avatar_Tophe

Twin-Whirlwind & Catalina…

Started by Tophe, December 25, 2004, 02:49:54 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tophe

The readers of my last book could say that a small Twin-B-29 was already invented in Japan as "XB-20"
see http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/3kib/xb-20w.htm
Well, such a layout suggests a new B-29T, and if you find it to big to compare, let us present a 1/72 B-29T with the 1/48 XB-20  – this is the magic of modelers' logic.

[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

elmayerle

QuoteThe readers of my last book could say that a small Twin-B-29 was already invented in Japan as "XB-20"
see http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/3kib/xb-20w.htm
Well, such a layout suggests a new B-29T, and if you find it to big to compare, let us present a 1/72 B-29T with the 1/48 XB-20  – this is the magic of modelers' logic.
IMHO, that Japanese "XB-20" looks better than the "real" one, as depicted i Lloyd Jones book on US Bombers, that was a step (but only on paper) between the XB-15 and the XB-29.
"Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it."
--Jane Wagner and Lily Tomlin

Tophe

#137
QuoteIMHO, that Japanese "XB-20" looks better than the "real" one, as depicted i Lloyd Jones book on US Bombers, that was a step (but only on paper) between the XB-15 and the XB-29.
Yes, the Boeing B-20 is not much known... read http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b20.html (a drawing would be welcome, if somebody has seen one)
But comparing the Japanese XB-20 and the 'wrong scale' B-29T, one could argue: "the XB-20 engines are far bigger!". Well, in this pleasant universe of modellism, with several kings/queens of scratch-building, let us put B-29 1/48 engines on the B-29T 1/72 model... :)  
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

Evan requiring a V-2220 in-line Corsair (in another topic) reminded me my still unbuilt XP-47H 1/72 kit. Instead of making it face sadly a P-47B or N, I should (will?) make a composite what-if twin-plane: port fuselage Razorback In-line /starboard fuselage Bubble Radial... Thanks!

[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

#139
Still thanking Evan, here is the Corsair equivalent I imagine for the half V-2220 twin-plane, joining F4U-9 Razorback In-line and F2G-1 Bubble Radial...
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

I have also two XP-77 model kits available. Preview of my project (thanks to http://www.squadron.com/old/xp77/xp77review.htm ) below: half-streamlined XTP-77...


[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Gary

QuoteHere is the [top-secret] serious Julhelm B-37Z (from his B-37 at http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...?showtopic=6043 ) together with the [well-known] cartoon impossible Nomura B-36Z...
you know... the top one would make a cool twin hulled flying boat.
Getting back into modeling

elmayerle

If you're going for large twin-hulled flying boats, how about a Zwilling vesion of the C-99 based flyboar that Convair drew up for Pan-Am?
"Reality is the leading cause of stress amongst those in touch with it."
--Jane Wagner and Lily Tomlin

Tophe

#143
QuoteIf you're going for large twin-hulled flying boats, how about a Zwilling vesion of the C-99 based flyboat that Convair drew up for Pan-Am?
Well, I try to respect my 1939-45 focus here... The post-war B-36 first flight is mentionned as August 1946 but was designed in 1941 so it fits, while the C-99 that flew in November 1947 may be outside and a derivative of it: even more outside. Unless you have sources mentionning 1945 for the C-99. Yes?
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

QuoteI try to respect my 1939-45 focus here...
the C-99 that flew in November 1947 may be outside
Unless you have sources mentionning 1945 for the C-99
I am sorry, I speak sometimes like a tedious historian or worse: an actual JMN... Here, no matter Reality sources, let us dream: what-if the Convair staff wondered in 1944 "with the tools paid by the USAF for our XB-36, we may propose a big very-long-range airliner, in case peace happen tomorrow: AL-36... and even better: twice more passengers on a double: AL-36Z" ?...

Now I will see for the flying boat, thank you dreamers...  
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

Quoteyou know... the top one would make a cool twin hulled flying boat.
And here the Imwfo-air HB-37, that would have been a good US introduction for the British Twin-Princess...
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

#146
QuoteZwilling Caudron Renault by any chance ? Chris
As I said (on another topic) I plan to build, from my 2 Heller 1/72 kits, a Caudron C.7144 rather different from Nicolas Pug's C-714TE: mine will have separate tailplanes and most of all: one fuselage strongly streamlined, thus: one beautiful nose close to one ugly (French) nose...
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

I have started today my second model (the first is drying after a new putty coat): asymmetric WhirlWind (Westland SingleWind?), from an old Airfix 1/72 kit given by my best friend.
That made me think: "from a 4-engined, would the same change be as much spectacular ?". I try here below, turning the B-29T and XB-20 into B-29T' and XB-20'. Well, less spectacular, as I thought.
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

#148
QuoteI have almost decided which kit I will build for the twin-boom contest: BMW TL-III  (Unicraft Models') jet project. Though, an unbuilt real design is not What-if enough for me, and I may change a little: either...
- TL ^ : with improved solidity and all moving little tailplane
- TL-c : canard with booms moved ahead and a front stabilizer
- TL-IIIR : canard, reversed TL-III
- TL-H : more classical, with vertical fins, and an all-moving tailplane though
I guess the choice will be TL-IIIR, or from an asymmetric version of the TL-I\ /: TL-I//...
On the 'first model' topic, I answer to dear Imwfo, but I think I should include here the extra steps:
- TL-III was the basis
- TL-IIIR was my initial project
- TLI// was an asymmetric version as new choice
- TL-I// was the final choice for the new-beginner in modelism I am:
1/ I prefer a low wing and no landing gear, for a model simply standing on its wing
2/ I prefer not reverting the boom roots and prefer to move the wings with their booms, even if the leading edge will be thin and the trailing edge will be big... with putty and blurred photograph, nobody will see the anachronic flaps on the leading edge.
3/ As well, I will not double-revert the fins and rudders but have them reverted with the booms, hiding all with putty.
There will be a single result, almost acceptable I hope, but remember this is a first shy step back in modelism...
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]

Tophe

QuoteUnless you have sources mentionning 'before 1946' for the C-99.
I have found this in the book 'The "C" Planes' (Schiffer Pub.) and put it on Photobucket

But coming here to direct to it, I was surprised by the UK flag down, saw an alarming topic in the everyday chat forum, I think I will not draw nor build this evening, but check on the Web or radio what has happened in London. Lord... :(  
[the word "realistic" hurts my heart...]