Author Topic: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft  (Read 126639 times)

Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #250 on: February 14, 2013, 07:40:26 AM »
The Ohka it is... Well done, Empty Handed!

Remember that the Ohka was called the "Baka" by the Americans, which means "crazy" or "mad" in several languages.
The French for "mad" is "fou", the same word used for the... "gannet"...

Ahh. Interesting link! Your Gannet is quite the looker!  :)

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #251 on: February 16, 2013, 12:05:53 AM »
Thanks a lot folks! Glad you've enjoyed the Gannet!

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #252 on: February 17, 2013, 12:40:08 PM »
Love your Gannet! Great word play and I'm a sucker for alliteration. But, is is just me, or does that Ohka tailplane in BOAC livery have a Handley-Page look about it?
The doorbell's ringing, could be the elves
But it's probably the werewolf ...

Offline JP Vieira

  • The Challenge Master!!!
    • What-If World
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #253 on: February 17, 2013, 06:05:52 PM »
Great concept. Perhaps some more aircraft based on manned "missiles" ...?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #254 on: February 17, 2013, 10:42:39 PM »
Great concept. Perhaps some more aircraft based on manned "missiles" ...?

Something like the Snark just screams for it...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #255 on: February 18, 2013, 07:09:37 AM »
Great concept. Perhaps some more aircraft based on manned "missiles" ...?

Something like the Snark just screams for it...

Sure. I did a few in the past already... Remember the Vought Vigilant and Cutlass II? The piloted Boeing Bomarc? The Boeing Dragonliner?

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #256 on: February 18, 2013, 07:15:15 AM »
And what about the Boeing 7047? The Lockheed Senior Pike? The Northrop Grumman Peregrine? The Scaled Composites Blue Nile?

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #257 on: February 18, 2013, 07:23:16 AM »
Or the Teledyne Ryan Spirit Liner? See, I did quite a few of these RPV/missiles-turned-piloted-aircraft...

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #258 on: February 18, 2013, 08:21:11 AM »
The Cutlass II is one sexy aircraft!  :-*
Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline father ennis

  • I got paint older than most of you guys ...
  • Our Scifi, armour-building Rennissance Priest...
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #259 on: February 18, 2013, 08:44:39 AM »
The Blue Nile, is giving me evil thoughts toward the HellerNatter in my stash ......    >:D
I may be old but I'm not dead ... yet anyway ... !!!    And NO I did not know Richard III !!!!!!

Offline arkon

  • Paper Building Maestro
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #260 on: February 18, 2013, 10:45:19 AM »
ypu-1 vigalent give me robotech/macross vibes.....like it!!

blue nile.. is that a russkie version of tacit blue?
the paper gods demand sacrifice

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • ▄ber Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #261 on: February 18, 2013, 11:55:47 AM »
blue nile.. is that a russkie version of tacit blue?
Looks more like an iteration on the same concept by the Ryan division of NGC.  You realize, of course, that Tacit Blue was originally designed with the intent of deploying Pave Mover behind the opposition's line of battle; when Pave Mover morphed int J-STARS, Tacit Blue became Northrop's first LO demonstrator.

Looking at these, I'd love to see what you could do with a Snark.  I'm thinking it'd make a great business jet, possibly as a competitor to the "Quest jet" (cf. Johnny Quest).

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #262 on: February 18, 2013, 10:39:14 PM »
Only concern I would have with the Cutlass II would be FOD.  That intake after the nose wheel would just gobble up everything...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #263 on: February 18, 2013, 11:18:42 PM »
Love the Cutlass II

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #264 on: February 19, 2013, 07:22:43 AM »
Only concern I would have with the Cutlass II would be FOD.  That intake after the nose wheel would just gobble up everything...

Nah, there's a big mudguard on that front wheel  ;D  Besides, with anything that gorgeous, you could afford to lose a few!
The doorbell's ringing, could be the elves
But it's probably the werewolf ...

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #265 on: February 20, 2013, 09:10:26 PM »
Great concept. Perhaps some more aircraft based on manned "missiles" ...?


Something like the Snark just screams for it...


Remember the Vought Vigilant and Cutlass II? The piloted Boeing Bomarc?


Um......  ;)
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #266 on: April 07, 2013, 08:14:39 PM »
The Bv 1001 Donnerkeil (literally, "thunderbolt") was a unique project in that it was a mixed-power aircraft; in other words, it was powered by both a prop engine and a jet engine. Jet engines were not yet combat proven, and Blohm und Voss considered that keeping a propeller-driven engine for take off and maneuvers while adding the power a small jet for fast level flight meant taking the best of both worlds. The Bv 1001 was never completed and therefore not flown. The near-complete fuselage was found by the Allies, and at first the combination of prop and jet puzzled the experts. Since it was painted red, Western specialists dubbed the type the "Blohm und Voss red riddle."



"Don't believe everything you read or see!!" The above text and three-view arrangement do NOT depict a real Blohm und Voss project.
The Bv 1001 a personal creation inspired by several existing World War II projects by that company. Wings are direct from a real Blohm und Voss project, although I gave them a little more sweep. I also used genuine German fonts of the time to give a feel of that era. The whole story is completely fictitious as well...




Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #267 on: April 07, 2013, 10:27:33 PM »
Nice.....Very nice.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #268 on: April 07, 2013, 10:58:16 PM »
So beautiful machines!

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #269 on: June 05, 2013, 05:34:20 PM »
Two airliners that might have existed in the 1940s if there had been no Second World War...



The Lockheed Aldebaran, a twin-engined, single-tail kid brother to the Constellation.


Full version and explanation of creative process here:
http://bispro.deviantart.com/art/Lockheed-Aldebaran-airliner-375679176



The Douglas DC-20 Sky Sovereign, a commercial version of the XB-19 "Hemisphere Defender" bomber.


Full version and explanation of creative process here:
http://bispro.deviantart.com/art/Douglas-DC-20-Sky-Sovereign-375954850



Enjoy!

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • ▄ber Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #270 on: June 06, 2013, 01:35:33 AM »
Beautiful!!!  Now we need the Sky Sovereign crossed with the original, and unsuccessful, DC-4E, especially the DC-4E tail.

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #271 on: June 06, 2013, 01:49:11 AM »
Beautiful!!!  Now we need the Sky Sovereign crossed with the original, and unsuccessful, DC-4E, especially the DC-4E tail.

Nah... The DC-20 is meant to have been developed three or four years after the DC-4 (which was only called the DC-4E retroactively, by the way), and Douglas had now opted for single-fins only (besides, it would have been awkward to keep the triple fin with the Constellation now on the market!). From an aesthetic viewpoint, I can't really picture that weak-looking triple-fin tail on such a huge and sturdy aircraft... Can you?

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #272 on: June 07, 2013, 10:02:11 AM »
Beautiful work as always StÚphane! I especially liked the  Lockheed Aldebaran concept  :)
The doorbell's ringing, could be the elves
But it's probably the werewolf ...

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • ▄ber Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #273 on: June 07, 2013, 10:47:02 AM »
Beautiful!!!  Now we need the Sky Sovereign crossed with the original, and unsuccessful, DC-4E, especially the DC-4E tail.

Nah... The DC-20 is meant to have been developed three or four years after the DC-4 (which was only called the DC-4E retroactively, by the way), and Douglas had now opted for single-fins only (besides, it would have been awkward to keep the triple fin with the Constellation now on the market!). From an aesthetic viewpoint, I can't really picture that weak-looking triple-fin tail on such a huge and sturdy aircraft... Can you?
Actually, no I can't.  This one would call for a prominent vertical surface, or surfaces, no matter how many.

ramblerdan

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #274 on: June 11, 2013, 11:13:17 PM »
StÚphane,

 I just chanced across your work and wow, am I impressed. Wonderful stuff, lots of fun. I'm a big fan of prewar U.S. designs (XB-19, Seversky P-35, Bell YFM, etc.) as well as oddities like the Vought V-173, so was glad to see variations on some of those types represented.

 I have two nits that might interest you. 1) The inlet cones on the SR-72 really must project ahead of the leading edge of the wing, as on the SR-71. Otherwise they won't be able to do their job, and a supersonic shockwave will cause unstarts or worse. 2) The cruciform tail on the Fairey F.30 (nice that you named it "Arrow," a nod to the DO 335) requires a three- or five-bladed prop. Dornier recognized that, as did Molt Taylor with the Aerocar (triplane empennage, two-bladed prop). Put a four-bladed pusher prop on a four-plane empennage (or a three-on-three), and there will be aerodynamic/structural hell to pay!

BTW I'm a big fan of PSP, have been using it since version 3 (now on v8, pre-Adobe) and have hope to keep it as long as Microsoft allows!

Cheers and best regards,
Ramblerdan