Italeri KC-135 review

[Aaron]

Sprue Bros is listing a 1/72 KC-135 and I was wondering if anyone had any info on the kit - is the fit good, are panel lines raised or recessed, etc.

Thanks for any info,

-Aaron

[niart17]

i assume it's the same plastic as the old AMT kit?

if so, it's not bad as far as detail. the panel lines are recessed and maybe a tad on the soft side, but overall well done. i have a few lines on my examples that fade in and out along the wings. the fit is ok but only once you can get rid of the warpage. i have two of the kc-135 and one of the Arial/ALOTS and all three have really bad fuselage twist. the plastic is pretty forgiving though so when you get that out, it's fits pretty good. there is an article somewhere about how to beef-up the wing spar, which will be needed with such a long wingspan.

The interior is really well done even though a lot of it isn't visable. i've seen some great builds come from them despite the few short-commings.

if this isn't the same as the ole AMT kit, then forget everything i just said.

Bill

Edited December 29, 2008 by niart17

[richter111]

What he said, the kit is good, can be worked up nicely, and there are a ton of variants outthere, By the way I have everyone except the R version

Ric

[Jennings]

The trick to the AMT/Ertl/Heller/Airfix/Italeri KC-135 assembly is to glue up the top and outer bottom wing parts and let them dry really well. Align them as usual. Then glue the lower wing center section to the fuselage and let it dry really well. Then glue the assembled wings onto the lower center section and the wing root joints, IGNORING the horrible fit at the lower wing inner/outer section join. If you get the dihedral correct on the major assemblies, you'll end up with about a 3mm gap between the inner and outer lower wing sections. Fortunately most of it will be hidden by your outboard nacelles, but for the rest, just shim in some sheet styrene to fill the gap and re-scribe the missing panel detail. There is no need for a spar (it will needlessly complicate your assembly). If you follow the above advice, you'll get a nice looking wing structure.

The cockpit glass is another story entirely. I've never seen it successfully accomplished. The kit design is beyond horrible there, and aside from vacuforming your own new cab section (I'd kill for a clear cast resin cockpit cab, btw, if anyone's interested), there's no real way to make it look nice. One of the more stupid design decisions on that kit.

J

[Steve jahn]

The trick to the AMT/Ertl/Heller/Airfix/Italeri KC-135 assembly is to glue up the top and outer bottom wing parts and let them dry really well. Align them as usual. Then glue the lower wing center section to the fuselage and let it dry really well. Then glue the assembled wings onto the lower center section and the wing root joints, IGNORING the horrible fit at the lower wing inner/outer section join. If you get the dihedral correct on the major assemblies, you'll end up with about a 3mm gap between the inner and outer lower wing sections. Fortunately most of it will be hidden by your outboard nacelles, but for the rest, just shim in some sheet styrene to fill the gap and re-scribe the missing panel detail. There is no need for a spar (it will needlessly complicate your assembly). If you follow the above advice, you'll get a nice looking wing structure.

The cockpit glass is another story entirely. I've never seen it successfully accomplished. The kit design is beyond horrible there, and aside from vacuforming your own new cab section (I'd kill for a clear cast resin cockpit cab, btw, if anyone's interested), there's no real way to make it look nice. One of the more stupid design decisions on that kit.

J

As I remember when I built the kit when it first came out, the outer wings will start to droop over time if you do not put in a spar. At least mine did. I remember it happening to other people too.

Steve

[ElectroSoldier]

Getting the shape isnt hard, keeping it is the problem.

Thats the reason for the fix

[GearDownPlease]

Getting the shape isnt hard, keeping it is the problem.

:huh: :P !!! Will have to show the wife your message, she really needs to understand once for all :) !

Extremely happy to see this kit re-re-re-released, the detailing on the landing gears and flight deck/cargo (the toilet paper stuff in the cabinet is lovely) is really well done. Good point is that the decal sheet should be even better than in previous releases. Shame about the windshield weird design (Kurt's resin 727 nose section _the upper portion indeed_ should work fine here), wing dihedral and fuselage warpage.

Steven

Edited December 30, 2008 by GearDownPlease

[ElectroSoldier]

Im hoping there is a nice SAC decal option in the kit, I know she wore the ADC grey scheme for a while.

Ive managed to piece a sheet together out of other sheets for a plane jane bird but another ADC KC is always welcome

[Jennings]

Getting the shape isnt hard, keeping it is the problem.

Thats the reason for the fix

The problem before was AMT/Ertl's extremely soft styrene mix. They mixed their styrene to allow for car bodies to be flexed over the interior & frame without breaking, and they used the same high vinyl content plastic for their aircraft - with the results you saw on the KC wing. Other companies don't use nearly as much vinyl content, thus the plastic is a lot stiffer (as it should be) and will probably be less prone to bending.

Dumb idea to make airplane kits out of that soft, gummy plastic to start with. But then we see where a whole succession of dumb ideas got AMT/Ertl, don't we?

J

[Paul Mullins]

I have an old one of these that was originally a british E-3A Sentry with the option for the new or old engines. I turned it into the Speckled Trout. The CINC USAF bird. BTW. It's named for an Elaine Trout in honor of her coming up with the idea, and they called it the Speckled Trout because Mrs. Trout had freckles. The original was retired, and they took a KC-135R to use as the new one. Just ordered another KC-135R from Sprue Brothers. After five years, plus more sitting in the stash, I have no problems with wing droop.

Paul

[Jennings]

I have an old one of these that was originally a british E-3A Sentry with the option for the new or old engines. I turned it into the Speckled Trout. The CINC USAF bird. BTW. It's named for an Elaine Trout in honor of her coming up with the idea, and they called it the Speckled Trout because Mrs. Trout had freckles. The original was retired, and they took a KC-135R to use as the new one. Just ordered another KC-135R from Sprue Brothers. After five years, plus more sitting in the stash, I have no problems with wing droop.

Paul

You're confusing apples with oranges. Airfix and Heller boxed the Heller E-3 Sentry kit with old and new engines. We're talking about the AMT/Ertl/Heller/Italeri KC-135. Not even remotely the same kits. Speckled Trout was a C-135C transport, while the E-3 is based on the 707-320B...

J

[ElectroSoldier]

You're confusing apples with oranges. Airfix and Heller boxed the Heller E-3 Sentry kit with old and new engines. We're talking about the AMT/Ertl/Heller/Italeri KC-135. Not even remotely the same kits. Speckled Trout was a C-135C transport, while the E-3 is based on the 707-320B...

J

I thought the USAF used an existing C-137 for the conversion?

Did they aquire and use a civil 707-320B for the first one? I thought they were EC-137Ds.

Edited December 31, 2008 by ElectroSoldier

[Paul Mullins]

Since you mentioned Heller in your list, I'm reasonably sure we're we're talking about essentially the same kit. The Air Force went out and bought a butt load of old 707 airliners (all different versions), and turned them into all sorts of different things, Rivet Joint, Looking Glass, Speckled Trout, etc.etc. Just to name a few. And, even managed to ue a few for actual air to air refueling. If you want to split hairs, go ahead, I like the look, and I made my Airfix/Heller/ERTL etc etc. a Speckled Trout since the Air Force retired the original to the Edwards Museum and replaced it with a KC-135R. It can be white and chrome with a dark blue/black stripe, white, gray and chrome, white, blue, grey and chrome, and/or any other color you choose to paint it. Quite frankly, I did not join this community to be told I'm wrong every time I post something. If I wanted to experience that, I would simply stay at work for 24/7. It really ruins my enjoyment of this hobby when mistakes are pointed out and then magnified a thousand fold. In fact, I'm seriously considerning leaving this community because of it. I have enough faults pointed to me out at work, I don't appreciate or need them pointed out to me here in a hobby that until this post, gave me great enjoyment.

Good Bye

Paul

[Gordon]

Paul.

Carry on the doin' your modelling your way mate. It's the most important thing.

Don't be put of by a few people who nit-pick, (even if your wrong ).

Just carry on enjoying your plastic, be like me--I couldn't care less wot others say, I'm happy with me plastic and that's all that matters right?

[Jennings]

I thought the USAF used an existing C-137 for the conversion?

Did they aquire and use a civil 707-320B for the first one? I thought they were EC-137Ds.

Okay, whoa there Nellie. If we're completely off the subject of any Boeing C-135 derivative, okay, but let's not cloud already murky waters. The E-3 Sentry is a *completely* different animal, and only a first cousin at best, from the C-135 series.

With that out of the way...

The two prototypes of the Sentry were called EC-137Ds. They were new-build airframes (71-1407 & -1408) that were converted 707-320B airliners (built as such, with windows and all, and standard civilian JT3D engines). The MDS got changed to E-3 around 1973 or so IIRC. The EC-137D and E-3 are one and the same airplane, just that they didn't continue to use the EC-137D moniker. The real C/VC-137s are in no way related to the E-3 program. They're pure tansports, plus one a/c used as an ad-hoc command post (that didn't come along until relatively recent years). No others besides those first two Sentry prototypes ever got any kind of an "EC" MDS designation.

J

[Jennings]

Don't be put of by a few people who nit-pick

You call that nit picking? He's talking about two completely different airplanes. Confusion among modelers on this topic (one near and dear to my heart) is common, and I was simply trying to set him right. Confusing the two models would be like putting a P-47 in P-51 markings. They're both single engined fighters, but that's about all they have in common. The E-3 and C-135 series are *totally* different airplanes, only related (as noted above) by being more or less first cousins. They share almost no common parts. That's hardly nitpicking.

J

[Gordon]

As Paul Said---'Since you mentioned Heller in your list, I'm reasonably sure we're we're talking about essentially the same kit.'

Note the 'reasonably sure'

He did NOT say they were the same.

A simple statement to that effect would have been sufficient ok?

[J.C. Bahr]

The Air Force went out and bought a butt load of old 707 airliners (all different versions), and turned them into all sorts of different things, Rivet Joint, Looking Glass, Speckled Trout, etc.etc.

You're right, they did use parts off of a bunch of old airliner 707's to upgrade engines/pods on the 135 series aircraft, but those that you listed were not modified from 707 airframes. The 135 and the 707 are completely different animals from the factory.

If you want to split hairs, go ahead, Quite frankly, I did not join this community to be told I'm wrong every time I post something. If I wanted to experience that, I would simply stay at work for 24/7. It really ruins my enjoyment of this hobby when mistakes are pointed out and then magnified a thousand fold. In fact, I'm seriously considerning leaving this community because of it. I have enough faults pointed to me out at work, I don't appreciate or need them pointed out to me here in a hobby that until this post, gave me great enjoyment

Sorry you feel that way, but you're posting confusing and mis-leading statements and nobody's trying to "magnify a thousand fold" any "faults" or "mistakes" on them... but simply trying to keep things straight for others who actually do come here to learn about such specifics. You need to realize that it's just not as simple as looking the same in appearance.

And to both you and Gordon, both respective airframes have been issued by Heller... but the 135 series are not their original kit and again are not the same as the 707 series that they originally did... so that muddies the waters in these types of discussions.

[ElectroSoldier]

Sorry I was talking about the EC-137D becoming the first E-3A, I think those who see both a 707-320B series and a Dash 80 series jet side by side they will have no problems seeing the fact they are superficialy similar only in over all looks, the size difference will show people for a start.

The problems come when you say a 707-320B was used to make the first E-3 and then go on to say a C-135 was used to etc etc.

A 707-320B is to an E-3 as a Dash 80 is to the KC-135R for instance.

Using a civil name for one and the go on to use a military name for the other in the same sentence is confusing for people who arent really sure.

What Im not sure about is the E-3's after the first two, of course being the type they are makes them 707-320B's but were they built by Boeing with the express intention of making them into the E-3 or were they built and used as a VC/C-137 before they were converted into E-3's.

I didnt think they were converted VC/C-137's but new builds for the E-3 "program", as were most of the other planes that use the 707-320B as a basis, like the E-6 murcury, I know they were bought from new with the intention of making an E-6 out of them, so they were always called an E-6

[Deino]

Back to Italeri's re-release ... any idea what markings are in the box for the decals ??!

Deino

[Dave Williams]

This shows the markings options.

http://store.spruebrothers.com/Product17561

[Spruemeister]

Seek, and ye shall find.....

http://store.spruebrothers.com/shared/Stor...et=products.asp

Rick L.

[Spruemeister]

"Fast Draw" Williams beat me..

[Jennings]

It really ruins my enjoyment of this hobby when mistakes are pointed out and then magnified a thousand fold. In fact, I'm seriously considerning leaving this community because of it. I have enough faults pointed to me out at work, I don't appreciate or need them pointed out to me here in a hobby that until this post, gave me great enjoyment.

Good Bye

Paul

I'm also sorry you feel that way, but honestly, if people trying to sort out common confusion so as to increase your level of knowledge about airplanes and models thereof causes you that much grief, then perhaps it's better if you don't frequent any discussion boards (and perhaps you should ask yourself why that is). Neither I nor anyone else who has posted in this thread has said anything in *any* way derogatory, belittling, or otherwise inflammatory to anyone. Facts do not have emotions attached to them. If you feel that's the case, then I suggest you re-read all of it and don't put words or inflection into what other people have written.

The 707 and 135 series are my favorite airplanes in the world. I'm very knowledgeable of the *many* variations thereof, and I really enjoy helping other people understand them. It's like a really complicated family tree, with all sorts of famous cousins who have been everything from members of a brute squad to famous scientists, and it's fascinating (to me) to try to understand the inter-relationships of all the cousins.

Again, I'm really sorry you feel put upon by this. Nobody has anything personal against you. Hell, I don't even know you, and wouldn't know you in a crowd if we ran over each other. So why or how could I (or anyone else here) possibly have anything personal against you?

J

[Jennings]

Sorry I was talking about the EC-137D becoming the first E-3A, I think those who see both a 707-320B series and a Dash 80 series jet side by side they will have no problems seeing the fact they are superficialy similar only in over all looks, the size difference will show people for a start.

It's confusing...

The problems come when you say a 707-320B was used to make the first E-3 and then go on to say a C-135 was used to etc etc.

Indeed. That's why sooooo many people are confused about this whole area of discussion.

A 707-320B is to an E-3 as a Dash 80 is to the KC-135R for instance.

Using a civil name for one and the go on to use a military name for the other in the same sentence is confusing for people who arent really sure.

Exactly. But that's the way history is. Your above statement isn't actually correct. The E-3 still uses the Boeing Model 707 type certificate. The KC-135 is a Boeing Model 717 (the real 717, not the one built in Long Beach that's really an MD-95). Both the 707 and the KC-135 are direct progeny of the Dash-80. The 707-100 series could sort of be described as the half brother of the C-135 series, since they both descended directly from the Dash-80 (but neither is identical to it in any way). But both are made from different design/engineering philosophies, and are made of different materials (totally different alloys). So you can't say they're truly brothers, since they don't share all the same genes, as it were.

What Im not sure about is the E-3's after the first two, of course being the type they are makes them 707-320B's but were they built by Boeing with the express intention of making them into the E-3 or were they built and used as a VC/C-137 before they were converted into E-3's.

The first two EC-137D AWACS prototypes were built specifically as prototypes for the AWACS program. That being the case however, doesn't mean they weren't built on the line as airliners. They were. They had full cabin windows (which you can clearly see blanked off in the early photos of them in NMF). They also had regular 707-320B JT3D engines, nacelles, and pylons. In every way except for the modified aft fuselage structure for the radome mount and the blanked off windows, they were 707-320B airliners. 71-1407 (cn 20518) and 71-1408 (cn 20519) were never flown by the USAF (or anyone else) for any purpose other than testing the AWACS concept. Both went directly from the test program back to Boeing for conversion to full E-3A (and later E-3B) standard, and both are in the active fleet today.

I didnt think they were converted VC/C-137's but new builds for the E-3 "program", as were most of the other planes that use the 707-320B as a basis, like the E-6 murcury, I know they were bought from new with the intention of making an E-6 out of them, so they were always called an E-6

That's true (see above), but while they're ordered and delivered as E-3s or E-6s (or Saudi KE-3s), they're all still 707-320Bs on their type certificates. They're built to civil standards just like other 707s, including being made of the same alloys as all other 707s, and (critically) on the same production line as civilian 707s. They have obvious military upgrades and substitutions (avionics, engines, etc), but deep down, they're still 707-320Bs.

J