avatar_Pellson

Convair B-58F thoughts

Started by Pellson, March 12, 2022, 12:06:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jcf

Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on March 17, 2022, 08:17:57 PM
Well ya learn something new every day Jon and i would have never guessed that the Monogram B58 was right. ;D
This two seat lay out sounds very cool..like a B47 style i would guess and with the Italeri being quite a bit shorter this idea works rather well and theres no doubting it would look extremely different .
This delta winged misslie would be one of a kind  :thumbsup:
Dunno why you'd think the Monogram kit wouldn't be right, the majority of Monogram originated kits from
all eras are generally correct in terms of overall shape, which is especially true of the 1/48th kits released
between the mid '70s to late '90s.

You'd have thought that the old box and odd-scale* B-58 kits that antedate the Italeri kit being basically
correct in shape would have set off alarms in the Italeri engineering department.
;D

*The old Lindbergh 1/64th scale kit could be a fun scale-o-rama to 1/72nd as a slightly enlarged B-58 variant.
Perhaps side-by-side seating and Olympus 593 or Orenda Iroquois engines.  ;)
"Conspiracy theory's got to be simple.
Sense doesn't come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated crap
actually is than they ever are about
whatever's supposed to be behind the
conspiracy."
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Pellson

Quote from: Old Wombat on March 18, 2022, 05:13:43 AM
Quote from: Beermonster58 on March 18, 2022, 02:37:22 AM
Interesing Jon! 😊👍.
So, essentially (and, not that it really bothers me) the Italeri kit is actually accurate but, just not in 1/72 scale?

That's not how I read it; The Italeri kit is actually only accurate for something that IS NOT a B-58, in any scale, because;
1. the fuselage is too short (by about 1" in scale, so about 6' IRL);
2. the wings have the wrong leading edge angle, as they are trying to compensate for the too short fuselage;
3. the engines are out of position & (judging from the images) slightly short, due to the misshapen wing;
4. for the fuselage length, the fuselage is too chubby; &
5 the tail is, likewise, misshaped due to the shortening of the fuselage.

However! They did get the 1/72 scale span & height correct for the B-58. ;)

This is exactly my understanding, and why I'm a bit concerned about the engines in particular. I think it wouldn't be too complicated to write up a reasonable backstory about the change in dimensions, however the engine gondolas.. a J79 is as long as it is.
But it is a complicated cut in the old, brittle Italian plastic..
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Wardukw-NZ

If i was building a wiffy B58 from the Italeri kit it would be a no holds barred assault on it..new cockpit layout..new engines with massive afterburners ..maybe a new tail as well and molded fuel tanks to really bring it into our century and out of its own.
Low vis decals and paint job for sure .
Orrrr if i was going to go totally mental on it id convert it to a 48th cockpit and still do all the other things to...turn it into something next level forba B58 wiffy.
If it aint broke ,,fix it until it is .
Over kill is often very understated .
I know the voices in my head ain't real but they do come up with some great ideas .

NARSES2

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 18, 2022, 12:10:55 PM

Dunno why you'd think the Monogram kit wouldn't be right, the majority of Monogram originated kits from
all eras are generally correct in terms of overall shape, which is especially true of the 1/48th kits released
between the mid '70s to late '90s.


Back in the 60's I always got a Monongram's 48th scale kit for birthday and Christmas. Still got very fond memories of them  :thumbsup:
Decals my @r$e!

Old Wombat

I know I had an Italeri B-58 in the In-House Wombat Stashâ„¢ but it's not there now ... ? :unsure:

.... Meh! I must have sent it off in a Modeller's Aid Package somewhere along the line, there was no realistic chance that I was ever going to build it.

.... I hope its new owner is happy with it! If they're not, they can always "pay it forward" to someone else, who might be. :thumbsup:
Has a life outside of What-If & wishes it would stop interfering!

"The purpose of all War is Peace" - St. Augustine

veritas ad mortus veritas est

Wardukw-NZ

I hate that Guy..i had the same thing AM tracks for a Panzer 38T..hunted and hunted..think i could find em ? ..nope..still havent.
If it aint broke ,,fix it until it is .
Over kill is often very understated .
I know the voices in my head ain't real but they do come up with some great ideas .

jcf

Quote from: Pellson on March 18, 2022, 01:44:27 PM
Quote from: Old Wombat on March 18, 2022, 05:13:43 AM
Quote from: Beermonster58 on March 18, 2022, 02:37:22 AM
Interesing Jon! 😊👍.
So, essentially (and, not that it really bothers me) the Italeri kit is actually accurate but, just not in 1/72 scale?

That's not how I read it; The Italeri kit is actually only accurate for something that IS NOT a B-58, in any scale, because;
1. the fuselage is too short (by about 1" in scale, so about 6' IRL);
2. the wings have the wrong leading edge angle, as they are trying to compensate for the too short fuselage;
3. the engines are out of position & (judging from the images) slightly short, due to the misshapen wing;
4. for the fuselage length, the fuselage is too chubby; &
5 the tail is, likewise, misshaped due to the shortening of the fuselage.

However! They did get the 1/72 scale span & height correct for the B-58. ;)

This is exactly my understanding, and why I'm a bit concerned about the engines in particular. I think it wouldn't be too complicated to write up a reasonable backstory about the change in dimensions, however the engine gondolas.. a J79 is as long as it is.
But it is a complicated cut in the old, brittle Italian plastic..

The civil CJ805 version of the J79 is shorter in length, the CJ805-23 was the turbofan version
with the aft fan. The CJ805-23C version tested on Caravelle and proposed as a production
option had an enlarged diameter aft section for the fan, unlike on the Convair 990 where they
increased the diameter of the entire nacelle.

Maybe an aft-fan J79 variation with the Caravelle type nacelles, that way the short nacelles
can be ignored, plus you get more power.
;)

CJ805-23B (Convair 990)
Maximum thrust: 16,100 lbf (71.62 kN) for take-off

J79-GE-5A (B-58)
Maximum thrust: 15,000 lbf (67 kN) with afterburner

;D

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

Wardukw-NZ

Ok with all the ideas running around here i absolutely have to get a B58 now and its got to be ltaleri and in 72nd scale cause i have to build a 48th verison out of it.
Dang nab it!!!!
If it aint broke ,,fix it until it is .
Over kill is often very understated .
I know the voices in my head ain't real but they do come up with some great ideas .

Scotaidh

Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on March 19, 2022, 10:31:21 PM
Ok with all the ideas running around here i absolutely have to get a B58 now and its got to be ltaleri and in 72nd scale cause i have to build a 48th verison out of it.
Dang nab it!!!!

Steady on, mate - that's a long, deep rabbit-hole.  :)  I know, because I have dived into it. Back in 2017, I did up a list of 13 projects I planned to build in 2018.  Some of them were simply to complete some stalled projects, others were inspired by what I'd seen here.  I went on-line and to my LHSs and bought all the requisite kits and supplies for those projects.

Of those 13, I managed to actually do two of them.  Between last year and now, I managed to get two more done.  None of the four were SPCs (Stalled Project Completions).

Even with my glacial build speed, that's pathetic.  And, the ideas don't stop - oh, dear me, NO!  This Buffalot build was something I thought of only this year - and the thought that I really should build OOBs for each of my conversions, to put beside the conversions for comparison so folks can easily see the differences - that's also a "this year" idea and promises a boat-load of work.

Meanwhile, like you, ideas keep forming, projects keep popping up, and the kits keep rolling in ...   To be fair, I'll have to stop buying kits once I retire, so I'm getting my buying in now whilst I still can - ie; have a job.  :)

Thistle dew, Pig - thistle dew!

Where am I going?  And why am I in a handbasket?

It's dark in the dark when it's dark. Ancient Ogre Proverb

"All right, boyz - the plan iz 'Win.'  And if ya lose, it's yer own fault 'coz ya didn't follow the plan."

sandiego89

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 19, 2022, 04:48:54 PM

The civil CJ805 version of the J79 is shorter in length, the CJ805-23 was the turbofan version
with the aft fan. The CJ805-23C version tested on Caravelle and proposed as a production
option had an enlarged diameter aft section for the fan, unlike on the Convair 990 where they
increased the diameter of the entire nacelle.

Maybe an aft-fan J79 variation with the Caravelle type nacelles, that way the short nacelles
can be ignored, plus you get more power.
;)

CJ805-23B (Convair 990)
Maximum thrust: 16,100 lbf (71.62 kN) for take-off

J79-GE-5A (B-58)
Maximum thrust: 15,000 lbf (67 kN) with afterburner



Very interesting, had never heard or seen that engine with the fan blades behind the hot section.  So is it considered a turbofan, as normally on a turbofan, some or much of the fan bypasses the hot section?     
Dave "Sandiego89"
Chesapeake, Virginia, USA

jcf

Yes, it's still classed as a bypass turbo-fan.


The CJ805-23B installation on the Convair 990, the air to the fan is pulled past the engine engine core rather
than than being pushed past as in the case of fwd. fan turbo-fan engines.



Cutaway CJ805-23B from a Convair 990.

The original turbo-fan concepts, going back to Whittle and others, had aft fans driven directly as part of an exhaust
turbine stage rather than being shaft driven like the compressor stages.

Metropolitan-Vickers F.3 with aft-fan.
"Conspiracy theory's got to be simple.
Sense doesn't come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated crap
actually is than they ever are about
whatever's supposed to be behind the
conspiracy."
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Pellson

The turbofan is a nice idea, but I'm a bit hesitant towards that fan cover in the rear. Both making it, but more as it seems pretty firmly subsonic in its character.

Might have to cut after all.  :rolleyes:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

sandiego89

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on March 20, 2022, 01:00:12 PM
Yes, it's still classed as a bypass turbo-fan.

The CJ805-23B installation on the Convair 990, the air to the fan is pulled past the engine core rather
than than being pushed past as in the case of fwd. fan turbo-fan engines.


Very interesting, I learned something new today- thanks for taking the time to post all that! 
Dave "Sandiego89"
Chesapeake, Virginia, USA

Wardukw-NZ

Scotaidh my friend ..never have turer words been written.  ;D
Not about your build speed..nope..its that bloody ideas thing.
This is a huge annoyance..ya in the middle of one build..bloody idea happens on something else and ya wanna start it ..luckily for me right now there is no 72nd B58s here in NZ for sale that i can find..so the temptation is pushed away slightly and god thanks to you and Guy ive still got quite a few builds in the future.
None of them are 5 minute builds or really that complicated so thats a plus.
But yeah your dead on with what you said..the ideas never stop . :wacko:
If it aint broke ,,fix it until it is .
Over kill is often very understated .
I know the voices in my head ain't real but they do come up with some great ideas .