Page 2 of 2
Posted: 19 Jul 2006, 22:42
by Chris558
Thanks chaps! The comment I was dreading was: "Oh that's a nice IL-62!"
A few of my Bev now (in memory of XH124) this is in 1/72 scale, so that's a whopping 69cm span, 42.5cm long................
Oops, those engines needed dusting
before taking the shot :roll:
[/i]
Posted: 19 Jul 2006, 22:54
by TobyV
Posted: 19 Jul 2006, 23:00
by Chris558
Beautifully ugly, Toby! But magnificent whichever way you look at it!
Posted: 19 Jul 2006, 23:06
by TobyV
Looking at your model of the VC10, it looks as if it should be doing 500+mph just sitting there, but to me its always looked as if aerodynamicists never played a part in the design of the Beverley at all
Maybe engineers better acquainted with bluff body flow
Posted: 19 Jul 2006, 23:21
by Chris558
Well, the Bev was designed simply for getting the load there..............e..v..e..n..t..u..a..l..l..y
Purely a practical design, speed and range were not considered important in the political climate of the day. I suppose the fact that it was slow meant there was little point in smoothing off the shape.
But I do like the big blunt nose, and the height of the thing, it looks very macho and capable, especially viewed head-on.
Posted: 19 Jul 2006, 23:25
by Garry Russell
Wow that Beverley is magnificent
So ugly it's beautiful.
:tab:
I remember XH124 just before she went out of service.
Garry
Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 06:17
by DispatchDragon
Chris
They really are beauty and the Beast - The only Bev I ever got near was the one Courtline purchased intending to haul RB211's in for the
Tristar which was actually smart idea at the time seeing as the early 211s
had a habit of throwing fans (so Im told) - Fortunatly Court went TU before
they ever had to use the thing - just considering a jolly from LTN-PMI would have been daunting
Leif
