Geoff_B Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/vickers-type-c-giant-bomber-project-by-fantastic-plastic.html Fantastic Plastic appear to have a Vickers Type C super heavy bomber in 1/144 scale in development for them by Anigrand. This is effectively the British equivalent of the B-36 Peacemaker or B-29 Super Fortress with its 6 engines and 100 ton payoad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Wrong scale! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 1 hour ago, The Wooksta! said: Wrong scale! JMN! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 I want it in 72nd! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackem01 Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 6 hours ago, The Wooksta! said: Wrong scale! Yeah...... should be 48th 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonT Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Very cool subject though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_B Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 3 hours ago, The Wooksta! said: I want it in 72nd! Well if you email Arnold he might consider it , but I doubt you would like the price no matter how impressive it would be on the SIG stand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 I have 72nd scale plans and some Balsa... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 23 minutes ago, The Wooksta! said: I have 72nd scale plans and some Balsa... or a box of Lego perhaps Lee from http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/429007 though looking at this I wonder if a scrapped B-36 kit might yield some useful bits? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Definitely wrong scale!!. On the other hand, it would look good next to another "paper" aeroplane - the Nakajima G-10. I don't, as a rule do 1/144 but, I picked up a couple of the Fujimi G-10 kits at a car boot sale (of all places!!). Very nice kit by the way and, surprisingly big - even in such a stupid little scale! Allan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Have to agree on the scale thing, 72nd would have invited me to buy it. Having said that I do get the cost argument as well. I'm guessing as this is an Anigrand production that it will be in resin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madoc Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 1/72? Meh. You guys are all just a bunch of poseurs if you're not gonna do it in 1/24th scale! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 pity the designer only ever got as far as designing the front end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Puff Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Definitely needs to be 1:72. An all-silver RAAF one ... and possibly a long-nosed MR version (10RAAF or 11RAAF) as well ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madoc Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 One thing I've long been interested in since I first saw the Type C on the cover of Tony's book has been those side turrets. Those things are absolutely massive gun turrets. Yet I've never been able to find much details about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony C Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Ok, I'm not a technical person but a couple of questions strike me about the design of the airframe... Assuming the project had gone ahead, what, if any, would be the benefits of having the main wing at the rear and the 'tail plane' at the front? Plus, wouldn't the front wings interrupt the airflow to the engines and propellers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, Tony C said: Assuming the project had gone ahead, what, if any, would be the benefits of having the main wing at the rear and the 'tail plane' at the front? It would look cool as hell. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Note there are at least two different designs labelled under the Type C, the one in the three view above, and the painting shown on the Cover of Tony Butlers Secret Projects - my favourite. They are both broadly similar, but the painting shows a different nose layout, inline engines (Griffons) rear facing gun barbettes in the engine nacelles (trialled on the Windsor), and main wing endplate fin & rudders, as opposed to the large single fin. To my eyes that variant almost looks like an Avro project, possibly because of the nose glazing and fins layout (Lincoln/Shack style). There was another similarly sized project from Vickers, but far more conventionally laid out. Two questions come to my mind, would it have been of geodetic construction as per standard Vickers large aircraft, or would they have employed monocoque construction that was available within the Vickers Supermarine group? The painting version does look monocoque, but I get that is an illustration. Also, how exactly was the undercarriage laid out? This was just pre bogie arrangements, even for the Americans. I believe one of the advantages of the wing layout was that the it could relatively straightforward be adapted for turbojet use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinK Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Tony C said: Assuming the project had gone ahead, what, if any, would be the benefits of having the main wing at the rear and the 'tail plane' at the front? One big advantage for a heavy bomber is that it moves the wing spar carry-through structure a long way aft - this allows a large unobstructed bomb bay. It's worth remembering that one of the oft-quoted reasons for the Victor's spectacular crescent wing with its wing roots right behind the cockpit was to give such a large open bay, on Sir Fred's instructions (after the Halifax vs Lancaster experience) that he "wasn't going to be beaten by those b@@@@rs at Avro again". An aerodynamic reason is that the foreplane can contribute to overall lift, whereas a tailplane generates a small downforce in the cruise to trim the aircraft. All other things being equal, this is (by a small margin) more efficient. Of course in the real world, things never are equal, and the heavier fuselage structure, plus rear fuselage boundary layer growth affecting the wing roots, as well as a myriad of other effects, both big and small, tend to favour the conventional layout. Kevin Edited December 8, 2016 by KevinK Clarification 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 The negative experience of the Windsor's heavy duty fabric covering made it clear that the geodetic approach was unsuitable for the speeds and altitudes of the time. It really was an exceptionally clever dead-end: Vickers would have been better off going directly to semi-monocoque metal structures like other manufacturers. Hindsight is wonderful. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 23 hours ago, 71chally said: Have to agree on the scale thing, 72nd would have invited me to buy it. Having said that I do get the cost argument as well. I'm guessing as this is an Anigrand production that it will be in resin? That's right. Never been over keen on resin but, prefer that to a vac form!!. Even in such a small scale though it will still be quite a large model. Wouldn't it be lovely if Airfix or Revell or, whoever would start working through the Secret Projects books...........! Allan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 Source: https://www.facebook.com/FantasticPlasticModels/posts/10154017728680936 V.P. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 looks good, the main undercarriage layout shows the reasoning being 300ft wide runways for the very Heavy Bomber stations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackem01 Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 Those casting pics look really good. So who is going to finish theirs in a post war maritime scheme a la Lanc. Imagine those side mounted turret guns being used for "sorting out" ships! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 Conversely, I'm considering a Shackleton E.1 (converted MR1) for ELINT use by 199 Sqn. Far more room for radio gear and bulky black boxes than your average Lincoln... 1 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