to simply move the tail downwards in a vertical manner or in line with the leading edge of the fin ?

I am inclined to move the fin vertically downwards so that the rear tip of the fin is vertically in line with its current position. Comments please.

Gondor

[Go4fun]

Wouldn't moving the fin down move the tail planes down thus possibly causing turbulence behind the A/C for A/C on the refueling boom?
Just one of those random rational thoughts that jump into my head.

[PR19_Kit]

Alastair,

I'd leave the fin and rudder exactly where they are and fill in the space where the #2 engine was with some other material, another donor's fin perhaps?

My reasoning is that the #2 engine was part of the fin's side area on a DC10 and contributed to the yaw stability of the aircraft. You'll need even MORE yaw stability with the extension forward of the wings plus the two extra engines, both forward of the wing.

[Gondor]

Wouldn't moving the fin down move the tail planes down thus possibly causing turbulence behind the A/C for A/C on the refueling boom?
Just one of those random rational thoughts that jump into my head.

Not so sure about the rational this time Go4fun as the tail plains are attached to the rear of the fuselage. I thought you would have noticed that when you did the drawing of the AWACS version.

I'd leave the fin and rudder exactly where they are and fill in the space where the #2 engine was with some other material, another donor's fin perhaps?

My reasoning is that the #2 engine was part of the fin's side area on a DC10 and contributed to the yaw stability of the aircraft. You'll need even MORE yaw stability with the extension forward of the wings plus the two extra engines, both forward of the wing.

I had not considered that possibility Kit, I will have to think about it.

Gondor

[Go4fun]

My bad.  This should get more interesting than reading a NASCAR Sprint Cup rule book. 
Carry on.

[kerick]

I would go with filling the space left by the missing engine with fin material.  How about extending the bottom of the fin farther forward then having it meet the existing fin leading edge were the top of the engine was?  It would have about a 60^osweep edge transitioning to a 30^oleading edge.

[Gondor]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was not going to do anything with the gap where the #2 engine was. My worry is how much of the space to use as fin and how much and in which direction to move the fin. At the moment I am thinking of about 50% fin and then moving the resultant fin vertically downwards. The problem is as much an aesthetic one as a practical aerodynamic one as I don't want the fin to end up looking as if I copied a 1/48 Typhoon fin into the aircraft nor do I want it to look as if its from Boeing. 

The Fin problem can be shelved until near the end of this build anyway as it is not integral to the fuselage and wing. The next problem I have to look at is the boom and its operators station, although that can weight untill I have cut up the fuselage and extended the front part.

Gondor

[Gondor]

I have been comparing both the Revell and Airfix kits of the DC-10. Big difference in the quality of the detail and at the rear of the wings. Makes me wonder if the Airfix kit is really worth any effort or if I should just use the kit for fuselage plugs and extensions.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

No contest Alastair, the Revell one is MILES better! The Airfix DC10 is from the same vintage as their TERRIBLE 747-200, of which the least said the better!

[kerick]

I have been comparing both the Revell and Airfix kits of the DC-10. Big difference in the quality of the detail and at the rear of the wings. Makes me wonder if the Airfix kit is really worth any effort or if I should just use the kit for fuselage plugs and extensions.

Gondor

Sounds like the solution is at hand.  It may provide the missing fin parts too.

[Gondor]

I have been comparing both the Revell and Airfix kits of the DC-10. Big difference in the quality of the detail and at the rear of the wings. Makes me wonder if the Airfix kit is really worth any effort or if I should just use the kit for fuselage plugs and extensions.

Gondor

Sounds like the solution is at hand.  It may provide the missing fin parts too.

Thanks Kit, very true kerick, unfortunatly the Revell kits are a lot raerer then the Airfix ones goeing by what I have seen on eBay.

Gondor

[kerick]

Here's the shape of the fin I was trying to describe.  Picture is worth a thousand words.  Especially since I can't spell.