My entry (maybe one of them.....) in the 50s GB will be a little known Boeing bomber, so little known that they never actually got around to thinking about it, but I did..... ;D
The designation is because it fits sort of half way between the B-54 and B-55 projects in that it's BIG, and will have four hefty turboprops, and may even carry an escort fighter too. In fact that's the only bit of it that I can find at the moment..........
Goblin-a.jpg
The somewhat worn box of the MPM XF-85 Goblin kit.
Goblin-b.jpg
And the rather sparse contents. Quite why they needed a box that big I'm not sure.
So you could find it on the shelf and buy it of course! See, it worked.
I like big bombers Kit and dude I'm looking forward to this :thumbsup:
Ya must have a absolute ton of kits if the Goblin is all you can't find ;D ;D
The RW Boeing RB-54 was based on the B-50. Whereas the B-55 has swept wings and a swept tail which remains me of the B-47.
A kitbash using the B-29's fuselage and the wings plus the tail from a B-52 might be a better option, the fuselage will need to be lengthened. Four jet engines should be ample.
Or you could use the B-36 -fuselage with the wings, tail, engines and cockpit, landing gear from a B-52. They all fit apart from the cockpit which would need some surgery.
Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on March 06, 2023, 09:38:12 AMYa must have a absolute ton of kits if the Goblin is all you can't find ;D ;D
You could say that, over 1000 and the only census I ever carried out, back in 2012 or so. ;D
I was looking for one particular one to provide the wings and turbo-props, and there's NOTHING of the B-52 involved. Well, at the moment anyway.
72nd scale ..wings with turbo props..hmmm TU-95 Bear maybe ??
Actually that would look pretty cool..a B-52 fuselage with TU-95 wings and props..counter rotating props are always cool ;D
Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on March 06, 2023, 11:57:38 AM72nd scale ..wings with turbo props..hmmm TU-95 Bear maybe ??
Actually that would look pretty cool..a B-52 fuselage with TU-95 wings and props..counter rotating props are always cool ;D
You mean something like this;
The wings are off a B-52G and the engines are from a Tu-142 H.
(https://i.imgur.com/1qOZ4Sa.jpeg)
Bloody similar to that Colin mate..yep ;D :thumbsup:
Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on March 06, 2023, 03:42:01 PMBloody similar to that Colin mate..yep ;D :thumbsup:
Who's Colin?
Was talking to a mate at the same time as writing that message..his name :lol:
I'm STILL waiting for one of the component kits for this entry to arrive! :banghead:
It's been well over a week now and it was supposed to be coming First Class. I think I'll be claiming the postage price back...........
I don't bother with this first class or over night postage anymore Kit...waste of money as nothing arrives when it's ment to now.
It's happened to often now to trust it and it's everywhere not just here .
I'm on a major catch-up for this GB now, but the 'lost' kit I was waiting for has arrived.
The main components are below............
B-54.5-a.jpg
B-54.5-b.jpg
B-54.5-c.jpg
I'm not sure which of the escorts I'll use yet, maybe both of them? Who knows, depends how they build really.
Looking forward to seeing what you do with these :thumbsup:
Gondor
Hell yes with what Gondor said..very much looking forward to this aswell ;D
It's no co-incidence that the fuselage diameters of the B-29 and the Tu-95 are the same, which is how the Sovs built the Bear in the first place of course. ;D ;)
It's also educational seeing how long the Bear is compared to a B-29, it's HUGE!
I don't know what it is about the Bear...it's old..technically crap as it's so loud it bloody near impossible to work in ..it is fast for a turbo prop bomber but slow compared to jets but there's just .."something" about it which is very cool and I do want one..have for yrs ..always wanted to build a large scale RC one too.
Well dreams for the RC can wait but I'm still gonna keep my eye out for one in even 72nd ;D
Oh this could be good! Parasites, contra-props, big bombers/mother ships...what's not to like!!!
The Vert-jet and Goblin are way under Whiffed on here- so much potential.
And you will have the extra atomic bombs, propellers, and refueling boom from the B-29 kit as I showed in my post! You spares bin will be very happy!
Bring it on.
Dave
I've assembled one wing of the Bear, and it's MASSIVE! :o
A pity they got the part IDs wrong on the flap hinge parts, but I figured it out OK. I've glued the flaps in the up position, they're a bit too fragile to have them moveable.
B-54.5-d.jpg
Oh Yes ;D I do love a parasite fighter mother ship. :thumbsup:
Considering that the X-13 is a Mach 2 kit it fits amazingly well. :o
I didn't have to file any of the interior parts, bulkheads, cockpit floor etc. the two fuselage sides fit quite nicely. There's a fair amount of detail in the cockpit too, but I doubt I can polish the 'pebble dash' canopy well enough to see much of it.
X-13a.jpg
There's not much room for nosewieght, but that doesn't matter a damn as in its RW role it hangs from a rope on its trailer and in my application it'll be hooked up inside a bomb bay. ;D
Quote from: sandiego89 on March 16, 2023, 03:02:08 PMOh this could be good! Parasites, contra-props, big bombers/mother ships...what's not to like!!!
Could not have said it better ;D ;D
I had the Bear H model and used the engines on a pair of B-52G wings, the fuselage has been used for my flying boat with the Airfix Avro Vulcan B.2 wings.
I look forward to what you create.
Not quite sure what I'm going to do with the engines on this monster. The real Bear ones are just TOO Russian and won't look right on a US bomber, and I'm going to file off the numerous wing fences for the same reason.
I must admit I rather like the way the RW B-55 proposal had its T-40s hung under the wings on pylons. I can see some parts of my AMT B-52G coming into use there. ;D
If ya don't want those engines and props Kit I'll take em :lol: :lol: ;D
I'll be using the main body of the engines, but maybe not the landing gear housing at the back. The props WILL be used, but maybe with cropped tips.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 17, 2023, 02:30:54 AMI'll be using the main body of the engines, but maybe not the landing gear housing at the back. The props WILL be used, but maybe with cropped tips.
Why not have the blades from the back at the front and the ones from the front at the back of each engine as well, if easily doable just to be a little bit different.
Gondor
Like a push-pull arrangement?
I like the idea but it won't work with the engines on pylons as the rear props would dig holes in the win fuel tanks. :(
You could go down the Russian route and not use the Tu-142 engines and use the engines from the B-52 or B-58. Or if you have the Tu-16 model in your stash do an engine swap.
There's some line drawings for this proposal on the Secretprojects Forum.
Of if you haven't cut the B-29 model my idea for a troop transporter is still an interesting proposition. I don't have any drill bits to cut out the windows along the fuselage. Rolls-Royce Griffon engines do fit on the B-29 but you will need more than four!
Four T-40s, even if they're a bit Soviet-looking, will be more than enough for the B-54B ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 17, 2023, 02:48:42 AMLike a push-pull arrangement?
I like the idea but it won't work with the engines on pylons as the rear props would dig holes in the win fuel tanks. :(
Noooo, I was thinking of just swapping around the clockwise and anti-clockwise propellers on each engine, very subtle and probably will not make a difference as it's not a Tu-95 or Tu-142. Pointier prop covers would help change the look as well.
Gondor
Well I built the bomb load. ;D
The 'Fat Man' bomb is impressively large, it almost fills the bomb bay area of the B-29, but Trumpeter seem to have mis-moulded it a bit. No matter how you fit the multi-finned tail to the bomb it doesn't align with the location for the bomb slip lug. I've sorted it, but it's good that'll be way up inside the bomb bay where it's difficult to see.
B-54.5-e.jpg
Comparing the Bear with the B-29, it's astonishing quite how big the Bear is! :o
B-54.5-f.jpg
But the quality of moulding is like chalk and cheese. The Bear has quite large sprue gates which go right over the glue faces, which makes removing them a tad complex as it's only too easy to chop off the location pegs at the same time, they're almost always right next to a sprue gate! :banghead:
I'm a few location pegs short by now as I've glued both halves of both Bear fuselage halves (Keep up at the back there....) together, but haven't glued the left and right halves together yet as there's some sawing to do first....
Here's the B-29 fuselage taped up for sawing. It's amazing quite how much of the B-29 shape still exists in the Bear, the taper of the rear fuselage is IDENTICAL!
B-54.5-g.jpg
Your starting to make me want to get a Tu-95 in 1/72 even though I had decided it was too big. Think I shall keep that option open untill the Scottish Nationals to see if I can pick one up there at a less wallet straining price than I have seen so far on the web.
Gondor
I've never really bothered to check about the size differences between the 95 and the 29 and we've always knew the 29 was a bloody big plane but compared to the 95 ..damn!
Kit take a pic with the wings cause I'm being nosey now ;D
Thr more you put pics up of this epic build the more I want both models now...the 29 is like a hundred bucks here ..the 95 ..umm glup!!!
Also I've got no place to put either anyway ...but temptation ;D
Your wish is my command Phil. ;D
Here's all, well, some, of the components of the build all in one shot.
B-54.5-h.jpg
Hahaha seems my commands were met nicely ;D
Thanks mate ..that wing is as long as thr 29s fuselage..now imagine if the 95s wings were straight with zero sweep..bloody hell that would be huge for 72nd..now imagine it in 48th :thumbsup: :wub:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 17, 2023, 12:32:25 PMYour wish is my command Phil. ;D
Here's all, well, some, of the components of the build all in one shot.
[url="https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=70180;type=preview;file"]B-54.5-h.jpg[/url]
That's a great picture to show off the differences in aerodynamics between the two aircraft.
The bomb bays of the B-29 are either side of the wing which is the centre of lift where as on the Tu-95 the bomb bay is behind the wing to fuselage join due to the sweep of the wing and the shift in the centre of mass in relationship to the centre of lift.
To help balance out the position of the wing in relation to the centre of lift, the fuselage needed to be extended. The wings are longer too because the lift/drag ratio has to change in relation to the sweep of the wing which was done to increase speed by raising compresability.
I think :-\
I am sure those who know more will correct me if I am wrong, which there is a strong posibility of :blink:
Gondor
And you thought the Tu-95 was long? ;)
Here's the tape-up of the B-54B's fuselage. ;D
B-54.5-i.jpg
OK, so I've got to get rid of the B-29's wing root and that plug-ugly bulge forward of the Bear's wing, but that's nothing unusual. Although the rear fuselage taper is identical in both aircraft it's at a different angle on each, so the rear fuselage cut has to be at a slight angle to get things looking right.
I've NO idea where I'm going to put it though................ :(
Peggs in the wall that are longer than the undercarriage length and some, so that you can hang it on the wall as if it had landed on the wall!
Gondor
Quote from: PR19_Kit on March 17, 2023, 01:04:08 PMAnd you thought the Tu-95 was long? ;)
Here's the tape-up of the B-54.5's fuselage. ;D
B-54.5-i.jpg
OK, so I've got to get rid of the B-29's wing root and that plug-ugly bulge forward of the Bear's wing, but that's nothing unusual. Although the rear fuselage taper is identical in both aircraft it's at a different angle on each, so the rear fuselage cut has to be at a slight angle to get things looking right.
I've NO idea where I'm going to put it though................ :(
I wonder if that would work with the wings from the B-36?
Quote from: McColm on March 17, 2023, 02:52:19 PMI wonder if that would work with the wings from the B-36?
The fuselage diameters would be too different to be able to do something simmilar. That is unfortunate as it would be interesting to see the B-36 wings with the nose and tail of the Tu-95
Gondor
It's going to have the Bear wings, which is why I've left their wing roots on the main fuselage.
They may be modified somewhat, but the basic structure will be the Bearwings.
Ya know Kit I had no idea where or what you were going to do with this build.. I bloody well know now :o
Damn mate if it got any longer you wouldn't need to take off to bomb anyone..that plane would already be there ;D ;D :wub:
You are of course extending the wings...
...and your house so you can store it when finished. ;D
Quote from: zenrat on March 18, 2023, 03:20:28 AMYou are of course extending the wings...
...and your house so you can store it when finished. ;D
Actually I didn't plan to, the Tu-95 wings are VERY long anyway, but it depends on the look of the whole assembly when it's taped up. They may need some extensions just so the proportions look correct, we'll see.
As for the house, NO chance, but I'm in the middle of a big 'clear-up' campaign so some space may re-appear.
Takeoff and landing is going to be a delicate affair unless the gear gets VERY tall... :o CG's gonna be interesting too.
Belated congratulations! :thumbsup:
Quote from: AeroplaneDriver on March 24, 2023, 06:02:25 PMTakeoff and landing is going to be a delicate affair unless the gear gets VERY tall... :o CG's gonna be interesting too.
The SAC of the period had VERY long runways.
Very good stuff. The concept to me fits the 50's to a tee :thumbsup:
Kit, I know you are a bit off from painting, and I know you are a firm believer in brush painting, but this really begs for rattle can or airbrush aluminum/natural metal. If not I firmly salute you- you will needs lots of bottles!
Watching with huge interest.
-Dave
That's the plan Dave, I foresee many cans of different Halfords silvers in my future. ;D
And having to print off a number of SAC sash decals, it's so long it may need 2-3 of them. ;)
You could reduce the amount of silver you need by painting large parts of the underside in Anti-Flash white.
Gondor
I got some paint on the cockpits of the two potential escorts, and I came home today so I can carry on with the B-54B itself.
I've decided that a B-54.5 is too unwieldy and unlikely, but a B-54B is much more likely, so that's what it is from now on.
It's easier to say to Kit ;D
54.5 sounds like it's not completely finished yet :lol:
Quote from: Wardukw-NZ on April 04, 2023, 04:35:30 PMIt's easier to say to Kit ;D
54.5 sounds like it's not completely finished yet :lol:
But cheaper than 55 ;D
Quote from: Old Wombat on April 04, 2023, 07:11:22 PMQuote from: Wardukw-NZ on April 04, 2023, 04:35:30 PMIt's easier to say to Kit ;D
54.5 sounds like it's not completely finished yet :lol:
But cheaper than 55 ;D
;D :thumbsup:
Yep 55 is getting expensive ;D ;D :thumbsup:
Had a long look-see at the B-54B's fuselage last night. Heavens, that thing's MASSIVE, but it still looks OK with the Tu-95's wings in the same position. The many Russian 'lumps and bumps' on their fuselage will have to go though, Boeing would never have done that I'm sure. Matching the other side won't be the work of moments, but it's looking OK so far. The interior needs my attention first of course.
I found out that Bear fuselage has many MORE bumps on the port side than it does on the starboard side, so all I did to that was saw the nose off. I spent the evening 'Americanising' one of the big contra-props by chopping off the tips, filing away the very obvious anti-icing boots on the prop blades and assembling the thing into some sort of order. As designed you have to glue the prop together before assembling the engine halves, but I want the props to plug in, so I made a few mods.
That's one BIG prop for sure, and I'm not too sure about the very rounded spinner, I think a US one would be more conical, but I doubt I can do much about it, so it's staying as it is. A few Hamilton Standard decals will make it look more the part. ;D
This is really gonna look so good Kit...can't wait to see it matey 😀
Lots of heavy plastic engineering today trying to 'American-ise' the very Russian looking wings of the Bear. I filed off the numerous wing fences and sawed off the engine fairing bulges as the engines will be pylon mounted underneath. That left gaping holes top & bottom, but nothing some 30 thou and a hefty PSR session can't put right.
Before taking a 'before and after' pic I took a good look at the OOB wing mouldings and was surprised to see that they're re-enforced on the inside. There are strips moulded into the inner surface of both upper and lower halves, presumably to stiffen these very large surfaces and so they don't need much thicker styrene to support their own weight. I hadn't noticed them when I built the starboard wing.
B-54.5-k.jpg
See what I mean? I doubt they reproduce the internal structure of a RW Tu-95 though.
I glued the port wing parts together after filing off the numerous sprue gates that encroached onto the gluing surfaces :banghead: a fault that Trumpeter seem to share with many Eastern producers. I did the same as I did with the starboard wing and glued the flaps and ailerons in place a) because I don't like moveable surfaces like that, and b) because the pins to make them moveable are MILES too big for the holes they're meant to fit!
B-54.5-l.jpg
Here's the 'Russian' and 'American' wings, the former on top and the latter below.
And to show what I did last night here's two props, the 'American' one built up on the left and the original 'Russian' one on the right.
B-54.5-m.jpg
I like the clipped props and the reworked wings. Looking forward to seeing more of this'
Quote from: kerick on April 06, 2023, 04:46:58 PMI like the clipped props and the reworked wings. Looking forward to seeing more of this'
Ditto :thumbsup:
So, you preformed a Carrotectomy eh.
After posting last night's pics I came upon a rather serious problem with the fuselage. Not insurmountable, but troubling.
Either the Russians didn't exactly copy the B-29's fuselage for the Tu-4/Tu-95 breed, or Trumpeter and Academy didn't quite get their scales correct, but they AREN'T the same diameter, not quite anyway. When I glued the bits of the starboard side together I didn't manage to see that the B-29 was slightly larger in diameter than the Tu-95 because the joint faces weren't a complete half circle, there's a hatch/bomb bay/space right at the joints, but last night I started sawing and fitting the port side bits and it's only too clear now.
The current plan is to trim the bottom edges of the B-29 parts back until they can be squished (that's a technical Whiffing term....) into shape to match up with the Bear bits, but it'll mean UN-gluing the starboard side too, a bit of a PITA for sure. The B-29 nose will have to taper back out to its proper size though as otherwise the transparencies won't fit.
Ho hum, if it was easy everyone would be doing it...............
My personal Motto would apply in this situation.
"The theory's fine,
The practice is something else"
Gondor
The usual quote attributed to Stalin suits the situation just fine: "big country, big tolerances".
It's a good question just how much the actual dimensions varied due to the measures being converted to metric from Imperial, and the structure being adapted to the tooling, material thicknesses, and alloys already being used in the Soviet aircraft industry, so a slight change in the fuselage diameter may even be accurate.
I'll blame it on Stalin then. ;D
Quote from: Gondor on April 07, 2023, 07:39:01 AM"The theory's fine,
The practice is something else"
Actually it worked a treat. ;D
The B-29 is 3 mm wider than the Tu-95, so I marked off a 1.5 - 0 mm taper on the underside of each of the rear sections and then filed away. Taping them back together, with a little tension to squeeze the lower surfaces together and they fit exactly.
Now for the nose section, using the same method.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
This is gonna look so cool Kit 😎..so very cool 😊
Agree.
And the props look really good. :thumbsup:
This is going to rock so good 👍
I've got so many fuselage parts scattered all round the place it's getting to be difficult to figure out which is which now.
The forward fuselage taper filing worked OK, but I have to scratch up the bomb bays, escort fighter bays and the landing gear bays before I can glue them up.
Yes, that does mean it'll have a bicycle undercarriage, a bit like a B-47. That's because with the engines on pylons below the wings and those big props it'll need more ground clearance than the stock B-29 or Tu-95 has, so with luck the big Tu-95 gear mounted in the fuselage will do the job. If not I'll add some longer legs and stuff.
That's the plan anyway.
Stick with the tricycle landing gear Kit ..that always look cool and if anything more imposing. 😎 😁
I'm not sure I can.
With the engines on pylons under the wing, which was the defining feature of the B-55 design, it's difficult to imagine how the landing stresses would be handled. And I dislike the bloated look of the Bear's inner engine nacelles that would be need to be retained to have somewhere for the gear to retract.
Not being able to see the layout of your landing gear mounting points makes it difficult for me to see how this layout will be and what stresses would be where ..the pods could be modded to mount out riggers into with the mains mounted in the fuselage..if the outriggers are mounted in the outer engines then the stresses would be passed thru the entire wing ..mounted in board would cause far to much stress from the inboard engine out to the wings tip..breakage big-time and a ton of wing flex which I hear isn't really helpful on landing 😀
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 06, 2023, 01:27:11 PMBefore taking a 'before and after' pic I took a good look at the OOB wing mouldings and was surprised to see that they're re-enforced on the inside. There are strips moulded into the inner surface of both upper and lower halves......
Very interesting. have never seen that amount of re-enforcing on a kit. Surely makes the tooling more expensive, but a nice touch. I have had a few kits that could have used that.
It surprised me too Dave. Neither of the 1/72 scale B-52s I have, Monogram & AMT, have anything like that moulded in, and the M'gram B-36 has such thick styrene for the wings you could WALK on it!
You're right, it must cost a lot more to tool that up.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 08, 2023, 05:22:26 AMYou're right, it must cost a lot more to tool that up.
Maybe it decreases failure rate when removing from the moulds ?
After a vertigo induced lack of mojo, I'm back on the B-54B again now, and about time too you might say.
I'm not sure if I'll actually get it all done by the end of the GB, but what the hell, I'll do it anyway.
Working on the tail section at the moment, with the Bear fin being mated to the B-29's rear fuselage, with the American tail turret being melded into the bottom of the rudder, and so far it's going OK. I'll 'Americanise' the shape of the fin-rudder I think, it's all too Soviet looking at the moment.
Pics later hopefully.
As promised here's the new tail of the B-54B. Needed some sheet packing pieces and will need LOADS of PSR no doubt, but I expected that.
A more tapered B-29 tail cone with a Tu-95 fin/rudder grafted on top, with the B-29 tail turret fiddled in place instead of the Tu-95 turret. It just shows how much Tupolev DIDN'T change the B-29 design.........
B-54.5-n.jpg
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: I like it 😎 😄
The front bit of the B-54B is a standard B-29 nose, but obviously I won't need the wing roots moulded into it as I'll have the coking great Tu-95 wings some miles feet aft. So I filed the B-29's wing roots away, and that left a socking great hole....... :(
Mucho cutting, filing and trimming of styrene later the hole is plugged, sort of. As with everything else in this build it'll need lots of PSR of course. :(
B-54.5-o.jpg
What's your favourite brand of filler?
I think i'll buy shares in it....
Presto! :thumbsup: The same stuff that Dizzy uses a lot of.
If you can get it, but at the moment I can't. :banghead:
Not helpful for you then
Because this is meant to be a half-way house to the proposed B-55, I plan to hang the four turbo-props on pylons, as was intended for the XB-55 as well.
I can't find a single other design with turbo-props hung on nacelles like this, does anyone know of another one?
Here's the proposed XB-55.
XB-55.jpg
The original Boeing Model 474.
The XB-47D but they only have the inner engines replaced a single Wright YT49-W-1 turboprop.
The only aircraft that comes close was the modified MD-81 proposal for the Lockheed P-3 Orion replacement having a pair of propfanned engines back in 1988 known as the P-9D.
(https://i.imgur.com/fS6iVCf.jpeg)
It might be worth trying the former USSR or Chinese aircraft design agencies for anything suitable.
The single B-47D was the only one I came up with too.
The aft-fan MD-81 doesn't really count as its engines were not wing mounted.
I think I'll have to scratchbuild my pylons for the B-54B as almost all the jet pylons I can find are too long.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 23, 2023, 11:31:29 AMThe single B-47D was the only one I came up with too.
The aft-fan MD-81 doesn't really count as its engines were not wing mounted.
I think I'll have to scratchbuild my pylons for the B-54B as almost all the jet pylons I can find are too long.
You could put the propellers at the rear of the engines to save you a bit of time :banghead:
As a common problem with propeller-driven aircraft is the propeller ground clearance, I cannot understand why engines should be pylon-mounted. :o
It's not a critic on you, Kit, but on the original XB-55.
I don't know you'd bother with pylon mounted engines anyway..apart from trying to make the plane quieter.
The original B-29 had no problem when it was upgraded to the B-50 .
The engines on the 29 were Pratt and Whitney R-3350s at 2200hp and upgraded with P&W R-4360s at 3500hp..nice ;D
Pylon mounted a great for jets as there lighter and don't suffer as much from torque like ya get from propellers.
This ain't aimed at you Kit ..nope ..this about the real things .
They look cool but sometimes I don't know why..to get upgraded you need new pods..strengthened pylons and wing to mount em ..it's a heap of work for probably not much gain.
Why not put the engine pylons on top of the wings if you are going for a similar layout to the
B-52's landing gear arrangement ?You can put some dangling bits under the wings from your arsenal of weapons store.
The props can't go on the back of the nacelles, it's a very swept wing and they'd have to be mounted waaaaay back for the props to clear the TE.
The pylons will be there because it's 'half way' between a B-54 and a B-55, and something has to be distinctly B-55 about it. They'll be pretty low pylons though as the landing gear, a bicycle type, just as the B-55 was going to be, come from the Tu-95 and it's a limited length.
I can offer nothing here except support to keep on going ;D
There is a solution that will work for you. :thumbsup:
I had the same Tu-95 model kit as you and put the engine bits on the B-52G wings. The landing legs of the Tu-95 can easily be broken, that's why mine have been removed from the Convair EB-61 Peacehaven AEW.1.
I'm sure that you will endeavour to complete your build :thumbsup:
As an aside, the HondaJet's engines are mounted on pylons over the wings - IIRC for less vibration and noise.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 23, 2023, 02:27:15 PMThe props can't go on the back of the nacelles, it's a very swept wing and they'd have to be mounted waaaaay back for the props to clear the TE.
The pylons will be there because it's 'half way' between a B-54 and a B-55, and something has to be distinctly B-55 about it. They'll be pretty low pylons though as the landing gear, a bicycle type, just as the B-55 was going to be, come from the Tu-95 and it's a limited length.
If it's a very swept wing, won't the front-mounted nacelles have to be set waaaaay forward to clear the leading edge? :unsure:
The XB-55's running with 4-blade (or is it 8-blade?) contra-props per engine, that keeps the length of the blades shorter than if they were single 4-blade props, sa maybe you could go 5(10?)-bladed or 6(12?)-bladed to reduce their length a bit more? And reduce the length of the pylon until its more of a suggestion than a statement? :unsure:
Quote from: Old Wombat on April 23, 2023, 05:53:38 PMIf it's a very swept wing, won't the front-mounted nacelles have to be set waaaaay forward to clear the leading edge? :unsure:
The XB-55's running with 4-blade (or is it 8-blade?) contra-props per engine, that keeps the length of the blades shorter than if they were single 4-blade props, sa maybe you could go 5(10?)-bladed or 6(12?)-bladed to reduce their length a bit more? And reduce the length of the pylon until its more of a suggestion than a statement? :unsure:
Yes, but the Tu-95's nacelles are VERY long to start with. I've hacked off the rear extension, where the main gear normally sits, already and it's STILL long.
The XB-55 had 8-bladed, square tipped contraprops, and I've hacked the Tu-95'a props to look the same, or as near as I can manage it anyway. I suspect the pylons will be pretty short, if only so the prop tips don't hit the ground, but we'll see as things progress.
A lot will depend on how I can position the two main gear legs in the fuselage, but I'll be doing some work on that today.
Quote from: Rick Lowe on April 23, 2023, 03:18:38 PMAs an aside, the HondaJet's engines are mounted on pylons over the wings - IIRC for less vibration and noise.
A nice looking little plane that, yes. The VFW 614 also had its engines on top of the wing, but I'm not sure what their reasoning was. It certainly WASN'T for noise reduction as I flew in one from Copenhagen to Frankfurt once and I was right alongside the cowling! I couldn't see much of the scenery either..... :(
Short prop blades on turbo jet engine...
(https://www.avgeekery.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/XF-84H.jpg)
;D
Quote from: zenrat on April 24, 2023, 04:20:59 AMShort prop blades on turbo jet engine...
Very appropriate too, the B-54B uses the same XT-40 engine as the XF-84H. But FOUR of them.................
I've never seen pylon mounted turbo-props on an aircraft before. Certainly stands out.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 24, 2023, 06:10:38 AMVery appropriate too, the B-54B uses the same XT-40 engine as the XF-84H. But FOUR of them.................
Was the XF-84H the aircraft that made people physically sick when the engine was running ? If so what will 4 do ? :o
Quote from: NARSES2 on April 24, 2023, 06:26:12 AMWas the XF-84H the aircraft that made people physically sick when the engine was running ? If so what will 4 do ? :o
It was indeed, but the noise wasn't generated by the engine so much as the prop, which ran at speeds which made the tips supersonic apparently!
I did a tape-up of the B-54B, just to see how big it was going to end up. It sure is LARGE! :o
Note the Scale reference Tamiya paint pot by the nose.
B-54.5-p.jpg
Quote from: NARSES2 on April 24, 2023, 06:26:12 AMI've never seen pylon mounted turbo-props on an aircraft before. Certainly stands out.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 24, 2023, 06:10:38 AMVery appropriate too, the B-54B uses the same XT-40 engine as the XF-84H. But FOUR of them.................
Was the XF-84H the aircraft that made people physically sick when the engine was running ? If so what will 4 do ? :o
Extract from the USAF manual on this aircraft............
"........A lesser known self defence mechanism is the remarkable screech from the propellor blades of the aircraft. This noise penetrates the cockpits of attacking aircraft and can render their pilots insensible. Under no circumstances should field modifications be made to the lining of the flight deck enclosure ......."
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I can delete the gun turrets on the B-54B then?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 24, 2023, 10:00:54 AM;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I can delete the gun turrets on the B-54B then?
Better had do, as one cannot provide sufficient sound insulation for the gunners
If the B-54B used the same gunner/gun setup as the B-29, they should be OK as they sit in a cabin of their own, either just aft of the cockpit or one aft of the TE of the wing, and they could be insulated, hopefully. :-\
The poor old tail gunner might be less lucky as he has only a tiny cabin, bit it is a fair way aft of the T-40s.
"were you the tail gunner?"
Pardon
"I said were you the tail gunner?"
Sorry, speak up please
"I said were you the tail gunner?"
Yes, but it's not a secret, there's no need to whisper about it!
Quote from: Rheged on April 24, 2023, 12:13:23 PM"were you the tail gunner?"
Pardon
"I said were you the tail gunner?"
Sorry, speak up please
"I said were you the tail gunner?"
Yes, but it's not a secret, there's no need to whisper about it!
Hahahaha 😆 :thumbsup:
;D ;D ;D
I've just been trying to glue the poor tail gunner's rear window in, and a right pain it is too. It's hidden underneath the monster Tu-95 rudder and recessed about 5 mm, so it's difficult to hold it with anything. After 5-6 attempts the darn thing fell right through and into the fuselage! :banghead:
It's taken me 15 mins of tipping, shaking, wobbling, swearing and shouting to get the damn thing back out again!
I think I may Krystal Klear it, t least I can do that with a long toothpick.
After a 'root and branch' survey of what I've got still to do on the B-54B, I'm pausing construction on the big model as there's no chance I can finish it before the end of the GB, even with a full 2 week extension. I'm not abandoning it, I like the idea too much, but it'll continue as a slow build.
I'll switch my GB efforts back to the two escorts, as I should be able to finish both of them in the time, and they both fit in the 50s GB period.
That's a shame Kit...least we'll still get to see it in the end.
Don't ya hate it when a idea in ya head sounds easy and then turns into something far more complicated when building it ?.
Sounds like damn near everyone of my builds :wacko:
I hope you will continue your main B-54B build, Kit.
It's such an ambitious project, it would be a shame to abandon it.
You could do a remote tail gun similar to the B-52G (later version). This build of yours has given me an idea if I ever buy another B-36 and a Tu-142, the kit bash would be interesting.
You could go with the same set up for your guns as they did with the B36 ..RETRACTABLE :thumbsup:
So just make em close ..there retracted ;)
Quote from: loupgarou on April 26, 2023, 11:57:46 PMI hope you will continue your main B-54B build, Kit.
It's such an ambitious project, it would be a shame to abandon it.
I certainly will, but there's little chance of getting it done in the GB time scale, the engineering required is just to darn complicated.
The tail gun position is already installed and just needs paint, a window and the guns themselves. Most of the other guns will be as the B-29, but minus the aft upper turret as the LE of the fin JUST covers the position.
I'm seriously looking forward to finish day for this monster 👻 🙂
It's going to be bloody impressive I know this I does :thumbsup:
Filling in all the holes in the wings, generated by carving off the original engines, is taking a while.
I'm having to 'plank' them, a la model boat practice. It takes a while but it's getting there.
A method I use alot mate..yip it's time consuming but it works and it's great for scrap plastic 😄
And spare runner, too. At least using that, the trenches you have to fill are obvious without a coat of paint... :banghead:
Coming along well, Kit - hoping to see it finished as and when. :thumbsup:
Various posts on the X-13 and XF-85 have been moved to the new threads.
Chris
Ah, now I understand! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Old Wombat on April 28, 2023, 08:10:18 AMAh, now I understand! :thumbsup:
Yup, apologies but the site has a rather "messy" way of moving posts from one thread to another I'm afraid and it was a bit beyond me given the number that needed shifting. This was the easiest way for me to deal with it, and it still took a couple of hours :-\
@PR19_Kit there's probably a good reason why you don't see turboprops on pylons. We are probably all familiar with how dangerous the Avia S.199s with the HE-111 engines were. What made them so dangerous was the large, wide prop blades combined with a very bad gear ratio for a single engine aircraft - this created an enormous amount of torque and made the plane prone to flipping over on takeoff if the throttle was advanced too quickly. I imagine that turboprops would impose a potentially dangerous amount of torque on the pylon if they were so mounted, though that would be negated by having stacked contra-rotating props like this build does. Something about it just doesn't seem quite right though, but that may just be me.
Heavens yes, that's why I've kept the contraprops from the Bear as part of the build.
Or I will do when I get back to it. ;D
Kit it's the contraprops which are really going to set this off..normal propellers I think wouldn't cut it for looks..when ya get back to it that is :wacko: :angel:
Just make the landing gear taller ;D
Quote from: McColm on May 02, 2023, 03:58:03 AMJust make the landing gear taller ;D
The main legs can stay as they are as I can position their upper anchorage point to almost any height in the fuselage.
At least I THINK I can anyway, I've not actually cut plastic on that front as yet............ :-\
Hi PR19_Kit ,
The Boeing Model 464-25 is worth studying as it looks uncannily like your build. I would recommend the 'Boeing B-47 Stratrojet and B-52 Stratofortress: Origins and Evolution, book written by Scott Lowther.
I paid £27 for my copy.
I think that's the one that ended up as the B-55 proposal., but there were so many of them!
There's more than seven different concepts for the B-55, the delta wing looks very similar to the Grumman A-12 Avenger design.
After a two YEAR hiatus on this project I took a look at it, or rather 'them' as there's two LARGE kit boxes of course. I've a mind to get back on this during the summer but there's one rather fundamental problem, I can't find the fuselage................. :banghead:
You may well ask how the HELL could I lose something that big, but you have no idea quite how chaotic this house is. I've found the two kit boxes, with the wings in the Tu-95 box and the nose and tail in the B-29 box, but the middle bit of the Tu-95 is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps it's doing double duty as a door-prop or something........... :-\
Draft excluder sausage, maybe? Check at the front door... ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 23, 2023, 08:45:21 AMBecause this is meant to be a half-way house to the proposed B-55, I plan to hang the four turbo-props on pylons, as was intended for the XB-55 as well.
I can't find a single other design with turbo-props hung on nacelles like this, does anyone know of another one?
Here's the proposed XB-55.
XB-55.jpg
Pylon mounted turboprops were proposed for a production version of the B-60.B-60_PROD_01.png
Quote from: NARSES2 on April 24, 2023, 06:26:12 AMI've never seen pylon mounted turbo-props on an aircraft before. Certainly stands out.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 24, 2023, 06:10:38 AMVery appropriate too, the B-54B uses the same XT-40 engine as the XF-84H. But FOUR of them.................
Was the XF-84H the aircraft that made people physically sick when the engine was running ? If so what will 4 do ? :o
The XF-84H issue has been exaggerated over the years. The physical effect only occurred if you were in the
plane
of the propeller, if you were forward or aft of the prop there wasn't a problem. It was the frequency ofthe sound rather than the volume that caused the physical reactions. The noise level was only a problem onthe ground and claims that it made the pilots sick were long ago dismissed by one of the program pilots.
Quote from: Spino on May 01, 2023, 06:02:31 AM@PR19_Kit there's probably a good reason why you don't see turboprops on pylons. We are probably all familiar with how dangerous the Avia S.199s with the HE-111 engines were. What made them so dangerous was the large, wide prop blades combined with a very bad gear ratio for a single engine aircraft - this created an enormous amount of torque and made the plane prone to flipping over on takeoff if the throttle was advanced too quickly. I imagine that turboprops would impose a potentially dangerous amount of torque on the pylon if they were so mounted, though that would be negated by having stacked contra-rotating props like this build does. Something about it just doesn't seem quite right though, but that may just be me.
The potential issues have nothing in common with the S.199's issues, it's an apples and oranges situation.
Contra-rotating propellers cancel any propeller torque issues, and even with single rotation propellers it
would
be easy to have the propeller and the engine rotate in opposite directions to reduce the effects.It's a simple matter of gearing.
Quote from: jcf on May 03, 2025, 04:19:05 PMQuote from: Spino on May 01, 2023, 06:02:31 AM@PR19_Kit there's probably a good reason why you don't see turboprops on pylons. We are probably all familiar with how dangerous the Avia S.199s with the HE-111 engines were. What made them so dangerous was the large, wide prop blades combined with a very bad gear ratio for a single engine aircraft - this created an enormous amount of torque and made the plane prone to flipping over on takeoff if the throttle was advanced too quickly. I imagine that turboprops would impose a potentially dangerous amount of torque on the pylon if they were so mounted, though that would be negated by having stacked contra-rotating props like this build does. Something about it just doesn't seem quite right though, but that may just be me.
The potential issues have nothing in common with the S.199's issues, it's an apples and oranges situation.
Contra-rotating propellers cancel any propeller torque issues, and even with single rotation propellers it
would be easy to have the propeller and the engine rotate in opposite directions to reduce the effects.
It's a simple matter of gearing.
With a single prop rotating in the opposite direction to the engine the torque on the pylon would potentially be less than that from a turbojet.
Did anyone ever build that configuration, with the prop going the other way to the engine? I can't recall it being mentioned anywhere, but I can see the advantages.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 04, 2025, 06:35:39 AMDid anyone ever build that configuration, with the prop going the other way to the engine? I can't recall it being mentioned anywhere, but I can see the advantages.
The Allison T56 is one example, the compressor and turbine rotors rotate clockwise,
the propeller turns counter-clockwise. When seen from the rear.
The Honeywell-Garret TPE331(T76) is available with prop final drive in either direction.
In the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6 the compressor and power sections are on separate
shafts and rotate in opposite directions.