B-36 Peacemaker Group Build

Teutonic222

Thanks for the updated answers. Still not sure about the wing-to-fuselage decision.  I'll probably opt for building it complete - wings attached.

I'll take you up on your decal and landing gear deal. This is the reason group builds are good! Everyone benefits. Hopefully now we can all have more notices, Featherweight windows via Click2detail, and other stupid stuff that few others appreciate.

I`ll get that sheet out to you in a couple of weeks because I want to research my materials & send you pictures of what things are, where they go, and the different colors they need to be, etc

I`m putting those figures together, and will send the gear with them out this week sometime. In the meantime, you said you wanted 6. Is that correct? & which ones do you want? The ones that sit in the pilots seats or the ones with the arm out that sit at the FE station?

I wanted to share some findings I have now with testing differnt paints on my paint test fuselage I made from the warped one.

I found a really good cost effective OD green for the interior work

The lighting doesnt do it any justice, but I got these at my local walmart for $3.77 a cam

I used the one on the right. color 1920 - "Army Green". 

The one on the left was the darker color I had tried earlier ( The bottom green one below ) that will look great on armor, artillery, or even a B-17/B-29 build that`s in dark green. That color is 1919 " Deep Forrest Green "

The really good news is just like the can says... It bonds really well to plastic.

I appreciate your efforts to pull together the reference material for the decals/notice sheet. My Wachsmuth book showed up today. Haven't had much time to look at it, so I don't know if it would have photos of positions for the notices. Anything that helps identify where they go is great. I can ultimately create a set of instructions that combines all the loose reference materials. I hope the German Revell decal sheet and instruction booklet identified where some of the notices belong (correctly).

Regarding the crew, I'm thinking four of the pilot types and two of the FE station crew. It's a bit of a guess at this point. The FE crew member has the advantage of the bent arm not being attached to the leg and the other arm removable and re-positionable. The pilot has the advantage of both arms being tight against the body. I know that I'll be fitting them into some constricted spaces and will need conduct some heavy modifications to get them to fit while also looking somewhat correct. Thanks again.

I've also been thinking about the landing gear. Two concepts: 1) massive sawing and repositioning to get the bogie to hang right and the toggle beam to also sit on an angle, or; 2) only modifiying the bogie. Concept one is ultimately correct, but requires a lot more work, has more opportunity for a *** up, and the toggle beam might actually look a little strange since it now would be on an even greater angle (correct, but sometimes in modeling making you have to play tricks to make the eye see things correctly). Concept two would be easier and I think has the same visual impact, but isn't 100% correct.

Just for clarification sake guys, the forum's auto-redacting in my last paragraph was not due to me dropping the f-bomb. I'm classier than that.  It was actually the c-bomb, but apparently the British way of stating a screw up doesn't work on this forum. :)

lajntx

<SNIP>

The really good news is just like the can says... It bonds really well to plastic.<SNIP>

....and bad news.  That stuff bonds almost too well to plastic.  I have a car kit that's currently parked in the stash because I tried to prime it with the plastic stuff they sell.  I've top-coated it three times, and had to strip it off because of a poor finish.  I'm not certain it's not just me, but in all three paint stripping tasks haven't touched that primer.  So be careful what you paint with it. 

Gene Beaird,
Pearland, Texas

CrashTestDummy

lajntx

<SNIP>

The really good news is just like the can says... It bonds really well to plastic.<SNIP>

....and bad news.  That stuff bonds almost too well to plastic.  I have a car kit that's currently parked in the stash because I tried to prime it with the plastic stuff they sell.  I've top-coated it three times, and had to strip it off because of a poor finish.  I'm not certain it's not just me, but in all three paint stripping tasks haven't touched that primer.  So be careful what you paint with it. 

Gene Beaird,
Pearland, Texas

Thats a good point, and those camo paints are probably not suited for anything outside of a military build type of application. 

The plus sides I have noticed is:

They dry almost like a military field paint application would... Dry-ish, no shine, fine grit chalky feel too it.

It drys and form fits really well to what it is bonding too, not just dry on top of whatever it was painted too making panel lines harder to see

Tonight I began the build of of 44-92020

The first ceremonial joining of pieces was the lower deck 

Applied the first coat of green interior paint to the interior pieces as well

So which green did you end up using?

I'm still in research mode to prepare for super detailing.

1. Plan to add the chaff dispenser chutes.

2. May modify the horizontal stabilizer roots. The model shows the trailing edge root as one single wedge shape, but it is actually two shapes. One part is where it meets the fuselage. The other part where the rear nav lights are mounted.

3. Will add positioning/formation lights to the wings and fuselage. I use the clear and colored jewels from Precision Scale Co. (www.precisionscaleco.com) for all nav and formation lights. This company primarily supplies to the model railroad market. Go to the "Detail Parts" tab, then click on "Click here to see PSC's Scratchbuilding supplies and parts," then click on "Jewels." Sorry, but there is no direct link to that webpage. The 2.7mm jewels seem to be about right in size for the human eye. Although 2.7mm scales to 7.65" at 1/72, I think the next size down is too small at 3.68". Although they are faceted jewels rather than lenses, I have found the sparkle ends up tricking the eye into seeing them as colored lenses or lights. The blue jewels are an in between size, but I think that will be okay for the formation lights.

I use the following:  1) green #48328; 2) red #48327; 3) clear #48329; 4) amber #48378; 5) blue #48293. They come 12 to a package and sell between $3.75 and $4.25 per pack. You can usually find them at good model railroad hobby shops.

4. I will add the fuselage mounted landing lights using lenses from M.V. Products, PN 116 (3mm diam). They are about $0.90 each.

5. The challenge will be to kitbash a decent jet pod mounted taxi light. This one will be a little tricky. I think it will end up just being painted and clear coated with Model Master Window Maker.

6. I plan to add the bomb sight bubble underneath the fuselage and forward of the front landing gear bay, but am still hunting for a 3mm diam hemispherical or spherical clear product. Maybe a bead of some sort (fabric store? bead store?).

7. I'll also add the 6 tabs on the jet exhaust.

8. I don't know if there is any practical way to add the detail of the anti-icing dump valve outlet on top of the wing.

9. And then there is the landing gear bays super detailing.

Well, at least that will make this model build last a while.

Changing my mind on part of item 3 in my super detailing rant. I was checking M.V. Products and I think I'll use their 2.6mm (0.101") blue and clear lenses for formation and positioning lights. These may look better since they are more lens-like and are mounted flush to the wings and fuselage. The jewels from Precision Scale will still probably look better and will be easier to mount, especially since they are on the wing edges.

Teut22, you're going to town on that girl!  Looking forward to this.

Teutonic222

So which green did you end up using?

#1920 - Army Green

Here we are about an hour after the second coat was applied and you can see how well the paint is "form fitting" as it dries showing every little imperfection and all legitimate details very clearly.

NOTE: held piece up to a bright light to see details better and thus why the green looks yellow

I'm trying. I'm usually a big picture/high altitude guy, but I periodically do a dive down to ground level and focus on the details. My poor brain can't keep up.

I'll take pictures once the work starts. I've got to do some scaling off of photos to make sure I'm getting close to the right dimensions. The good news is very few people will ever know about any of the mistakes.

Teutonic222

I appreciate your efforts to pull together the reference material for the decals/notice sheet. My Wachsmuth book showed up today. Haven't had much time to look at it, so I don't know if it would have photos of positions for the notices. Anything that helps identify where they go is great. I can ultimately create a set of instructions that combines all the loose reference materials. I hope the German Revell decal sheet and instruction booklet identified where some of the notices belong (correctly).

Regarding the crew, I'm thinking four of the pilot types and two of the FE station crew. It's a bit of a guess at this point. The FE crew member has the advantage of the bent arm not being attached to the leg and the other arm removable and re-positionable. The pilot has the advantage of both arms being tight against the body. I know that I'll be fitting them into some constricted spaces and will need conduct some heavy modifications to get them to fit while also looking somewhat correct. Thanks again.

I've also been thinking about the landing gear. Two concepts: 1) massive sawing and repositioning to get the bogie to hang right and the toggle beam to also sit on an angle, or; 2) only modifiying the bogie. Concept one is ultimately correct, but requires a lot more work, has more opportunity for a *** up, and the toggle beam might actually look a little strange since it now would be on an even greater angle (correct, but sometimes in modeling making you have to play tricks to make the eye see things correctly). Concept two would be easier and I think has the same visual impact, but isn't 100% correct.

Am sending you 3 sets of crew ( 12 ) , and 3 sets of main gear. That should give you plenty of plastic bodies to commit war crimes errrr... I mean " voluntary experimental medical proceedures" on. 2 sets of main gear to experiment on...and one set to send back to me for my inflight build when you perfect it.

Thanks lajntx. You must have a whole bomb wing there. I'll try to keep Dr. Mengele out of the room when I start working on the crew modifications.

I'm trying to find a better resolution photo of the landing gear in flight mode to see how much the beam angle is different compared to when in landed mode. If the angle of the beam doesn't change much, I think I'll go with just modifying the bogie and related oleos. Or I might just screw it and change it to a pontoon plane. :)

Teutonic222

Thanks lajntx. You must have a whole bomb wing there. I'll try to keep Dr. Mengele out of the room when I start working on the crew modifications.

I have 18 kits ranging from scrap kits, ones I am working on, and some just sitting there still sealed appriciating in value. I may not own the most kits.... But I am pretty sure I am in the top 5 collectors of it. 

I'm trying to find a better resolution photo of the landing gear in flight mode to see how much the beam angle is different compared to when in landed mode. If the angle of the beam doesn't change much, I think I'll go with just modifying the bogie and related oleos. Or I might just screw it and change it to a pontoon plane. :)

Here is a link to one sitting on display, that is a good place to start for the details and how it looks when it is not attached to the plane

http://www.skytamer.com/1.2/2002/2031.jpg

I`m going to send a request to the person I know that has all of the photos, and is the go to source when a book is needed illustrations and see what he has. Not sure how clear we will find since we are talking 1950`s camera technology taking pictures of a moving object far away in the sky though

Boy, any in-flight photos would help. The problems are resolution, lighting, and profile. I found four photographs for measuring wheel droop. My rudimentary measurements were relatively consistent, averaging 9.8 degrees forward droop. The problem is the beam. Only one photo showed it and it was about as good as the Zabruder film. My best measurement was a shift in beam angle from 25 degrees (which I could measure from the model and Scale Aircraft die cast piece) to 16.5 degrees from the poor photo. The shadows were killing me, plus none of the photos show the aircraft full-on profile, so I'm dealing with some perspective issues, although I think I canceled them out.

I wrote to Chris again at Click2detail regarding the drooped landing gear. He said it is a bit more complex than the Featherweight windows, but he thought it was a good suggestion and will discuss it with his team. I'll let the group know if he goes ahead with it.

He also sent me a sneak peak at the Featherweight window. They will 3D print a sample and test fit it. I suspect it will be done soon.

Here is my drawing of the landing gear.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/25391811@N02/10987824616" title="B-36 Landing Gear Angles by mlundy, on Flickr"><img src="//farm3.staticflickr.com/2868/10987824616_75d4ea0427_b.jpg" width="960" height="720" alt="B-36 Landing Gear Angles"></a>

Geez, Flickr just changed the look of their site. Took me forever to find the controls and obviously, the link didn't work. Can't find the two types of coding anymore. We'll try photobucket.

http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af241/mlundquist1/B-36LandingGearAngles_zps6730f3e4.jpg

Well, HTML and Direct codes don't work. Now we'll try IMG. I'm really not this much of a dolt.

This "Zabruder film" is probably your best bet.... any photos I get, I`ll send to you. But watch them start taking off at 1:20... You may like what you see

Teutonic222

Well, HTML and Direct codes don't work. Now we'll try IMG. I'm really not this much of a dolt.

Hmmm, maybe I better bring to your attention that the rolled tubes the wheels connect too were hollow as well. You might lose sleep over missing that detail. 

After watching that take off reel, I never realized just how close the tail section came to touching the ground if she nosed-up too quick!

Hah! This coming from the guy with 18 kits.

Reasoned, you probably can't see it from the video, but the rear turret gunners have their feet extending through a hatch in the bottom of the fuselage and they are madly pushing off to keep the tail end from dragging. :)

Teutonic222

Reasoned, you probably can't see it from the video, but the rear turret gunners have their feet extending through a hatch in the bottom of the fuselage and they are madly pushing off to keep the tail end from dragging. :)

Were they named Fred & Barney from Bedrock?

I think the take offs in the England film were the results of "hot dogging" it for the news reel cameras.

In this film in the begining watch the take off in the opening scene from Carswell as the bomber casually rolls down the runway.  Then scroll to to 46:15 to watch the take off described about the last B-36 at the turn over ceremony, and notice how it quickly takes off from the same runway

http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/last_one.htm

The last B-36 was delivered during a public ceremony by retired Gen. Joseph T. McNarney, Convair president, and accepted by Maj. Gen. Francis H. Griswold, vice commander of SAC.

Mason Ripp, navigator on the flight to Spokane, recalls that after the ceremonial speeches were concluded, the crew ran to the plane, started the engines much quicker than normal, took off and then buzzed the reviewing stand after a screaming dive.   They then set a new speed record for the flight from Carswell to Fairchild.  Maj. Laurence M. Nickerson, 33, of Thorndike, Maine, was aircraft commander and headed the 13-man crew.

I find it hard to think that the rear set of wheels is not articulated on the same beam as the front, pivoting at the center of the main strut, as that would make the loads different on the front and rear set of wheels, and the load on the front wheels would have to be controlled by the strut mechanism.  That would be difficult and odd.

The takeoff in England would have been at a heavier weight and the runway may have been shorter as it was not built for a B-36, most likely.  That would explain the higher angle of the fuselage at liftoff, as compared to the flight to Fairchild AFB.  Looks like they went to maximum pitch a little early and waited for liftoff in England.

I never worked on landing gear, but I believe the beam further up the strut (known as the equalizer) is designed to equalize the loads on the front and rear bogie axles. The oleo on the front would be used as the "shock absorber", but is tied via the equalizer beam to a rod that is connected to the rear bogie axle. In any case, each axle would need to handle the dynamic landing loads independently since only one of the wheel-axle combination touches down at initial impact with the runway on landing. Shortly after touchdown, the other wheel-axle combination would contact the runway and the dynamic loading is reduced to something approaching static load. Again, I'm not a landing gear guy, but I worked with a lot of similar type of loading scenarios for flight control systems and think this would be similar ... or not.

As a side note, there have been some pretty interesting landing gear concepts over the years. The B-36 tracked bogie certainly has to be one of them. My father was also involved in a concept for landing gear where they would spool up the wheels using a hydrostatic transmission (similar to those used on large off-road construction and mining equipment), so when the wheels touched down, they were already at or near the landing rotational speed. The concept was to reduce the wear and extend the life of aircraft tires and hopefully prevent blow outs. The concept didn't go anywhere because of the weight penalties, but it was a valient attempt during the time when people actually built and tested stuff in real life. Now I'm sounding like an old guy reliving the "good ole days."

I found a couple of pictures, one is interesting because it shows the gear in the in flight position, with the upper beam visible.

Finally, here is a link with a small boy in front of the landing gear at Pima, I think.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barryfackler/5581272455/

Teutonic222

As a side note, there have been some pretty interesting landing gear concepts over the years. The B-36 tracked bogie certainly has to be one of them. My father was also involved in a concept for landing gear where they would spool up the wheels using a hydrostatic transmission (similar to those used on large off-road construction and mining equipment), so when the wheels touched down, they were already at or near the landing rotational speed. The concept was to reduce the wear and extend the life of aircraft tires and hopefully prevent blow outs. The concept didn't go anywhere because of the weight penalties, but it was a valient attempt during the time when people actually built and tested stuff in real life. Now I'm sounding like an old guy reliving the "good ole days."

And on that note... Here is a video from the "good ole days" when the tracked gear was being tested in real  life vs being simulated on a computer with data imputs mandated from upper management determined to either make or break a program. 

Hi jeaton01. Thanks for the photos. You subtly and correctly pointed out the error in my drawing, which I will redo. For some brain dead reason, I had reversed the oleo position, placing it in the forward spot, rather than the aft location. Gee, after looking at who knows how many photos, I still drew it wrong.

I'll recalculate and redraw. However, I think my landing gear explanation on loading is still correct -- basically, each axle needs to handle full load on impact with the runway. I will still reiterate, however, that I am not a landing gear expert and bow to anyone else's expertise on the matter.

Thanks again.