It looks good Don, very unique.  I think the props would drive me nuts.

Very imppressive on such a unique subject!

Toshi

Nice work, Don.

Don Stauffer

That rings a bell for me, I got started in the late 40's, I think the name of the wooden kits was "Strombecker." I built many, a float plane, a Convair, a bi-plane, etc. Glue came with the kits, some sort of powdery stuff to be mixed with water, and that held them together well. Wish one of them was still here, good memories.

Patrick

When I first started modeling, it was before plastic kits.  Wood was the material you made models from.  There were two kinds, flying models of balsa and tissue, sticks formers and ribs, covered with tissue.  Then, there were the "solid models," non-flying scale models equivalent to todays plastic models.  The kits contained blocks and sheets of either balsa or pine.  The fuselage was bandsaw-cut to profile, and in the more expensive kits, to planform (top view).  Wings and tail surfaces were cut from sheet wood stock, either by kit mfg or by modeler (pattern provided) in cheaper kits.  Then you went to work carving fuselage cross-section and wing airfoil.

I believe those who built those kits are far more ready to do scratch modeling, or major conversions, than those with no wood model experience.  Basically, those old kits were boxes of raw material.

 

 

Don Stauffer

 

 

patrick206

Hi, Don -

Beautifully done, excellent detailing and finishing. I notice you even have it secured to an anchor line. I had seen photos of the airplane, but never realized it had such a complex strut arrangement below the horizontal stabilzer. Aerodynamic streamlining was not one of the engineering priorities of this old queen of the skies, but it sure did it's job well.

Thanks for the post, nice to see.

Patrick

 

 

 

 

They paid a price for all that parasitic drag.  Even with all those engines, the plane never was able to fly out of ground effect- or is it water effect for a seaplane :-)

 

 

Gene ;

  Can you say a early version of the Ekronaplane ! I think I said that right . The Soviet version did get the surface effect though . I wonder if one of their engineers saw the old paperwork and said ,Da, Ve kin do That !     T.B.

Amen To That !

 I do believe that is why many of us older folks have the gumption to do scratch built stuff . That's the way we learned . I think the generations since have somehow been cheated . T.B.

When I first started modeling, it was before plastic kits.  Wood was the material you made models from.  There were two kinds, flying models of balsa and tissue, sticks formers and ribs, covered with tissue.  Then, there were the "solid models," non-flying scale models equivalent to todays plastic models.  The kits contained blocks and sheets of either balsa or pine.  The fuselage was bandsaw-cut to profile, and in the more expensive kits, to planform (top view).  Wings and tail surfaces were cut from sheet wood stock, either by kit mfg or by modeler (pattern provided) in cheaper kits.  Then you went to work carving fuselage cross-section and wing airfoil.

I believe those who built those kits are far more ready to do scratch modeling, or major conversions, than those with no wood model experience.  Basically, those old kits were boxes of raw material.

Wow Don,nice crisp clean build.Beautifully done.

Don ;

 Tha first time I ever saw this beast was a group of line drawings and a pile of wood my shop teacher laid on my desk . All the boys had to build something and all thirty of us had a different project .

  I felt flummoxed , Why ? I was the only one with this beast as a project ! The teacher had already cut out the patterns and contour pieces and he guided me as I shaped the parts .

   When it was right then he would say finish , sand , and seal it . Then after all the sanding ,sealing , then there was painting , then assembling. Decaling and finishing out with a stand .

   The whole project was extended out to last six months . Well , after all the plane worked out to 1/72 scale . It was used to grade my skills . Needless to say I aced it ! Shoot ! it was not only a Wingy Thingy it was a Floaty Thingy too ! 

 Sure beat the other project , A jewelry box with inlaid surfaces ! Got the final grade on both gee only an " A+" . Oh , That's right ! They don't have shop in school anymore do they ? Well , it was an all trades high school anyway . 

Wirraway

Nicely done Don. I built the old Matchbox kit last year. Those engines are finicky arent they ?

 

Not only the engines, but the struts that connect the engine nacelles!  Some of my struts were too short and would not reach between the nacelles.  I used strene rod, drilled clear through the nacelles, and connected all the nacelles with just two rods.  The struts from the wing to the nacelles were also finicky.

I see, not unlike Boeing's B-15, which was not adequately powered, but later led to the very famous B-17. Thanks. 

T_Terrific

Kinda makes me wonder why they called it the Do-X (X=10 in Roman numerals) when it had 12 engines, which woulda been "XII"?

 

The X apparently stood for experimental, as in our X planes, according to a German friend of mine who is quite into that aircraft.  They only built three of them, and did a lot of development changes on them, and it never went into production nor airline service.  But it must have provided good info for the future, since Germany was big in flying boats in later years.

Kinda makes me wonder why they called it the Do-X (X=10 in Roman numerals) when it had 12 engines, which woulda been "XII"?

Very nice build! I love those gargantuan planes from that, well, any era!

Ken

Don Stauffer

 

 

patrick206

Hi, Don -

Beautifully done, excellent detailing and finishing. I notice you even have it secured to an anchor line. I had seen photos of the airplane, but never realized it had such a complex strut arrangement below the horizontal stabilzer. Aerodynamic streamlining was not one of the engineering priorities of this old queen of the skies, but it sure did it's job well.

Thanks for the post, nice to see.

Patrick

 

 

 

 

They paid a price for all that parasitic drag.  Even with all those engines, the plane never was able to fly out of ground effect- or is it water effect for a seaplane :-)

 

 

Surface effect.  Frankly, I'd be surprised if they ever had all engines running at one time!!  Nice job, Don!  I have a soft spot for seaplanes, for some reason, and have always thought about doing one of these beasts.

Gene Beaird,
Pearland, Texas

Gawd that's a lot of engines! Looks great Don. 

A seaplane belongs in the water.

patrick206

Hi, Don -

Beautifully done, excellent detailing and finishing. I notice you even have it secured to an anchor line. I had seen photos of the airplane, but never realized it had such a complex strut arrangement below the horizontal stabilzer. Aerodynamic streamlining was not one of the engineering priorities of this old queen of the skies, but it sure did it's job well.

Thanks for the post, nice to see.

Patrick

 

They paid a price for all that parasitic drag.  Even with all those engines, the plane never was able to fly out of ground effect- or is it water effect for a seaplane :-)

A nice one Don, what a machine! Good work!

Max

PS--more pictures!

Well done Don!

Gary

Hi, Don -

Beautifully done, excellent detailing and finishing. I notice you even have it secured to an anchor line. I had seen photos of the airplane, but never realized it had such a complex strut arrangement below the horizontal stabilzer. Aerodynamic streamlining was not one of the engineering priorities of this old queen of the skies, but it sure did it's job well.

Thanks for the post, nice to see.

Patrick

Ohhhhhh, nice work! Aways thought this was a neat looking aircraft and you did an excellent job with her. Love that you put her on a water base too. 

What a monster that was.  Looks real nice, Don.

Looks sharp Don. The base looks great as well.

I'd like to pick one of those up down the road.

Chris