Push Me/Pull me in a Trimotor GB?

[Brian da Basher]

Over on the "My Stash Just Grew Again" thread, I mentioned that I'd picked up a 1/77 Revell Ford Trimotor on the cheap (Squadron is practically giving them away for $5 and change and it comes with some very interesting airline liveries). Kitnut said he recently got one too and suggested a Trimotor GB. With Italeri's new release of a 1/72 SM.82 Canguro and the various Fokker and Junkers Trimotors out there, it seems like the time is ripe for a Trimotor GB. My thinking is that the base kit used must be a trimotor, but that the end result need not necessarily have three engines, but as always, the rules would be open to suggestions. What do you think?

Brian da Basher

[B777LR]

If it includes tri-holers, im in!

[Weaver]

That sounds good. I've been planning an "alternative history of the gunship" series of builds and to that end, I got the Revell Trimotor too (the one with the dog sled team?  ), intending to have three manully operated watercooled MGs (Vickers, or early Brownings if you can get them) sticking out of the cabin windows.

[RotorheadTX]

DC-10, MD-11, Tristar, 727, TU-154???

I only ask because Scooterman has a DC-10 up his sleeve / in his shorts (if we ever get JP's camera video from Scalefest- HAHAHAHA)

[TsrJoe]

id be interested in this one too, iv an old Frog 'Southern Cross' i fancy doing in a what if scheme  hmm..i wonder if i can talk 'mav' into putting the '1920's Finnish Splinter' scheme onto some early types such as the Fokker and Vimy 

cheers, Joe

[Weaver]

My thinking is that the base kit used must be a trimotor, but that the end result need not necessarily have three engines, but as always, the rules would be open to suggestions. What do you think?

Brian da Basher

Colud you also include non-trimotor planes converted to trimotors? A three-engined Wellington has been mentioned elsewhere, and I've always fancied the idea of a three-engined Vigilante (no, not a straight build of the NA-349 proposal...).

[Daryl J.]

There simply isn't enough time for something like this but I'd love to do a WW-1 stringbag tri-motor that looks like  a Caudron G.3's cousin.


From the great ethers of the interweb:

^^^^^^^^Credit to whom credit is due. ^^^^^^^^^^




Daryl J.

[McGreig]

Could you also include non-trimotor planes converted to trimotors?

I agree. I've got a couple of ideas for three engined versions of the MiG-25 and Tu-22 Blinder. And a three engined Il-4 would solve the problem of the poorly fitting nose glazing on the Revell kit 
 
Although I've also got a Heller Arc-en-Ciel bomber conversion that I've only just started and which could be put on hold if this GB materialised in a reasonable time frame - - -

[Modelling_Mushi]

Sounds like fun this one does, I've an Hornet that I has an idea for that would fit right in 

[Brian da Basher]

The more I think about it, I think we should keep this one to aircraft with three engines, regardless how many the base kit of anyone's project might start out with. That would make things nice and simple. I'm pleasantly surprised at the high level of interest expressed so far.

Brian da Basher

[B777LR]

What markings would an EH-101 look nice in? US Navy? Perhaps a bit dull with the grey? How about Poland, Germany or Saudi Arabia?

[puddingwrestler]

I've recentyl been thinking about tri-motored retro-future sci fi ships, so I'll probably be in on this. Why is it that the world's major aerospace companies have given up on Trimotors? (And jet propelled biplanes!) They where perfectly awesome as far as I can see.

[jcf]

Tri-motor P-38, centre engine mounted as a pusher ala the Caproni Ca-3.

[jcf]

Why is it that the world's major aerospace companies have given up on Trimotors?

Speaking in real world terms?
Its simple, engines got better, the tri-motor layout was always considered a compromise.

[B777LR]

Why is it that the world's major aerospace companies have given up on Trimotors?

As said, engines got better. That allowed you to fit 2 engines with the combined thrust greater than the 3 engines you would otherwise need. 2 engines = lower fuel consumption. The MD-11 vs 777 proves that point. The MD-11 didn't have any alternative engines though, the GE-90 hadn't been developed at the time.
Then there is the maintenance part. You need an awful lot of rigs to get to the tail mounted engine. Wing mounted engines proved cheaper and simpler to maintain. And maintaining 3 engines means maintaining 1 engine more. 
Then there was the ETOPS rules, that began allowing twin engined aircraft to fly further from shore. That allowed the twin engined airliners to compete against 3 and 4 engined planes on more even terms.

Today even the four engined airliner is under pressure. The reasons for the A380 and 747-8 being four engined is the lack of engines powerful enough. The A340 is not selling anymore, the A340NG proved to be a bit of a flop. The MD-11 is gone long time ago, and the only passenger operators today are KLM and Finnair. The MD-11 proved better as a freighter, until the 777-200F came around. The Avro RJ family is being retired rather fast, in competition with ATRs, Q400s, CRJs, ERJs, E-jets, C-series, SSJs, MRJs, ARJs etc.