Amerika Bomber WIP

[PR19_Kit]

That's a LOT of styrene you have there! 

Good luck with the build, I'll be watching closely and making notes.

As for the swept wing pusher in the piccies above, I do have an half built XB-35 in The Loft, hmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

[PR19_Kit]

....and another thing.......

Just for the purposes of Whiffing, how does the Revell kit stack up against the veteran Airfix offering? I can't recall seeing either kit, built or unbuilt! They've got to be BIG for sure. 

[The Wooksta!]

Revell's is far better detailed and probably more accurate.  however, I think the Airfix kit is more fun to build.  I've always had a soft spot for that kit, ever since I found one in a shop in Eyemouth in 1985 but couldn't afford it.

The He 274 used Daimler Benz DB603s in annular cowlings.

[tc2324]

So after the slight diversion of the retro British jet design, it`s back to the Amerika bomber.

Surgery has already begun and as you can see from the first picture we now have a 4, (or is that 8?), engined bomber. (With SWMBO on a retail theropy trip I have used the hob so the plastic shows up better).

Work on extending the fuselage will begin shortly, but for the purpose of my next question I have just taped it together.

Now again in the first picture, you will see the two jet engines on the wing tips as I originally had planned. However this looks a bit too odd to me now so in the second picture I have placed one under the wing, futher inside so that it clears the aileron`s. The third picture is a little more radical and shows them attached to the fuselage, (tba), which was a feature of the Junkers Ju 287.

As always, opinions welcome.

[Steel Penguin]

ohh option 3 looks better

[eatthis]

yup option 3 for me too
ps kit will want your babies when he sees them wings!

[CANSO]

tc2324, have you seen the Ta-400 with 6 piston engines + 2 turbojets? I like very much the idea with the 2 integrated jet engines there, because it so different from any similar design, where the jetpods are always hanging under, attached to or standing on top of something.
BTW I expected that you'll go 6 x pistons in your project, rather than mixed .

[MaxHeadroom]

Yes, option 3 is the most elegant one!

So, go on, I'm curious! 

Max

[dumaniac]

i'll go with the Ta400 look - I like that - if you clip the jets to the fuselage - you will have to reconfigure your tail plane - yes I know you can make it a T tail - hence I like the option 2 type

if you have 6 churning and 2 burning - you would want a monster gas tank

love the long wingspan on your

I have built the He277 in 72 - it looks stumpy compared to your model - very nice in deed

[The Wooksta!]

Given the additional fuselage length (I think...) and the extended span, you're going to have insufficient fin area.  Heinkel found the same thing with the real He 277 (or He 177B) - the second prototype had finlets on the tailplanes before adopting the He 274 style twin tailfin.

I'm assuming you're going with the tail turret version?

[tc2324]

Cheers for the views chaps. Have to say it`s quite interesting to view the replies. It seems a majority of members on your standard modelling sites have gone for the under mid wing look which is the most convensional and realistic look. However when you go to the dedicated whif forums, a majority seems to go for the `bolted to the fuselage somewhere` look as this is more in keeping with a Luft 46 look. Ultimately, I`m still divided.

This morning I managed to extend the fuselage but changed my mind about extending the aft section. Other than finding it difficult to find a `seamless` join point, I want to give this aircraft a tricycle u/c and don`t really want to effect the CoG too much by adding a section to the rear.

[The Wooksta!]

I'm no expert but I think the wings will need bringing forward because as it stands, that'll have some odd CofG effects.

[tc2324]

I'm no expert but I think the wings will need bringing forward because as it stands, that'll have some odd CofG effects.

Your probably right about that, but I`m not going to worry too much about it, as I feel the dimensions are not that too far off from a B-29. (And I don`t want to get bogged down in maths on a Sunday...  )

Funnily enough I was considering the implications of the tail issues you mentioned previously and I`ll have to give that more thought after your reply. I was going to `ignore` it, but a bigger tail sounds about right.

[dumaniac]

I am lovin' your project - so don't get me wrong but - on your wings, do you have sufficient clearance between the 2 engines so that the blades don't strike each other.

and on your fuselage, did you just add the forward section of one to the other - I imagine the fuselage cross sections would accommodate that easy ?

and did you extend the wing tips at all - they look mighty long, or is it just because of the new "inner" extension ?

very nice project

cheers

[tc2324]

I am lovin' your project - so don't get me wrong but - on your wings, do you have sufficient clearance between the 2 engines so that the blades don't strike each other.

and on your fuselage, did you just add the forward section of one to the other - I imagine the fuselage cross sections would accommodate that easy ?

and did you extend the wing tips at all - they look mighty long, or is it just because of the new "inner" extension ?

very nice project

cheers

Cheers for the comments dumaniac, (not offended at all btw as you have pointed out one issue I have already realised), and to answer your questions....,

1. and this is the main one I realised a bit late in the day...  I have guestimated the clearance inbetween the props and I might be wrong so I have some `cropped` C-130 props just in case.

2. yep, just lobbed off the cockpit end on one kit and then cut just in front of the leading wing edge on the other. I now have this longer version and a `stubby` one.

3. No wingtip extensions, just looks longer with the inner extensions