Ugly Duckling - Great Lakes XSG-1

[ajmm]

 

 

The Great Lakes XSG-1 needs no introduction is about as obscure as you can get and exactly the sort of thing that fascinates me. 

 

A single prototype scout seaplane from the early-1930s (designed to spot the fall of shot for the big battleships and cruisers), it is surely one of the ugliest flying machines ever designed - and a total, dismal failure. Its history actually reads like an elaborate practical joke - or the long-lost plot to a Laurel and Hardy film. 

 

 

 

It is partly its looks - as if the designers tried really, really very hard indeed to think of all the possible ways to introduce drag on an airframe. To me it looks One measure Grumman Duck, One measure Republic Seabee, both shaken and stirred, then mangled a tad - and finally served tepid, with a fresh slice of Heath Robinson. 



But it's definitely one of those instances where you actually can judge a book by its cover - performance was feeble: it was underpowered, heavy on the controls, aerodynamically unstable and, to cap it all, slower than its contractual guaranteed speed. But spare a thought for the gunner too - if this had ever been attacked by an enemy fighter he would have had to reach outside the aircraft to lift the machine gun from its stowage point in order to fit it to the cumbersome rack mounting in his compartment. IF he managed all this without dropping the gun into the slipstream or being whipped overboard himself, he had virtually no field of fire so could do precious little to actually defend against the enemy! At least his bailout (by the looks of things he'd just have to let go and gravity would do the rest) was easier than the pilot, who would have had to negotiate a thicket of cabane struts before leaping into the slipstream while attempting to clear the colossal tailplane mitt bracing wires.

Then there's its first water handling tests where, among other things, the spray was so appalling that it nearly blinded the pilot, the observer/gunner compartment started filling up with water and nearly drowned him (but with no intercom or link to the upper cockpit, the poor man couldn't alert the pilot to his plight - though I imagine he banged wanly on the cabin walls - he did survive) and finally the engine drowned. 

 

All in all, the whole testing experience seems to have been about as relaxing as trying to give a Bengal tiger a vasectomy with a pair of nail clippers.

 

And all this from the company that produced just the year prior one of the prettiest and sweet-handling US biplanes ever designed (in my meagre opinion)...

If the XSG-1 was a prank, it was a ruddy marvellous one if you ask me. Sadly, I can find no evidence that it was.

 

 

The kit comes with the Anigrand Sikorsky XPBS-1 (which I finished last year). It's fantastic to have a kit of something as bizarre and unusual, especially in 1:144 - one of the many reasons I love this scale. 

 

 

The build itself provided no major challenges - there's a build thread here if you're interested. I replaced most of the kit struts with plasticard which had a better scale fitness (I also removed one of the inner struts which should not have been there and added a handful more that Anigrand omitted). I added some other bits like the .30 cal gun and thinned down a few other bits to give them a better scale look. Paints were Hataka. I replaced the insignia with some thinner ones from the spares box (the Anigrand ones are very thick). Rigging was with Uschi VanderRosten thread.

 

 

 

There are definitely compromises in here in the name of structural integrity. Given infinite time and patience I would have replaced the W strut on the forward fuselage with something daintier - I feared doing so would jeopardise whatever it was that was holding the upper wing on. Same deal with the floats - the rear struts I left alone as they provided the strength, the forward struts are prettier stretched sprue but merely decorative. I would also have filled the exaggerated rib lines scored into the wings. Inevitably all these things are much more evident in photos than in the flesh.

 

 

But anyway. I am basically really happy with this. Anigrand also do a 1:72 kit of this aircraft if you find yourself with a sudden passion to build one yourself. 

 

 

Not a great deal more to say. A fun build and a good challenge. 

 

 

And with a somewhat more successful water bird that first flew just a couple of years after this - incidentally the same year that Great Lakes Aircraft Company went bust. 

Thanks very much for looking.

 

Angus

Edited August 10, 2021 by ajmm

[noelh]

I hit the thanks button because honestly how can you say you like to such object. 

 

The original is like a discordant piece of art designed to disorientate. The eyes can't rest on it properly. 👀 It's full of odd angles. 

 

The is good though. 

 

 

[Tempestwulf]

Excuse me sir, it appears someone cut the butt of your duck.

 

Very unique subject.

[Toryu]

This poor thing couldn't help her designers' bad judgement (or poor engineering degree). It actually looks quite 'normal' when seen from front atop.

I wish such flying wonders would be available in 1/48...

Very well built! It could easily pass for a 1/72 model - and a well-modelled one at that.

[malpaso]

What a lovely model.  Hard to believe the same firm as the Great Lakes Trainer, which was lovely looking aircraft even if it seems only the first ones had that shapely Cirrus nose in your illustration above - a resurrected company was still building radial engined versions decades later.

[ajmm]

Thanks so much guys. I agree - from some angles it’s almost normal. But then you rotate it a bit and whoa! Thanks for the kind comments. 
 

@malpaso yes Great Lakes was resurrected in the 1960s wasn’t it? And I believe it still builds aircraft to the original 1930s design - but modernised. Firmly in the dream hangar! 

[theskits62]

A truly revolting aircraft but a very nicely done model.

[Jonners]

Brilliant: a great model, a quirky (understatement!) subject which is right up my street, and a very interesting and entertainingly-written description of the aircraft. Thanks - very enjoyable all round! (I bet the test crews didn't say that...)

Jon.

[noelh]

5 hours ago, ajmm said:

Thanks so much guys. I agree - from some angles it’s almost normal. But then you rotate it a bit and whoa! Thanks for the kind comments. 
 

@malpaso yes Great Lakes was resurrected in the 1960s wasn’t it? And I believe it still builds aircraft to the original 1930s design - but modernised. Firmly in the dream hangar! 

Yes indeed, I think Waco is involved. I remember seeing one in Oshkhosh. You can have it built to your specification. A world away from that lemon. 

But every manufacturer has its bad moment. 

[invidia]

Fantastic looking model and an interesting history. Hard to believe its 1/144

[ajmm]

Thanks so much for the kind comments guys - they are greatly appreciated. 

[Spitfire31]

Shocking! I didn't realise it was 144 until I glanced at invidia's post above!

 

Superb watchmaker's work!

 

Kind regards,

 

Joachim

[Big Dave S]

Nicely rendered.

But what an ugly duckling!

Good work.

[SafetyDad]

Loved this! - a beautiful model of an apparently appalling aircraft with an inspiring supporting narrative account.

Brilliant! Well done on your final result - looks excellent and I totally concur with your well-thought-through compromises on strength vs. accuracy.

And this is 1/144?

 

Blimey!  

 

SD

[Bertie McBoatface]

Weird stuff, beautifully built, painted and presented. And those figures are astonishing. Thanks.

[binbrook87]

Wow that's a work of art. Beautifully modelled