The Flying Flapjack: Chance Vought XF5U1

[Eivind Lunde]

So my previous project finished and some weather that is just screaming "STAY INSIDE!!!" coming up, it is time to start something new. Rummaging through the stash to find something to build is fun, and I felt I needed something different from my WWI Roland Walfisch build. 
 

Something without rigging. Something without struts. Something with only one set of wings, if even that. 

 

The XF5U1 is certainly one of the weirdest planes ever built, and based on its incredible estimated performance figures I am sad that it never came closer to flight than ground taxying, due to problems with vibration caused by the complex arrangement of two radial engines, gearboxes, clutches and overly long propeller shafts.

Any engine could drive any propeller, so both propellers would turn even if one of the two P&W R2000 radials buried in the wing stopped.

 

Pretty cool stuff!

 

And the Kitty Hawk kit looks nice too, all injection molded with good surface detail and adequately busy cockpit.

 

Open engine bays, but for some reason there is no detail there... 

 

I feel that the model would gain from having one of the engine bays open to make it more visually interesting (and not just visually baffling), so I will make an attempt at scratch building the Pratt & Whitney R2000 engine installation. 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Eivind Lunde

[Jeff G]

What a weird shaped piece of plastic! I remember flying this in the old Secret Weapons Over Normandy video game about 15 years ago. Though the engine bays may have been lacking in detail, it's nice to see the surface detail has been well planned. How do you intend to paint it? As an intended operational status or just like in the picture?

[Martian]

I think what you are seeing is where the exhausts are and the engines are further forward. This is a belter of a kit and you should have a lot of fun with it, I certainly did, to the point that I went and got myself another kit the other day.

 

Martian 👽

[Eivind Lunde]

8 hours ago, Jeff G said:

What a weird shaped piece of plastic! I remember flying this in the old Secret Weapons Over Normandy video game about 15 years ago. Though the engine bays may have been lacking in detail, it's nice to see the surface detail has been well planned. How do you intend to paint it? As an intended operational status or just like in the picture?

My plan is to go for a intended operational status plane, like it could have looked if it was in service around 1951. I'm staying away from the flashy Uncle Sam decal option, it will just be a ordinary service plane. 

[Eivind Lunde]

7 hours ago, Martian said:

I think what you are seeing is where the exhausts are and the engines are further forward. This is a belter of a kit and you should have a lot of fun with it, I certainly did, to the point that I went and got myself another kit the other day.

 

Martian 👽

You are totally right. I bought the PDF flight manual from https://www.flight-manuals-online.com for reference, which among other useful drawings, has a list of named access panels.

So what Kitty Hawk has opened is the engine compartment access panel, which only hides some boring ducting... 

 

This is the actual engine panel, I'm not sure if it would be possible to open it without creating a lot of work and problems beyond my abilities?

 

[Retired Bob]

I have this kit plus the 1/72 Hasegawa boxing of the Spot-On kit, so I will be watching your build with interest.  I agree it was a pity that the aircraft did not actually fly, but the new "toy" was the jet engine so the vibration of the engine and drive shafts was sufficient to end the programme.  As usual the Hasegawa box art is superb and made me buy the kit:

Who does not like pancakes. 

Bob

[Eivind Lunde]

The problem with Kitty Hawk having opened the wrong panels deflated me quite a bit.  

So while I contemplate if I should try to remove the correct engine panel and risk ruining the whole model if I screw it up (and there is a good chance I will, since I've never done this before), I have glued the lower engine compartment access panels in place to see how they fit. 

 

And they fit well, but not only are they slightly different and can only fit properly where they should be (a good thing I guess), it is also easy to see they have been glued in compared to the rest. So why on earth they decided to do this is beyond me, I wonder if it was just a mistake on their part?

But the panel lines in general are where they should be, they are exactly like in the factory drawings.

 

I'm also not sure if I should pose the canopy open or not. The interior looks pretty good, even if the real plane doesn't have a cockpit floor but only an open superstructure on top of the shaped aluminium honeycomb panels that made up the aircraft. A perfect place for the pilot to drop his car keys or wallet.

 

But I will first see if I can get the instrument panel looking good enough to display it, it has no moulded instrument details and relies on a decal for that. Again, the instrument layout is correct, so this kit looks to be pretty well researched. 

[Martian]

I fancy fitting an engine to my second kit but am unsure if the fuselage is sufficiently deep.

 

Martian 👽

[Space Ranger]

Perhaps these will be of assistance:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have the complete Illustrated Parts Breakdown booklet, from which the last two images were taken, in PDF format. If you would like a copy, just send me a PM. Include your email address.

[Eivind Lunde]

6 hours ago, Space Ranger said:

Perhaps these will be of assistance:

Thank you, they will. I have already purchased the flight manual PDF which contains some of these pictures, but detailed pictures of this plane is hard to find. 

[Eivind Lunde]

9 hours ago, Martian said:

I fancy fitting an engine to my second kit but am unsure if the fuselage is sufficiently deep.

 

Martian 👽

I tested using a spare Tamiya P&W R2800 from a Corsair kit (on the left) and a spare R2000 from a Revell/Monogram Catalina, and they fit without any problems.The slight gap on the left is because Kitty Hawk insists on having the sprue injection points on the mating surfaces, and I haven't cleaned them up properly. 

 

There's even room to spare, especially for the R2000, but I think the Revell Catalina has been criticized for having too small engines. Another problem with the Revellogram engine is that it is molded in one piece onto the firewall, so it wouldn't look right in this setting. Oh, and the crankcase nose section is also way too short to add the 90 degree propeller axle gearbox.

I see Metallic Details has a nice resin R2000, but the increased postage rates for sending things to Norway will make this an expensive option for me. 

So as my plane will be sort of a "Luft 51" project, pretending the XF5U1 was put into production as the last piston engined Navy fighter, it will also have been upgraded to the more powerful R2800. 

 

If anyone asks, that is.

 

[Martian]

Thanks Eivind, I have a spare resin Corsair engine, so it looks like it might be game on.

 

Martian 👽

[Jur]

On 13/07/2020 at 20:30, Eivind Lunde said:

 

 

 

I hate to be negative, but this looks like road kill!

 

Seriously though, this machine is wonderful in its weirdness. I'm looking forward to your results!

[Eivind Lunde]

Well, the temptation to open up the engine panel and add an engine to it is too much, so that will be the plan now. But as I have never done surgery like this before I need some advice. So what would be the most idiot proof way of cutting out the panel in the picture below?

 

I have been thinking about buying a Dremel, would that be of any use here? 

[Martian]

1 hour ago, Eivind Lunde said:

Well, the temptation to open up the engine panel and add an engine to it is too much, so that will be the plan now. But as I have never done surgery like this before I need some advice. So what would be the most idiot proof way of cutting out the panel in the picture below?

 

I have been thinking about buying a Dremel, would that be of any use here? 

I would chain drill the panel. Although not of particular use here, a Dremel or Dremel type tool is invaluable addition to the tool box of anyone getting into major modifications of kits.

 

Martian 👽

[Eivind Lunde]

53 minutes ago, Martian said:

I would chain drill the panel. Although not of particular use here, a Dremel or Dremel type tool is invaluable addition to the tool box of anyone getting into major modifications of kits.

 

Martian 👽

Thanks, I hear a lot of people saying they are happy with their Dremels. But I have also read complaints about the newer models being so fast even on the slowest speed setting that they may melt plastic. 

What would be the maximum minimum (heh!) speed I should look for, and is cordless the best kind?

[Martian]

I inherited both my tools so I don't know what the min/max speeds on them are. Yes, they can melt plastic if you are too heavy handed, so go with a light touch. Practice on a scrap model if you are worried. You will very quickly develop a very fine touch; I often use mine to carve away large areas of plastic that I want to remove from a kit, especially if a curved surface is involved. Like anything else just proceed with a light touch, you can always take more material off if you need to.

 

I have to say that my Chinese lookalike is very much the lighter of my two tools and gives much better control for fine work. So you don't necessarily have to spend a lot of money. In your shoes, I would get a cheap copy and see how you get on with it.

 

 

Martian 👽

[Marklo]

I have two ‘Dremels’ a goxiwan I got off Gearbest. Com and a Lidl cordless. Both work fine and neither cost more than €20.  As I understand it the Goxiwan is a copy of the Dremel 2000.

 

I use an extension on the Goxiwan. Both have their uses. The extension is easier to use for fine work but the cordless is more versatile albeit a lot bulkier.

 

one thing I’d add is that they both use collets which are not mutuallly compatible and make changing and interchanging tools a bit of a pain. I have ordered a variable chuck off eBay which should help greatly. 
 

 

Both can melt plastic but both have speed controls and I do tend to use them at slower speeds.

 

I’d be more inclined to tackle the panel by razor sawing the high parts then using a steel rule some double sided sticky and a sharp blade carefully cut out the remainder. More time consuming but that way you would save the panel as well as making the cutout.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Marklo

[Eivind Lunde]

Thanks for the tips guys. I did some research and ended up with a Dremel Stylo +, and a Workstation, plus a bottle of Japanese Nikka whiskey to calm my nerves before I start the surgery. 

 

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

If I remember correctly, those panels you glued in are the cowl flaps for ending cooling. They are often open or partially open on the ground. Also see https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2015/11/kittyhawk-xf5u.html

Edited July 17, 2020 by Tailspin Turtle

[71chally]

It's a shame that the XF5U never flew.  Possibly a greater shame that development was terminated so suddenly because the basic design looks almost jet ready, you can easily envisage it with a pair of early centrifugal turbojets installed where the radial engine intakes were.

[Eivind Lunde]

1 hour ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

If I remember correctly, those panels you glued in are the cowl flaps for ending cooling. They are often open or partially open on the ground. Also see https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2015/11/kittyhawk-xf5u.html

Yup, you are right. The engine compartment panel is the one behind that again. I haven't glued the top panels in place so I can still leave them open if I wish, but they would need to be replaced with something to look like the thin retractable cooling flaps anyway.

I'm guessing those flaps would only be open with the engine running and not while parked, to prevent cats and their "If I fits, I sits!" nature making them stowaways, so I think I can get away with keeping them closed up. 

[Eivind Lunde]

3 minutes ago, 71chally said:

It's a shame that the XF5U never flew.  Possibly a greater shame that development was terminated so suddenly because the basic design looks almost jet ready, you can easily envisage it with a pair of early centrifugal turbojets installed where the radial engine intakes were.

The problems with developing it into a jet would be that the propellers were of a special design to counter the drag inducing swirls along the broad chord wing, and I guess removing them would probably make the drag excessive. That is why they made the gear boxes to drive both propellers with either engine, feathering one could perhaps make the whole plane unstable because of the turbulence. But perhaps they could have solved that.
 

It certainly would have to live up to some fantastic performance estimates, but based on the early prop/jet hybrids I can't see why it would have been impossible to use the XF5U as a stop gap fighter as it was until the jet fighters had matured enough.  

After all, the Sea Fury didn't do too badly in the Korean war, and the XF5U estimated top speed was 145 Km/h higher. But of course, estimated performance and actual performance are two very different things... 

 

 

[Eivind Lunde]

2 hours ago, Eivind Lunde said:

Thanks for the tips guys. I did some research and ended up with a Dremel Stylo +, and a Workstation, plus a bottle of Japanese Nikka whiskey to calm my nerves before I start the surgery. 

 

 

Well, this was stupid. I read some online reviews of the Dremel Work Station stating it fits all Dremel tools and a lot of other tools as well, but according to Dremel it is one exception it seems, and that is  of course the Stylo +.  

 

I'm not sure if I will be able to return it as I started the assembly before I discovered there was no way the tool would fit, but I should be able to return the Stylo +.

But how often would you guys use thing like the Workstation, if you have one, and have you missed it if you haven't? 

[Martian]

I do use the workstation on odd occasions but I would not miss it if it suddenly wasn't there anymore.

 

Martian 👽