Author Topic: Apophenia's Offerings  (Read 459445 times)

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: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #525 on: October 01, 2012, 07:24:49 PM »
I see some definite P-75 influence there:



Regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #526 on: October 01, 2012, 09:13:45 PM »
Is that your finger in the photo, Greg?

Cheers,

Logan

Offline AXOR

  • Our returned Monkey Box man
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #527 on: October 02, 2012, 03:49:54 AM »
Inspirational as usual !
Alex

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: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #528 on: October 02, 2012, 05:13:18 AM »
Is that your finger in the photo, Greg?


Err...yes... :-[

Here are some more I took:







All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #529 on: October 02, 2012, 07:49:49 AM »
Thanks folks. And well-spotted on the P-75 influence Greg (partly for the extra nose guns ... I mean, what self-respecting über-fighter would only carry 6 x .50-cals?!)

It looks like it's out on the starboard wing to me (= asymetric layout ;) )  Obviously it'd need an exposed drive-shaft across to the fuselage then a V-drive up to the prop !!

Or is it actually a twin-boomer with cross shaft drives?  >:D
"Like a hog dance; Like a pig dare; Mind warp deceptor wan ..."

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: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #530 on: October 02, 2012, 08:48:19 AM »
Is that your finger in the photo, Greg?


Err...yes... :-[

Here are some more I took:




What's that big white thing in the back ground?  ;D
Work in progress ::

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

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline Litvyak

  • Shifting between quantum realities...
  • Althistorian & profiler...& the 1st lady of whiff
    • The True North, Strong and Free (AltCan)
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #531 on: October 02, 2012, 09:48:58 AM »

What's that big white thing in the back ground?  ;D

I'd like to know, too!
"God save our Queen and heaven bless the Maple Leaf forever!"

Alternate Canada - http://altcan.webs.com

"Bernard, this doesn't say anything!" "Why thank you, Prime Minister."

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #532 on: October 02, 2012, 11:09:07 AM »
It's the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A transport-turned-demonstrator. Under the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, the US was to develop a 4-engined  tiltwing transport (the C-142A) while Canada developed a 2-engined  tiltwing transport (the Canadair CL-84 Dynavert)
"Like a hog dance; Like a pig dare; Mind warp deceptor wan ..."

Offline Tophe

  • He sees things in double...
  • twin-boom & asymmetric fan
    • my models
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #533 on: October 02, 2012, 11:42:50 AM »
It looks like it's out on the starboard wing to me (= asymetric layout ;) )  Obviously it'd need an exposed drive-shaft across to the fuselage then a V-drive up to the prop !!
Or is it actually a twin-boomer with cross shaft drives?  >:D
If it were a twin-boomer with 2 fins and 2 engines, I guess there would be contrarotating propellers in the nose, no?

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: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #534 on: October 03, 2012, 12:28:37 AM »
It's the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A transport-turned-demonstrator. Under the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, the US was to develop a 4-engined  tiltwing transport (the C-142A) while Canada developed a 2-engined  tiltwing transport (the Canadair CL-84 Dynavert)

Or possibly the XB-70 if that is the big thing referred to...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

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

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: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #535 on: October 03, 2012, 02:00:31 AM »
It's the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A transport-turned-demonstrator. Under the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, the US was to develop a 4-engined  tiltwing transport (the C-142A) while Canada developed a 2-engined  tiltwing transport (the Canadair CL-84 Dynavert)

Or possibly the XB-70 if that is the big thing referred to...

I was being facetious.  >:D

I didn't know about the shared developed between the CL-84 and C-142.

The XC-142 is cool but I do need to bow before the XB-70 and kiss the tires one more time before I die.  :-*
Work in progress ::

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

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #536 on: October 03, 2012, 10:49:34 AM »
Or possibly the XB-70 if that is the big thing referred to...

Ah, sorry, I have a blind spot for those unfortunate airframes bereft of propellers.

I didn't know about the shared developed between the CL-84 and C-142.

There wasn't any real technology sharing going on. The DPSA was about avoiding duplicated production efforts between US and Canadian aerospace firms. (The Defence Development Sharing Arrangement was separate agreement meant to give Canadian industry access to US technology but, as far as I've been able to tell, had no effect on Canadian tiltwing design.)

Since LTV had the lead on their 'large' tiltwing design, Canadair abandoned development of its equivalent (the CL-64 which used up to 8 engines in pairs). Instead, the Canadair team under Karlis Irbitis focused on smaller tiltwing designs -- the recce CL-73/CL-74 and the CL-84 (which started out as a DHC Beaver-sized utility aircraft).
"Like a hog dance; Like a pig dare; Mind warp deceptor wan ..."

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #537 on: October 03, 2012, 10:50:27 AM »
I'm keen on buried mid-engines for fighters. But are they enough?
"Like a hog dance; Like a pig dare; Mind warp deceptor wan ..."

Offline Tophe

  • He sees things in double...
  • twin-boom & asymmetric fan
    • my models
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #538 on: October 03, 2012, 11:24:06 AM »
Was your Fw190 a forefather of the Arsenal VB-10 or a derivative? Nice anyway... :-*

Offline upnorth

  • Distorting a reality near you.
  • Reinvented Austria and the Stuka....Now what?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #539 on: October 03, 2012, 01:28:39 PM »
I'm keen on buried mid-engines for fighters. But are they enough?

That's quite the Fw-190 concept, but that intake duct along the side for the second engine is going to be a huge drag penalty.

Could you not just design the underbelly radiator housing in such a way that the intake could be incorporated into it?
Pickled Wings, A Blog for Preserved Aircraft:
http://pickledwings.wordpress.com/

Beyond Prague, Traveling the Rest of the Czech Republic:
http://beyondprague.wordpress.com/

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #540 on: October 08, 2012, 06:25:43 AM »
That's quite the Fw-190 concept, but that intake duct along the side for the second engine is going to be a huge drag penalty.

Could you not just design the underbelly radiator housing in such a way that the intake could be incorporated into it?

Yep, that'd be a nice, simple solution 'north! I was originally thinking a Jumo 213 in front and a DB603 in the centre. Luftwaffe erks would've loved that!
"Like a hog dance; Like a pig dare; Mind warp deceptor wan ..."

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #541 on: October 08, 2012, 06:26:56 AM »
A few more Mosquito prequels ...

The DH.92 Destroyer (bottom) was de Havilland's late submission to P.23/35. De Havilland argued that a airframe of non-strategic wooden construction was a better use of resources. The Air Ministry preferred the all-metal Fairey Battle. The Destroyer recycled the designation of the abandoned DH.92 Dolphin.

The DH.96TF Decimator was another late entry ... this time to F.9/35 for a 2-seat, 4-gun turret fighter. The DH.96 Dragonet fighter airframe was adapted for the job. Again, the AM preferred an all-metal design as its Demon replacement (the Boulton-Paul Defiant because of its superior turret installation).

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg25109#msg25109
"Like a hog dance; Like a pig dare; Mind warp deceptor wan ..."

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #542 on: October 08, 2012, 11:27:40 AM »
Raafif's Corsair rearrangements got me musing ...
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=852.165

What if that honker of an engine was put in the middle?

Looks like a cleaner job than the Piaggio P.119 which also put an air-cooled radial in the middle.

Offline Tophe

  • He sees things in double...
  • twin-boom & asymmetric fan
    • my models
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #543 on: October 08, 2012, 11:37:41 AM »
Your DH.92 and 96TF are nice addition to the family of British planes of the 1930s, thanks. :)

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #544 on: October 10, 2012, 11:22:25 AM »
In 1935 Vought bought rights to the all-metal Northrop 3A fighter which it developed as the V-141 for a USAAC competition. But Vought had as little success with the V-141 through V-150 lineage as had Northrop.

In 1937, the Vought design team responsible for the V-156 divebomber sought the chance to draught a naval fighter of its own. The result was the V-160 using the same construction techniques as production SB2Us as well as sharing some components.

The US Navy and its Bureau of Aeronautics liked the V-160 design but had reservations over its narrow wheel track (resulting from adopting a reduced-span SB2U centre section). In a re-design, Vought changed the centre section to a reversed gull configuration which also gave more deck clearance for the P&W R-1830's propeller.

The BuAer re-assigned the designation of the 1933 XF3U 2-seat fighter to the new single-seater. However, the XF3U-2 concept was eclipsed by another bent-wing design -- the V-166A Corsair.
"Like a hog dance; Like a pig dare; Mind warp deceptor wan ..."

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #545 on: October 10, 2012, 12:14:06 PM »
I've always loved the Vought V-141 and V-143, so any more along this like will get a big thumbs up from me!

Cheers,

Logan

Offline lauhof52

  • Dutchie
  • The Decimator Guy!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #546 on: October 10, 2012, 06:34:44 PM »
Very nice concept. I like it!

regards
Lauhof

Offline Tophe

  • He sees things in double...
  • twin-boom & asymmetric fan
    • my models
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #547 on: October 11, 2012, 12:16:01 PM »
Great additions to the Corsair family... ;)

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #548 on: October 12, 2012, 08:14:14 AM »
That's quite the Fw-190 concept, but that intake duct along the side for the second engine is going to be a huge drag penalty.

Could you not just design the underbelly radiator housing in such a way that the intake could be incorporated into it?

Yep, that'd be a nice, simple solution 'north! I was originally thinking a Jumo 213 in front and a DB603 in the centre. Luftwaffe erks would've loved that!
.

... or just use separate supercharger intakes for each engine ala the Do 335. ;D

The side entry to the scroll of the standard fore-and-aft arranged German superchargers would
mean turning the air through 90° if you used a bottom intake



“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline apophenia

  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #549 on: October 12, 2012, 09:49:19 AM »
Logan: I'm a V-141 fan too. I was tempted to do an F3U on Kingfisher floats but decided that was too obvious.

Jon: The Dornier engineers cheated by reversing their rear engine  ;)

Today's post isn't so much a whif as might-have-beens. The Fokker D.XXII (ontwerp 150 and 151) were outgrowths of the fixed-gear D.XXI fighter. I've put the 150 in operational colours and marked the 151 as a prototype (could the Dutch have got access to Merlins in 1939?)
"Like a hog dance; Like a pig dare; Mind warp deceptor wan ..."