TR-29 Wraith (X-29 Recce Thing)

[PR19_Kit]

That's looking VERY mean Brad. 

[zenrat]

Looking good Brad C.
I have four Hasegawa F5 (or derivative) kits in the stash.  I should build one.
The Airfix Freedom Fighter (in the Iranian markings) was one of the three kits my Dad built for me when I was four or five.  The other two were the EE Lightning and Fairey Battle.  Both also Airfix.

[DogfighterZen]

 That's looking very good, a very clean nose job!

[Old Wombat]

Like I said in your blog; I'm getting a pretty strong Battlestar Galactica Viper vibe from that last photo!

[TheChronicOne]

What do you hear, Starbuck?    


Thanks everyone! I hope to get some more done with this today.

[Flyer]

I'm getting a pretty strong Battlestar Galactica Viper vibe from that last photo!

For sure!  although that's a series I'll have to re-watch as I've forgotten much more than I remember of it...

R-29 is looking good Brad 

[TheChronicOne]

Thank you! Lost a couple days on this and now there's very little time left but I plan to have it primed and the paint work well underway by this evening. We'll see how it goes.

Would there be some reason not to call this the "SR-29" instead of just R-29? 

[scooter]

Thank you! Lost a couple days on this and now there's very little time left but I plan to have it primed and the paint work well underway by this evening. We'll see how it goes.

Would there be some reason not to call this the "SR-29" instead of just R-29?

Why not TR-29?  Since it works at the tactical level, not the strategic like the SR-71

[Pellson]

Generally, an aircraft like the X-29 would, if developed to an active asset, have been developed against a fighter/fighterbomber role. Accordingly, it would, as soon as the project had left its research status, been named XF-29, and following that, I would sugggest RF-29A as your recce bird designation.
Just my two cents, without any disregard for your other suggestions.

[TheChronicOne]

Thanks y'all! I dunno why the hell I suddenly was thinking the 'S' in 'SR' was for "surveillance" knowing already what the 'R' stood for. I think I'm trying too hard to come up with a cool name and thus trying to force round pegs into square holes.  I remember considering RF-29 but I thought that USAF wouldn't assign a Fighter designation to an aircraft that was never designed to be a fighter and would never carry any weapons. TR sounds cool but makes me think of a Trainer.....        I'm probably overthinking all this and maybe ought to just leave it alone but I got to thinking about other aircraft that were designed to be strictly recon aircraft and then popped up in my mind the SR-71 and the U-2..... and then I started thinking about the stupid name again.    Other recon aircraft exist, of course, but were derivatives of other already existing aircraft that were initially designed for other roles (such as an RF-4 Phantom, for example) so using them as an example to work from is proving sketchy.

Well.... I have 3 days to figure it out at least!         Definitely appreciate the feedback, I've never really had this much hesitancy about naming one of the stupid things.    I've never "made" a recon only what-if, though, either so I guess I shouldn't be too critical of myself but still... I normally have the things named by this point. 


Oh well.... that's a problem that can be solved later... for now I should probably just focus on getting it built! To that end, I'm buttoning up the cockpit and finalizing some last minute sanding and shaping of the new nose and I hope to have this thing primered within the hour then let it sit for a bit. While I do that I'll work a little more on the Jammer and get it primed... after that I should be able to start painting on the aircraft itself and move on. It would be pretty fantastic if I could build up a head of steam and get to the point where It's glossed by the end of day and tomorrow I can wake up, get my day going, then get right into putting the transfers on. 

[DogfighterZen]

Well, i just wrote on your blog page that SR-29 sounded good to me but i have to agree that it probably would never have that designation in the real world.
The fact that this plane was never intended to carry weapons in RW shouldn't matter much because it was based on a fighter jet so, if you wanted to, you could put weapons on it.
RF-29 ends up being the most logical to me because i've always looked at the X-29 as an F-5/F-20 family member.
To me, it was an F-20 with different wings, main landing gear and a few other details so, imagining that it went into production as a fighter version, the F-29, it most likely would have had guns and other weapons like it's ancestors. If you follow that thought, then you're building the RF version of that fighter.

[TheChronicOne]

My hesitancy is that USAF designates aircraft based on their roles, not their origins. That's why the Talon was a T-38, not an N-38 ("N"... harkening back to the original N-156F designation) or an F-38. That's why the F-5 was the F-5 and not the T-5 or N-5, regardless of which came first or was based on the other. The P (F)-80 Shooting Star is another example.... they didn't call it the T-80 or the trainer variant the F-33. Regardless of what was designed first, the aircraft are designated based on the role it performs. Aside from outliers like the F-117, which was done for reasons of subterfuge, there's no precedent. F-111, maaaaybe?  Problem is... I *like* the sound of "RF-29" but if I'm trying to achieve plausibility, it just doesn't make sense and there's no historical precedent for it.

That said.... 

Ready for paint. It's too windy, however.... so... yet another delay... 



Not giving up, though.... going to just keep trying and hope for the best.

[TheChronicOne]

OK, I made up my mind on the name thing. Anything I was thinking of either doesn't really work for plausibility reasons (like "U-29") or just doesn't fit (like RF-29, which is what I wanted at the very first but had to eliminate).  Scooter's recommendation makes sense to me and I like the way it sounds. If I post this on Facebook and someone confuses it for a Trainer.... well.... that's on THEM, not us.     ::::dusts hands off::::  That's that. Thanks, Scoot! 


Now ... what about the rest of it? The TR-29 WHAT?! 


As for the project itself... I'm about to try to prime it..... 

[Flyer]

As it almost looks like it's flying backwards some "back" oriented names:

TR-29 Backlash

TR-29 Backslash

TR-29 Background

TR-29 Backstage

TR-29 Backbone

A photo oriented name that as a bonus has an x in it:

TR-29 Pixel

Ummm... That's about all that I can think of for now...

[TheChronicOne]

Ooooh.... I like "Backstage". Like.... back stage... taking pics with the stars! 

Alas, I have a name already, though! Guy suggested "Wraith" and since the thing looks like a W when viewed from above and means "Looker" in Norse (or sommat) I went with it. 



THERE.... with THAT malarkey out of the way my mind is cleared and I can progress.