thats interesting, so ufo's in the 50's?

crown r n7

thats interesting, so ufo's in the 50's?

 

Interesting subjects, look forward to seeing more.

Finished blending the engine cooling intakes to the wing of the XF5U-1. I let the Green Putty dry and shrink completely - for 48 hours - before I started sanding.

I'm using a variety of fillers - whatever works best. Squadron Green Putty for the XF5U-1 intakes. Vallejo water-based putty (acrylic resin and marble dust) around the bottom window on the V-173. Gel super glue and accelerator all the way around the disc halves of both planes, and on the V-173's spats.

Tom :

 I gotta say, you sure got a Gorgeous Avatar . That's an intelligent face,that is ! T.B.

Lawdog114;

 Wouldn't Maple Syrup make the model sticky?T.B.

You Know;

 I bet back in the day the things really did generate UFO reports .I would imagine the F-117a and the B-2 had their call ins too .

Tanker - Builder

Tom :

 I gotta say, you sure got a Gorgeous Avatar . That's an intelligent face,that is ! T.B.

 

Aw, poor kitty!  I have a cat that washed up on our shores (figuratively!) that is 16 or 17 years old now.  He's not cute like Alfie though.

The Kitty Hawk XF5U-1 kit has some weird things going on.  The cooling fans are not full circles and have blanking plates molded to their sides.  And Kitty Hawk seems to have been unable to decide on raised or recessed rivets.  Did the kit's stabilizers have the round landing lights in them?

According to the Ginter book, one of the props on the real XF5U-1 was missing logos, but I'll ignore that when I build mine!  The Ginter book also mentioned that the V-173 once ended up upside-down on a golf course, but the pilot escaped serious injury.  It would have been interesting to see how the XF5U-1 would have flown, even for just academic reasons.

I'll be watching your progress with great interest!

Real G

Aw, poor kitty!  I have a cat that washed up on our shores (figuratively!) that is 16 or 17 years old now.  He's not cute like Alfie though.

The Kitty Hawk XF5U-1 kit has some weird things going on.  The cooling fans are not full circles and have blanking plates molded to their sides.  And Kitty Hawk seems to have been unable to decide on raised or recessed rivets.  Did the kit's stabilizers have the round landing lights in them?

According to the Ginter book, one of the props on the real XF5U-1 was missing logos, but I'll ignore that when I build mine!  The Ginter book also mentioned that the V-173 once ended up upside-down on a golf course, but the pilot escaped serious injury.  It would have been interesting to see how the XF5U-1 would have flown, even for just academic reasons.

I'll be watching your progress with great interest!

 

I'm sure you love your long-time feline companion, cute or not.

Yes, the way Kitty Hawk molded the cooling fans on the XF5U-1 is very odd. I don't usually buy aftermarket parts, but I would make an exception in this case (if anyone actually made replacement fans), because the blanking plates can be seen after the fans are installed.

The horizontal stabilizers have formation and navigation lights. The landing light was going to be located in the plexi nose (makes sense), along with the gun camera mount (it's not an antenna).

The most frustrating thing about the kit is the extremely thin and fragile parts. I ended up breaking all the wheel door actuators when removing them from the sprues (so I'm leaving them off) as well as the rudder pedal assembly (I replaced it with a scratchbuilt unit). The extendable tail hook (in seven parts) is very fragile too, but I managed to assemble it without breaking anything. I did, however, use 0.020 styrene to replace some of the cover panels for the tailhook mechanism. There was no way to clean up the kit parts satisfactorily - tiny, tiny parts with up to five sprue gates each!

The V-173 crashed on a beach. The pilot flipped it upside down trying to avoid a sunbather (her towel was found under the plane). Lindbergh had initially refused to fly the plane because he feared that both the canopy and he would be crushed in an accident like that. But when he saw that the canopy and pilot survived intact, he changed his mind. The V-173 was an extremely strong wood-and-fabric design (and the all-metal XF5U-1 had to be destroyed with a wrecking ball!).

Very cool! I've got a kit of the Pancake somewhere. I think it's Classic Airframes or something like that, I'm almost afraid to tackle it.

Great job so far, really looking forward to seeing how she turns out.

Gamera

Very cool! I've got a kit of the Pancake somewhere. I think it's Classic Airframes or something like that, I'm almost afraid to tackle it.

Great job so far, really looking forward to seeing how she turns out.

 

Test fit of the extended tail hook on the XF5U-1. Three cover panels (kit parts C5, D4, and D30) have been replaced with 0.020 styrene (white). These panels cover the channels that the tail hook mechanism rises up out of.

To make the landing window on the V-173 fit, I added 0.010 styrene shims to the sides of the opening in the bottom disk half, and sanded down the right side of the nose on the top disk half. This still left a step between the bottom edge of the window and the bottom disk half, which could be corrected with some putty work. But I decided not to go that far, as the step won't be very visible when the finished plane is mounted to its display base.

The flared mounts at the top of the main wheel struts are molded with the wrong mating angles. Each is the opposite of what it should be, causing the struts to splay outward when attached, instead of being vertical. So I cut off the upper halves of both struts and switched them around.

Note the filled gaps in the spats. The kit's wheels are too thick.

I also have a 1/48 V-173, Sword I think, and the landing gear are not all that great.  The Ginter book describes how the actual gear strokes, so it is an invaluable reference to fixing up the kit parts.  The Sword kit had awful intakes molded to the wings.  I wonder if Special Hobby used the molds and improved them?

Your model is shaping up very nicely!

Real G

I also have a 1/48 V-173, Sword I think, and the landing gear are not all that great.  The Ginter book describes how the actual gear strokes, so it is an invaluable reference to fixing up the kit parts.  The Sword kit had awful intakes molded to the wings.  I wonder if Special Hobby used the molds and improved them?

Your model is shaping up very nicely!

 

http://modelingmadness.com/scott/allies/us/v173preview.htm

Props cleaned up and ready for paint. Each of the XF5U-1 props (bottom eight in the photo) had three gates attaching them to the sprue - and all were on the edges of the blades. Oy!

Three teensy tiny pieces (right) create diagonal slots (left) in the V-173's spinners. I tacked them in place with a micro dot of liquid super glue, then filled the seams with gel super glue and accelerator, on both the outside and inside surfaces. Then the assembly was strong enough to sand smooth. One has to be careful to attach the three pieces so they follow the curve of the spinner body. One side is concave and the other side is convex on each of the three pieces, and the two sets of three pieces are different from each other. Tweezers and toothpicks are a must for this job. (The spinners on the XF5U-1 are a much, much simpler affair.)

Hmmm this thread is making me hungry!

Looks like you’re doing an excellent job taking care of this flapjack. I don’t envy he prodigious use of filler on the intake, or fiddling around with those itty bitty prop spinner pieces. I don’t know if I’d throw those against the wall, or spend hours trying to perfect them, dropping them on the floor, and spending hours to find those bits again.

Thanks for sharing, looking forward to seeing this one progress. 

RadMax8

I don’t know if I’d throw those against the wall, or spend hours trying to perfect them, dropping them on the floor, and spending hours to find those bits again.

Very nice model. Look forward to progress.

RadMax8

Hmmm this thread is making me hungry!

Looks like you’re doing an excellent job taking care of this flapjack. I don’t envy he prodigious use of filler on the intake, or fiddling around with those itty bitty prop spinner pieces. I don’t know if I’d throw those against the wall, or spend hours trying to perfect them, dropping them on the floor, and spending hours to find those bits again.

Thanks for sharing, looking forward to seeing this one progress. 

 

The V-173's spinner parts were just made for the carpet monster.

GMorrison

Once you did that, someone would have them out on Shapeways!

Very nice model. Look forward to progress.

 

Major assembly and parts prep completed for both planes. Ready for masking, primer, and paint. All I need now are some nice days with no rain, wind, or high humidity. (I do all my spraying outdoors.)

Both planes can be seen as either one big wing or one big fuselage. So how would they be classified? Flying wings? Lifting bodies? Something completely different?

Tom Hering

Both planes can be seen as either one big wing or one big fuselage. So how would they be classified? Flying wings? Lifting bodies? Something completely different?

 

 

Well, I guess a flying wing is a sort of a lifting body.  The thing that makes the two planes unique is their way to improve performance.

Many lifting bodies have a lot of drag that limits aerodynamic performance because of the low aspect ratio (ratio of wingspan to wing chord).  The lower the aspect ratio, the more the tip vortices are strengthened which induces more drag.  By putting the props out on the tip of that very low aspect wing, and turning the props in the opposite direction to those vortices, the tip vortices were partially cancelled out by the propwash.  This made the plane act like it had a larger aspect ratio, resorting in better performance, so they were  indeed unique.

I have often thought one could make a manpowered plane using this technique, and avoid the super-high aspect ratio the current designs have, and save the tremendous complex lightweight but high aspect ratio wings.

Look up Charles Zimmerman, the concept was his.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Zimmerman

Geez, the more I see this thing come together, the more I want one!

jeaton01

Look up Charles Zimmerman, the concept was his.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Zimmerman

 

The Flying Pancake was also known as "Zimmer's Skimmer." Here's something I just discovered yesterday: the plane that inspired Zimmerman, Cloyd Snyder's Arup S-2. It first flew in 1933, and was demonstrated around the country. (Zimmerman's V-173 flew from 1942 to 1947. The XF5U-1 never flew.) I'm no expert, but the S-2 appears to address the issue of tip vortices in its own way. Mr. Stauffer?

The Arup S-2 looks like something that Williams Bros. should produce a 1/48 kit of. It would look great next to their PCA-2 Autogiro.

Tom Hering

 

 

jeaton01

Look up Charles Zimmerman, the concept was his.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_H._Zimmerman

 

 

 

 

The Flying Pancake was also known as "Zimmer's Skimmer." Here's something I just discovered yesterday: the plane that inspired Zimmerman, Cloyd Snyder's Arup S-2. It first flew in 1933, and was demonstrated around the country. (Zimmerman's V-173 flew from 1942 to 1947. The XF5U-1 never flew.) I'm no expert, but the S-2 appears to address the issue of tip vortices in its own way. Mr. Stauffer?

 

The Arup S-2 looks like something that Williams Bros. should produce a 1/48 kit of. It would look great next to their PCA-2 Autogiro.

 

Obviously there are no props at the tips to counter the vortices.  Winglets are the modern way to do it- the winglets are slightly canted outwards to create small vortices of their own to cancel the wing vortices.

If that tab-like thing on the tip were at a negative angle of attack, I could see how it might reduce wing vortices.  However, that view makes it look like the tabs are at a positive angle of attack, and hence strengthen the wing vortices. I assume those tabs take the place of ailerons.  I would think this low aspect flying wing would have very poor aero efficiency.  Looks like a lot of wing area, however, so landing and takeoff speeds may be quite low.