Author Topic: Lightnings and Mustangs: new civilian ones (Read 18524 times)

Tophe · « **on:** June 01, 2016, 02:04:33 AM »

The first agricultural Lightning, for a start:

Tophe · « **Reply #1 on:** June 01, 2016, 02:53:23 AM »

The second agricultural Lightning was more transformed:

Tophe · « **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2016, 11:37:27 AM »

The third agricultural Lightning belonged to the very small family of twin-boom canards:

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2016, 05:28:06 PM »

My what lovely spats you have there!

I think the second one is my favorite, but they're all incredibly imaginative designs!

Nice work, Tophe!

Brian da Basher

Tophe · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2016, 02:12:18 AM »

Thanks a lot, Brian!
But, sorry, the next ones probably will have no spats (water bombers I think)...

Tophe · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2016, 01:51:47 AM »

2 other agricultural Lightnings came from steelpillow (or his grandfather a long time ago)...
I especially like the asymmetrical spats of the last one
EDIT: the one on the left side is not agricultural but civilian also, this is a Reno winner, asymmetric (wuzak idea) to turn better around pylons.

Buzzbomb · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2016, 01:06:10 PM »

All in all the P-38 as an ag aircraft sort of makes some sense
Although you would be over the paddock rather quickly methinks

Tophe · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2016, 02:08:02 AM »

Interesting: do you mean that regular P-38 engines are too powerful? I could imagine versions with smaller engines, yes, thanks!
EDIT: here they are:

Tophe · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2016, 12:42:21 PM »

Quote from: Tophe on June 05, 2016, 02:12:18 AM

sorry, the next ones probably will have no spats (water bombers I think)...

wrong! the Fokker 27s and Trackers water-bombers proved that a water-bomber must not be a seaplane...
Here are 3 Lightning fire extinguishers, one being a landplane:

AXOR · « **Reply #9 on:** June 08, 2016, 01:48:18 AM »

Lightnings on floats

,this gives me some ideas...well,thanks for that Cristophe!

Tophe · « **Reply #10 on:** June 08, 2016, 12:54:17 PM »

Thanks!

And in the title were civilian Mustangs as well as civilian Lightnings, so: here are Mustangs Water-Bombers:

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2016, 12:53:40 AM »

I really like your Mustang water bombers, Tophe!

Especially those extra-large spats!

Your work never fails to delight me, mon ami!

Brian da Basher

Tophe · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2016, 02:54:26 AM »

Thanks a lot!
Those spats come (reduced) from a Daimler-Benz project: http://www.luft46.com/db/dbbombc.html

Tophe · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2016, 12:42:39 AM »

Water-bombers with Daimler-Benz undercarriage came also in the Lightning family:

Tophe · « **Reply #14 on:** June 11, 2016, 01:30:41 PM »

The reason why I drew agricultural aircraft and water bombers as typically civilian is: because I drew so many P-38 airliners already in the past. Anyway here are a few new ones (AIL-38A, J, J2), but I will have to imagine a proper undercarriage, how?

ChernayaAkula · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2016, 10:00:35 PM »

I really like the airliner on the left!

I believe you have drawn one before that was somewhat similar to this. That got me thinking... How about a version with two passenger decks (Breguet Deux Ponts-style) and two sets of P-38 wings (as on a biplane), keeping the tail-booms?
Maybe even a canard version (with the wings moved further aft)?

Tophe · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2016, 01:00:56 AM »

The AIM-38A, J, J2 featured non retractable undercarriage...
then the AICA-38A, B, C (Air Charnaya-Akuler) featured Chernaya Akula's ideas, thanks!

Tophe · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2016, 01:01:35 AM »

AXOR · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2016, 04:29:55 AM »

AIL 38 A my fav ! :)

ChernayaAkula · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2016, 07:55:05 AM »

Yeah! Very nice!

Just what I imagined them to look like.
How about a bi-plane version? I don't know whether prop clearance would pose a problem, though.

Tophe · « **Reply #20 on:** June 12, 2016, 01:48:37 PM »

Quote from: ChernayaAkula on June 12, 2016, 07:55:05 AM

Yeah! Very nice! Just what I imagined them to look like.
How about a bi-plane version? I don't know whether prop clearance would pose a problem, though.

Thanks! And here are the extra ones, with thanks again!

Tophe · « **Reply #21 on:** June 12, 2016, 01:56:23 PM »

And here is a tiny detail, to show this AICA-38D is safe: no intermeshing propellers!

AXOR · « **Reply #22 on:** June 12, 2016, 06:05:51 PM »

:) Niiice

ChernayaAkula · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2016, 09:12:36 PM »

So cool! Thanks, Tophe! :) May have to build one of those in 1/144.

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #24 on:** June 15, 2016, 04:43:52 AM »

That AICA-38D is very impressive, Tophe!

I was thinking that the rear 2/3rds of the fuselage behind the wings could be a removable section that could be configured for either passengers or cargo depending on what was needed. I saw a similar concept a while back but I can't recall where.

You never cease to amaze and delight me with your incredibly imaginative and innovative designs, mon ami!

Brian da Basher

Tophe · « **Reply #25 on:** June 15, 2016, 11:30:36 AM »

I always wondered why the Combo derivative of the AICA-38D was coded BdB-38 but I know why now! Thanks!
(Below are the BdB-38 with cargo rear pod, without rear pod, and in twin-boom version BdB-38B)
Brian, you are now part of the Lightning History (at the temporary end of my Web site http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/#Sit )

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #26 on:** June 15, 2016, 05:54:25 PM »

That's even better looking than I imagined, Tophe!

I like how the longer fuselage balances the wingspan and engines. Your design is very appealing!

Thank you for the additional permutations of this concept, mon ami! Your posts always make my day!

Brian da Basher

Tophe · « **Reply #27 on:** June 16, 2016, 11:15:33 PM »

Thanks a lot Brian!

And of course, there were also double-deck airliners in the Mustang family:

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #28 on:** June 17, 2016, 06:00:36 AM »

That's quite pleasing to the eye, mon ami!

There's just something about the push-pull configuration that always grabs my attention. Adding that to the double-decker fuselage is inspired thinking. To me, those two elements harmonize wonderfully.

I may have to build this, or something like it. I have the parts (well, similar parts)...

Brian da Basher

Tophe · « **Reply #29 on:** June 18, 2016, 12:07:19 PM »

Thanks again, Brian!

Of course, I could not resist going from Mustanliner to Twin-Mustanliner... but this is serious, for economic transport: the Mustanliner with 32 rows of seats had room for 128 passengers (4 per row), the Double-Mustanliner was for 256 passengers (4 per row X 2 fuselages) and the Twin-Mustanliner : 384 passengers (6 per row X 2 fuselages):

AXOR · « **Reply #30 on:** June 18, 2016, 05:02:14 PM »

That's quite something,love it !

Tophe · « **Reply #31 on:** June 18, 2016, 06:01:58 PM »

Thanks!
While, uh... the Twin-Mustanliner was not the end of the story: the Quad-Mustanliner was far bigger, with 12 V-3420 engines and 768 passengers... (decades before the Boeing 747 was designed):

Tophe · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2016, 12:51:19 AM »

Quote from: Tophe on June 18, 2016, 06:01:58 PM

with 12 V-3420 engines

This equals 24 "V-1710" engines somehow...

AXOR · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2016, 05:55:01 AM »

Twin Mustanliner can go on floats,something like Savoia Marchetti SM-55...will look great

Tophe · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2016, 04:06:59 PM »

Thanks!

ericr · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2016, 04:49:15 PM »

impressive !

AXOR · « **Reply #36 on:** June 19, 2016, 09:50:37 PM »

Well,I thank you Cristophe!

Tophe · « **Reply #37 on:** June 23, 2016, 01:50:49 AM »

Thanks to YOU dreamer AXOR!

And thanks also for your topic "Racers" http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6427.0 that inspired me:
I have no talent about colours but I may invent shapes, like this 8,000hp Lightning racer, having less drag than a 1,500 hp SAAB J.21

Tophe · « **Reply #38 on:** June 24, 2016, 12:20:25 AM »

As I make usually my Lightning 3 by 3, here is such a bunch of Lightning racers:

Tophe · « **Reply #39 on:** June 24, 2016, 01:12:26 PM »

A less small view:

AXOR · « **Reply #40 on:** June 25, 2016, 07:15:03 AM »

me likey

Tophe · « **Reply #41 on:** June 25, 2016, 06:00:02 PM »

Thanks!
The Mustang FTB2 racer (aka Ren-51D) featured a 6,000hp Twin-Griffon central engine. Maximum speed over 980km/h.

Tophe · « **Reply #42 on:** June 25, 2016, 06:51:22 PM »

And as Reno racers don't need high altitude ability nor dogfight maneuvering, they could discard tail and big span:

Tophe · « **Reply #43 on:** June 26, 2016, 05:29:16 PM »

Quote from: Tophe on June 01, 2016, 02:04:33 AM

The first agricultural Lightning, for a start:

There were also agricultural Mustangs (Farmstangs), of course:

Tophe · « **Reply #44 on:** July 11, 2016, 02:32:50 AM »

In 1939 the Lighner was an old-looking airliner, then the Regiolighner was faster and smaller, and at last the Transcontilighner featured a big range:

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #45 on:** July 12, 2016, 03:41:03 PM »

I especially like the one with two sets of wings, mon ami!

Sure looks every bit the long-range airliner! Nice work!

Brian da Basher

Tophe · « **Reply #46 on:** July 14, 2016, 05:00:25 PM »

Dear friend, I feel honoured by such wonderful words :), and... ahem, at the same time I feel disapproved

: I presented a tandem wing thingy, as a completely crazy aircraft and your words sound as "no, not crazy but perfect". So, I must go one step further into craziness: very long range Intercontilighner:

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #47 on:** July 14, 2016, 06:19:26 PM »

I like this one even better than the last one, mon ami!

More wings must equal more range!

This one is très elegante!

Brian da Basher

Tophe · « **Reply #48 on:** July 14, 2016, 06:30:30 PM »

haw... your answer Brian means I failed to build the crazy one that I wanted, let me go one step further so... or three steps further...

The Lockheed Noviplane II was very different from the Caproni Noviplano: it featured 3 separate decks with external ladders... and three piloting cokpits for an unknown reason... uh, still "realist"? uh?

finsrin · « **Reply #49 on:** July 15, 2016, 02:59:41 AM »

Your various P-38 based passenger planes are inspiring for kitbash concepts !

AXOR · « **Reply #50 on:** July 15, 2016, 03:24:01 AM »

The last one is the ancestor of Borg cube...for sure
Anyway,looks impressive !

Tophe · « **Reply #51 on:** July 16, 2016, 12:51:45 AM »

Thank you all.

And with modern electronics, a single pilot was enough for a big airliner:

Tophe · « **Reply #52 on:** August 05, 2016, 12:47:18 PM »

(I don't know if the considered '2-weeks extension' has been decided, but I have just seen the 'Peace' icon on the site, and that provided me with a new idea: not only nonmilitary but activist-for-peace in Vietnam, 1968...)

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #53 on:** August 07, 2016, 07:18:49 AM »

Now that's one of the most delightful of your Mustang iterations yet, mon ami!

Greatly appreciated too. Been a rough week but this brought some joy back into things for me.

Brian da Basher

Tophe · « **Reply #54 on:** August 15, 2016, 12:15:19 AM »

Thanks a lot, Brian!

And a "last minute addition": civilian Lightnings do not need a long (gun) nose nor huge engines...

Brian da Basher · « **Reply #55 on:** August 15, 2016, 05:19:22 AM »

Aww that last one is so cute you almost want to pet it!

You have such a wonderful sense of whimsy as well, mon ami! I've much enjoyed your efforts in this fun group build!

Brian da Basher


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: Lightnings and Mustangs: new civilian ones (Read 18524 times)