WW-I Aircraft for Whiffery.

[Daryl J.]

Jeffrey,

Awesome!!! 


Daryl J.

[jcf]

I had an idea that I shared with Brian Da Basher last week about using a biplane as the basis for a WWI era ZELL (Zero Length Launcher) concept.  The aircraft (of your choice) could be mounted on a short monorail launcher, something just long enough to hold the aircraft with the rockets in place.  This launcher could then be ground mounted or maybe placed on a rail flat car.  Maybe a large truck or early armored vehicle like the British Male tank to create a self-propelled transporter-erector-launcher vehicle for the ZELL aircraft.  So there you have it, crazy or not, it had to be shared. 

Interesting concept, the problem is few, if any, WWI aircraft would be able to take the strain of a rocket assisted launch.
Nor would rockets be necessary, a counterweight or steam powered catapult would work due to the relatively light weight
and biplane layout (lots of wing area = short takeoff) of the majority of aircraft in the period.

Another consideration is that the powder rockets of the period were not very well developed having changed little since the 1840s,
reliability of ignition would be a potentially fatal problem.

One of the Hasegawa 1/72nd scale IJN shipboard catapults mounted on a flatcar or heavy gun type ground emplacement would be ideal.

Jon

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I had an idea that I shared with Brian Da Basher last week about using a biplane as the basis for a WWI era ZELL (Zero Length Launcher) concept.  The aircraft (of your choice) could be mounted on a short monorail launcher, something just long enough to hold the aircraft with the rockets in place.  This launcher could then be ground mounted or maybe placed on a rail flat car.  Maybe a large truck or early armored vehicle like the British Male tank to create a self-propelled transporter-erector-launcher vehicle for the ZELL aircraft.  So there you have it, crazy or not, it had to be shared.

Interesting concept, the problem is few, if any, WWI aircraft would be able to take the strain of a rocket assisted launch. Nor would rockets be necessary, a counterweight or steam powered catapult would work due to the relatively light weight and biplane layout (lots of wing area = short takeoff) of the majority of aircraft in the period.

Another consideration is that the powder rockets of the period were not very well developed having changed little since the 1840s, reliability of ignition would be a potentially fatal problem.

One of the Hasegawa 1/72nd scale IJN shipboard catapults mounted on a flatcar or heavy gun type ground emplacement would be ideal.

Since this is but a WHIF the laws of physics and sensible engineering practices can be tossed out the window to pursue the absurd.  If they can have sharks with lasers, why not a ZELL Biplane? 

[Daryl J.]

If one wants to put a Special Hobby 54mm Nieuport 11 Bebe on landing skids (why not?), one could take the RPM kit of the Model TC armored car, convert it to a tandem axle, remove the armor, put the ZELL rail(s) on and have a rocket on a stem complete with "Made in China" labelling or this massive pulley system that would be a steampunker's delight.....................     The pulley transporter would be another project, of course.


You guys are good!


Daryl J., who got a Fokker F.1 today

[Daryl J.]

Kit specific idea:

Academy 1/32 Nieuport 17:   Cowling back to cockpit on fuselage sides:  'Weaver-stained' brass sheet cut into wide strips, oriented vertically in a lap over lap pattern with lightening holes for a metal forward fuselage.    Vertical tail in aluminum sheet round hole mesh.   Undersurface of wings in the same mesh, leading edge of wings upper sides in aluminum sheet to height of contour, aft of that in fabric...but no ribs, instead a honeycomb structure like the Wellington is apparent.     Cowling also a lap over lap construction all the way around with 'keysheets' at both 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock.   Dorsal aft fuselage sewn together coarsely similar to the belly of a Dr.1, only larger threads.     Tail and wheel covers painted with Willie G. Skull.   Gloss black, gloss white, weathered brass, and titanium gold strutting.     Discovery's Biker BuildOff meets Whatifmodelers.com.    Special Hobby Ni-11 Bebe would also work, perhaps even better.


Daryl J., again thinking aloud and not worried a bit if someone uses an idea 

[Daryl J.]

Kit specific idea:

1/32 Hobbycraft SPAD XIII:   Carbon Fiber main wings, interplane struts, and fuselage center section.  Reduced rigging, high tech filaments used for the wiring.   Ostrich skin seat.    Perforated heat shields along exhaust.   Redone radiator opening.    Mud guards done with a layer of thin solid metal laminated onto a perforated metal outer layer.
Will modify idea once kit in hand circa 3-4 weeks.



Daryl J.

[Taiidantomcat]

Something my brother whiffed up at my request, still not quiet finished but how pretty is this?

[Daryl J.]

The Tomcat fits with the idea I'd had yesterday of putting digital cammo on a Sopwith Camel or SPAD...........



Daryl J.

[Daryl J.]

Check out the wing parts breakdown on Wingnuts new Junkers J.1.   Does it lend itself to all kinds of alternate wing planforms or what?  Wood?  Shape changes?  Extended span. STOL (I'm sure the Swiss did this). etc.       

And the Bristol Fighter in 1/32?   Now *that* kit is a great candidate for the Quadratyre, Marconi equipped variant.   


Daryl J.

[ElectrikBlue]

Check out the wing parts breakdown on Wingnuts new Junkers J.1.   Does it lend itself to all kinds of alternate wing planforms or what?  Wood?  Shape changes?  Extended span. STOL (I'm sure the Swiss did this). etc.       

Daryl, I've tried 'reversing' the airframe of a Junkers D.I, here's the result the Junkers D.II...
a canard version of the Junkers D.I with a tricycle, foldable undercarriage and two rudders moved to the half span position of each wing.


EB

[Doc Yo]

On the notion of a ZEL arrangement for Biplanes, joncarrfarrelly wrote

Nor would rockets be necessary, a counterweight or steam powered catapult would work due to the relatively light weight
and biplane layout (lots of wing area = short takeoff) of the majority of aircraft in the period.

That makes me think of using a trebuchet...I've also been toying with the idea of converting an old
Aurora Gotha to a pair of Coanda turbines...

[GTX]

Check out the wing parts breakdown on Wingnuts new Junkers J.1.   Does it lend itself to all kinds of alternate wing planforms or what?  Wood?  Shape changes?  Extended span. STOL (I'm sure the Swiss did this). etc.       

Daryl, I've tried 'reversing' the airframe of a Junkers D.I, here's the result the Junkers D.II...
a canard version of the Junkers D.I with a tricycle, foldable undercarriage and two rudders moved to the half span position of each wing.


EB

That first one is downright wicked!

Please do some more views of it!

Regards,

Greg

[ChernayaAkula]

EB, that's excellent! 

Taiidantomcat, that F-14 looks great! Too bad I'm afraid of Lozenge patterns. 

[jcf]

On the notion of a ZEL arrangement for Biplanes, joncarrfarrelly wrote

Nor would rockets be necessary, a counterweight or steam powered catapult would work due to the relatively light weight
and biplane layout (lots of wing area = short takeoff) of the majority of aircraft in the period.

That makes me think of using a trebuchet...I've also been toying with the idea of converting an old
Aurora Gotha to a pair of Coanda turbines...

The Coanda jet wasn't a Turbine, it used a compressor driven by a four-cylinder engine, the compressed air was then
conducted to burner cans, mixed with fuel and ignited. Coanda's design was similar in concept to the composite engines
used in the Campini-Caproni, Ohka and MiG I-250.

Jon

[dy031101]

Um...... pusher-prop......