Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: raafif on July 13, 2014, 04:59:08 PM
-
Maritime versions ...
-
beautiful maritime version !
is it a Blenheim nose?
and the fins, where are they from?
-
I've been looking at putting floats on the C-46 I have but finding a pair is proving difficult. But looking at your sketch raafif, I would say they'd have to be much bigger than those you've drawn (IMO)
Here's a pic of my C-47C and you can see the floats are quite large, the C-46 is about 1 1/2 times bigger than a C-47.
-
I have a 1/48 one that is going to get either a turbo-Dak style conversion or a AC-47 style conversion one day...
-
beautiful maritime version !
is it a Blenheim nose?
and the fins, where are they from?
the nose is Beaufort, the twin-tail fins are drawn from scratch but are similiar in shape to those of a Constellation - don't know about size.
I did enlarge the DC-3 floats but yes, they need to be still bigger - especially if the aircraft is to mount three long-range acoustic torpedoes under the centre-section & depth-charges outboard of the engines.
Am experimenting with a few turrets for top, bottom & tail ....
Got the Williams Bros. kit, Eric ???
-
The original CW-20 prototype had twin fins and a fairing over the join between the upper
and lower fuselage lobes. The engine cowlings also had a different shape. The prototype
was later converted to the single-fin configuration, the twin tails were not effective in yaw,
and was bailed to Britain where it was used by BOAC as G-ADGI.
A twin tailed floatplane version would require the fins to be significantly increased in size.
-
You might have to go with a triple-vertical fin combination similar to that of the Constellation or use the existing vertical fin along with the two fins you've shown at the tips of the horizontal stabilizer.
-
... or use the existing vertical fin along with the two fins you've shown at the tips of the horizontal stabilizer.
Yep, or like the Boeing 314 which started with a single vertical stabilizer/rudder, poor control response,
so they tried a twin vertical stabilizer/rudder layout. Still not right, so finally they went with the twin
vertical stabilzer/rudders and a centre vertical stabilizer (no rudder) with the same shape and area as
the original single stabilizer/rudder.
;)
So mebbe keep the standard stabilizer/rudder but fill the line between the fin and rudder and add
the new outboard stabilizer/rudder assemblies.
-
the C-46 is about 1 1/2 times bigger than a C-47.
I think the more telling thing is that the C-46's empty weight is 5000 lb more the max' takeoff weight of a C-47 where as the C-46's max takeoff weight is double what the C-47's (45,000 lbs). The floats will be huge ---
-
I've often wonder how the C-46 would have adapted to a tricycle landing gear set up with a rear loading ramp door.
I've also wondered if the lower lobe of that double bubble fuselage would make the C-46 adaptable to ELINT and other electronics driven missions in the immediate post war years. How much gear of the era could be stuffed in there?
-
I've often wonder how the C-46 would have adapted to a tricycle landing gear set up with a rear loading ramp door.
I would imagine that the loading ramp would more likely be a loading plaftorm that would be raised up into the fuselage in a similar fashion to what was used on the C-54 and C-124 if your C-46 were to be configured with a tricycle landing gear arrangement.
I've also wondered if the lower lobe of that double bubble fuselage would make the C-46 adaptable to ELINT and other electronics driven missions in the immediate post war years. How much gear of the era could be stuffed in there?
You mean something like this
Platz Models JASDF C-46ECM in 1:144th scale? (http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=PLAPD22):
(http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/propics_extra/DIR_PLA/l/l_PLAPD22_MFU3.jpg) (http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=PLAPD22)
(Image source: dragonmodelsusa.com (http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/welcome.asp))
-
I've also wondered if the lower lobe of that double bubble fuselage would make the C-46 adaptable to ELINT and other electronics driven missions in the immediate post war years. How much gear of the era could be stuffed in there?
You mean something like this
Platz Models JASDF C-46ECM in 1:144th scale? (http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=PLAPD22):
(http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/propics_extra/DIR_PLA/l/l_PLAPD22_MFU3.jpg) (http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=PLAPD22)
(Image source: dragonmodelsusa.com (http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/welcome.asp))
[/quote]
Hmmmm....kinda like that. But I would have imagined a large fuselage mounded radome like the APS-20 rather than anything stuck to the nose
-
Hmmmm....kinda like that. But I would have imagined a large fuselage mounded radome like the APS-20 rather than anything stuck to the nose
There should be ample room for mounting the radome of the A/N APS-20 under the fuselage between the wings. Not sure what it would to to the flying abilities of the C-46 but it would certainly be an interesting modification.
Reminds me of that time I was cruising through the fields full of aircraft in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ and found an OV-1 Mohawk with out wings in a large wood frame shipping rig. The Mohawk was modified to mount a very large radome under the fuselage that look very similar in size and shape to the radome used on the radar Grumman Avenger, Grumman Guardian, and Douglas Skyraider. Never saw anything about any kind of AEW Mohawk in print but there is no mistaking a Mohawk with any other aircraft.
-
in-service Spruce Goose !! (gee, the tail looks like a BV-222).
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l137/thevid/DSC_1366_zps3155dcd2.jpg)
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l137/thevid/DSC_1368_zps5de71d38.jpg)
-
Any specific reason why the last post is in this thread?? ???
-
Any specific reason why the last post is in this thread?? ???
::) ... "and other transport aircraft"? ... Perhaps? ... ???
-
Time to give the C-46 some lovin'.
Here are comparison photos of the C-46, B-17 and Lancaster. The B-17 and Lancaster wings are near perfect fits. Maybe someone here is working on a 4 engine C-46? ;)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40928353093_2981e2f746_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25mGvse)C-46-04 (https://flic.kr/p/25mGvse) by Big Gimper (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21812089@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47842666232_388679fea9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fTGaRJ)C-46-01 (https://flic.kr/p/2fTGaRJ) by Big Gimper (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21812089@N02/), on Flickr
-
Like visual comparison of fuselage and wings. C-46 is sizeable for its time. Is four engine C-47H on BTS. C-46 is due to have four engine derivative.
-
Thanks for the comparison shots. I had planned a Lanc-winged C-46 sideview but can't remember if I even finished it. Hmmm, maybe I'll re-do it ... if I can't remember an earlier version, probably no-one else can either ;D
-
Something off the wall - B-17 wing with North Star engines fitted on the C-46 fuselage and tail.