Revell(G) DC-4

Don,

Vintage Flyer Decals has them:

http://vintageflyerdecals.com/american.html

Click a DC-4 livery pic and then simply select a scale.

scotty100368

Don,

Vintage Flyer Decals has them:

http://vintageflyerdecals.com/american.html

Click a DC-4 livery pic and then simply select a scale.

 

Thanks, Scott

I guess Douglas struggled with it too.

I had the same issue with my C-54 Skymaster.  I put a bunch of weight in the front of it, and it was still a tail sitter.  But I guess they were in real life as well.

Surprisingly ;

 Many were . Did you ever wonder what the dimple under the tail was for ? That was so if it did , nothing important would get damaged . They certainly couldn't rotate enough in take - off to bump that spot !

 In my " Independence " aircraft I have 21 washers that just barely fit . Now it stands on it's nose gear .

 Which , by the way was strengthened with a brass rod up the middle of the leg . T.B.

Tanker - Builder

Surprisingly ;

 Many were . Did you ever wonder what the dimple under the tail was for ? That was so if it did , nothing important would get damaged . They certainly couldn't rotate enough in take - off to bump that spot !

 In my " Independence " aircraft I have 21 washers that just barely fit . Now it stands on it's nose gear .

 Which , by the way was strengthened with a brass rod up the middle of the leg . T.B.

 

Which strengthens my *** about mfgs telling us how much weight the nose needs! If properly balanced, that weight does not add substantially to stress on nose gear, though it does still add to the weight on the mains.  But, it is really hard to actually measure how much it takes to balance.  A one-time task that the mfgs should do!

Airplanes are tail sitters because when they're designed the engineers take the weight of the engines into account, the center of gravity moves forward. The attached video of the 747s without engines almost flying in gusty winds, the photos of b-24s in the scrap yards without engines sitting on their tails. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhZwvdRR5c

Oh Yes ;

 I often wondered why Falcon Jet didn't do that to the 20s . they had a tendency to sit quite often during upgrades .

Unless it's an MD90 yuk yuk

Or a B-36.

Hi DON !

  Listen , I discovered a way to solve the weight problem .Without sacrificing the landing gear . Mount it dry then sit the plane on a Diet scale that measures in Grams . Take a matchbox sized container and tape it above the cockpit

 Make sure you deduct the box and tape weight before the next step . That's your Tare . Now start adding B.B. s or washers till it sits on the gear firmly but doesn't weaken it .

     This has worked for me since . On the washer loaded one I was trying to build like I didn't know this .  See ,when I worked for Timex in Little Rock , Ar . We would supply each station with a shift full of parts and they only could be measured in Grams .

 I still have my scale someplace .

Don Stauffer

Got my 1:72 DC-4 yesterday. It will be awhile before I can get it on the bench.  Some ambiguity in the instructions.  One of the difficulties with making kits for people of many languages is that icons are not always that clear in expressing complex decisions :-(

A nice feature is that there are seperate interior fuselage sides rather than trying to mold interior into back side of exterior skins.  There is a very high parts count- this thing will take awhile to put together.

One of the things that frosts me is that not only is there no estimate of weight for nose suggested- the instructions do not even mention nose weight!  Instead, the kit comes with a tail brace to prevent sitting back on tail- what a regression!

Anyone know if anyone makes AA decals for a -4 in 1:72.  Queried Draw Decal, they do not and do not intend to.  I am left with trying to scale up the AA decals from my 1:144 Minicraft kit- that seems like quite a scaleup. If that does not look very good, I'll just go with Draw's Northwest decals.

 

An idea that works for me. Scan your existing decals into your computer, then enlarge or decrease the size and print them back out. You can get printable decal paper from a local print shop, like Quick Print. Works great. I use it for decals that have en laying around for a long time and have dried out.

 

 

Micro Mark carries both clear and white decal paper. It is my paper of choice for making inkjet decals.

Some info I have read in the past about DC4s/C54.

1. First Douglas built what was to become a only one up airplane the DC4E. It was built with partiall goverment funding but due to cost overruns the whole project cost more than the funding. The airlined rejected the prototype doubting if they could ever make money operating it. It was the first US aircraft built with a APU I believe. It came with a triple tail, was underpowered, and when rejected by the airlines was sold to Japan.

2. Next Douglas designed a smaller, more pratical DC4 that Douglas used the Twin Wasp engine with high compression cylinders using 100 oct gas to meet performance specs. The airlines rejected the use of 100 oct gas rather than the cheaper 80 oct. Douglas ask P&W to come up with more powerful engine so the 1830 became the R2000 twin wasp burning 80 oct and meeting the DC4 power requirements.

3. Hard to believe but the fusaloge cross section from the DC4, DC6, and DC7 were the same - just plugs were added to increase the length. Same with the wing - same airfoil but added sections to increase span.

Vintage Flyer Decals has the AA DC-4 in 1/72 in a varierty of liveries to fit your model.

http://www.vintageflyerdecals.com/index.html

I have two of these beasts in my unbuilt stash, and you are correct...a huge number of parts to build the model as detailed as you wish. And to boot, there are brass photo etched parts available as well to beef up the landing gear. I would suggest you use metal gear for the final build, as the model will weigh quite a bit once you have added the nose weight and interior parts. I have always used a sure-fire formula for determining the weight required for a model..."whatever it takes." try taping together the fuselage, the wings, and tail, then balance the taped assembly on a fulcrum, adding the desired weight, and then a little more to compensate for the completed parts, until it sits as desired. Remember, too, that it was and is common to attach a strong pole to the tail of the real airplane while it is loaded or unloaded, so as to prevent it from tipping to the tail. The pole is removed after at least two engines are running, so as to shift the CG by virtue of the wind created by the props, causing the airplane to sit properly on all three gear. So, the tail pole is not a "regression," but a necessity. Looking forward to seeing your build progress.

Challenger350Pilot

The pole is removed after at least two engines are running, so as to shift the CG by virtue of the wind created by the props, causing the airplane to sit properly on all three gear. So, the tail pole is not a "regression," but a necessity. Looking forward to seeing your build progress.

 

AFA Vintage Flyer, Mike sells a great product. I have a set of Santa Fe Skyway decals for this model, for some time in the near future.

It would not be smart to try to fly an airplane that will not sit on it's gear once loaded, with engines off.  With the CG that far aft the airplane would be at best marginally controllable.  With aft CG the elevators get very sensitive, and at lower speeds may not be effective enough to get the nose down, resulting in an unrecoverable stall.   The post under the tail is only used for loading and maintenance.  Try to find a photo of an airliner with passengers being loaded with the tail support in place.  I think you will only find that when loading freight.

I'd agree. With the cargo door way in the back there, heavy stuff would have to be slid forward inside to balance the aircraft.

One time I got on an aircraft at Burbank. The cabin was empty except for just a couple of folks, myself in the last row. The flight attendant came back and told me that they need me to move up to the first row.

I couldn't see how that would matter, but I wasn't about to complain.

I, too, was on a commercial flight (a small plane) where the stewardess asked people to move forward for a more favorable weight balance.  I first couldn't figure out how they knew the balance was not good until I realized they can look at how much the nose gear is compressed.  There may be other ways?

Hi,

I once flew on an Embrear Turboprop (about 21 seats), and the flight attendent came by and asked a couple of us to move to different locations.  It was kind of odd in that some moved forward, others moved aft, in addition to moving from one side of the plane to the other.  Since it was a small plane, with 2 seats per row on one side and only 1 seat per row on the other, I guess maybe side to side loadout may have been more significant for that type arrangement .

Pat

PFJN

flew on an Embrear Turboprop (about 21 seats)

American Eagle (the fancy name for what had been Chapparal Air Service) flew Saab 320 twins out of Easterwood Field (CLL).  Carry-ons went in a "canoe" under the fuselage.  Under 25 seat, so no Flight Attendant required.  The Gate agent walked you across the tarmac, and let you sort out finding your seat.  Once the carry-ons were packed on the checked baggage, the senior baggage handler would stick hi head in the a/c and recommend passenger shifts based on the weight of the stuff loaded aboard.

Was right at 45-55 minutes gate to gate to DFW (depending on how long the taxi was to the AmEagle hardstand was) on a 30-35 minute flight.  My favorite seat was 2B which might as well have been a cockpit jumpseat.

Passenger traffic increased to the point that they put on a larger two-engine T winged Saab, which had overhead bins and an actual Flight Attendant.  Roomier but just not the same.

AmEagle later replaced all their Saabs with Embrears in various sizes, with a twin engine about the size of the small Saab, and a High Winged bird with a cargo/baggage section just aft of the cockpit.

All of which were a significant upgrade from the olden days, when the only air service was Rio Airways, who flew DeHaviland Otters.  Fixed nading gear high wing STOL birds where you had to step up to the seat, and duck down at the same time, and you had to be careful to not hit your head o nthe wingspar, or trip on the landing gear spar.

Brasilias, UAL called them. Pilots called them SPADs.

Oddest looking short haul I ever flew on was the Shorts Skyvan; Mykonos-Athens.

Random selection of a few others: DH Dove Bristol Aircraft corporate ride when I was a kid living in England while Dad (didn't) buy Concorde for UAL.

Vickers Viscount turboprops on the Eastern Seaboard, UAL got them in the Capital  Airlines purchase.

jeaton01

It would not be smart to try to fly an airplane that will not sit on it's gear once loaded, with engines off.  With the CG that far aft the airplane would be at best marginally controllable.  With aft CG the elevators get very sensitive, and at lower speeds may not be effective enough to get the nose down, resulting in an unrecoverable stall.   The post under the tail is only used for loading and maintenance.  Try to find a photo of an airliner with passengers being loaded with the tail support in place.  I think you will only find that when loading freight.

 

John,

Saturday at Sea-Tac, I saw an AK Air 737-800/900 at the N terminal with a yellow pogo stick while it must have been loading passengers.

I don't believe you unless you send me a picture!

It seems that pogo sticks are more common than we think.

That must have been some big carry-on...

jeaton01

I don't believe you unless you send me a picture!

 

Long time ago I was stationed in Wichita Falls for a few weeks.  One day we had our attention called to a T-29 that had made a very hard landing the night before.  Front end was a trike plane, the rear a tail dragger, almost.  Tail a couple of feet off the ground, but massive wrinkles just behind the wing.  That must have hurt!

The first one looks more like a tie down, the third is a freighter, but the second one though small does look convincing.  Good luck there is no egg on face emoticon...Oh no, they are going to find one of those too