The Backwards Group Build

[SimonR]

I was looking at a 1/32 Revell Hs.162 and was thinking of turning the cockpit and engine around so the narrow end is at the front and the horizontal stabs become canards.  How about this for a GB: You build an aircraft from any kit or combination of kits the only rule is that the fuselage must be backwards as compared to the original design. What was the nose is now the tail and vice versa.

[ysi_maniac]

I think it is a good idea. Anyway, go with your Salamander.

[Radish]

I applaud it....goodo.  

[Brian da Basher]

Wow I really like this idea! Maybe if there's enough interest we could slot it in after the annual 1 Week GB.

Simon feel free to keep tabs on this and if you get at least 8 members to commit let me know and I'll see what looks good for a spot on the calendar. If you want to come up with some rules that'd be a nice start as well as finding someone to moderate it.

Brian da Basher

[John Howling Mouse]

I have an A-10 that will be reversed into a sort of "X-Wing" fighter that will fit this bill.

 

[Mossie]

Not backwards, but more on it's side.  I've often thought about what an EE Lightning would look like with a conventional side-by-side engines rather than the unusual over-&-under layout.  Don't know if it'd qualify in your rules Simon?

[GTX]

I've often thought about what an EE Lightning would look like with a conventional side-by-side engines rather than the unusual over-&-under layout.

This would look a bit like the CA-23:






Even if not part of this GB, I say go for it!!!

Regards,

Greg

[Mossie]

Wow, thanks Greg, One of those aircraft I never knew existed!  I've seen a few designs in BSP that would have fitted the bill, but the CA-23 is almost exactly what I'd envisaged, except I'd have kept the Lightnings circular intake.  The main one was the Bristol Type 177 which studied both layouts (I'm pretty sure EE would have done at some stage too), but it never looked 'quite right' to me, too much taper in the tail:


Scanned from Pritish Secret Projects Since 1950: Jet Fighters

I've got a of lot projects planned, & at the rate I build it'll probably just remain an idea, but a GB might give me the impetus I needed.  It wouldn't be as simple as turning th Lightning over & re-positioning the cockpit, damn EE didn't make the Lightning symetrical!  I'd thought of almost entirely scratch building using the forward fuselage mated to two lengths of plastic tube, or taking the top halves of two Lightning kits (if anyone knows of a kit that is seperated horizontally, let me know!).  Would need a lot of work, but I like the idea, especially now I've seen that CA-23!

[Captain Canada]

What kind of crazy backwards idea is that ?

 

[Mossie]

Slighty barmy eh? :dum: Maybe if this GB was 'backwards, upside down, side-on, on-it's-end, inside-out (?!?) etc. it attract more members & more creativity?  'Alternate orientation' maybe?  Just an idea.

[SimonR]

Slighty barmy eh? :dum: Maybe if this GB was 'backwards, upside down, side-on, on-it's-end, inside-out (?!?) etc. it attract more members & more creativity?  'Alternate orientation' maybe?  Just an idea.

'Alternate Orientation' is a great name! So, hypothetically, who would be in for an AO GB? Who is interested in Alternate Orientations?

[Brian da Basher]

I'm in!

Brian da Basher

[B777LR]

I could imagine converting a P-51D into a twin boom pusher  prop......

[GTX]

Who is interested in Alternate Orientations?

I'm not touching that!!!

Regards,

Greg

[Mossie]

Who is interested in Alternate Orientations?

You know when you say something & you don't realise quite what you've said until someone points it out???      

I guess Rad is in then, and judging on the pic I posted earlier, Mav is probably in too!  Well, since I've made a thing about a rule change, I guess I should be too!

Come on (or should that be come out?) Greg, loose your inhibitions, you know you want too!!!