Jump to content
Guest PetrolGator

Group Build: History's Rejects: Indefinitely Postponed.

Recommended Posts

Guest PetrolGator

Every genre has them. In automotive, there's the Edsall, Gremlin or the horrid Pontiac Aztec. Wingy guys have the Buffalo or that poorly named Devastator. Ship guys, have well, almost any Japanese destroyer built late war, or the hilariously bad Courageous-class battlecruisers.

 

This forum needs some life. Choose a build from the stash, or something new, that was a HORRIBLE idea. Build it, then tell us why you chose it. Group build will start end of September, roughly, unless we have an overwhelming response.

 

 

OFFICIAL START DATE OF OCTOBER 15TH HAS BEEN SET FOR THIS GROUP BUILD.

 

...of course, end is well, negotiable. :smiley2:

 

 

OFFICIAL LIST:

 

1) Chris - 1/700 Orange Hobby Graf Zeppelin w/Escort (maybe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea.....I'll see what I can fit in for this to go along with the P-40E on the bench, as well as the B-66 and Kingfisher I'm sorta committed to already! I do have a Midway Buffalo on the shelf...

 

GIL :smiley16:

Edited by ghodges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PetrolGator

I'm either going to build a late war IJN destroyer or splurge and buy a Courageous-class battlecruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in. Don't know what yet, but I'm in.

 

Something airy probably.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a few "winners" I can show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one of the planes that oozes modern jet fighter in the 1950's. This is the Chance Vought F7U-3 Cutlass. This was the most radical fighter design ever to achieve fleet service. It was the first tail-less airplane to go into production in the US and it was the first plane designed at the beginning with afterburners.

 

Visibility problems on landing on an aircraft carrier were a problem and neverfully resolved. Inadequate performing engines contributed to the list of things wrong. When firing it's guns, gases and unburnt powder were sucked into the engines and caused flameouts. The long nosewheel strut could collapse and be driven into the cockpit, ejecting the pilot from the plane.

 

The Blue Angels flew them one year (1953). One of these aircraft was the first plane to land at what is now O'Hare airport. Due to an engine malfunction, the Blue's Cutlass made an emergency landing there before the airport was opened officially.

 

First flight July 1951. Retired March 1959. Not a long or distinguished career.

 

Here is my 1/72 Fujimi Cutlass. Nice model to build. No putty was used on the build. I painted it with SNJ Aluminum and then used buffing powder and some Bare Metal Foil here and there. I added some seat belts to the seat and that was about it. It still looks cool. Hope you like it. Comments always welcome.

 

CIMG1261_zpsb64b1227.jpgCIMG1266_zps24cd4aa8.jpg

 

CIMG1264_zps83c67df4.jpg

CIMG1263_zps7af8ecf9.jpg

CIMG1267_zps8ce0bd59.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it! I would have figured it for 1/48 scale if you hadn't mentioned what scale it was. Very nice job; especially considering there's no filler anywhere!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great looking Gutless....and truly a plane that never lived up to its potential due to under powered engines. I too would have guessed 1/48 if you hadn't pegged it as 1/72. Remarkable!

 

GIL :smiley16:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PetrolGator

Bill, love the aircraft. My aero background is utterly screaming with joy with regard to her design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone. Cool airplane but what a woof. If most of the early jets met their stated design goals, just think how that could have changed history? Underperforming engines was the biggest technological hurdle it seems. All sorts of designs but no engines to move them forward to their design limits.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I KNOW you have something you can build....

 

Yeah, I think I do. I just have to search the stash to see what I have available. Besides, I have so many in progress I need to get done first. Let me check things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a few of mine.

 

 

Fairy Barracuda. Designed as a torpedo plane, but could barely get off the deck with one. Was only used as a bomber and wasn't particularly good at that either. Plus it's butt ugly.

DSCN2437.jpg

 

A development in the British cruiser line of tanks, The Covenanter was underpowered and under gunned and had a tendency to overheat. Only used in the UK in training units and even they didn't like it.

DSCN1604.jpg

 

The Avro Manchester. Mechanically unreliable and underpowered.

DSCN1584.jpg

 

Boulton Paul Defiant. The "ultimate" turret fighter of the RAF. Couldn't get out of its own way. Only success it had, however limited, was at night.

DSCN1551.jpg

 

Fairey Albacore. Built to replace the very dated Swordfish, which could match it in most capacities. Pilots hated it.

DSCN1544.jpg

 

The Locust light tank,. Waste of time. All it ever did was run around the landing areas and get tangled in the parachute shrouds laying around.

DSCN1490.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This beast was built at a time when the aerodynamics of transonic flight and swept wings were not well known. This was a real handful for a pilot. If you were in a transonic region and had a flame out or suddenly pulled the throttles back, the shockwaves and pressure centers moved about the wing very rapidly and you could wind up with a sudden pitch up that exceeded the loading specs on the aircraft. Many a pilot lost his life in this bird!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's spelled Edsel..

 

Pete...what are you talking about? ;) Are we supposed to guess?

 

No one mentioned the Pontiac Fiero?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete was talking about flying the Cutlass pictured above. According to the Ginter book on the stability of the Cutlass, flying it was like sitting on top of a bowling ball, never knowing which way it would tilt!

 

GIL :smiley16:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since instability is a trait that can lead to manoeuverability, with good engines and computerized controls, might the Cutlass have been a highly manoeuverable aircraft? 'Course, they didn't have computers, but 'what if'....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PetrolGator

OK, to summarize the potential members:

 

1) Gil - Buffalo (good choice. I think these things killed more American pilots than anything else)

2) Ron - Unknown.

3) Chris (myself) - IJN late war destroyer. Hilariously bad design. I'm also thinking about going "big" and building the DMK Graf Zeppelin in 1/700.

4) Kevin (being dragged in for mentioning it) - Fiero. Bonus points if you stuff a 350 under its hood.

5) Mark - Unknown

 

Pete, are you interested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PetrolGator

Since instability is a trait that can lead to manoeuverability, with good engines and computerized controls, might the Cutlass have been a highly manoeuverable aircraft? 'Course, they didn't have computers, but 'what if'....

 

Strapping bigger engines and a computer to her would still not negate her structural instability. As it was stated above, an aircraft REALLY sees most of its stress when it transitions to Mach flight. The Cutlass, well, sucked at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since instability is a trait that can lead to manoeuverability, with good engines and computerized controls, might the Cutlass have been a highly manoeuverable aircraft? 'Course, they didn't have computers, but 'what if'....

Instability buy itself does not make an aircraft more maneuverable. It makes it react quicker the closer the CG and center of lift are together. Instability is a function of the location of the center of gravity in relation to the center of lift(actually it is much more complex, but that will do for now). Depending upon their locations, you may have a dynamically stable aircraft, that if deflected out of level flight with begin a series of decreasing oscillations until it returns to the original flight path if controls are left alone. A dynamically unstable aircraft will go through a series of increasing oscillations until it either over stresses the aircraft or departs controlled flight. Neither of which is desirable.

 

If you add a pilot to the equation trying to dampen the oscillations and being just a little behind in his reaction, the oscillation increase quicker. That is referred to as PIO or pilot induced oscillation. Having said that, imagine an aircraft that because of the shift of the center lift will go from stable to unstable depending on speed and regime of flight. Add to that the shift because of the building and shifting of the shockwave at or near supersonic flight and the pilot can get overwhelmed pretty quickly. Flying the Cutlass took a very gentle touch and a pilot who could anticipate reactions in all aspects of the flight envelope. Not really a really desirable set of characteristics for a fighter.

Edited by PeteJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, leave me out of this....my only prerequisite for building something is, I have to like it. I'm a Japanese car guy since the US stopped making decent vehicles in the late 60's.

 

Fun fact...did you know the Fiero drive train was a Chevy Citation front engine front drive assembly stuck in the Fiero with the uprights locked straight? Also, the fist year(and maybe later) when water drained into the engine compartment, and then happened to freeze, it also froze some of the pulleys and drive belts....how's that for design excellence?

 

Thanks Pete for the explanation!

Edited by Lumpulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPC issued annual kits of the Pontiac Fiero for all five production years--1984-1988. I found them all in my stash. The molds were altered considerably as Pontiac tried over the years to make the sporty car look into a sporty car performance. I looked at the car at the time and did not buy one because I could not fit into the driver's seat without my head touching the roof liner. The car was not made with tall drivers in mind.

 

Now, I have this 1/72 Mach 2 Convair YF2Y-1 Sea Dart partly assembled to the masking and painting stage. The markings were quite complicated, and the decal sheet ignores them, forcing the need to completely mask them for painting.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, leave me out of this....my only prerequisite for building something is, I have to like it. I'm a Japanese car guy since the US stopped making decent vehicles in the late 60's.

 

Fun fact...did you know the Fiero drive train was a Chevy Citation front engine front drive assembly stuck in the Fiero with the uprights locked straight? Also, the fist year(and maybe later) when water drained into the engine compartment, and then happened to freeze, it also froze some of the pulleys and drive belts....how's that for design excellence?

 

Thanks Pete for the explanation!

Kevin- Glad I could put it in some order. There is really a lot more to it that that explanation, but it will do for the basics. By the way Chevy was not the only one to pull a stunt like that with a motor. Toyota did the same thing in reverse with the MR2 and the Corolla FX16. The FX16 had the Gen 1 MR2 engine and transmission turned around and dropped in the front with a change in the ring gears. I had an FX16 and it was a real hot hatchback. I recall that it was in the same speed and handling range and the Golf GTI of the same era. Kind of wish I had it back, but real happy with my 93 MR2 turbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PetrolGator

OK. I'm going with this:

 

graf14__87940.1357667439.1280.1280.jpg

 

DKM Graf Zeppelin was intended to be the first of Nazi Germany's aircraft carrier force and a vital component of the Z-plan. She was a BIG ship and well protected. Beyond that, her AA armament was inadequate, had a silly catapult launching system, and was used for little more than storage due to Goering's hatred of the Navy.

 

She's also wonderfully butt ugly. In truth, I just LOVE this ship. The kit itself is a multi media extravaganza that seems to have good fit. I'm not sure if I'll paint her in Baltic or a dazzle camouflage. I'm also debating using one of my 1/700 German DDs as an escort, just to give an idea of how BIG she was.

 

I'm committed starting sometime mid-October. I have one review build I have to get out the door before this.

 

So, who else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is cool. I wonder what kit that is in the pic. I built the Revell kit, but didn't do the aftermarket on her. I then got a second one to do a "What if?" to depict her as a Russian conversion would look with an angled deck, Russian style bridge and semi-modern (Yak 38 Forgers) on deck.

 

I'll be watching this with interest.

 

Still looking for something to do for this Group Build. Gotta go through the stash some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...