skippiebg2

Here is a graphic showing where the Airfix 727 nose departs from true. Basically, it is skewed upwards. The glazing aperture is in the right place, though. The biggest difference you can make to it would involve sanding off some of the top of the nosecone. You can leave it at that... If you want, however, you can also remove an infinitesimal amount of material off the canopy area with a couple strokes of a sanding stick. (Get some for ladies' fingernail shaping from a drugstore.) This would have an amazing visual impact completely out of proportion to the 20 second effo

If you can spot a weird nose, you are there! Trust your eyesight and a couple of good photos. File or sand the excess. Use filler to build up shortfalls. Scale modelling is making miniature sculptures, so act like a sculptor! Problems will include making the left side match the right and overdoing it (go easy at first). Learning will take time, swearing and spoilt kits. But you’ll probably enjoy it, and that’s what matters! --- The 707 replacement nose is too deep for a 727.

Thank you to all who replied. Siddley, I'm thinking of hacking up an Airfix F.27 I bought several years before the kit was re-released. Someone has painted the flightdeck interior and cabin insides with a variety of lurid colours and left it at that. I also have to dig up a vacformed fuselage and other bits half left-over from when I tried to reason with a Fokker 50 kit (German, cannot remember the brand). The vacform is superb in shape (long pike-like radar nose) but was so incredibly flimsy, it was a wonder it ever survived the kind ministrations of the postal service...

Right -- got the FH-227 manual from Mach One Manuals. The relevant dimensions are (apologies -- I cannot tabulate the text, making it hard to read): F.27 (short body, with radar)/FH-227/variance length 77ft 3.6in/83ft 0.8in/5ft 9.2in wheelbase 28ft 8in/34ft 6.8in/5ft 0.8in Thus, if there were no changes to main landing gear location on the FH-227 (I mention this because one source lists a 2in move aft...), the stretch amounts come to 5ft 0.8in ahead of the main landing gear plus 8.4in aft. Weird... In 1/72, that comes to 0.84in/21.4mm plus 0.12in/0.3mm. For 1/144, halve th

Jim, thank you for the information -- and for your most enjoyable account of how you made a model of the FH-227. Far be it for me to doubt your information, but for some reason, this particular stretch remains utterly shrouded in mystery, with diverse conflicting figures bandied about for all of some 50 years now. I have now found a flight manual on the type from an Australian online source and invested in it. I expect to get it very soon. In addition, a kind sould has promised to scan a mid-1980s article from Aircraft Modelworld which might, or might not, answer the query. Once I have th

Hello, This being more of a US forum, I am hoping someone would answer a query on the dimensions of the American "stretched Friendship." (It is quite another matter why Fokker and Fairchild Hiller went their separate ways to develop different aircraft that are very close, indeed, in payload/range.) All the references I've come across on the FH-227 seem to clash. Most (purely numerically, and likely uncritically picked up one from the other) state a 6-foot stretch. Others, however (including Flight, which is intrinsically more credible), state a 6 ft 5 in stretch. A credible-looking source

Thanks for the helpful tips Skippie! You're very welcome! Just remembered another thing I observe more in the breach than in practice: paint "different panels"_slii-i-i-g-h-tly_ different shades. This makes them stand out from each other just that little bit, and look as if they have panel lines between them. (One shot of extra paint from one "panel" to the next, sharply masked, gives you your subtle panel line!) Also, you can buff or gloss-up one "panel" more than the next. I do it ham-fistedly and end up with chequerboard finishes but I've seen others do it really well. The pain and time

Hi Gambler, Panel lines on the Revell 747-400 are in the right places but they are too deep and wide. This is an old, old argument (like the one about whether airliner windows ought to be glazed or decalled). Here's what I _try_ to do (but most often don't have the time or nerves to do right):- - photograph the panel lines (only worth it if you have a digital camera); - fill them in; - paint, decal, finish as usual - with a very light touch and a very sharp pin, trace the original panel lines so they are just very light scores in the paint/decal/finish. Don't worry if some show and some