Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Completed GBs => Group and Themed Builds => Scaleorama GB => Topic started by: apophenia on March 16, 2021, 09:55:43 AM
-
Okay, this one sucks.
I had what I thought was a great idea for the 'box scale' Revell kit of the B-58A Hustler. I'd turn that 1/91st scale into a 1/72nd scale fighter (virtually, at least). Measured out in 1/72, that Revell Hustler would have a 13.60 m span and be 24.41 m long. So, a 'big brother' to the Convair F-102A (11.61 m span, 20.83 m long). I ditched the outboard engines (for a more fighter-y look), plonked on a 1/72 canopy, and stepped back to admire the progress on my latest creation.
The result: bletch! What a stinker. Nothing about this looks right :P
Too bad ... I had a whole story line worked out. The 449th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron was going to be kept alive in Alaska (moving from Ladd AFB at Fairbanks to Elmendorf and trading in its F-89Js for 'F-58s'). But I downed tools once I saw what a mutt this was. Ah well, to quote a Denis Leary character: "Welcome to the real world, where most times things don't go your f***ing way."
Anyway, I decided to post this image 'as is' in case it prompts some superior ideas from someone else :-[
-
Looks good to me, maybe leaving off the drop tank will make it look more fighterish ?
Mog
>^-.-^<
-
Nice :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
-
Perhaps a large interceptor instead of a fighter? Carrying larger AAM to shoot at long range targets (bomber, AWACS, tankers, etc.) and not mingling in dog-fighting.
-
I'm with Robomog. I don't hate it nearly as much as you do, apophenia. Get rid of that Hustler-style tank, give it a pair of Draken-style drop tanks nestled in much closer to the fuselage, no lower than the nacelles.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d7/b9/6e/d7b96eba5a5ab8c1e582dc457f66c48a.jpg)
That will permit much shorter gear. Not sure if there's room for an internal bay, but you can put a couple of GAR-9s or Genies on the outer pylons where the Number 1 and 4 engines were. That might give it a more purposeful look, too.
-
Perfecto Draken picture. 8)
-
I would say all it needs is some of those ADC markings the 102s and 106s used to have. If two engines then make them a little bigger and a couple of smaller drop tanks. And missiles of course as previously mentioned. Otherwise a winner to me.
-
I would say all it needs is some of those ADC markings the 102s and 106s used to have. If two engines then make them a little bigger and a couple of smaller drop tanks. And missiles of course as previously mentioned. Otherwise a winner to me.
Yep, yep, thatz it !
-
Okay, this one sucks.
On the contrary, it looks just enough 'off' to look real. as opposed to perfectly designed. The engine nacelles need to be enlarged, though, as this aircraft will use twin J79s, and I would have said a larger, not smaller, centre line tank, for longer endurance. You need the big MB-1 pod, with the four fins. Oh, and lots of red paint . . .
cheers,
Robin.
-
I'll chime in as well: I think it looks pretty darn good. My suggestion would be hand 2 smaller drop tanks out board of the engines, leaving the centerline for some conformal missile mounts, just for something a little different.
-
I'll chime in as well: I think it looks pretty darn good. My suggestion would be hand 2 smaller drop tanks out board of the engines, leaving the centerline for some conformal missile mounts, just for something a little different.
Also something I considered and I think that would do the trick well, too.
-
Oooooh love that Draken !
Mog
>^-.-^<
-
Reminds me a bit of this:
(http://i.imgur.com/108Vdzh.jpg)
-
Wow! Thanks for the all responses folks. I'm thinking this is mainly a problem of proportions ... the general impression being of a scrawny chicken rather than a svelte fighter ;P
Greg: Very nice! Love that ogival wing
Mog: You're right about the belly tank. In 3D, it'd take heaps of work just to convert the B-58's siamese-twin tank into a single drop tank ... and the visual difference is minimal.
Jeffry: Yup, definitely a large interceptor - roughly CF-105 sized or just a smidge smaller than the XF-108 Rapier. That's what prompted my Alaskan basing idea - figured that they'd need lots of range. For armament, I was thinking GAR-9 Falcons along with F-89-style 2.75 in FFARs.
Logan: Nice! Scaled up, those paired Draken tanks would carry plenty of fuel while looking much more 'fighter-ish' than the B-58's central tank.
Kerick: Bigger twin nacelles? Hmmm ... another scale-o-rama possibility here! Basic airframe stays 1/91 Revell (H-272-98) but fitted with inboard engines from the 1/76 Aurora kit (375-250). Add to that a 1/72 cockpit ... but what kind?
Robin: Yeah, those Alaskan schemes have lashings of hi-viz red :)
LemonJello: For sure. I had intended outboard tanks but was havering over their exact arrangement. Maybe because of recent work on a Nimrod, I wondered about permanently-fitted wing tanks (ie, no pylons).
Anyhoo, attached is a crude rework of the original. I've done it 'clean' ... so you have to imagine it with twin belly tanks and drop tanks on the short, outer pylons. I chickened out on the 'fixed' wing tanks (none too sure about the aerodynamics of those for a supersonic aircraft).
I was also unhappy with my original F-14 canopy (thinking it wasn't 'period' enough) so I've substituted a two-seat Voodoo cockpit - complete with IRST. I had also hoped to incorporate the radome for the CF-101B's AN/APS-54 ... but the 'F-58' nose is just too skinny :P
-
Have a look at the Yak-28 'Firebar' . . . ;)
I think you've hit on the problem, the fuselage is too slender for a long range, all-weather interceptor, needs something stockier . . .
cheers,
Robin.
-
That was part of the design of the B-58. The pods held a lot of fuel that was used first then dropped with the nuke that was part of the pod. Maybe some sort of conformal tank under the fuselage.
-
Okay, I gave this some more thought last night, go back to the Tomcat canopy, it's anachronistic, but looks better. Use the large MB-1 pod, missile illuminator radar in it's nose, then fuel, missile bay amidships (missiles on pop out launchers), then fuel aft. Outboard wing pylons can carry FFAR launchers, will need to be jettisoned after use, or additional fuel tanks.
OR, FFARs/extra fuel in the pod, and missiles mounted outboard on the wing and/or wingtips.
cheers,
Robin.
-
A further idea, but taking us away from the original Hustler, use the Model 58-9 SST fuselage . . .
cheers,
Robin.
-
Okay, I gave this some more thought last night, go back to the Tomcat canopy, it's anachronistic, but looks better. Use the large MB-1 pod, missile illuminator radar in it's nose, then fuel, missile bay amidships (missiles on pop out launchers), then fuel aft. Outboard wing pylons can carry FFAR launchers, will need to be jettisoned after use, or additional fuel tanks.
OR, FFARs/extra fuel in the pod, and missiles mounted outboard on the wing and/or wingtips.
Consider the modified pod used with the NB-58A "Snoopy" for testing the AIM-47 missile and associated radar.
-
Indeed:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/avb58_09.png)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/1fd5a752.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/fba896dd.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/8f490793.jpg)
A Tu-128 style version of the B-58 would be cool.
-
Enlarge/stretch the engine pods; F-4 type canopy.
-
A Tu-128 style version of the B-58 would be cool.
Yow! The 'Fiddler' is even bigger than a 1/1 Hustler! So, there's a non-scale-o-rama concept :D
Jon: I was going for 1/72 B-58A engines on the 1/91 pods. But, yeah, they could stand to be 'bigger' still. I did try the F-4 canopy but the GIB sits a little too high up for the Hustler fuselage top line (mind you, I had to cheat a bit of the F-14 canopy too :-[
-
I had totally forgotten about 'Snoopy'! So, a shortened version of the NB-58A's droopy snoot now transitions into a new 'inline belly pod' - a combined fixed belly tank and weapons bay/pop-out launchers. Its slender but otherwise is Kerick's conformal tank in all but name.
As per Robin's suggestion, I've gone back to the F-14 canopy - also added some hi-viz Arctic panels and an Alaskan Air Command badge on the fin.
BTW, a saw Goleta Air & Space Museum photo of NB-58A 'Snoopy' sitting on a target range at Edwards AFB. She was looking rather sad and stripped ... although the huge radome was intact. Anyone know if she is still extant?
-
There we go, that's works really well, apophenia. Great job!
-
ISTR that "Snoopy" has been recovered for restoration for the Edwards museum.
-
If I had the kits at hand I would just might have a go at this. Would be quite a head scratcher no matter what.
-
A Tu-128 style version of the B-58 would be cool.
Yow! The 'Fiddler' is even bigger than a 1/1 Hustler! So, there's a non-scale-o-rama concept :D
Jon: I was going for 1/72 B-58A engines on the 1/91 pods. But, yeah, they could stand to be 'bigger' still. I did try the F-4 canopy but the GIB sits a little too high up for the Hustler fuselage top line (mind you, I had to cheat a bit of the F-14 canopy too :-[
Yes. Tu-128 style/mission came to mind for me.
-
Yea like that :smiley:
Mog
>^-.-^<
-
Some other inspiration for you:
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/d8fqw0b-6ba314f8-f1d0-4358-8990-e9443e055dd9.png)
-
I had totally forgotten about 'Snoopy'! So, a shortened version of the NB-58A's droopy snoot now transitions into a new 'inline belly pod' - a combined fixed belly tank and weapons bay/pop-out launchers. Its slender but otherwise is Kerick's conformal tank in all but name.
As per Robin's suggestion, I've gone back to the F-14 canopy - also added some hi-viz Arctic panels and an Alaskan Air Command badge on the fin.
Looking good, now . . . I prefer outboard mountings for missiles, gives a good field of view for the seeker heads, and, in a Cold War incursion interception scenario, gives the intruders a good view of what's waiting for them, should they decide to misbehave . . . ;)
cheers,
Robin.
-
Many thanks folks! I'm much happier with it now ... and wouldn't have gotten there without y'all :smiley: