Roden

[PR19_Kit]

That 'Jump Door' looks to have been VERY close to the monster props! Not sure I'd like to skydive out of one of them. 

[Weaver]

The production version was to have the standard B-36 style cockpit and canopy. It was going to have clamshell doors and ramps at the nose and under the tail.You cannot view this attachment.

Oh cool - guessed the clamshell doors right!

[Captain Canada]

That would be a fun one to build.

[NARSES2]

To my mind it's quite an attractive looking aeroplane.

[Wardukw]

Now this is a surprise ...never thought i would see an XC-99 as a model ...watching the real thing fly tho is damn cool ,,kinda got me thinking of getting one and a B-36 ,,it needs jets 

[Weaver]

The wing spar passing through the cargo area, dividing it into two areas, probably didn't do it any favours in the eyes of the USAF either. The latter were already thinking about flying IRBMs around the world by the mid 1950s, and definitely had a requirement to fly aircraft fuselages and wings.

Side note: it's always amazed me how long it took for the modern military transport shape (i.e. C-130 shape) to catch on. You'd think it'd be obvious, and there's nothing about it that can't be done with 1930s tech: it's just a shape. It's not like turboprops are the issue: look at the C-123 Provider or the Budd Conestoga.

[PR19_Kit]

....... and the Beverley. 

[Weaver]

....... and the Beverley. 

I try to forget the shape of the Beverley...

[PR19_Kit]

It's IMPOSSIBLE for me to do that, even the inside shape. 

[jcf]

Then there is the complete flop of the Curtiss-Wright C-76. High-wing, cockpit above the cargo hold and an opening nose. Good ideas, crap
execution. 
Curtiss-Wright C-76, AAHS Journal

You cannot view this attachment.

[Wardukw]

Then there is the complete flop of the Curtiss-Wright C-76. High-wing, cockpit above the cargo hold and an opening nose. Good ideas, crap
execution.
Curtiss-Wright C-76, AAHS Journal

You cannot view this attachment.

Ya know it's not that great when ya can't retract the nose gear 
Also ..that cockpit  ..very very messy.

[Gondor]

Looks like the pinched the fin from a B-17

[Weaver]

Curtiss-Wright really lost the plot at some point, didn't they?

Their engine division was the one that said, "nah, jet engines will always just be a niche product" and then spent the rest of the 1950s trying to play catch-up by building Armstrong-Siddeley jet engines under licence.

In the esteemed annals of Being Wrong, that's on a par with:

"We don't like their sound: groups with guitars are on the way out" - EMI rejecting The Beatles,

and

"You'll never amount to much" - schoolteacher to Albert Einstein.

[Beermonster58]

What it definitely needs is the jet engine pods from a late-model B-36...    

It certainly does and, per your earlier post, it most certainly needs to be in MEAF camo. It also needs to be in SEA camo as well! Now, as it happens, I have the carcase of an old Academy 1/144 B-52D with 4 redundant engine pods.......! I'm sure they'd fit with a little work!  

[Beermonster58]

Now this is a surprise ...never thought i would see an XC-99 as a model ...watching the real thing fly tho is damn cool ,,kinda got me thinking of getting one and a B-36 ,,it needs jets 

Way ahead of you friend! . I have got two of these kits and, just so happen to have the carcase of an old 1/144 B-52D  which I've broken up for parts, including 4 redundant engine pods!!   . Six turning, four burning! They will of course HAVE to be painted in the RAF Middle East camo and, USAF South East Asia camo respectively!