1/144 "Peaceliner" in progress

[kitnut617]

I hope you raised the gear height so that she's got ground clearance with those big props spinning.  Pity the poor ground tech if he's in the wrong end of that...

The main u/c wouldn't have to change in height (they remain the same no matter where the wing is positioned), the nose one would though by almost the depth of the fuselage

[sequoiaranger]

This project really looks nice! It appears, however, that there is a blue "blindfold" over the cockpit. May I presume that will come off to reveal the cockpit windows framed in blue?

[Edit: Oh--just read back a little--decals for windows!]

Seeing the ends where the engines will be, it almost looks like "we" could make it a jetliner with intakes scooped into the leading edges. I always favor props, anyway, so I will retract my suggestion!

Which airline will be graced with this graceful-looking bird?

[Brian da Basher]

Hehehe I'm keeping the livery secret for now, but you'll find out in another day or two.

<snip>
Also, isn't it kinda...odd...that the DC-6 nose blends in so seemingly with practically no modification? Convair and Douglas were separate companies, right?

Actually, the B-36 fuselage was about 1/8 of an inch wider than the DC-6 nose. I was able to get the nose to fit by making a V shaped gap in the nose just aft of the flight deck and filling in the space with scrap plastic.

It's odd that the 1/72 B-36 sells for $30 but the smaller 1/144 scale version goes for over $45. 

Brian da Basher

[Just call me Ray]

Also, isn't it kinda...odd...that the DC-6 nose blends in so seemingly with practically no modification? Convair and Douglas were separate companies, right?

There's a lot of aircraft which have a common sized fuselage diameter, about 12'-6".  These two just happen to be fall in this list (I believe the B-36 fuselage is a bit wider though, maybe 13'-0").  AFAIK, 12'-6" diameter in airliners was a requirement of most airlines of the time (someones going to correct me for sure)  I'm using a wrecked B-36 kit fuselage as a core for my Avro Atlantic for instance.

Oh.

I was kinda hoping that maybe this wasn't such a coincidence and maybe some Convair engineer thought of this in real life. Because, once again, it just looks so right

Also, I hope it is a United bird. It would look so right in vintage United colors, and some of my old flight instructors were/are United pilots. Even if the airline isn't having a lot of luck in the past decade from an economic or customer service aspect.

[Eddie M.]

Once again, you have come up with something that puts a big ol' grin on my face. Makes me want to find something to do with my DC-6 fuselage that's sitting in the parts box. Get work BdaB!

[Sauragnmon]

I dunno... the props on the B-36 were bloody huge, and the problem is, if you don't have a long enough gear, and the props are situated wrong, when she finally gets to the point she starts nosing up, you'd have to be careful about the props meeting the runway, especially with a push-prop layout.  The early testing of the Shinden had that problem with a bent prop because it hit the ground when trying the first takeoff roll.  That's why they put the wheels on the bottom of the tails.

[Brian da Basher]

<snip>

Also, I hope it is a United bird. It would look so right in vintage United colors, and some of my old flight instructors were/are United pilots. Even if the airline isn't having a lot of luck in the past decade from an economic or customer service aspect.

United would be an excellent choice, but I lack the decals. I 've got some Pan Am decals, but they're too small for this bird.

Brian da Basher

P.S. Eddie it would be very interesting to see what you do with a DC-6. If memory serves, the U.S. Navy used them. Blue Angels support transport, maybe?

[frinklemur]

But there was a cargo version XC-99.  One was build and used by the USAF for a while.  It was a monster with a double deck interior.  It had two rows of windows along the side and would have carried a bunch of people a long way if sold to the airlines.

Ed

It still exists too, it's being totally restored (down in Arizona somewhere I think).  It was used to transport rush items like engines from the States to Hawaii.
I've got a 1/72 conversion of it in my stash, it's made by Gene Hooker in the States

I'm not sure if all of it is being restored down in Arizona.  I've seen portions of the upper fuselage, tail, surfaces, at Wright Patterson in Dayton.  Maybe they're having to ship it up piece by piece.

[kitnut617]

I dunno... the props on the B-36 were bloody huge, and the problem is, if you don't have a long enough gear, and the props are situated wrong, when she finally gets to the point she starts nosing up, you'd have to be careful about the props meeting the runway, especially with a push-prop layout.  The early testing of the Shinden had that problem with a bent prop because it hit the ground when trying the first takeoff roll.  That's why they put the wheels on the bottom of the tails.

I think Sauragnmon, that the u/c on the B-36 were designed more for the prop clearance.  Because of that the fuselage was able to be positioned lower and in take-off attitude, the prop tips and rear fuselage underside have more or less the same ground clearance when the aircraft rotates for take-off.  In Brian's scenario the rotation would be the same, but would only concern prop tip clearance as the lower fuselage would be much higher.

[Just call me Ray]

Dang, well if you don't have the United decals maybe I'll go ahead and give it a try myself

And if you're really that worried about prop strikes, just do what they did for the seaplane 37 and use smaller props. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it

[Brian da Basher]

Dang, well if you don't have the United decals maybe I'll go ahead and give it a try myself

And if you're really that worried about prop strikes, just do what they did for the seaplane 37 and use smaller props. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it

You ought to Ray! I thought about changing my plans and trying the old United livery, but I don't have letters in the right sizes. Oddly enough, I've got the 1930s United shield logo from a Boeing 247.

Here's a pic of the old United scheme. Not too hard to pull off if you've got the letters and some masking tape.



As for the prop clearance, I'm building it gear-up so it can join the ceiling fleet. Still, I imagined it with nice long legs.

Brian da Basher

[ysi_maniac]

The XC-99 was on display in San Antonio for a good many years at Kelly AFB where it deteriorated. Now its going bit by bit to the AF museum in Dayton. Wikipedia says that then whole plane has been moved, but last I knew they had cut off the upper deck, the tail, and most of the wing panels and shipped them to Dayton, leaving the lower fuselage and the wing spars at Kelly until they can cut them up and ship them to Dayton and then put it all back together. http://www.air-and-space.com/xc99.htm has some good pictures.

Hi, see the youtube videos linked to this page, particularly the Pogo's one

Sorry, a little off topic.

[upnorth]

Beautiful work Brian. I'm looking forward to seeing it finished.

[Supertom]

Dude this one you gotta take to the Nats next year.  Fo' sho'.

[Brian da Basher]

Dude this one you gotta take to the Nats next year.  Fo' sho'.

Thanks, Tom! I wish I could say it was as flawless looking in the flesh. Still, it would make an interesting display piece.

I've now got all of the decals on except for the wing registration numbers. I'm waiting for the last of my touch-up painting to dry and I hope to have pics tomorrow if the weather cooperates.

Brian da Basher