Author Topic: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft  (Read 110716 times)

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2012, 12:30:17 AM »
You know, I was just thinking about something like that as a XF-85 alternative. The way you did it is cool!

You know what?? The parasite fighter was my initial idea but I changed it as I went along because it seemed to large for an XF-85 competitor. But I still plan on doing one, so stay tuned!! ;)

Offline tsrjoe

  • Has been volunteered... for something...
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2012, 01:03:30 AM »
thats a sweet little design, kindv reminds me of the old Monogram 'Flapjack' kit  8)

Offline BadersBusCompany

  • Profiler and Blanker...he did say Blanker...whew!
  • Profiler
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2012, 04:37:12 AM »
You know, I actually look forward to sitting with a brew and checking your thread out. Excellent and imaginative work Sir.
Driving trains when I'd rather be drawing planes!!

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft: Martin XF3M-1 « Mighty Mite »
« Reply #53 on: January 14, 2012, 10:45:50 PM »
You know, I actually look forward to sitting with a brew and checking your thread out. Excellent and imaginative work Sir.

 
 Thank you so much!!
 
 Today, another forgotten Martin aircraft... In the immediate afterwar years, the U.S. Army Air Force and the U.S. Navy started a series of joint evaluation programs which for the most part proved unsuccessful. The Martin Model 233 Mighty Mite was the Navy's own "parasite" escort fighter, evaluated in parallel with the Air Force's McDonnell XF-85 Goblin under the designation XF3M-1. Slightly bigger and heavier than the Goblin, the Mighty Mite first flew in August 1948 and handled much better, but fell a victim of changing requirements. When the Navy's involvement in the program ceased abruptly early in 1949, some of the XF3M-1's successful features were incorporated in the Goblin, but this itself was canceled a few months later (NOTE: the Goblin is included as an attachment for comparison).
 
 
 
 
 

Offline lauhof52

  • Dutchie
  • The Decimator Guy!
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2012, 11:31:52 PM »
Love the Midget :-*

Offline Bladerunner

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #55 on: January 15, 2012, 05:39:18 AM »
The Martin YF-97A Midget is super cool.  :)

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #56 on: January 16, 2012, 12:31:10 AM »
Golly... Seven hours' work on the Mighty Mite and not a single comment...

Why do I get the feeling that if it was plastic and I'd only posted one image at any time of my work's progression, there would have been encouragements?

Probably because pixel work is still very much undermined compared to plastic, albeit unconsciously.  :-[

Offline Dr. YoKai

  • Was in High School when mastadons roamed the plains...
  • A notorious curmudgeon who is partial to...hemp!
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #57 on: January 16, 2012, 01:08:44 AM »
Golly... Seven hours' work on the Mighty Mite and not a single comment...

Why do I get the feeling that if it was plastic and I'd only posted one image at any time of my work's progression, there would have been encouragements?

Probably because pixel work is still very much undermined compared to plastic, albeit unconsciously.  :-[

  I suspect part of it is that the Mite is not that distinctive, especially comapred to the Midget above ( which is superb, by the way. )
 I didn't even register that the Mite was a modifaction of the Goblin until I read this post-its a subtle enough variation that it
 doesn't immeadiately register with the mind's eye.

 As for pixels vs. plastic, well maybe. You speak of seven hours work, where a comparable piece of plastic might take considerably
 longer-but thats not all that relevant in my view. I've seen any number of what I thought were outstanding builds get one or
 two replies, while a profile that did little besides change a paint scheme went on for pages. Profiles and mash-ups* like this
 don't typically show the work in progress, so its had to encourage someone if they've already finished, no? ;)

 I'll be the first to admit that I don't pay as much attention to this part of the hobby as I might-its not something I feel all
 that drawn to, and I doubt my own ability to get anywhere near the kind of work you and others have produced here. The
 latter is probably the stronger motivation really.

 Anyway, the Mite is a beautiful piece of work. Subtle, as I said, but the sort of image that rewards close study. Most of us
 physical modelers would all but kill to achieve so flawless a finish.

Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #58 on: January 16, 2012, 02:01:31 AM »
That is ugly. In a good way!

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2012, 02:47:35 AM »
I suspect part of it is that the Mite is not that distinctive, especially comapred to the Midget above ( which is superb, by the way. )

That one took less than an hour...  :icon_crap:

I didn't even register that the Mite was a modifaction of the Goblin until I read this post-its a subtle enough variation that it
doesn't immeadiately register with the mind's eye.


Anyway, the Mite is a beautiful piece of work. Subtle, as I said, but the sort of image that rewards close study. Most of us
physical modelers would all but kill to achieve so flawless a finish.

A subtle variation!?!?!? ???
Although I reused a few elements from the Goblin (hook, wing and wheelcart) the Martin Mighty Mite was created using a Convair Pogo as a start, NOT a Goblin!! Check the image below (and Pogo attachment) and see for yourself...




As for pixels vs. plastic, well maybe. You speak of seven hours work, where a comparable piece of plastic might take considerably
longer-but thats not all that relevant in my view.


Indeed, it's not even comparable as you don't have to wait until glue or paint dries up.

Profiles and mash-ups* like this  don't typically show the work in progress, so its had to encourage someone if they've already finished, no? ;)

I agree. ;)

I'll be the first to admit that I don't pay as much attention to this part of the hobby as I might-its not something I feel all
that drawn to, and I doubt my own ability to get anywhere near the kind of work you and others have produced here. The
latter is probably the stronger motivation really.


Thank you so much anyway for your long and thoughtful answer. I do appreciate it immensely.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 03:42:57 AM by Stargazer2006 »

Offline tsrjoe

  • Has been volunteered... for something...
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2012, 07:12:26 PM »
very sweet, the 'on the ramp' image gives a direct comparism of the subtle differences between the two, hehe, methinks this time it looked too good, ie. most of us took it as being an incarnation of the Goblin :)

My favourite part of your artworks are the contempory advertisments, really sets them off well and causes a few double takes as to original source imagery  8)

cheers, Joe

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft: Boeing YF-38A "Trihorn"
« Reply #61 on: March 27, 2012, 11:05:31 PM »
Warning: I sometimes do realistic collages... here's the Boeing YF-38A Trihorn, and... er... well... this is not one of them!

Other than the visually interesting aspect of a tri-fuselage Hornet, the operational value of such a configuration remain to be seen... Hope some of you guys enjoy it, anyway!


Offline AXOR

  • Our returned Monkey Box man
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2012, 11:23:51 PM »
Is quite interesting...

Alex
Alex

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #63 on: March 28, 2012, 06:08:26 AM »
Should not this A/C be a F-54? 3x18? :-)
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #64 on: March 28, 2012, 06:49:57 AM »
Should not this A/C be a F-54? 3x18? :-)

You've got a point here!!! lol  ;D

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #65 on: March 28, 2012, 08:57:02 AM »
Stargazer: Love the TriHorn  :)  Who needs stealth when you've got six engines?

Are you going join the April Fool's Day GB  Stéphane? Your 'adverts' would be perfect for it!
"How many moles do you suppose they're keeping?;
Don't make a sound they're not dead, just sleeping"

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #66 on: March 28, 2012, 04:36:30 PM »
Stargazer: Love the TriHorn  :)  Who needs stealth when you've got six engines?

Are you going join the April Fool's Day GB  Stéphane? Your 'adverts' would be perfect for it!

Why not? I'd love that. Haven't taken the time to check it out. Maybe it's too late? Let me see...

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 #67 on: March 28, 2012, 04:39:01 PM »
Stargazer: Love the TriHorn  :)  Who needs stealth when you've got six engines?

Are you going join the April Fool's Day GB  Stéphane? Your 'adverts' would be perfect for it!

Why not? I'd love that. Haven't taken the time to check it out. Maybe it's too late? Let me see...

Certainly not too late.  A damn fine idea I think.
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 #68 on: March 28, 2012, 10:56:42 PM »
Certainly not too late.  A damn fine idea I think.

Thanks for the suggestion! I'm glad there is a 15 April deadline...

I have only one word to say: Grumman...  ;)

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #69 on: March 29, 2012, 04:06:53 AM »
I have only one word to say: Grumman...  ;)

Oh you tease! Looking forward to it Stéphane  :)
"How many moles do you suppose they're keeping?;
Don't make a sound they're not dead, just sleeping"

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #70 on: March 29, 2012, 05:01:26 AM »
Should not this A/C be a F-54? 3x18? :-)

Yes -- F-54 is a fitting designation.

Offline Tophe

  • He sees things in double...
  • twin-boom & asymmetric fan
    • my models
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #71 on: March 29, 2012, 07:07:52 AM »
As far as I am concerned, I prefer the F-38 code for this delicious oddity :-*, and I will try to invent a FP-38 Triple Lightning on the same principle. Thanks!

EDIT: I did it:

Thanks Stéphgazer!
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 12:19:43 PM by Tophe »

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #72 on: March 29, 2012, 04:11:05 PM »
I have only one word to say: Grumman...  ;)

Oh you tease! Looking forward to it Stéphane  :)

Me? No! But remember unbuilt aircraft sometimes DO get built... 8)

Offline Lensfire

  • I'm nuts. And proud of it!
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #73 on: April 03, 2012, 02:14:22 AM »
These are quite amazing. I particularly like the Beta-jet and the Mirage 1000A!
Modelling what ought to be, not what is.

Stargazer2006

  • Guest
Re: Stargazer2006's imaginary aircraft
« Reply #74 on: April 03, 2012, 03:49:05 AM »
These are quite amazing. I particularly like the Beta-jet and the Mirage 1000A!

Thanks Lensfire! Glad you like my work! And welcome to this forum.

As far as I am concerned, I prefer the F-38 code for this delicious oddity :-* , and I will try to invent a FP-38 Triple Lightning on the same principle. Thanks!
EDIT: I did it:
Thanks Stéphgazer!

Very nice!  :D