Oh that's awesome Don! I've got a kit from some limited run company, I forget which one at present that I haven't had the guts to tackle yet.

Cockpit looks good! Sucks about the broken part but glad to hear you were able to replace it. 

PS: Yeah, the Germans may have had the most insane secret projects but the Allies and Japan weren't too far behind..... 

This should be a unique build.  Looking forward to more.

Your friend, Toshi

Very cool. I've been waiting for someone to build one of these. Watching with interest.

BK

Very interesting subject.

Even if jet powered aircraft hadn't doomed the project I would imagine the complexity of the gearing/transmission would have.

Vought built the V-173 as a full-scale demonstrator to validate the STOL capabilities.  Although underpowered, it did prove the concept.  But when you scale up the weight, add 2X 2,000 HP engines plus "flapping" props hubs to the equation, things could have turned out not so well.  Yeah, and those big engines transmitting all that power through two 90 degree gearboxes...

A fascinating design nevertheless.  I have the Pegasus abomination and the much better Hasegawa version in 1/72.  Look forward to seeing yours built!

Real G

Vought built the V-173 as a full-scale demonstrator to validate the STOL capabilities.  Although underpowered, it did prove the concept.  But when you scale up the weight, add 2X 2,000 HP engines plus "flapping" props hubs to the equation, things could have turned out not so well.  Yeah, and those big engines transmitting all that power through two 90 degree gearboxes...

A fascinating design nevertheless.  I have the Pegasus abomination and the much better Hasegawa version in 1/72.  Look forward to seeing yours built!

 

I have thought that the concept would work for human powered aircraft.  The aspect ratio needed for human flight is awesome.  The resulting structure has to have awesome technology.  I think a simple cable drive turning both props at same speed but counter-rotating wouldn't be that complex or heavy.  Low aspect ratio structures seem to be simpler to build.

Saw the kit today at the hobby shop where had our build day. I stroked my chin and thought "hmmm, could be fun." I'll be watching, Don.

Had the first coat on main assembly yesterday, and was airbrushing second coat.  Dropped it on floor!  Knocked off both elevons!  Don't know if there was any more damage- body and elevons were wet, of course.  Hurried them into drying box to avoid damaging paint any further.

Had intended to do pix of progress- that will have to wait till I get elevons back on main body- is that the wing or fuselage on that craft- and any other damage repaired.

Surviving an engine failure would have been difficult.

GMorrison

Surviving an engine failure would have been difficult.

I was thinking the same thing. One engine goes out, and you have an instant flat-spin. Not a good situation.

E Baker

 

 

GMorrison

Surviving an engine failure would have been difficult.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing. One engine goes out, and you have an instant flat-spin. Not a good situation.

 

Alledgedly, that's addressed with the cross-shaft, so both propellors are still turning, just with only one powerplant's worth of horsepower input.

V-22 has a similar set up, just with a much, much, longer cross-shaft.

Yes, one 7000 hp turboshaft engine is still potent, so long as the wing rotation transmission still functions. Otherwise, from level flight it's an interesting landing.

As I said before, a good friend of mine was a Navy test pilot, flew the F-4, F-14 and whatever else. Also flew operations from CVN-65.

Retired soon after he flew the Osprey; enough was enough.

Don, I really look forward to seeing more of your build.

Vought did have some innovative stuff, for sure. Rex Beisel was a gifted designer- I don't remember if he designed your subject.

Okay, here is picture after I sanded all the junk off after dropping it on the floor. I decided to not put the tailplanes in place again (the fall impact knocked them off).  I think it will be easier to sand out successive coats of paint without them. I will finish tailplanes seperately and glue them in place after everything is finished.  Sorry for the poor depth of field- I gues f/11 was not enough.

Boy, that is one odd looking aircraft. It's hard to believe that an airplane designer would think that thing could fly.

Aw C'mon Don !

 Do you really think I'll fall for that ? Putting a cockpit canopy on a failed pancake and painting it dark Blue ?  I'll bet your Missus was engaged in laughter after you showed her what you took out of the kitchen .

 Besides I don't think it flew well did it ?

Got another coat on yesterday.  Also made a holding rack to get a better grip on it while I airbrush, and it also works to hold it while it is drying!  This may be the penultimate coat- maybe a cleanup with a 2000 grit pad and one last coat.  Working on the props now too.  Eight big blades, wood grained!

Tanker - Builder

Aw C'mon Don !

 Do you really think I'll fall for that ? Putting a cockpit canopy on a failed pancake and painting it dark Blue ?  I'll bet your Missus was engaged in laughter after you showed her what you took out of the kitchen .

 Besides I don't think it flew well did it ?

 

My understanding is that it flew okay once you got it off the ground.  Landing it was also a pain.  I wonder how it handled at low speed.  Anyway, who needed a 500 mph prop plane when jets were approaching 600 mph.  A number of US prop fighter experiments went nowhere.  All of these things were just hedges in case the jets didn't really prove out.

Don,

My old neurons seem to recall that plane from way back when - either I read about it or saw it in a newsreel (unlikely since I was only 4 in 1947). This is a strange looking aircraft for sure! I'm following with interest.

BTW, F/11 would have been about as small an aperture as you would have wanted to use. Diffraction begins to creep in at that opening albeit not usually too noticeably. I'm assuming you're using a digital device to capture your images. The image you suggest does not have enough depth of field may suffer from camera/phone movement and/or lack of focus. One or both of the latter is probably the problem - not the f stop.

Tanker - Builder

Aw C'mon Don !

 Do you really think I'll fall for that ? Putting a cockpit canopy on a failed pancake and painting it dark Blue ?  I'll bet your Missus was engaged in laughter after you showed her what you took out of the kitchen .

 Besides I don't think it flew well did it ?

 Don, I think Tanker was referring to your specific example.  I'm sure it 'flew' well when being flipped on the griddle, but that final hard landing made some noise.  So the pilot couldn't see around all that wet paint?!? 

 

Can't wait to see the finished kit.  I've almost ordered this kit several times.

 

Regards,

 

Gene Beaird,
Pearland, Texas

1943Mike

Don,

My old neurons seem to recall that plane from way back when - either I read about it or saw it in a newsreel (unlikely since I was only 4 in 1947). This is a strange looking aircraft for sure! I'm following with interest.

BTW, F/11 would have been about as small an aperture as you would have wanted to use. Diffraction begins to creep in at that opening albeit not usually too noticeably. I'm assuming you're using a digital device to capture your images. The image you suggest does not have enough depth of field may suffer from camera/phone movement and/or lack of focus. One or both of the latter is probably the problem - not the f stop.

 

No, the camera was on a tripod.  And, this was a flash shot- at the distance I was at with my flash attachment the exposure was pretty short!  And, I found out when I went to take the next picture next day, the camera had accidentally been set (aperture priority) to f/5.6 (wide open).  I must have bumped the control wheel during setup.

Don,

Not to belabor this OT subject but there's nothing in the image you posted to which we're referring that IS in focus. That, to me anyway, means that A) the tripod setup was bumped or moved somehow when the shutter was released or, B) the camera/phone did not focus properly for the exposure or, C) My eyes are playing tricks on me.

Anyway, interesting thread. With your skills at this game it'll turn out to be a fascinating model.

Discovered something in the instructions regarding the prop blades.  There are two sets of blades, obviously a different set for the two different prop shaft housing and hubs.  But, even though you build two different sets, when you glue those assemblies to the aircraft it does not say which goes on the right and which on the left.  The lower numbered (36-39) blades are on the unit that mounts on the left side, the higher numbered (40-43) go on the unit on the right.

The props on the XF5U counter rotated; the port unit clockwise, the starboard anti-clockwise when viewed head-on.  The purpose was to cancel out tip vortices to cut drag and get better low speed control.

The prop blades were staggered because they were set up like a helicopter rotor; i.e. they were designed to allow the prop "disc" to tilt out of the plane perpendicular to the driveshaft.  This was to improve the thrust line for the extreme approach angles for takeoff and landing.

BTW, on the actual aircraft, the starboard prop did not have the oval Hamilton Standard logos for some reason.  All prop blades had the stenciling on the cuffs as well as the white tracking diamonds on the wood sections.

HTH 

And I thought the Germans had some crazy looking ideas!   Nice build thus far! 

Real G

The props on the XF5U counter rotated; the port unit clockwise, the starboard anti-clockwise when viewed head-on.  The purpose was to cancel out tip vortices to cut drag and get better low speed control.

The prop blades were staggered because they were set up like a helicopter rotor; i.e. they were designed to allow the prop "disc" to tilt out of the plane perpendicular to the driveshaft.  This was to improve the thrust line for the extreme approach angles for takeoff and landing.

BTW, on the actual aircraft, the starboard prop did not have the oval Hamilton Standard logos for some reason.  All prop blades had the stenciling on the cuffs as well as the white tracking diamonds on the wood sections.

HTH 

 

Oh, nuts!  I just put the decals on the starboard props and sealed them with glosscoat!

Don,

Don't sweat it; symmetry is prettier!  Just enjoy building your wacky model and we'll look forward to seeing it at completion!