Mcdonall Douglas KC-11 et all

[Gondor]

I have some nice Texaco decals I can send you.  As for designation you need to looks up aerial tankers and see what was the latest one dropped from the acquisition program, add a couple to the last digit and there you are!

Thanks for the offer but these builds are to be looking like real world aircraft. Effectively fat versions of the E-3, E-8 and a stretched and extra engined KC-10 or even possibly mistaken for a fat and stretched KC-135.

Gondor

[Sentinel Chicken]

Ideas for the designation of the AWACS and JSTARS build welcome. Please bare in mind though that I do like to be fairly conventional with designations and there are bound to be some of you out there that know US nomenclature far better than I do.

Since these would be transport based, I'd suggest going with a post-1962 C-series number that was skipped and never used. However, the E-3 Sentry and E-8 JSTARS completely ditched use of a modified C-series designator (though the Sentry prototype was EC-137D. So with your AWACS and JSTARS builds you could go completely with an E-series number.

From Andreas Parsch's website:

The E-7 designation was reserved in August 1981 and cancelled in January 1982. It was a Boeing 707 which was then allocated the basic designation C-18 (with the E-7 becoming the EC-18) due to its possible multi-mission roles.

Given AWACS technology was available before JSTARS technology, your AWACS build could be the E-7. The next number in the E-series is E-11 (The E-10 was the 767-based MC2A that never got proceeded with), so the JSTARS build could be the E-11.

[Gondor]

Ideas for the designation of the AWACS and JSTARS build welcome. Please bare in mind though that I do like to be fairly conventional with designations and there are bound to be some of you out there that know US nomenclature far better than I do.

Since these would be transport based, I'd suggest going with a post-1962 C-series number that was skipped and never used. However, the E-3 Sentry and E-8 JSTARS completely ditched use of a modified C-series designator (though the Sentry prototype was EC-137D. So with your AWACS and JSTARS builds you could go completely with an E-series number.

From Andreas Parsch's website:

The E-7 designation was reserved in August 1981 and cancelled in January 1982. It was a Boeing 707 which was then allocated the basic designation C-18 (with the E-7 becoming the EC-18) due to its possible multi-mission roles.

Given AWACS technology was available before JSTARS technology, your AWACS build could be the E-7. The next number in the E-series is E-11 (The E-10 was the 767-based MC2A that never got proceeded with), so the JSTARS build could be the E-11.

Sounds good to me.

Next question is which version of the DC-10 to use as a base aircraft for the E-7 AWACS and E-11 JSTARS.

I did a little research on the Boeing 707 and the AWACS E-3 to find that the E-3 was based on the 707-320B. The magazine I was looking at had information for the E-3 as well which actually had a lighter MTOW than the -320B. So that piece of information makes me think that I could use a DC10-10 for the E-7 as there would not be a need for the extra undercarriage leg.

Not sure about what to use as the base kit for the E-11 though so a little help with weights would be useful.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

Alastair,

One reason why the -10s didn't have the extra leg as they had fewer fuel tanks, so your aircraft could be short on range unless they can trade off payload weight against the -30s fuel tankage.

[Sentinel Chicken]

I agree, for extended time on station the Series 30 makes the most sense. The Boeing E-3 and E-8 are both based on the 707-320B(Adv)/-320C airframes which are the longest ranged variants of the 707 family from the original factory build series.

[Gondor]

Alastair,

One reason why the -10s didn't have the extra leg as they had fewer fuel tanks, so your aircraft could be short on range unless they can trade off payload weight against the -30s fuel tankage.

I agree, for extended time on station the Series 30 makes the most sense. The Boeing E-3 and E-8 are both based on the 707-320B(Adv)/-320C airframes which are the longest ranged variants of the 707 family from the original factory build series.

Thank you both. I will build both the E-7and E-11 using -30's as the base aircraft. This does however pose a problem. It is difficult to extend the fuselages of the aircraft when it has the larger rear wing root fairing as this fairing extends past the upturn in the fuselage towards the tail.
I am thinking that I should keep both the E-7 and E-11's as "normal" fuselage length -30's with the engine and tail changes and of course the changes for the new roles that each will have and then convert the KC-10 into the KC-11 with the Braz MD-11 conversion, which is a future release, with the same four engined layout as for the E-7 and E-11 will have.

Regards

Gondor

[Gondor]

The build is developing more and more. With the development I am becoming happier with the plan. As in my previous post I had decided to use the DC-10-30 as a base for the builds but only having a -10 at the moment I will have to modify it to -30 standards. This means and extra undercarriage leg and increasing the length of the rear wing fairings as below where the upper fuselage is the Revell -10 and the lower fuselage is the Airfix -30.



You may think that I should make my own life a lot simpler by using the Airfix model of which there are plenty around. I could, but the quality of the mould is like chalk and cheese between the two kits. I have marked out the wing root fairings on both kits to show the difference between them. As can be seen, the lower Airfix kit has the longer -30 fairing compared to the Revell -10. What I intend to do is to remove the -30 fairing from the Airfix kit and attach it over the -10 fairing or to completely replace the fairing on the -10. Simple really and obviously asking for trouble in its execution. The extra undercarriage leg will be sourced from the Airfix kit and I will have to scratch build its bay but that should,famous last words, be relatively easy 

Gondor

[Gondor]

I will now have enough kits for this particular plan 

Just won a Revell DC-10-30 S.A.S decals on eBay for £20.

Well chuffed 

Just need the engines and various kits as sources for parts and I will be up to my neck in JMN bait.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

If you have a Revell A330 handy  that comes with the centre leg and bay from the A340 kit, and will be going spare on a '330. I've used the '330 bay to convert DC10-10s to -30s (actually it was a -40, but who's counting?) and it works quite well.

[Gondor]

If you have a Revell A330 handy  that comes with the centre leg and bay from the A340 kit, and will be going spare on a '330. I've used the '330 bay to convert DC10-10s to -30s (actually it was a -40, but who's counting?) and it works quite well.

Unfortunately I do not have a spare A330, I don't even have an A330, but I do have an A340 that is for another plan which I will have to check to see if it needs the center leg. I also have the leg from my Airfix DC-10 that I can use.

Gondor

[Gondor]

Just been wondering how much range an MPA would require? Surely it would not require intercontinental range. So rather than my modifying the DC-10-10 into a -30 I am thinking that I should simply convert it into an MPA. The idea came around partly from seeing a Revell DC-10-30 on eBay and running a few ideas through my head while traveling home from work after reading about the RAF MPA aircraft ideas on this forum. This would enable me to start work on the -10 while waiting for my so far only -30 to arrive along with the engines I ordered from The Aviation Megastore which are sending by UPS and as far as I know they don't deliver on weekends  but will deliver on Monday when I plan to be out

Good news though. After communicating with the seller of the KC-10 I bought on eBay, I received in the post today a 1/144 scale Tornado complete with a resin replacement cockpit 

I now have all the parts from the Revell KC-10 and am wondering if I should use the Tonka as it was intended by having it refueled by the KC-11?

Gondor

[Hobbes]

For an MPA, you want ca. 8 hours on patrol plus the transit time from its base to the patrol area, so it needs lots of range. Now MPA patrols are run at a lower speed than airliner cruise speeds, but you're at lower altitude as well so there's more drag.

[Gondor]

For an MPA, you want ca. 8 hours on patrol plus the transit time from its base to the patrol area, so it needs lots of range. Now MPA patrols are run at a lower speed than airliner cruise speeds, but you're at lower altitude as well so there's more drag.

True, however as the -10 was used for transatlantic flights that should be enough range, also the aircraft will have four rather than three engines so it should have plenty of thrust. Add to that the possibility of increased tankage as the baggage area will be available for tankage as well as weapons and it should end up with enough fuel to do the job.

I could of course just say that its my build and its whiff world so I will do what I like, but I prefer to base my build usually on fairly solid grounds.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

The big problem with getting long endurance for an MPA is that the flights are almost always at low altitude and the fuel burn down there is horrendous compared with the high altitude burn of a 'normal' airliner. Putting extra tanks in the lower cargo holds would be a good idea, but remember to leave some space for a weapons bay too. The more fuel you carry, the more likely you'd need that centre leg at some time.

It's a real pain when the RW maths get in the way of a good modelling project. 

[Gondor]

Very true PR19_Kit, however it also depends on the required range. After all I am simply looking for a decent build idea for the DC-10-10 rather than having to convert it to a -30 which could be a real pain even though I have worked out a way to do it. I will have to look at what has been done to the A319 MPA to see what I would need to do to the -10. Perhaps shorten the fuselage at the front a bit and remove the tail engine?

RAF or USN would be my favorite customers with Canada, Australia and New Zealand as possible others although I do fancy India a bit as well, decals would have to be designed and printed for that though.

Gondor