- This topic has 85 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hey everybody,
With the recent announcement of a new tool 727 model in the works, i don’t know how much relevance this will be going forward.
However, i’m sure many of you have the 1964 vintage Revell 727 model sitting unbuilt in your kit stash.
You might be asking yourself, “Is it worth building, or not?”
Somewhat as more a practical, proof of concept engineering exercise, i recalled my Shelf of Doom (started in the late 20th Century) Revell Germany 727-100 and started looking at things i could fix on it. I worked on this while i was in my relocation phase between homes, where i could glue, fill, drill, file and sand, but not spray any paint.
Aside from filling in the depressions for the windows, the thing that hit me was the horizontal stabilizer installation. Revell cast it as in continuous piece integral with the fin cap, probably to make construction easier. Unfortunately it presents significant seam filling and painting challenges if done from the box.
I always thought Airfix’ approach to this area was much more logical, so i took their approach and adopted it to the Revell kit.
The technique largely mirrors that of the technique i demonstrated on mounting fuselage engine nacelles that i posted about a year ago. I think the pics are largely self explanatory but i’m happy to answer any questions you have. The one pic i don’t have is of the tailplanes being cut from the fin cap, but you can imagine how that went down.
Comments are welcome. The next area of interest are the wings and wing-fuselage joints which are largely done. As for the screen door cockpit windows, i’ve filled them in but i don’t know exactly what i want to do next in regards to the shape of the nose.
But for now, enjoy the pretty pictures.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
That’s actually a very good modification. The Revell version had the stabilizer at a position you would not see on any ramp. Remember that the whole stabilizer moves to trim pitch. The leading edge down (ANU) is typical when parked and set for takeoff. Therefore there is supposed to be a gap between the stab and the fin.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Yeah, this is much more prototypical. There is actually a little bit of a gap there, but its much more realistic. However, it’s gonna make the whole painting and finishing stage a lot easier.
I hate sanding off all of those rivets and injector pin marks, but i really miss that original Revell/ Monogram silver grey plastic.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Great work! The Nose/cockpit geometry will be a good challenge ????????????????????
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Yes, i don’t know exactly what i’m gonna do. I’ll probably post photos of what i’ve done so far, as an opening move…
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
i don’t know if this falls within the domain of a horizontal tail modification, but here’s some more pics of the tailcone-mounted light.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Well, with that out of the way, i decided to do something about the nose.
You can see also that i filled in all those silly window depressions on the fuselage sides and i removed all the boilerplate rivets as part of the seam filling process.
The next thing which i haven’t decided on is, what if any work needs to be done to the nose to improve the shape. It’s not as bad as the Minicraft 707, mind you, but it does look like its missing… something.
I have time to ponder this before i make my next move. My gut also tells me that either the cabin windows are set too low, or if the windows in the cockpit “cab” are set too high.
In the mean time, i’ll continue working on VC10, number 2….
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
To build this Revel 727 or not, to me personaly, No ide scrap it and simply pack the kit back up and re send it back to Revell and the reason being is simply there has been no thought or quality put into the shaping of the whole of the cockpit area meaning there quality of model, and factory workman ship, and I dont think I have ever seen a model with so many imperfections and sink marks in the moulding of this kit .
I thought Airfix was bad enough with sink holes and not getting the mould right, when I look at your photo of the nose cone @ front end of the model it just looks like its been over cooked or suffered some form of heat distrotion, and this has produced a lot of work for the modeler being you unfortunatly, I have been modling commercial airliners for about 35 years and this model from your photos is by far the worst mould that I have seen.
If you do go ahead and build this model then best of luck, I have just one question why do you place cooking foill or Tin foil in between the joints for ( whats it Purpose) of this , for me if I come across a need to fill a gap I get car detail body filler (two pack mix) and mix it up and using a spatula run the mix into the joint after I have glued the wing into pisition and when dry in 60 seconds I scrap the excess of with spatual then I start the sanding proces, and the sanding process is a formulated one of different grades .
Regards to you my friend and best of luck with this kit.
Norm Honeysett Queensland Australia
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
So you don’t like it, then? LOL
Considering it came out in 1964 (Same year as the Airfix VC10), i admit its as old as the hills but right now nobody makes a great 727 in 1/144th scale. Its a choice between the least terrible.
To answer your question about the bare metal foil, its used mainly to help fill and mitigate gaps at 90 degree corners. The gap is filled, the parts are separated, and the excess filler is sanded or filed away with specialty tools. The end result is a clean, sharp joint requiring very little if any filler.
You can use bare metal, adhesive backed foil, or clear plastic packing tape; either will work. I actually posted an article on it here.
This model was started sometime in the late 20th century, so it definitely qualifies as a Shelf of Doom rescue…. if i get it finished.
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
There is actually a great deal correct on this kit so don’t bash it or trash it. You must consider that Revell had master molds made by real craftspeople and not computer CAD. I visited the factory in the heyday. They also came out with subjects around the same time as the first planes went into production so often their source material was preproduction blueprints or artist concepts. Airfix and Minicraft have many more errors and they have the benefit of real photos, actual aircraft samples, and computer aided modeling.
I still have my original American Airlines 727-23 Astrojet displayed and I lover her.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
There are as many reasons for building a kit as there are modelers, and each of us has our own definition of what’s worth building and what isn’t. A year or two back I put a lot of effort into correcting the Aurora/Atlantis 727-100 and I’m sure it’s a kit a lot of people would have told me to throw in the trash, because any resemblance to that kit and a production 727-100 is in passing at best. That said, I had a deeply personal reason for doing that project, and I’m glad I did it, and the completed model is one of my favorite things.
Some people don’t want to put that kind of work in, while others enjoy the challenge of making the necessary corrections, and still others are content to build it from the box and paint it with spray cans and be happy with the result. They paid the money for the kit, they invested the time, and it’s not my place to tell them what to do in any case. We pursue this hobby for our own reasons, we do the things that matter to us, and at the end of the day those reasons are our own business, not subject to debate or appeal. I sure don’t want anyone telling me how to run my hobby (let alone my life), and I’m not going to do the same to anyone else.
Having gone through most of the injection-molded 727 kits out there and having found most of them disappointing, the Revell 727 is at moment the keeper in 1:144-ish scale. That says something about how Revell’s designers pretty much got it correct in the old days of analog kit design, and also about how poorly represented the 727 has been in injection-molded plastic since (the Hasegawa 1:200 727-200 being the one notable exception in a field that’s generally not too good). That tooling has been issued and reissued so many times and it’s showing the effects of time and wear, but given that the kit and the aircraft are rough contemporaries, I give it some room.
Do I hope there’s a new kit that finally lets me retire my Revell kits as curios of another era? Of course I do. But until that kit arrives in my workshop and I’ve had a chance to see for myself, I’m sure not divesting mine.
Jodie Peeler
"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." - Sayre's Law
Indeed no 727’s in 1/144 are precise replicas, but the Revell 727-100 is the best of the kits out there that I have seen. I have never gotten Authentic Airliner 727-100 to compare it to, but have the others. I do like that they have the famous wing fence in the correct place and the girth of the wing body box and the wheels and struts are not too bad. Also air stairs and the engines are ok.
I have thought about kit bashing two 100s and other kits to make a 200. Now I don’t have to with the new kit coming!
I spent weeks on Minicraft 727-200 Adv to get it correct and kit bashed. After that and dealing with the Airfix barely acceptable kits, I have had to cool off and work on other aircraft.
Look forward to the new kit!
Best
John
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Yeah, not sure about the nose either. I think it might be a mix of too high and window belt too low. Is the center post at the right angle as well? It looks a bit steep, but hard to tell from the pictures. It might benefit from a saw-and-move like the Heller 707 nose, might need to lay it over a drawing to be sure.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
I know the title of this thread emphasizes the empennage, but it’s since wandered off the reservation, starting with the tailcone, and then it drifted over to the rest of the fuselage.
Time to talk about the wings.
The Revell kit wings are pretty accurate with respect to planform, sweep, span and cross section, but the approach to molding the entire upper wing and outer half as one monolithic piece incorporating an inboard lower segment results in a lot of dips, sink marks and other surface irregularities on the outer wings.
This is because there is a maximum thickness a part can be designed to, before problems with sink marks begin to creep in (Thanks to Bill Bosworth at Accurate Miniatures for explaining this).
Also, there’s a mismatch in wing thickness between the butt end of the wing, and the thickness of the “Boss” or wing-body intersection on the fuselage side.
To add additional insult to injury, the upper and lower halves do not come together cleanly at the butt join; the upper and lower butt ends coming together somewhat diagonally, rather than on the same plane or parallel planes.
This results in gaps; top and bottom, and any attempt to close/mitigate the gap on one side makes the gap worse on the opposite side.
So- What to do?
First thing i did was i split apart the leading edge wing seam, cleaned it up a bit with flexi files, and inserted a shim of Evergreen .010 or .015 (i don’t remember) strip along the leading edge joint, then re glued it and re-finished the leading edge. This mitigated most of the cross-sectional mismatch between the wing butt end and the corresponding mounting point on the fuselage.
Next, i sawed off the locator tongues, and block sanded the wing butt end as level as possible, periodically checking that the butt end remained geometrically flat, chord wise, and that the angle was not changing, and “throwing off” the correct, intended wing dihedral.
At this point it became evident how much of a mismatch existed between the upper and lower wing surfaces.
I then marked out and drilled a locator hole in the fuselage side with a corresponding hole in the wing, ahead of where the kit locator tongue was. I needed to incorporate some sore of positive structural reinforcement, yet one that allowed me freedom to adjust and tweak the angle of wing incidence to the upper wing skin matched up with the upper fuselage fillet.
Once i felt i had a more or less positive, repeatable way of setting wing dihedral and incidence, i applied a piece of bare metal foil to the fuselage mating surface, tacked the wing into its correct location on the fuselage fairing and proceeded to fill the gaps with Starbond Professional woodworking glue and knot filler. I could just as easily used zap a gap and dental resin CA but i wanted to put this stuff to the test, to assess its gap-filling ability, hardness and sanding characteristics.
I didn’t take any photos of this stage, but you can see the technique in action here on my 720B and VC10…
So, once it hardened, i pulled/cracked/peeled this plastic/CA/Foil mess off the fuselage and cleaned up the excess CA and foil from the upper and lower wing surfaces.
That pretty much handled the heavy structural engineering, so then it was time to conduct unlimited warfare on the rivet-encrusted surface.
Another thing i was disenchanted with were the rounded, blunt wingtips. I could have used Evergreen styrene to fix these like i did on my VC10, but i wanted to try working with something of similar colour and hardness to the silver Revell plastic.
The answer came in the form of the plastic stand, provided in the kit.
Finally, one thing that has yet to go are the rather prominent wingtip lights with their big clear protective covers. I think that’s gonna be next on this project, once the movers show up and i can unpack it and set up a place to work on it. I *may* be able to mitigate some of the surface undulations a little bit, but even if i can’t eliminate them entirely, i think its safe to say i’ve reduced the trailing edge thickness to more scale-like appearance.
As old as this kit is, one thing i gotta say is i really love this Revell – Monogram old-timey silver grey plastic. There really isn’t anything else out there quite like it.
So, in the meantime, thanks for shopping and keep those letters and cards coming!
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Yes, the angle of the center post was a thing that jumped out at me. The cabin windows are filled and levelled (i hope), and to my eye, the belt line definitely looks low.
I could cut the entire cockpit cab off at the bulkhead, and lower it a smidge; not more than the cross sectional thickness of the fuselage, and while i was at it, i could re-cut the upper fuselage seam and slide in a very thin piece of styrene strip, set at the right angle for the windscreen center post and then use that to reconstruct the proper windshield geometry.
I’ll think that over while i wait for the movers to show up….
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Beautiful work! Well, I have several Revel 727s, so I am definitely taking notes, though I may not make all the mods that you are undertaking. Filling windows and sanding off the rivets are a MUST DO! Shape is not too bad, and considering that most of the decals I will be using were designed or test fit to the Revell kit, I am not too worried about the final result.
Kind regards,
DutchI don’t have a picture of it, but something i did was i slopped grey primer all over the nose, so i had something more neutral and less visually distracting to look at.
Having done that, i feel that the slope of the center windscreen post is definitely better than that in the Minicraft 707 (admittedly, a low bar to cross), but perhaps a smidge less than where it should be.
I pulled out an ancient resin cockpit insert designed for the Minicraft 707. Looking at it closely, it looks like a copy of the Revell cockpit cab (the windshield center post angle is the same) with some scribed in windows.
I also looked at the 727 drawings posted by Mechanica in the Gallery. Are those drawings considered reliable?
If the location of the lobe crease is accurate, i surmise that Revell got the location right, if not the cross section including the crease. I think the crease line corresponds with the floor location so i’m beginning to think that the cockpit cab is located slightly too high and needs to be “dropped”- maybe less than the thickness of the fuselage shells.
I’m thinking also that with the upper and lower contours blended in, it will make the nose appear a bit more slender. I also thought about making 2 lateral saw cuts in the radome and extending it by maybe .030, but i’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
As always, keep those letters and cards coming! Meanwhile, i’ll be found in the model room, scribing on my VC10…
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Minor update today.
I fashioned the port wingtip lens/protective cover, using some clear acrylic bar stock fragment i found in the materials pile.
It worked out okay in the end, but clear acrylic is pretty hard stuff. It seems to take forever to sand, so i carefully sawed away as much excess material before i started to take the sanding sticks, etc. to it.
I began work on the Starboard wingtip lens, but this time i’m using plain old clear sprue. I suspect it will be a lot easier to work with. Pictures to follow, once the work is finalized. Then i’ll investigate the feasibility of adding the light bulbs.
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
More progress made on the 727.
Got the starboard wingtip light cover finalized (for now), and installed some leading edge wing fences. removable for right now.
And now, it’s back to the fuselage for a while…
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Well, the issue regarding the 727 nose has been bugging me for a while.
It’s not that the cockpit window shapes look bad, but the whole nose has a slightly pudgy, overfed look to it.
Also, there’s a pretty obvious disconnect when you compare the height of the cabin windows, relative to the height of the windshield frames. For the longest time, i just accepted the fact that the cabin windows were set too low on the fuselage, but i was at a loss to see how that could happen.
After discussing this phenomenon with Merlin Woodman and taking a couple of looks at the 727 station diagrams in the galleries, i decided to take what some might consider a draconian step…
To wit- I sawed the “cab” off the fuselage, along the lateral bulkhead just behind the aft end of the side windows. I found that by playing around with the height, if i lowered the cab by approximately .020-025, the disparity between cockpit windows and cabin windows is much improved.
Sanding the upper fuselage “crown” to blend the cockpit and fuselage together is gonna add a little bit of curvature to the upper fuselage profile, and removing material brom the bottom of the cab, i think, will slim the nose down a little bit and make it look less “porky”.
Photos to come as this drama unfolds…
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Definitely not!!!
It is the Authentic Airliners resin kit.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Yes, Kurt. Obviously it’s your kit.
Why did you post it on my thread? This is about re working the Revell 727 kit.
I will not tolerate being upstaged on my own thread.
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
David, that looks fantastic! I was really impressed by this little kit the first time I saw it, many, many years ago as a kid, and I actually loved all the riveting.
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFO
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace becomes a circus.Definitely not!!!
It is the Authentic Airliners resin kit.
Kurt – you can’t always suggest one of your kits when someone is willing to fix/modify another model. Actually it’s quite rude. Some people actually like and enjoy the process of ‘modeling’, which your kits don’t really require. Why don’t we all just buy diecast kits then and be done with it?
Thanks,
ahmed
KSFO
When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace becomes a circus.Well, it *is* visually amazing to look at, especially as a youngster. However, while raised rivets are now considered passe, as i said many times that silver Revell plastic is great stuff to work with.
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
And yet you can’t help but admire the photo of that Pan American 727, it really does look good. That model didn’t finish itself, so it’s fair to say that there is some modelling skill involved there. With that being said I would really like to see how well the Revell 727 can be brought up to those standards in the hands of an experienced modeler. And that is unfolding here in front of all of us. I happen to like the Revell and Airfix kits as they each serve their subject well. In the end I think the Revell kit is really going to look terrific. That’s because the basics are there, add in some modelling and we will see another master piece. And we saw the steps it would take to accomplish that. That’s what modelling is all about. I am planning a diorama that will use both Airfix and Revell 727’s. So I am glad I saw this work first on the Revell 727 as I am learning here. And I hope to see my builds benefit from this added knowlege.
Jaime Diaz
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
No.
I can’t “Admire” it, because honestly i’m offended by its presence.
I’m not paid to endorse Kurt’s products and his 727 model, nice though it is, has no place on this thread at least not in this context.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
You have written the following in your post #244065:
Considering it came out in 1964 (Same year as the Airfix VC10), i admit its as old as the hills but right now nobody makes a great 727 in 1/144th scale. Its a choice between the least terrible.
This statement is wrong. To correct your false statement I posted the picture of my 727 and not to upstage anyone.
Ahmed, the 727s are my top selling kits, hence no need for me to make any advertising for`em.
Kurt
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Kurt, I was talking about injection-molded 727 kits.
The quality of your kit was never in question, but the price differential between your kit and the alternatives is a big deal, for some people.
I don’t think you understand the point here. I’m trying to demonstrate what people can do with the (very old) Revell 727 kit. I leave it to the reader to determine if the time versus money tradeoff is worthwhile. Many, many people have the Revell kit in their stash and this is about teaching and demonstrating advanced model building techniques as much as anything else.
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Well said Jamie Diaz! I have several Revell, Airfix, and Minicraft 727s on hand. They all have flaws, and I am always delighted to see what approach other modelers take to make these kits look more like 727s.
Gene
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Gene that’s the key here, that these kits are in just about everyone’s stash. I have 14 of these fuselages assembled for the diorama and some other airlines I want to model. I also have 2 of Kurts incredible 727 creations. They are truly masterpieces all to themselves. But I have no intention of disposing of my Airfix & Revell kits because I know I can make decent models from them. And I enjoy the build, and then seeing the results. Mind you my models have many errors in them, they are far from perfect. The average person may not see the faults in them, but I built the kits and I know exactly where those errors are. Yet the finished models satisfy me in the sense that I built them and each build gets a little better than the one before it. Now I see a modeler building a Revell 727 and they are willing to share what they did to improve the model, and the results from my point of view are significant thus far. So in my view the fact that Kurt mentions his kit doesn’t bother me in the least. And the focus of this build shouldn’t be affected by his mention of his kits. Instead I am focused like radar on what this Revell Boeing 727 kit is evolving into. My point is let’s stay focused on the build. There is no time for petty disagreements here, we are better than this. It’s about the build that we are privledged to see right before our very eyes here and I am very appreciative to see photos of this build in progress. Let’s stay focused on the build, it’s really all that matters.
Jaime Diaz
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
I too am watching quietly from the back row as I have several of these kits in my stash. This helps with some of the questions I had about this kit and improvements that would have never crossed my mind. Thanks for sharing this and it looks great so far. Would love to see more of these type of threads resurrecting and or vastly improving older kits.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Friction breeds creativity. We all learn through the creative process, iterating and seeing and comprehending through multiple perspectives. I have 7 Revell 727’s and love Kurt’s kits at the same time. These lenses, testing and learning make me a better modeler. Let’s keep this forum inclusive and open to ideas and input here.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
I have both revell and Kurt’s 727 and love them in their purposes. We need to have in mind the age and technology… both are GREAT!
Leandro
Keep trying!OK, well if you remember when i left things off, i took the rather extreme step of lopping the cab off at the lateral bulkhead.
Today, i mixed up some copper BBs with epoxy and poured that into the cab for nose weight.
I then cleaned up the mating surfaces and made a “best guess” estimate of where the cockpit windows fell, relative to the window belt line and glued the cab back on.
I ran this past Merlin Woodman, who thought it looked pretty close. He did point out that the floor line (also the location of the “Crease beam”) should extend geometrically forward so that it hits the center of the radome, as seen here…
Anyway with this data in hand (after the glue started to set up… of course) i think i mounted the cab just a smidge too low.
I took a bunch of photos from several angles and i want to hear everybody’s thoughts on the matter. Nothing has been sanded yet, so i can cut and re glue the cab if necessary.
Anyway, comments are encouraged and welcomed.
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Perhaps the nose is a little too low like this. The tip of the nose should be parallel to the bottom of the passenger door, and fuselage lobe crease.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Yeah, I think you should raise it just a smidgen, maybe half the distance from the top where it currently sits. But my eyes ain’t what they used to be. So follow your heart on this one.
K/r,
Dutch
Kind regards,
DutchMark, i tend to agree. it’s one of those seemingly obvious interrelationships that i managed to miss until Merlin pointed it out, confirmed by the 727 station drawings posted in the gallery. Problem is extrapolating the floor line forward from the flat fuselage sides to the curved nose was hard to do so i just guesstimated with the Mk I eyeball.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Mark and Merlin both seem to think the nose is a bit too low. You make the third data point.
I thought it might be a smidge too low as well.
I think i will saw the nose off and re glue it later this morning.
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Looking at some built up Revell 727s and the drawing you posted above, the nose doesn’t seem that bad, but the cockpit area does seem off. Have you considered placing the nose section in it’s original location and replacing the cockpit section with a part from a Revell or Zvezda 737 kit?
Gene
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Well, in the early stages of this mod yes, i did consider it.
But…
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
It looks really good to me, my question is did you raise the nose a bit because with the sanding and blending it looks good to my eye. This is a truly interesting build of a subject I really like. What airline is this jewel going to be finished in?
Jaime Diaz
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Jaime, what i originally did was i lowered the nose too much. It wasn’t just me who thought it was off; several people also felt it was too low. So, i backed off a bit and raised the nose back up about halfway.
Not perfect, but better. Thinking about adding a shim in the nose to make it slightly longer, then filing it a bit to take a little bit of the ogive profile out of it. What do you think?
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Looking at some built up Revell 727s and the drawing you posted above, the nose doesn’t seem that bad, but the cockpit area does seem off. Have you considered placing the nose section in it’s original location and replacing the cockpit section with a part from a Revell or Zvezda 737 kit?
Gene
Gene, installing a clear canopy from a Daco or Revell 727 was definitely under consideration, if this surgery wasn’t successful.
Merlin Woodman made this “discovery” a few years back, when he was building Heller 707s. For the longest time it was widely believed that Revell set the cabin windows too low on the fuselage and i always wondered why Revell and others would get this so wrong.
What Merlin did was cut the fuselage on his 707 at the bulkhead immediately behind the cockpit windows, and drop the cockpit cab so the aft cockpit windows lined up better with the windows.
I was initially very skeptical of this, mainly because of all the material removal it would take to get the contours re established. But, it worked for him…. not once, but multiple times.
As everybody knows, Revell did not attempt to depict what i call the “Crease”, i.e. the discontinuity in cross section where the upper and lower “lobes” of the fuselage meet. This is also the location of the floor in the fuselage.
While Revell omitted the crease in the fuselage, they *did* at least locate it by providing a raised panel line running longitudinally. If you look at the Boeing drawings, the crease/ floor line projects forward until it terminates in the exact center of the tip of the radome. The whole radome and kit nose was depicted too high, leading to the discontinuity between the cockpit windows as well as a forward fuselage profile that looked more like a Douglas DC-7 than a Boeing.
Once the proper height of the nose was established, it was a relatively easy job of “Lifting” the lower nose contours and filing down the “crown” above and behind the cockpit cab. The Revell plastic is plenty thick and the silver plastic they used to use sands beautifully. There was actually not that much filler used. It was mainly aggressive sanding with 180 and 220 grit sanding sticks.
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
I really like the results thus far, I believe when it’s painted the nose will look fine.
Jaime diaz
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
Okay Jaime, unless somebody goes full-on, John C. Reilly hair-on-fire objecting to it, we’ll leave it alone and go with your recommendation. Thanks.
-d-
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
That was too funny, I still think it will look good when completed. That’s just my opinion, as I said previously my models do have errors, mostly because I am not perfect. If the model looks close enough enough for me, and It resembles the subject I am trying to model I am satisfied. But what you are doing here is intricately reworking this model and the results thus far are supporting the work put into the kit. I believe that if you stick to it this will be your masterpiece. That may sound dramatic, but how many other modelers would put in this kind of effort. I will definitely use some of the techniques I have witnessed on this thread. What the hey, don’t take the easy way out fix the rest of the nose. You’ve put a lot of work into this you may as well take it the rest of the way.
Jaime Diaz
Edit your Profile to get a forum signature.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.