fotofrank

Very cool, Don. A tough build but very well done. I really like how you did the wooden propeller blades. Really nice.

I'm always amazed at the daring concepts that were developed during WWII. The McDonnell XP-67 Bat, the XP-55 Ascender, and the XP-56 Black Bullet and so many others that never reached production.

 

Built the bottom one.  Would like to find kits for the other two.

US had many experimental planes that were just as weird and advanced as the German ones.  But the TV shows like the History Channel and Discovery ones never show them.

Very cool, Don. A tough build but very well done. I really like how you did the wooden propeller blades. Really nice.

I'm always amazed at the daring concepts that were developed during WWII. The McDonnell XP-67 Bat, the XP-55 Ascender, and the XP-56 Black Bullet and so many others that never reached production.

John- I wondered about that too.  I do have a cutaway that shows the details.  The housing that surrounds the prop shaft is labled as nacelle. It must be pretty beefy!  But then, looking at the whole airplane, it looks like it would tend to be inherently tail heavy.  So, the extra weight needed probably is okay.  Sort of reminds me of my old rubber flying models- how on a plane with a short nose moment arm I had to add so much weight to balance it!

Greg- the dome covers the gun camera and landing light.

Oh wow, she turned out fantastic!!! 

Love the wooden props! 

That's incredible. Didn't expect the bonds ad, that's pretty sweet.

I just noticed the nose dome- I quess to line up takeoffs between the pilot's knees.

Reminds me of pictures I've seen of the crew chief of a P-47 laying on the wing holding on to a gun barrel with one hand and signalling the pilot where to go with the other.

Very special model there, Don.

Looks pretty nice, Don.  Just looking at it in 3D makes you wonder how the structure could be stiff enough to handle all the loads from those props on the end of those long stalks.

It is finished!  I could do a little more, but am tired of it. Hope no one will notice outboard mass balances are too small- I should make them a bit bigger.  And yesterday was clear for photography, though 90 degrees.

Ouch! Good luck there Don. I hate stuff like that- either attach it before painting and take the chance of knocking it off or leave it after painting and take the chance to marr the finish attaching them. 

Latest hangup.  There are mass balances on the elevon mounting spars.  I ended up breaking all four off during painting and final assembly.  This means butt joints on small diameter parts.  And, I lost two of the four.  I am trying to make replacements from brass rod, but will need to drill the leading edge for these, and it is a very sharp leading edge- having trouble drilling it with a 25 mil drill :-)

When you get very far along with this kit it becomes a porcupine.  There is no good place to pick it up without endangering some fine, breakable detail.  I recommend leaving those mass balances off until very last, but keep redrilling the mounting holes after each coat of paint.

Hey Don, checking on you and your project. This one looks fun! Cool!

Max

Hi Don ;

 Watching this and the looks it is sure to get , I am thinking about maybe finding one . I will probably smile all through the build .

I have the 1/72 version from Hasegawa I started on, promptly spilled liquid cement on the undersides and put away at the back of the stash. You've almost given me the impetus to try again...

Don, that's exceptionally nice work on that old kit. I'm glad you're building it so I can see how it should be done.

I'm still grateful to you for your masterful build of the Lindberg Jenny to which I will refer when I get around to mine ... It's always good to have someone's quality work to look at when attempting to build one's own model.

That is so often one of the real weak points in little jet kits. I think my Navy jet shelf has little parts all over it.

Sometimes a piece of overscale aluminum is the way to go, allows for some "bendability".

A warning to anyone building, or planning on building this kit.  The gear door attachments are very fragile.  I keep knocking them off when I work on other areas!  Also, the door hinges are tiny seperate parts.  The slots in the door where these glue to are too narrow for the hinges to set into.  Also, the C-shaped hinges have the sprue attachment on the inside of the C.  This recess is needed to clear a lip of skin.  But it is very hard to trim this area on a 3/16 x 3/32 part!  The sprue attachment should have been on the outside of the C.  Hope you have some good pliers.  I'm leaving the doors that come off on the bench for now, will install as last step.

Hi Don !

 Now I must say really .That reminds me of a failed jet that was not popular with it's pilots - The Chance-Vought  Twin Tailed " Cutlass " monstrosity the Navy flew ! Whatta weird looking jet and besides the forward visibility must've been weird too !

 Now I will say this .You are doing a bang up job !

It's standing on its own legs now- got the LG struts all in.  Still have some work on the vertical tail surfaces.  The wheels, gear doors ready to put on.  Still working on the props!  Eight blades, wood grain plus two colors- tips and roots different colors.  Two sets of decals each blade!  Well, I'll get there.

Don: She's lookin' cooler and cooler!!!

I wouldn't worry about the prop decals unless you're modeling the prototype as she actually looked.

Don,

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

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!

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

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 

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ?

 

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.

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!