Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Moa

Japanese Experimental negative aspect ratio plane (based on Nieuport 24 -Nakajima Ko-3) 1/72 Half-scratchbuilt

Recommended Posts

A build from 3 years ago:

 

(After this long series of models posted aiming to present the case that there is life beyond the usual modeling subjects, today I post what I believe is the last of what I can offer to you on this matter.

I had selected an posted these last months a large number of models of unusual planes and/or unusual media. I left out of this chronology a number of more mundane builds for one reason or another, not considering them relevant in this context.

Today I post what you may see as my closing arguments 😉 regarding what I been building during the past 12 years or so, so from now on I hope I will continue to post the normal builds as WiPs or completed models (I still have no fondness whatsoever for the phrase "Ready for Inspection" and would gladly substitute it for RtF -Ready to Fly).

Anyway, here we go:

 

I simply can't resist the bizarre.

(A photo of the original plane -and the model- were featured in the very informative aviation publication Arawasi International magazine #13, Summer 2017).

Long ago, when I saw on a Japanese site this beauty, I took note and opened a folder for it.

The folder, in spite of my best efforts, remained after many years with only that one photo. My Japanese friends and the Japanese sites I wrote to, weren't able to find anything on it.

As you can see this delightful contraption was based on a Nieuport 24, of which the Japanese had many, some in very nice civil liveries for which you can even get decals (Rising Sun, for example, produces a set for J-BAFC). I also found online an interesting photo of three Nieuport 24 that were apparently raced by female pilots for a demonstration (J-BAIF, J-TEIO and J-BAPB), may be for another model down the lane.

After the long wait during which no info came, I decided to give it a go anyway and bought the Nieuport 24 from Roden (Choroszy also produces the Japanese-built version, the Nakajima Ko-3).

The kit from Roden is very nice, in line with their known standards, and as an unexpected bonus you get a bunch of spare parts (engine, props, wheels, stab, rudder, little thingies, etc.) since more than one version is packed in the same sprues. No decals are needed for this project, and that makes things easier (if you don't think on the 234 struts and many parts you have to scratchbuild). In fact, very little will be used from the kit, just the fuselage sub-assembly minus the bang-bang bits.

Work starts then by intensely staring at the one photo and trying to make sense of it.

A sketch was produced based on the proportions of the many elements and known measures of the kit's fuselage. The plane has two vanes protruding from the mid-line fuselage, a bit ahead of the pilot (acting most likely as ailerons) a "wing" on top of the fuselage and then above it two separate panels for yet another wing. This might thus qualify as a negative aspect ratio triplane.

The mystery remains: what was it? who built it? and why? Did it fly? is it a triplane? is it a random accretion of parts flying now in orderly formation?

Will we ever know?

And meanwhile, should we call it Wingzilla?

 

IMG_1755+%25281280x944%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1736+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

Here with another negative aspect ratio model posted here before, the Flick-Reinig Apteroid:

IMG_1770+%25281280x950%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1776+%25281280x981%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1772+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1738+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1787+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1739+%25281280x994%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1740+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1742+%25281280x977%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1744+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1746+%25281280x958%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1748+%25281280x1003%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1749+%25281280x980%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1751+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1752+%25281280x961%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1729+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1771+%25281280x951%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1777+%25281280x991%2529.jpg

 

IMG_0397+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_0419+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_0422+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_0433+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_0435+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1613+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1629+%25281280x989%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1632+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1709+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

 

 

IMG_1773+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1774+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1775+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1779+%25281280x954%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1757+%25281280x969%2529.jpg

 

IMG_1765+%25281280x946%2529.jpg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely modelling of an interesting, not to say downright peculiar, way of minimising the lift/drag ratio.  The point of minimum lift coupled with extreme drag escapes me.  However, as an ex-aerodynamicist I have to say that you can't get a negative aspect ratio, it is merely(!) less than 1.  Quite a bit less in this case.

 

AR = span squared divided by wing area, or span/mean chord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magic - pure magic! :D

 

(It means I really like'em! :winkgrin: )

 

Cheers :bye:

Hans J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is something really out of the ordinary !

In any case, another great model, really impressed !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank heavens you are stopping, Moa. Now I can get back to building models instead of reading about them.

Thank you for a wonderful trip off the beaten track.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely bizarre. It is truly amazing how you produce a lovely model from one photo.

 

Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fitting end to a superb array of beautifully crafted,rare,unusual and sometimes downright bizarre aircraft,this one tick's all the boxes

excellent work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Moa that is certainly one of the most bizarre concepts I have seen - like an early articulated lifting body?. Wonder if it actually flew? - can't help thinking that there would be a serious horizontal stability problem but I am not an aerodynamicist.

 

Beautifully made and from a single photograph. Superb.

 

It has been an amazing journey through your collection Moa and I thank you for the education, both in modelling terms and broadening the view on what is, or has been, out there.

 

Looking forward to seeing your builds and "ready to fly" posts in the future!

 

Cheers

 

Malcolm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Lovely modelling of an interesting, not to say downright peculiar, way of minimising the lift/drag ratio.  The point of minimum lift coupled with extreme drag escapes me.  However, as an ex-aerodynamicist I have to say that you can't get a negative aspect ratio, it is merely(!) less than 1.  Quite a bit less in this case.

 

AR = span squared divided by wing area, or span/mean chord.

My Dear Graham.

At the reading of your comment my croissant flattened and my omelette turned green with rage.

Please read the pages attached.

I see no other solution than condemn you to build 12 models with negative aspect ratio, to repair the injury.

It will be justice.

33229964428_0171c5690c_c.jpg46381540314_4d4ff34e81_c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that those two machines must be the most unusual attempts to build somethhing that would fly that I have seen.

 

I too would like to thank you for posting so many of your wonderful and interesting models - I have learned more about the byways of aviation history from your threads than I had previously learned in a very long time. I will be looking forward to seeing more of your work in future - if only to pinch a few of your excellent ideas!

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pheonix said:

I think that those two machines must be the most unusual attempts to build somethhing that would fly that I have seen.

 

I too would like to thank you for posting so many of your wonderful and interesting models - I have learned more about the byways of aviation history from your threads than I had previously learned in a very long time. I will be looking forward to seeing more of your work in future - if only to pinch a few of your excellent ideas!

 

P

You are very kind, P.

I hope you continue to enjoy the posts.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One that Dick Dasteredley and Muttley (Catch the pigeon cartoon) would be proud of :giggle:........ or ........ how not to follow a kits instructions !

Edited by Yorkshire man
spelling correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 10:26 AM, Graham Boak said:

AR = span squared divided by wing area, or span/mean chord.

By definition this value is positive, it menas the resulting number is always >0. However in physics, some coefficients defined as ratio, let say x=a/b  are replaced by the difference of this ratio and 1, so "new" coefficient y is defined as  y=x-1. Such modified coefficient  (y) is negative, when x<1.  I think here we have this kind of missmatch of terms...

Regards

J-W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand what the Japanese were trying to accomplish with this wing arrangement. Moa, are you sure the one picture you found isn't of a dismantled airplane in a hangar, with wings stored above it? 🤔

 

Very nice rendition of whatever it was. 🙂

 

Cheers,
Wlad

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Wlad said:

I don't understand what the Japanese were trying to accomplish with this wing arrangement. Moa, are you sure the one picture you found isn't of a dismantled airplane in a hangar, with wings stored above it? 🤔

 

Very nice rendition of whatever it was. 🙂

 

Cheers,
Wlad

 

 

Weirder theories have been advanced, for example that this is the love child of a forbidden love between a Nieuport and a Fokker triplane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies can be considered attractive when top heavy, but this??....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jeaton01 said:

Ladies can be considered attractive when top heavy, but this??....

Real gentleman are considered elegant and smart when wearing a top hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...