Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Completed GBs => Group and Themed Builds => Anything But Military GB => Topic started by: Tophe on July 20, 2014, 01:43:59 AM
-
While the military Lockheed P-38 Lightning is famous, the civilian L-1038 Constellightning failed to seduce airlines, despite its similar beauty:
-
Of course, piston engines seemed outdated, thus was proposed the L-1138 Super-Constellightning:
-
The appearance of swept-wings and transsonic speeds leaded to the design of L-1238 Trans-Constellightning:
-
While the military Lockheed P-38 Lightning is famous, the civilian L-1038 Constellightning failed to seduce airlines, despite its similar beauty:
Your amazing imagination never fails to impress, Tophe!
This is a wonderful concept and I might need to build something like it someday.
Outstanding, mon ami!
Brian da Basher
-
:)
-
While the military Lockheed P-38 Lightning is famous, the civilian L-1038 Constellightning failed to seduce airlines, despite its similar beauty:
If Lockheed absorbed Budd aircraft to get their stainless-steel fabrication expertise, then built a cargo version of this design with a high wing and a tail ramp (think AW Argosy), they could call it the Constellightoga......
Yes, yes, getting my coat now....
-
If Lockheed absorbed Budd aircraft to get their stainless-steel fabrication expertise, then built a cargo version of this design with a high wing and a tail ramp (think AW Argosy), they could call it the Constellightoga......
I am willing to draw it (thanks for the idea), but would it still be "obviously civilian"?
-
Sure, the A-W Argosy originated as a civil freighter aircraft that was later adopted by the RAF,
so a Constellightoga could have a similar history.
-
... but would it still be "obviously civilian"?
Flying Tiger Line?
-
Cool concepts 8)
They are inspiring to do kitbashes I will not have time to build - bummer.
Then again - maybe so ;)
-
Sure, the A-W Argosy originated as a civil freighter aircraft that was later adopted by the RAF,
so a Constellightoga could have a similar history.
What he said..... ;)
-
So... here is my first try of a LBW (Lockheed-Budd-Weaver Inc.) Constellightoga:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairF_aaj_zps4234d484.jpg)
Thanks again!
-
The civilian Lockheed-jcf Constellightosy was also an interesting freighter:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairF_aak2_zps7a6fe5cc.jpg)
Thanks!
-
The Constellightoga and Constellightosy (above) reached success, good enough, while the Constellightning failed, due to the hard competition introduced by the North American Mustanliners and Twin-Mustanliner:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P82-51B_bd.JPG)
-
The FB-38 code was not for a USAF killer but for the civilian heroic Fire-Bomber Lightning:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairC_aaabj_zpsf9a6dbb4.jpg)
-
So... here is my first try of a LBW (Lockheed-Budd-Weaver Inc.) Constellightoga:
([url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairF_aaj_zps4234d484.jpg[/url])
Thanks again!
Thank you! :) :) :)
(Just don't ask me to build it..... ???)
-
Back in 1935, the Lightning-design source was also civilian (and was a flying boat): Lockheed Twin-Hull Liner
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairC_aaaal_zps74b78252.jpg)
-
Back in 1935, the Lightning-design source was also civilian (and was a flying boat): Lockheed Twin-Hull Liner
aaaahhhhhhh :)
-
Thanks ericr...
Well, while the Twin-Hull Liner was not ordered at all, its derivative the Twin-Fuselage Liner reached 38,038 orders (38,380 copies built, including spare parts). I swear this is true (in my dreams at least):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairC_aaabo_zpsb21396b7.jpg)
-
Lockheed marketing department had scheduled the sell of 100,000 improved TFL-2 but this failed alas:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairC_aaabp_zps6d5fc3f0.jpg)
-
The TFL-3, with even more passengers, stayed on the drawing board:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairC_aaabq_zps561a2b44.jpg)
-
Those are some wonderful designs, Tophe! I really like the TFLs 2 & 3!
Brian da Basher
-
Lockheed marketing department had scheduled the sell of 100,000 improved TFL-2 but this failed alas:
([url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairC_aaabp_zps6d5fc3f0.jpg[/url])
They're all fun, but I like this one in particular. That could come out looking very elegant in the plastic....
-
Thanks ericr...
Well, while the Twin-Hull Liner was not ordered at all, its derivative the Twin-Fuselage Liner reached 38,038 orders (38,380 copies built, including spare parts). I swear this is true (in my dreams at least):
([url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairC_aaabo_zpsb21396b7.jpg[/url])
On this one, why not merge the two engine pods into one, with two engines at each end driving co-axial props?
-
Oh yes, you obviously refer to the TFL-1 (between the TFL and the TFL-2). It was built in 38 copies, of course. With 4 V-1710 engines then 2 V-3420:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairC_aaabs_zps7040c81e.jpg)
-
(and the jet-version TFL-J was built in 380 copies):
-
Less famous was the Lockheed L-1010 Tristar (the first one using this name, a twin-fuselage model, yes):
-
Civilian Lightnings were not only airliners and cargo but also sailplanes:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairB_baaabj.JPG)
-
Thanks for doing the TFL-1 - looks really good.
Less famous was the Lockheed L-1010 Tristar (the first one using this name, a twin-fuselage model, yes):
On this one, you'd need to move the wing further back for centre-of-gravity vs centre-of-lift reasons (have a look at the wing/tail positions on rear-engined airliners).
How about a Quad-Star? One engine in the rear of each fuselage with an intake in the fin Tristar-style, plus two podded engines under the centre wing section?
-
Yes, thanks to remind me those design corrections:
- L-1010W: Tristar with wing moved backward
- L-1010Q Quad-star with 4 jets
- L-1010Q-2 with rear wing addition
-
From the L-1010W came the designs L-1010X, L-1010Y, L-1010Z, that led directly to the famous L-1011 (with single cabin, sadly):
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairC_aaacb.JPG)
-
After the Martin China Clipper success then the Seversky Super Clipper presentation, Lockheed proposed the Lightning Clipper, with extendable floats for ditching (like on the Super Clipper):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/P38eclairC_aaace_zps42eaa526.jpg)
-
That can´t be Tophe´s work, it´s got symetry! ;D
In another topic (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4278.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4278.0)), I've been reminded that I am not only a twin-boom fan... So, here are asymmetric Lightning airliners:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairC_aaacg.JPG)
-
I really like your Lightning Clipper and find the one on stilts especially delightful!
I can see it in Air France or Pan Am livery on the Rio de Janeiro run.
Brian da Basher
-
Thanks a lot, Brian.
Of course Lightning airliners were not designed only by Lockheed: the Burnelli team also proposed the UB-1038A, B, C:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairD_aacf.JPG)
-
here are asymmetric Lightning airliners:
Before jets were invented, little business jets were called business props, no?
-
Other derivatives were designed, the only mandatory command being to avoid the boring symmetry (displeasing the customer):
-
As the tourists of 1946 did not like complex helicopters, Lockheed proposed an autogiro with exceptionnal viewpoint: the Lightningiro
-
The Lightningiro 2 was faster, but had a less beautiful view on the left side...
-
Wonderful designs as ever Tophe, and I'll admit I've 'right clicked' and saved a few ;)
For a rainy day. :)
Regards
Keith
-
Thanks Keith! :)
and any new idea of civilian Lightning would be welcome (as long as the shape itself is clear enough without special colours)...
-
I've been inspired by Acree's Vought Stingray at http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4631.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4631.0)
so here is a Lightsting flying-boat that was designed in the same way (to transport a few passengers from Island to Island in the Pacific Ocean, 1947):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairF_aao_zps132da198.jpg)
-
And with (inverted) V-tail and central hull:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairF_aap_zpsc6d63ac9.jpg)
-
oh la la la la, all these incredible seaplanes! :)
-
Thanks, ericr :)
Of course, there was an asymmetric version, in this area where sailplanes are asymmetric praos...:
-
other civilian derivatives of the previous ones: Inter-Island 38D & E
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairF_aas.JPG)
-
The CL-380 was not an airliner but a fire-bomber, designed and built by Canadair:
-
Sweet! :-*
-
Thanks!
And here is a little airliner with panoramic view for the 1st class passenger in the front seat.
-
I really like your P-38eclairJ_aaby, Tophe! It's fun to imagine what it'd be like flying in one of those wonderful, panoramic front seats!
Brian da Basher
-
Thanks Brian!
Now a Lightning of General Aviation ("Aviation de tourisme" in French) with easy access on board (door/stairs going down to the ground) and STOL performance (from the sloping wing and propellers on the ground):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairH_aafo_zpsc0592af0.jpg)
-
Well, you could say this model above is rather far from a (standard) Lightning. But, then, what would you say of the single-engine derivative, and its canard version?
-
In 1944, Bing Crosby was the most famous singer in the US, almost "the king" (years before Elvis), alas he was killed by a propeller blade hurting the fuselage of its airliner in flight after an engine failure, even with no crash at all, and many US civilians feared to go on traveling by plane, as murdering as war, almost (according to the news)... Thus the Lockeed team designed airliners of a new kind: with safe ducted propellers... This has been forgotten today because jet aircraft have made this way so popular...
-
So, with my home time machine, I went back to show the designers of that time our giant turbofans... They laughed and designed this PW-38TF airliner below, then they call for a psychiatric ambulance and I run away... I was too much ahead of that time...
-
I really like these fanned versions, Tophe! The Bing Crosby story is interesting to think about. At least that might've saved me suffering through his Minute Maid Orange Juice commercials...
Call me crazy, but I could see both of the concepts taking flight, but I imagine F.O.D. issues would be quite challenging for the last one, which only ups the delightful whimsy factor in my view!
Brian da Basher
-
About funny things, see what I have found trying to understand your F.O.D. acronym:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/fod_zpse1b2a31d.jpg)
I think this is the Foreign Object Damage one but the other readings of your sentence are delightful too. Thanks!
-
Back to seriousness, here are the final Lightning airliners: :)
– DLP-38 Double Liner
– DLP-38A Half Double Liner
-
I love the ducted fan version. :)
-
Thanks!
Now, you know probably that (far from armies that may spend taxpayers' zillions $/€/£ almost freely) low cost civilian airlines must use Low Cost Trainers to detect and train their future pilots. 12 students per flight instead of only one... This is a new reason to be a twin-boomer.
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairJ_aada.JPG)
-
Adding two Martin B-10 export fuselages was truly inspired thinking, Tophe!
I especially like the last one on the right. The lone engine in the center just fills me with delight!
Brian da Basher
-
Free Online Dating can cause engine damage? Luckily I have never had a need to use it then...
-
Thanks a lot, Brian!
The lateral fuselages are not military B-10 though, they are the P-38 booms modified to include the P-38 canopy multiplied by 6, back and forth... For civilian candidate-pilots.
-
Free Online Dating can cause engine damage? Luckily I have never had a need to use it then...
Thanks a lot, Flyer, to welcome my word game (I am not fluently speaking English enough to be sure this was funny) ;)
-
In 1946, US airlines had an urgent need of long-range 4-engined airliners and the DC-4 development faced many problems. Lochkeed's proposal was the DC-38P Dakoning, mixing surplus P-38 and C-47 into a civilian winner... As a "further improvement", a modelist of that time proposed the DC-38Q Lightota, with a 1/48 Lightning and a 1/72 Skytrain...
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairJ_aade.JPG)
-
The Douglas factories refusing to cooperate on the DC-38P program, Lockheed proposed at last a much smaller airliner, still 4-engined but with a P-38 front part also: DC-38R
-
The DC-38R code made an interesting confusion: the Pan-Am boss hearing of a 4-engined "R" airliner answered: "if this is a 4-engined rocket-airliner for Short Take Off from high-altitude airports, I order 150 copies immediately!". The Lockheed sellers urged the design bureau to produce such a model, and this became the DC-38R4, alas rejected by Pan-Am staff, because not enough seats:
-
Oh...I do like those! :)
-
Yes, the DC-38Q Lightota is especially fun. I guess it would have a quadricycle landing gear? ;)
-
Thanks a lot!
Yes, quadricycle landing gear, with big wheels at the rear (P-38 1/48th ones) and small wheels at the front (DC-3 1/72nd ones)...
-
I so want to be in that alternate world where the DC-38R takes flight!
If only artists designed airliners.
Until then, we have Tophe!
Brian da Basher
-
Dear Brian,
Thanks again for your indulgence...
while... the Pan Am staff did not want to buy an artist's fantasy, they required 4 seats per row with a walking aisle in between... This gave birth to the very serious DC-380L, H, P:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairJ_aadi.JPG)
-
From this twin-engined DC-380s, the 4-engined DC-380E4F (F for first class) was bought in 38 copies, and the DC-380E4L (low cost) in 380 copies:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairJ_aadj.JPG)
-
As the end of this GB seems to be tomorrow (or today on this side of the planet), I must finish with the last part of the Locheed Lightning airliners history: in 1986, to celebrate the 50-years anniversary of the Lightning, a few Tristar designs were converted into twin-boom (and twin-fuselage) ones:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/Tristarning38_zpsb541841f.jpg)
-
Modellers have a secret: mixing scales freely... as to build those Tristars/Lightning mixes:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairJ_aads.JPG)
-
As the end of this GB seems to be tomorrow (or today on this side of the planet)
I was wrong, I forgot to check, then I read:
Standard two week extension unilaterally instituted, new finish Sunday October 5.
So I have time to add a dozen other ones, maybe... ;)
-
Of course, the Lightning-Liner family included a (vertical) double-decker and a twin-double-decker:
-
Here are the Panoramic-Liners PLi-38A, B, C on a 200% P-38 basis (with R-3420 engines). This would be pleasant for passengers, why should I invent it myself?
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairJ_aadw.JPG)
-
Your designs never fail to get me thinking, Tophe!
I especially like the one with two passenger/payload pods.
The split tail planes give this one a Luft '46 look and I keep imagining it re-supplying that famous Antarctic base.
Brian da Basher
-
Thanks a lot, Brian!
Payload? Is that a word for passengers? I know I am fat and do represent a load in an airliner, but... are you referring to the SuperCargo SCa-38A, B, C derivatives? (civilian freighters without retractable undercarriage)
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairJ_aady.JPG)
-
The last ones remind me of the Damlier-Benz carrier aircraft (http://www.luft46.com/db/dbbombc.html)
-
Thanks Frank3k, your idea gave birth to the Frankheed F-3038 airliner (the one with giant propellers but having no more "fragile" landing gears). Thanks again!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_P38eclairJ_aadz_zps0783d8fc.jpg)
-
My what lovely spats you have there!
:-* :-* :-*
Hard to pick a favorite, I'm drooling over all of them!
Brian da Basher
-
Thanks Brian.
Well, without giant spats but with passenger pods and parasol wing, it seems not solid enough, what to do? turn biplane?
-
I try the sesquiplane/low-wing way:
-
Airliners for little men: DW-38, GU-38 from Gulliver Airlines, not to be confused with the GUL-38 gull-wing airliner:
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P38eclairJ_aaeg.JPG)
-
Love the GUL-38 gull-wing airliner! :-*
-
Love the GUL-38 gull-wing airliner! :-*
Ditto!