 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / January 2006Douglas XCG-17
As you all probably know the XCG-17 was the C-47 converted to a motorless glider. Seems like an easy kit conversion - maybe? Would anyone know where and how the towing cable[s] attached to the XCG-17? I noted 'cables' in the previous sentence as the XCG-17 was designed to be towed by a single C-54 or two C-47s. Interesting eh? I've heard of an Execuform conversion set in 1/72nd - if anyone has this set would you mind to take a look to see if the cable attaching information is detailed? My aim is to do the conversion on a Monogram 1/48th C-47. Thanks all. This project has been in the planning stages for quite a few years now. This time, maybe, just maybe - as soon as I finish the Ki-100s..... Cheers - Jim MacKenzie. > As you all probably know the XCG-17 was the C-47 converted to a >motorless glider. Seems like an easy kit conversion - maybe? Would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Cheers - Jim MacKenzie. i thought the monogram was a dc3? > i thought the monogram was a dc3? ****** Actually you may be more right than wrong but Monogram kit numbers 5603 and 5607 were marketed [is that a real word?] as C-47s with 5603 having markings for USAAF and the RAF. There are probably a few detail 'glitches' that would have to be considered, depending on which C-47 you wanted to build. Also of note is the fact that they came with the 'rifle grommets' in the fuselage windows so the passengers could stick their rifles out and take pot shots at attacking enemy fighters. Now wouldn't that have been interesting? Later editions of the Monogram kit No.5610 was marketed as a DC-3. How accurate any of them are, as to specific type, I wouldn't venture a guess. Cheers - Jim. >> i thought the monogram was a dc3? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Cheers - Jim. ok, thanks. i've only seen the dc3 and was unaware of the c47. were there issues about the landing gear being wrong as on all the 1/72? i hope you build and post pics of the build, of thatxcg-17. i've see a couple of pics and it's a damn interesting bird. yeah, maybe, maybe you could hit the earth out the sides....but another ac? have to be an accident. >> i thought the monogram was a dc3? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Cheers - Jim. The Skytrain version also came with a handful of paratroopers - useful towards that glider project or possibly a conversion to a civilian DC-3 diorama featuring an airstrip in any banana republic you care to mention. ;-) WmB yet problematic if you want to build the C-47 into a DC-3 with >> As you all probably know the XCG-17 was the C-47 converted to a >>motorless glider. Seems like an easy kit conversion - maybe? Would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > i thought the monogram was a dc3? Isn't it really more of an early C-47 (no suffix); since only the cargo door was about the only major external difference? Early C-47's retained the tailcones, and thin, "taper-bladed" props, as in pre-war DC-3's. However, the Monogram kit doesn't have the nose-mounted fresh air scoop, does it? I don't have one to look at, but isn't the kit also Pratt and Whitney engined? (Most pre-war DC-3's, i.e. non-suffixed models, were Wright Cyclone engined, as opposed to the PW engined DC-3A's...) If so, it comes closest to the aforementioned early non-suffix C-47. So, although a C-47, it will take a bit of minor conversion work to make a far-more-common C-47A or C-47B.  SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 ..... "The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had something to do with it." - Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked where the fault lie for the Confederacy's loss at Gettysburg > I don't have one to look at, but isn't the kit also > Pratt and Whitney engined? (Most pre-war DC-3's, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > conversion work to make a far-more-common C-47A or > C-47B. ****** Ho ho Greg, I think you've just given me more reasons to make it a motorless glider :-) Good stuff and thanks. I'll have to check into those engines if I get to building a power jobby. Thanks much. cheers - Jim. >> I don't have one to look at, but isn't the kit also >> Pratt and Whitney engined? (Most pre-war DC-3's, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >those engines if I get to building a power jobby. Thanks much. cheers >- Jim. wondering still about the landing gear. i think bill b was the one to say all the 1/72 kits were inaccurate? >>> I don't have one to look at, but isn't the kit also >>> Pratt and Whitney engined? (Most pre-war DC-3's, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > i think bill b was the one to say all the 1/72 kits were > inaccurate? What was the alleged inaccuracy? I remember a discussion regarding how some wartime aircraft supposedly had their landing gear "beefed up" with stronger-forged castings; but this does not seem universal; and I have examined photos, and there does not seem to be an obviously visible difference photo-wise (if indeed they *were* strengthened); so I do not think it would be all that apparent on models. If anyone can point us to some photos showing some obviously visible, and drastic, differences...then point us to the link, as I have been curious about this since it was mentioned awhile back. But back to the engines...were *any* kits ever released with the Wright Cyclone engines (and their completely different cowlings)? The Minicraft 1/144th kit comes close, by accident, as even though the kit contains facsimiles of a 7-cylinder-bank PW engine...the cowlings ar *so* mis-shaped, that they could just as easily be reshaped to represent either type. SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 ..... "The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had something to do with it." - Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked where the fault lie for the Confederacy's loss at Gettysburg >> In article <8UDvf.9373$vN4.918214@wagner.videotron.net>, Jim >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >ar *so* mis-shaped, that they could just as easily be >reshaped to represent either type. i just remember that they were all called inaccurate. i think some old kit was closest. frog? heller? it was 3 years ago, when i did the 1/48 russian bird. i ended up doing a lend lease version because of the nacelles. i'm not sure about the engines. wasn't there a resin 1/72? where's tom and his tame black hole storage system? >i think some old kit was closest. frog? heller? The most accurate DC-3/C-47 plastic kit ever remains Monogram's venerable 1/90 scale jewel that was recently reissued. SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." >>i think some old kit was closest. frog? heller? > > The most accurate DC-3/C-47 plastic kit ever remains Monogram's > venerable 1/90 scale jewel that was recently reissued. Yep....and I am working on a couple of those right now. It's saturated with rivets, but once you sand them off about 90%, you are left with a *very* nice representation of a flush-riveted surface; which in model scales, looks "about right". And you are correct in that the shape and proportions are spot-on, better than any other "modern" kit that has been released (with perhaps the possible exception of the Monogram 1/48th kits). And for an ancient kit that has seen so much mileage (mould-wear-wise), the fit is still excellent. Aftermarket enhancements are almost nil; which is why I posted elsewhere about possible "small" 1/72nd, or "large" 1/144th scale Aeroclub (or similar) engines which might be used to improve that area of this 1/90th scale kit. There is also an HO scale (1/87th) representation by Roco, but I have never seen one (but going by their HO scale armor pieces...) :o) SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 ..... "The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had something to do with it." - Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked where the fault lie for the Confederacy's loss at Gettysburg OK Al, how does Minicraft's 1/144th kit stack up? Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >...how does Minicraft's 1/144th kit stack up? Not especially well, unfortunately. It seems to be based largely on the old Nitto 1/100 scale DC-3/C-47 kit which had a whole raft of problems. That said it's certainly not what I would consider terrible and is head and shoulders above what Minicraft claims is a Lockheed Electra. The recent R4D-5 release of the DC-3 addresses at least some of the original kit's problems. SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." > OK Al, how does Minicraft's 1/144th kit stack up? > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. I think the Minicraft kit is criticized far more than it deserves. It has *beautifully* sharp and petite scribing, and incredibly thin trailing edges to the wing and tail. However, it *does* have problems...but we are model *builders* right?...and should be able to, and expected to, deal with such setbacks. :o) The engine nacelles have a bizarre upward cant of several degrees. This can be remedied by "planing down" the front face of the nacelle area (where the cowlings will be attached) to be perpendicular to the AC centerline. Then just reshape/recontour what is left. The engine cowlings themselves are weak...representing neither the Wright type, nor the PW type, very well. You can pretty much correct them to either model, with the same amount of work. The engines are typical of most injection molded plastic engines (not good)...but replacements are available from Aeroclub. The props are very weak...and not to mention *too big*, as they scrape against the fuselage! (Aeroclub again can provide replacements) The landing gear is very petite, and looks very nice... though the wheels are full of problems...being a bit too narrow, and the wheel hub being way too large diameter-wise. The fuselage is pretty nice, except for the vertical tail, which goes wrong somewhere...being too rounded. The nose is a bit off from certain angles, but nothing major. The cockpit windows are also a bit off...but most people end up using decals anyway. The surface scribing, regarding windows, doors, etc... is good and/or bad...depending on the livery you are doing. Like everything else regarding the DC-3/C-47, you really need to have photos of the actual aircraft you are wanting to model. As Al said...way better than the Electra. (...and better than the Constellation and Stratocruiser) (But not as nice as the DC-4, nor the incredible new DC-8!!!) SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 ..... "The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had something to do with it." - Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked where the fault lie for the Confederacy's loss at Gettysburg >I think the Minicraft kit is criticized far more >than it deserves. It has *beautifully* sharp and petite >scribing, and incredibly thin trailing edges to the wing >and tail. However, it *does* have problems...but we >are model *builders* right?...and should be able to, >and expected to, deal with such setbacks. Oh, I quite agree. I have lots of Minicraft DC-3 kits in my stash... ;) >The engine cowlings themselves are weak... The R4D-5 release has a much-improved pair of cowlings, and paddle-bladed props. SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." "...Tame black hole storage system". I like it! It fits. Because of a temporarely crammed garage with difficult at best access to the MAI Library I have been mum on most research requests on RMS of late. The XCG-17, however, is right here in one of the file cabinets and it includes a closeup shot of the belly mounted tow hook. MAI Research Service minimum fee is $10 which in this case includes the tow hook photo and five other photos of the XCG-17. There are individual photos of the front, rear and right front 3/4 view as well as longer distants shots of the glder being towed by a B-24 and by two C-47s. I can throw in a couple of good nteror shots, too. The tow cable release is tiny, looking pretty much like an outboard motor hand starter cable between the seats in the cockpit, too small to be seen in 1/72 and probably the same in 1/48. I started a conversion of the Airfix C-47 in 1969. Dave Boksanski showed me how to chop plastngs to fit, so the pods over the engine mounts are Frog He 219 cowlngs with thick sheet styrene on the front carved and polished to shape. The cockpit interior and cabin are completely detailed (pre-after market detailing materials), wings cut off for repostioning, nose reshaped and that is as far as I got with it. One of these days I'll get or make the right landing gear and finish the thing. I can use up some SNJ metal pant before it dries up. In the mean time, e-mail me if you would lke the packet. Happy modeling, Tom > The XCG-17, however, is right here in one of the file cabinets and it > includes a closeup shot of the belly mounted tow hook. MAI Research > Service minimum fee is $10 which in this case includes the tow hook > photo and five other photos of the XCG-17. ******** Well, I'll be darned. There is hope. Thanks Tom. E-mailing you as soon as I get this one off to RMS. Thanks. cheers - Jim. PS: Thanks all - good discussion and many valid points. Jim Would you please e-mail me again. Your first e-mail was accidentally ommited by my coal fired computer. TIA Tom Jim Would you please e-mail me again. Your first e-mail was accidentally ommited by my coal fired computer. TIA Tom Jim Did you e-mail me about the XCG-17? I lost an e-mail before I could open it. Tom > Jim > Did you e-mail me about the XCG-17? ****** Roger-D. I did and I'll resend. You only lost 'one' E-mail? I sure wish I could make that claim - I have a much higher 'deleted by accident' score than that :-) In any event I'll send it PDQ and should you reply and don't hear back from me for a few days don't despair. My not-so-tame computer guru is arriving tomorrow morning to reformat my hard drive, which of course leads to a complete reinstallation of all the necessary junk, so depending on the fickle finger of fate it may be a day or so before I can get back on line. Cheers - Jim. Sorry about the multiple posts. That's something that this POS computer has never done before. Tom >Sorry about the multiple posts. > >That's something that this POS computer has never done before. > >Tom might be your isp, tom. > >> I don't have one to look at, but isn't the kit also > >> Pratt and Whitney engined? (Most pre-war DC-3's, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > i think bill b was the one to say all the 1/72 kits were > inaccurate? Nope, not me. I had no idea what if any differences there were in all the various C-47/DC-3 variants. It seems that I remember reading somewhere within the past decade a short treatise on such but I can't put the old mental finger on who-what-when. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >> >> I don't have one to look at, but isn't the kit also >> >> Pratt and Whitney engined? (Most pre-war DC-3's, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. From the 1930's, up until the opening stages of WWII, it is pretty easy to tell which DC-3/C-47 from another; but once the war got up and running.... ...and we shall not even mention to post-war era...when pretty much all rules got thrown out the window. :o) SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 ..... "The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had something to do with it." - Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked where the fault lie for the Confederacy's loss at Gettysburg >> In article <8UDvf.9373$vN4.918214@wagner.videotron.net>, Jim >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. damn crs! > >> In article <8UDvf.9373$vN4.918214@wagner.videotron.net>, Jim > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > damn crs! Mine, or yours? Bill Banaszak, MFE sr. ;) >> >> In article <8UDvf.9373$vN4.918214@wagner.videotron.net>, Jim >> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Bill Banaszak, MFE sr. >;) eh, what was the question? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.