Shipbucket

Sounds nice, can't wait to see them

_________________
best regards
Martin

~~Normerr~~FD stuff~~

Cleaned up 707-320:



Example:

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Complete L-1011 Family:

-300, -400, and -600 were never built.

The -300 was an increased gross weight version with a 9 meter stretch for high density routes. Proposed for Japanese service, it lost out to the 747-100SR, and was not proceeded with. Most notable on this was the lower deck passenger seating. This cabin used the area in the stretch as well as the galley space, and what was the lounge space on the PSA Tristars.
The -400 was to take the fuselage of the -500 combined with the wings and landing gear of the -1. The resulting aircraft would have supported shorter, thinner routes.
The -600 'Bistar' took the -500, and removed the tail engine to provide a twin engine widebody with maximum commonality with the -500. The 1985 entry into service date would put it in direct competition with the A300/310 and the 767.

The Callieverse nose is an AU for Voyager's Isle of California and represents the addition of the navigator's bay to the avionics compartment.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

NICEEEEEE!!!

Is possible to have some specification about the -300/-400/-600?

_________________
Welcome to my Kingdom!!!
( http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8293 )

Sure. I've added them to the post.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Very nice work on those Tristars. Never heard of that -300 variant. Would have lost the elegance of the standard variant.

_________________
My deviantart account
http://cascadiasb.deviantart.com/?rnrd=191663

Ok. After over a year and a half of "I don't want to work on this", I got the major versions of the VC.10 done. Enjoy:

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Nice work TJ.
Btw, those main wings look familiar

_________________
My deviantart account
http://cascadiasb.deviantart.com/?rnrd=191663

Sorry TJ for not answering or responding, but you did the SB VC10 much better than I would do.

Thank you. Yes. After some research (that I should have done years ago), I came to the conclusion that the different wing versions would be functionally indistinguishable at SB scale. After checking your work, I determined that it met the criteria of GOOD ENOUGH™ and used it.
No problem. To be honest, I didn't remember who I handed my work files off to.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆