TC`s build thread.

[tc2324]

And so the `easy` bit is over.





Now for the `surgery`.......!

[tc2324]

I`m having a bit of trouble thinking of a name for my jet P-38, so if any of you have a suggestion, I`m all ears..... 

The P-38 Lightning "Double Strike"   

Already come up with the title Lockheed XP-55 `Skunk`. My bad, should mentioned it before, but thanks for the suggestion. 

[tc2324]

A couple of pictures to give you an idea of what the finished model will look like.

All held together with blue tack at the moment with lots of filing and filler ahead of me to make sure I get those few important millimetres so the tail section straightens out.

[Weaver]

Interesting project! 

Some thoughts:

1. I appreciate it's not easy, but would it be possible to have the engines further inboard and the booms in the original position? That is, have the engine pods in place of the inner wing, instead of in place of the original boom position.

2. Would it be possible to put the tailplane at the top of the fins, to clear the jet exhaust?

[tc2324]

Interesting project!  

Some thoughts:

1. I appreciate it's not easy, but would it be possible to have the engines further inboard and the booms in the original position? That is, have the engine pods in place of the inner wing, instead of in place of the original boom position.

2. Would it be possible to put the tailplane at the top of the fins, to clear the jet exhaust?

Hi Weaver,

Thanks for the comments and in answer to question 1, I thought about that also, however I am planning for the area between the cockpit and engines to house the U/C. I`m going to use the Meteor U/C as I dont think the P-38`s would be able to handle the weight issues.

As for question 2, thats a great idea and one I hadn`t thought about. Far too concerned with the wings at the moment. Might be stealing that one from you old chap.....  

[tc2324]

Update and pics as usual. I have `dug out` a new u/c bay and attached the engines. The tail length has been shortened and attached to the out wings. I used some 1/72 fuel tanks to `cap` the front of them and used sponge to slot the wings into the tail..! (Don`t ask...) have put plenty of filler around the tail and wing connection and will file it into shape tomorrow. Also added blue tack to the cockpit section to add weight and started on the u/c which is from the Meteor. Happy days.....!

[Tophe]

  Wonderful new P-38, thanks!  But what about the jet flames towards the tailplane?

[tc2324]

Wonderful new P-38, thanks!  But what about the jet flames towards the tailplane?

The horizontal tailplane is heading north so to speak, and not in the normal position. Jet exhaust shouldn`t be a problem Tophe, also thank you for the comment and smilies.

Put the u/c in place today, (but not fixed as I still have work to do on them), to sse what it looks like standing on its own legs. Looks pretty `squat` to me but seems about right for jets of that time. Also got most of the smoothing down of the wing and tail section and seems to coming on ok.

[Tophe]

Already come up with the title Lockheed XP-55 `Skunk`.

Next week, I will draw your one, to add in my collection of what-if P-38s ( http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/#Sit ), thanks a lot.
For the name, I just ask for confirmation. Will this be the TC234 XP-55 'Skunk', or YP-55, as the XP-55 was so different:
http://www.google.fr/images?hl=fr&q=XP-55
and a secret advanced project could use an old name (as the YP-59 jet after the XP-59 twin-boom even if both were Bell aircraft, while here there is a Curtiss then Lockheed TC234)...

[tc2324]

Already come up with the title Lockheed XP-55 `Skunk`.

Next week, I will draw your one, to add in my collection of what-if P-38s ( http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/#Sit ), thanks a lot.
For the name, I just ask for confirmation. Will this be the TC234 XP-55 'Skunk', or YP-55, as the XP-55 was so different:
http://www.google.fr/images?hl=fr&q=XP-55
and a secret advanced project could use an old name (as the YP-59 jet after the XP-59 twin-boom even if both were Bell aircraft, while here there is a Curtiss then Lockheed TC234)...

I`m going to stick with the `Lockheed XP-55 Skunk` in line with my `what If` backstory. It as purely an experimental aircraft and not designed for a U.S. war ministry specifacation as such. 

(Can`t believe Curtis had an XP-55...  Missed that one but too late to backtrack now.)

[ysi_maniac]

Soviet hantom is a wonder

[ysi_maniac]

Jet P-38 is going relly good

[tc2324]

And now for the moment of truth...., will the old girl hold it together..??

[Tophe]

Yes! Wonderful! And the tail is clear from hot flames! Congratulations! Glory to the Skunk!

EDIT: Question: are the booms more distant than on the P-38? (explaining you required a brand new tailplane?) I need that piece of information to draw it correctly.

[tc2324]

are the booms more distant than on the P-38? (explaining you required a brand new tailplane?) I need that piece of information to draw it correctly.

Hi Tophe,

Thanks for the praise  and to answer your question, yes they are. The jet engines are now where the prop powerplants used to be and as you know the tail booms were attached to them. I reckon that on a 1.1 scale the tail booms are approx 5-6 feet further apart. This part of the build has been a nightmare trying to get the dimensions as close as I can and keeping the whole thing sticking together.