CarLos Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I picked up the Airfix kit from the stash to have a look at it as I'm contemplating the idea of making the Stratovision aircraft. The kit is better than I remembered, although it seems to have the wing leading edges too blunt (leave as is...). However, looking at some photos, the engine nacelles seems to be not vertical (as depicted in the kit) but perpendicular to the wing middle line. I don't remember to read about this in any review. Look at the this photo: http://www.40thbombgroup.org/images/Schutte/Katie1.jpg Can it be an illusion? How's the Academy kit is this detail? And is it much better than the Airfix one? Thanks for any help. Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackem01 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Interesting project you have there CarLos. Can you tell me more about it please. I've never heard of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Mackem, there is a helpful backgrounder here; http://www.earlytelevision.org/stratovision.html CarLos, the Academy B-29 family is on a different (and much superior) planet to the ancient Airfix one. Some comments here from those who have built it: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/54914-academy-b-29/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarLos Posted October 20, 2014 Author Share Posted October 20, 2014 Thank you for the link, WiP. Very interesting information, but unfortunately doesn't enlighten the nacelle question. Mackem, I don't know much more than you can find in that link, or in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratovision Cheers Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilneBay Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Frankly I'd go with the Academy kit - it is light years ahead with the only fit problem I found was ensuring that the internal bulkheads were placed correctly otherwise the fuselage halves wouldn't close. However I knew about that in advance of building so I was ready. The Airfix kit is middle 60s in rivets and design and although I built one about 7 years ago I scratch built so much basic detail like wheel well interiors etc. that I had produced almost a different kit. The other problem was that it was clear that the molds had slipped into misalignment which meant either removing steps on every part effected or massive surgery to get things like the wing halves etc. to actually join where they ought. The then fashionable provision of moving parts doesn't help either. So go with the Academy is my suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
datguy Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Carlos, this is by no means definitive, but on the RC Groups forum they discussed this topic and offered the conclusion that the engine thrust line is parallel to the fuselage center line (i.e., not on the angle of the wing incidence). See:http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1672600&page=10 Hope this helps. DG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfqweofekwpeweiop4 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I remember building the Airfix one when I was a kid in the late 80's. I remember it being one of Airfix's better kits but I now have the Academy Bock's Car and it is much better. It's a modern kit with engraved panel lines and more detail than the Airfix kit. As a plus you can buy canopy masks (Eduard) which will save time and effort masking the canopy for painting. Airwaves have an etch set to enhance the cockpit interior, True Details do some resin 'weighted' wheels for it and they might be bits you can get for it. I really would recommend at least the mask, if nothing else! thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilneBay Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 This is the thread on Hyperscale where I detailed what I had to do, included is a pic of the model. http://www.network54.com/Forum/578046/thread/1255672184 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 FWIW the plan drawing for the prototype XB-29 shows the nacelles perpendicular to the wing datum line, in other words slightly canted outboard. This alignment is emphasised by the 'Y' position of the three-bladed propellers shown on the plan where the vertical blade is perpendicular to the wing rather than the ground datum line. Whether that changed on production models I cannot say definitively at this point in time but will investigate further. Suffice it to say that a head-on view of a production B-29 suggests that same alignment to the wing centre line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 The thrust line of the engines is in fact angled slightly upward. I don't think it's as much as the angle of incidence of the wing, but it's not completely parallel to the longitudinal axis either. I used to have some drawings that showed it, but they're ashes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) A point of terminology: As on the photo, the nacelles being perpendicular to the wing means they are canted inboard - nearer the fuselage at the top and further away at the bottom. The question not answered in this thread is whether the Academy kit is more accurate in this respect. Edited October 21, 2014 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e8n2 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Another thing to remember based on stuff I have read before is that the main landing gear legs on the Airfix kit are set up as if the nacelles were perpendicular to the ground and not the wing, therefor the legs end up being canted to outboard and the tires (American spelling there ) will not both sit flat to what ever surface the model is resting on. Later, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarLos Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Thank you very much for all the participation on this thread, please keep opinions coming! Daryl (MilneBay): I have an advantage over you, my airfix kit is from 1972 and the parts don't have signs of warping. Other than that, I wish I could do such a good job as you did. datguy: unfortunately the RC groups site is offline, I'll try to access it later. As I have the Airfix kit and not the Academy one I'll save my euros to a B-50 that I plan as a X-1 or X-2 launcher, unless I find a cheap Academy B-29. I must correct the nacelles but this is not a matter of an old kit, as the recent Revell Lancaster has the inverse problem in its outer nacelles. I assume that the Academy kit is correct on this subject, but I still must look for pics took from the front of models - just in case I get the Academy kit. Here's another photo showing clearly the nacelles angles with the help of carefully aligned propellers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 A point of terminology: As on the photo, the nacelles being perpendicular to the wing means they are canted inboard - nearer the fuselage at the top and further away at the bottom. The question not answered in this thread is whether the Academy kit is more accurate in this respect. "Perpendicular to the wing" is really a meaningless term. The wing is a mass of different angles and curves. You need to clarify exactly what part of the wing (real or theoretical) you're referencing. The thrust line of the engines on the B-29 in plan view (as seen from the top or bottom) is exactly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane. They do not angle in or out with reference to the direction of flight. They do angle up slightly as noted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) "Perpendicular to the wing datum line" was Nick's original phrase, and I see nothing wrong with that. I think you however are referring to the need to adequately reference the thrust line to the wing section, which is quite true but a digression introduced in earlier posts. The initial question had nothing to do with the thrust line, but with the mounting of the cowling. The initial head-on photo shows that the vertical axis of the cowling is canted compared to the vertical axis of the fuselage, and apparently perpendicular to the wing datum (as well as can be judged from a photo). The later photo (post 13) shows the same. Orientation in other views are interesting in themselves but not relevant to the initial query. I repeat - does the Academy kit show this? (Or for that matter the 1/144 Minicraft and Fujimi kits?) Edited October 22, 2014 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivor Ramsden Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Oh dear, Academy have got it wrong according to photos on the net. (I can't be ars*d climbing into the loft to look at my Washington.) The Academy nacelles are vertically oriented, not lined up with the axis of the wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 "Perpendicular to the wing datum line" was Nick's original phrase, and I see nothing wrong with that. That's not what the original post above says, sorry. In any event, "wing datum line" is still ambiguous. There is no such thing when describing aircraft - if you find a definition of that phrase, please let me know. I've been flying for 34 years and I've never heard of it. The engine (and thus the cowling) of the B-29 when viewed from above is perfectly parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane. The thrust line of the engine (and thus the cowlings) is angled nose-up slightly when referenced to the longitudinal axis of the airplane. It is not at the same angle as the angle of incidence of the wing (which changes from root to tip in any event). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Perhaps you should stop trying to score debating points, for in the process you are still missing the actual point that was in question. Go to the very first posting. "..the engine nacelles do not seem to be vertical ... but perpendicular to the wing middle line." Nothing to do with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, the thrust line, or the angle of incidence at any point. Whether the term used is wing middle line, wing datum line or wing line is fairly irrelevant unless quoting a precise number, which no-one has. 34 years, eh? Well done that man. I had 40 in the industry when I retired, not counting three studying before employment. I am still finding reference to terms that I didn't meet in those years. Edited October 22, 2014 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 "datum line (plural datum lines) (engineering) A line which serves as a reference or base for the measurement of other quantities." I meant wing datum line in this case to be an imaginary line drawn span-wise through the centre of the wing from root to tip against which the nacelle forms a geometric relationship when viewed directly from the front. I didn't mean to imply that it was a formal aerodynamic term. I assumed the original question provided some context about what was meant. Graham is quite correct that the nacelles should have been described as canted inboard rather than outboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivor Ramsden Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the definitions and clarification, Nick and Graham, even though I don't think they were necessary because in the context of the first post the question was quite clear. I think I've answered the OP's question, chaps, so can we stop now before this degenerates into yet another Britmodeller slanging match over b*gger all? Edited October 23, 2014 by Ivor Ramsden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Callahan Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 A pox on the arguments - someone needs to do those decals! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarLos Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 A pox on the arguments - someone needs to do those decals! I would be in the first line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarLos Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 I decided that I'm going to do the plane with s/n 45-21800, the launcher of the first two X-1, and also of the X-1A/B/D&E. I will probably make it in its first livery, with the black under-surfaces contrasting with the upper natural metal finish. However, I only have a few not very clear pictures showing the modified bomb bay with the X-1 in, so I'm looking for more photos with the void bay and diagrams if they exist. It seems to me that it's just a matter of cutting the portion of plastic between both bays and making a cut-out for the nose, very different from the B-50 launcher bay, with a large cut-out at the back. TIA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOAN Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Hi Carlos, Some interresting things here : http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1278331707/Anyone+know+of+internal+details+on+B-29+%26quot%3Bmother+ship%26quot%3B+designed+to+carry+X-1- and here : http://ninfinger.org/models/x_planes/x1b29.html cheers olivier Edited November 1, 2014 by JOAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarLos Posted November 1, 2014 Author Share Posted November 1, 2014 Thanks a lot, Oliver! Exactly what I was looking for. Cheers Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now