Quad Tilt Rotor

[kitnut617]

Robert, I posted in the HS.681 thread that a Kawasaki C.1 might make a good basis for a conversion, but there's only a 1/200 Hase kit available that I know of.

An-12 around the same size as a C-130.  C.141, Il.76 & An-22are a similar size to the C-17.

Rumours are that Revell are serious about kitting the A400M, maybe you could use one of those & it'd fit right in the middle between the C-130 & C-17.  The An-70 would have fit in too, if only eh?

Not too helpful I'm afraid, either everything I think of is a similar size or you can't get a kit of it!

Hi Simon,

I saw the Kawasaki C.1 that you posted, but isn't it about the size of a C-123 Provider.  Incidently, I've seen a picture of a Provider fitted with two jet pods just like the C.1, and I had always wondered if the Japanese had bought the design.  The engines were in a couple of B-47 pods which jogs my memory a bit, the pods had two engines each.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contribution...edijk/3040L.jpg

I had thought about a conversion there too but at the time I thought a C-123 kit was a bit pricey.  But considering some of the kits I've bought recently it isn't.

Robert

[jcf]

I saw the Kawasaki C.1 that you posted, but isn't it about the size of a C-123 Provider.  Incidently, I've seen a picture of a Provider fitted with two jet pods just like the C.1, and I had always wondered if the Japanese had bought the design.  The engines were in a couple of B-47 pods which jogs my memory a bit, the pods had two engines each.

Hi Robert,
the Kawasaki C-1 has absolutely nothing to do with the Fairchild C-123 design, the C-123 originated during WWII as a glider...the Chase XCG-20.  
Although its wingspan is ten feet shorter, overall, the C-1 is a larger and heavier aircraft capable of twice the speed and with an MTOW greater by almost 40,00 pounds.

The J47 powered XC-123A didn't get past the prototype stage.

Cheers, Jon

[Mossie]

I saw the Kawasaki C.1 that you posted, but isn't it about the size of a C-123 Provider. Incidently, I've seen a picture of a Provider fitted with two jet pods just like the C.1, and I had always wondered if the Japanese had bought the design. The engines were in a couple of B-47 pods which jogs my memory a bit, the pods had two engines each.

The C.1 is closer to a C-130H.  Length of the two machines is nearly identical, but there's a greater taper to the rear of the C.1, giving it less useable cargo space.  On max take off weight, the Herc beats the C.1 hands down, 175,000lb compared to 99,120lb.  This is one of the reasons the C.1 never got an export order, although it surprises me, it's a lighter aircraft with more thrust available.  Probably down to the wing, it's 10m longer on the Herc.

EDIT, made a hash of the quotes!

[kitnut617]

Some of my donor kits for this project have arrived this week, the Transall and a C-130K.  Got the MPC C-130K real cheap (US$7.00 and just in a bag) from Rare-Plane Detective's Gulfport warehouse moving sale.   The Transall I got from Squadron and it's the Heller kit, which has the added benifit of being the old Bobkit model.  I've dry assembled the whole fuselage to see how it stacks up against the V-22 I have already made.

The C-130 is going to be for the gyrodyne conversion.

As I surmised, this QTR could operate with it's engines in the forward flight position while on the ground, but with the undercarriage set in it's present form, only just.  It wouldn't be much of a quess that the undercarriage could be made to elevate for such a scenero.  From the picture I posted further back in this thread, the kit fuselage is almost perfect for diameter but is way too long at the moment.  I think the forward fuselage will have to be shortened and of course the tail will have to go.  The tail in the picture looks a bit like a 737 tail so that's how I'm going to model my QTR.  I'll copy the Monogram 1/72 737 kit's tail I have.

All the removed tail and horizontal surfaces will be put to good use though.  The bits have solved the final piece of the puzzle of another What-If project I have been considering and have gathered all the bits for. My Shackleton MR.4 project.  The MR.4 was a much larger version which was to have a single fin and rudder, much like how the Privateer evolved from the Liberator.

Cheers for now,  Robert

[jcf]

As I surmised, this QTR could operate with it's engines in the forward flight position while on the ground, but with the undercarriage set in it's present form, only just.  It wouldn't be much of a quess that the undercarriage could be made to elevate for such a scenero.

Hi Robert,
actually there is no logical or operational reason for a tilt-rotor to operate in the horizontal mode while on the ground, taxi and take-off performance would be better with the rotors at an angle. So the complexity of "elevating gear" is an unnecessary addition to an already mechanically complex beast.

Cheers, Jon

[kitnut617]

Hi Robert,
actually there is no logical or operational reason for a tilt-rotor to operate in the horizontal mode while on the ground, taxi and take-off performance would be better with the rotors at an angle. So the complexity of "elevating gear" is an unnecessary addition to an already mechanically complex beast.

Cheers, Jon

Hi Jon,

You're right, there isn't except if they wanted to take off with an exceptionally heavy load, say a rescue mission.  An VSTOL aircraft uses less power flying forward than to take off vertically plus you'd have the added benifit of air flowing over the wings creating more lift.  I can see what you mean though about the rotors tilted up a bit.  That would be better in this QTR model scenero.

The other reason I was thinking is an engine out and prop not working scenero,  on the V-22 if a prop stopped rotating you've got no option but to get out, on a quad rotor you could still fly and land but I wouldn't think that you could land vertically on three props.  I'm talking props not working, not engines out as the V-22 has a transfer system as you know.

Robert

[jcf]

Hi Robert,
actually there is no logical or operational reason for a tilt-rotor to operate in the horizontal mode while on the ground, taxi and take-off performance would be better with the rotors at an angle. So the complexity of "elevating gear" is an unnecessary addition to an already mechanically complex beast.

Cheers, Jon

Hi Jon,

You're right, there isn't except if they wanted to take off with an exceptionally heavy load, say a rescue mission.  An VSTOL aircraft uses less power flying forward than to take off vertically plus you'd have the added benifit of air flowing over the wings creating more lift.  I can see what you mean though about the rotors tilted up a bit.  That would be better in this QTR model scenero.

The other reason I was thinking is an engine out and prop not working scenero,  on the V-22 if a prop stopped rotating you've got no option but to get out, on a quad rotor you could still fly and land but I wouldn't think that you could land vertically on three props.  I'm talking props not working, not engines out as the V-22 has a transfer system as you know.

Robert

If you lost more than one I'd rather use explosive bolts to blow off the blades and go in as a glider.

Feathering those twisted prop-rotors wouldn't give much advantage and freewheeling would only generate drag.

Rotor assemblies tilted at about 15 degrees from the horizontal and large flaps on the wings would give amazing STOL performance and would probably still work even with a prop out.

Cheers, Jon

[kitnut617]

I've found another sketch of the QTR I'm planning to build, and this reveals some details.  One which I hadn't taken into account was how the undercarriage would be orientated.  

From this link:

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/2119/v448lc.jpg

it would seem that it would be like a Chinook     I'm going to re-access my thinking a bit.  The two Italeri V-22s arrived this week too, and I've been giving the project some more thought now that I've got bits and pieces to look at.  

So what happens while moving things around the house, I found my razor saw hadn't been packed away with all the rest of the modeling stuff,   it was just lying there, really it was. And I just couldn't stop myself -------      

Robert

[Jschmus]

Somebody was looking for 1/144 V-22s?

These come pre-assembled, but according to the post on SSM, they are relatively easy to disassemble for painting or kitbashing.

1/144 V-22s etc.

[RLBH]

I have a Bell PDF file about the quad tiltrotor, which contains a good deal of interesting background information, including expected dimensions and performance. I can't remember the URL it came from, but can email it out if anyone wants it.

[kitnut617]

I have a Bell PDF file about the quad tiltrotor, which contains a good deal of interesting background information, including expected dimensions and performance. I can't remember the URL it came from, but can email it out if anyone wants it.

Hi,

Could you PM me the address please, I'd be very interested in that.

Robert

[Archibald]

me too!!!  

[RotorheadTX]

Somebody was looking for 1/144 V-22s?

1/144 V-22s etc.

Yeah, that was me; pissin' and moanin' for all to hear.

Guess I have to shut up and get building now..............  

[kitnut617]

If you lost more than one I'd rather use explosive bolts to blow off the blades and go in as a glider.

Feathering those twisted prop-rotors wouldn't give much advantage and freewheeling would only generate drag.

Rotor assemblies tilted at about 15 degrees from the horizontal and large flaps on the wings would give amazing STOL performance and would probably still work even with a prop out.

Cheers, Jon

Here's a question for you Jon,  the max vertical take-off for the V-22 is 47,500 lbs, short run it jumps to 55,000 lbs.  Would it be safe to assume that for the QTR it would be double that, or are there other factors to consider.  

Reason I ask is that the wings when offered up to the larger airframe of the C160, look a little skinny and the wing area doesn't seem to match that of the C160 either.  The C160 has a max load of 112,000+lbs though so it might be alright.

Studying the bits I don't think that the expolding bolts would be an option on this aircraft, because if the props are in the forward flying position, the front props are directly in line with the pilot.  There would be no control on where the flying bits and pieces would end up as I don't think the blades are synchronized in anyway. If the blades are in the hovering position the blown off bits would end up taking the tail out and other things too.

Robert

[kitnut617]

Some more bits arrived for my QTR gunship.  I had been looking for some guns and bought an Italeri AC-130A kit to rob but I think I'll build it instead.  

I did get some 1/35 Miniguns made by Legend Productions which when compared to the 30mm Vulcan in 1/72 are very close in size.  These Miniguns are very nicely detailed BTW and made in resin, you get two complete guns and 4 ammo boxes all for US$13.25.

I got some tubing too to make 1/72 scale 20mm guns so I might have a go at a rotary cannon using these.