 |
 | 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 / October 2007Bell YFM-1 Airacuda
Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda? I know there was a decent Rareplanes kit years ago, and a below-average resin kit of a few years ago (the name of the manufacturer escapes me...) But other than those two 1/72nd scale kits, were/are there others? And is there a good reference on the plane, other than the handful of photos that can be found through Wikipedia, etc? (I was pleasantly surprised to see a photo in the Squadron book "Air Force Colors, Vol. I" - dark, and useless for details, but it is there nonetheless.)  SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.2 (2.6.13) AUS ..... He gets it from your side of the family, you know. No monsters on my side. -- Homer Simpson Treehouse of Horror II On Oct 21, 9:37 pm, Greg Heilers <gNOSPAMheil...@earthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote: > Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, > twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- Homer Simpson > Treehouse of Horror II The F.E. Resin and Rareplane kits are it, so far. Have not seen the F.E. Resin kit yet. Sorry to hear that it's mediocre. The Rareplane kit is quite nice. Tom > The Rareplane kit is quite nice. Does anyone even know how to do a vacuform model these days? The whole concept was made extinct by resin kits over a decade ago. Pat > maies...@netscape.com wrote: > > The Rareplane kit is quite nice. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat Yep. Just finished the Rareplane version. I believe the results look pretty good. I will be posting a pic of it on my web site one of these days. There are still some of us around who are willing to pay a price in work to do vacuform rather than the price in dollars the resin kits need :-) I make a wood keel to support the fuselage halves, then add a wing spar to add strength and ease attaching wings to fuselage. There are a few vacformers still in business.I do them on occasion,much more satisfying then a tamigawa shake and bake. > maies...@netscape.com wrote: > > The Rareplane kit is quite nice. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat > There are a few vacformers still in business.I do them on > occasion,much more satisfying then a tamigawa shake and bake. > One advantage is that you can build a lot of interior details into them - I built a complete interior into a vacuformed 1/32 scale BA-349 Natter once, using a rocket engine from a Hasegawa Komet. Pat > maies...@netscape.com wrote: > > The Rareplane kit is quite nice. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat I have a couple of vacuform kits in the works. One is a Formaplane Rumpler Taube, something that should have been done as an injecton molded kit years ago. While Choroszy Modelbud and Leudemann Modellbau have done resins, the wings are far more convincing when done in vacuformed plastic than n resin. The other vacuform kit in the works is a Rareplane YP-37. While I know that Beechnut does an injection molded kit it sucks and I don't have the LF cast resin kit. The Rareplane conversion kit is just fine and it's on the stack. Tom On Oct 22, 4:21 pm, "maies...@netscape.com" <maies...@netscape.com> wrote: > > maies...@netscape.com wrote: > > > The Rareplane kit is quite nice. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Tom Did you ever see the old Airframe Taube? It went together nicely, athough the engine section left a bit to be desired. Using a Jane's 1914, I did an easy conversion to an Albatros-built version, called (IIRC) and A.I. No markings, because the pictures I had available all show no national markings. It was fun and one of the best of the Airframe kits. They have a Westland-Hill Pterodactyl that I want to do "one of these days".... > On Oct 22, 4:21 pm, "maies...@netscape.com" <maies...@netscape.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The Taube design in its many variations were manufactured by Rumpler, Etrich, Gotha, Halberstadt and Jeanin at least. There have been 1/72 scale kits of the variants by Leudemann, Airframe, Pegasus, Veterans 72 and Choroszy Modellbud. The Pegasus Etrich Taube is the only injection molded kit so far. Tom > Did you ever see the old Airframe Taube? It went together nicely, > athough the engine section left a bit to be desired. Using a Jane's > 1914, I did an easy conversion to an Albatros-built version, called > (IIRC) and A.I. No markings, because the pictures I had available all > show no national markings. > They generally didn't carry markings in that early phase of the war. Besides Albatross, BFW, Gotha, and DFW all built versions of the Taube. Whenever I see one of those, the term "sitting duck" comes to mind. It doesn't look at all maneuverable, rather like going to war in a very basic first generation ultralight. Pat > Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, > twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Air Force Colors, Vol. I" - dark, and useless for details, > but it is there nonetheless.) Hi You might find these of interest. Regards Pat Macguire http://www.nkrmodels.com.au/nkrsoon.htm http://www.snap.com/search.php#bell%20xfm-1%20airacuda > > Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, > > twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://www.snap.com/search.php#bell%20xfm-1%20airacuda Aaah! An njection molded kit of the subject. It just made the top of my "buy now" list. Thanks Pat, much appreciated. Tom >> http://www.nkrmodels.com.au/nkrsoon.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It just made the top of my "buy now" list. That Valom kit has been on NKR's coming soon list for... well, a long time... Wulf On Oct 22, 12:53 pm, "maies...@netscape.com" <maies...@netscape.com> wrote: > > > Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, > > > twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I forgot to check the database under YFM-1 and YFM-1A. Valom has, indeed, had both planned for quite awhile. Tom On Oct 22, 3:53 pm, "maies...@netscape.com" <maies...@netscape.com> wrote: > > > Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, > > > twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Both the Valom 1/72 Airacuda kits are now available in Europe; go here: http://www.modelimex.com/inshop/scripts/detail.asp?itemid=17322 and here: http://www.modelimex.com/inshop/scripts/detail.asp?itemid=21428 Sprue images, the whole nine yards. Looks decent! John On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:09:19 -0700, jthmpson wrote: > On Oct 22, 3:53 pm, "maies...@netscape.com" <maies...@netscape.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > John Those look pretty good. Thanks! One wonders if the kit of the YFM-1B will sell. With it being so "neutered" - what's the attraction? SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.2 (2.6.13) AUS ..... He gets it from your side of the family, you know. No monsters on my side. -- Homer Simpson Treehouse of Horror II >> Both the Valom 1/72 Airacuda kits are now available in Europe; go >> here: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > being so "neutered" - what's the attraction? > I'm surprised they didn't do the XFM-1 with the side gun blisters, those really aided the aircraft's unique looks: http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/Airacuda1.JPG http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/xfm1-16.jpg There's a nice detailed cockpit photo of its instrument panel, control wheel, and rudder pedals here: http://uscockpits.com/Early%20Fighters/Bell%20XFM-1.jpg A car type steering wheel on a fighter is very odd looking indeed. That's from this website, which should have a lot of useful detail data for modelers of U.S. aircraft: http://uscockpits.com/ Pat > >> Both the Valom 1/72 Airacuda kits are now available in Europe; go > >> here: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Pat The Rareplanes kit DOES include the side blisters. Anyone have a suggestion on where to post my picture of the completed Rareplanes model while I get my FTP and web site access going again? On Oct 26, 9:43 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote: > > >> Both the Valom 1/72 Airacuda kits are now available in Europe; go > > >> here: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - alt.binaries.models.scale would be a place to start. I would like to see how the model came out after sitting around in my attic for so many years. > The Rareplanes kit DOES include the side blisters. Every time I see a photo of that oddity, I keep thinking "why would someone put two B-25 noses on a aircraft?" The Wikipedia article about it is "interesting" to say the least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFM_Airacuda The Bell P-39 looks like a world- beater compared to some aspects of the Airacuda, such as this: "The Airacuda was also saddled with a complex and temperamental electrical system and was the only aircraft ever built to rely on an independent auxiliary power unit (APU) to power both engine fuel pumps, as well as all aircraft electrical systems. Systems usually powered by an aircraft's engines were instead powered by the single generator. The generator, with its own supercharger, was located in the belly of the aircraft. In the event of a failure (and they occurred frequently), the crew was instructed to begin immediate emergency restart procedures as the aircraft basically shut down. When the APU failed, the pilot had 'NO fuel pressure, NO vacuum, NO hydraulic pressure, NO gear, NO flaps and NO ENGINES.' " ;-) Pat > > The Rareplanes kit DOES include the side blisters. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Pat And from what I have read (Arco books from the late 1960s) the gunners in the wing stations in front of the engines had virtually NO egress from the aircraft - one author stated that he had a hard time when the aircraft was stationary on the ground, the thought of being in it with no power and no controll gave him nightmares. > And from what I have read (Arco books from the late 1960s) the gunners > in the wing stations in front of the engines had virtually NO egress > from the aircraft - one author stated that he had a hard time when the > aircraft was stationary on the ground, the thought of being in it with > no power and no controll gave him nightmares. > That gets mentioned in the article also. They had a real potential there for originating the "escape capsule" concept in aircraft, and if the gunner descended in enemy territory, he'd have that 37 mm cannon to defend himself with, so his capture may be difficult without the use of a medium tank. This was Bell's first military aircraft, and looking at it, you'd suspect that was the case (at least by the P-39 they had a better grasp on how a fighter was supposed to be designed). I do applaud their concept of originating a whole new mission specification for a type of military aircraft, then designing something to fill it...this is how one stays ahead of the competition. If Kelly Johnson were still alive, we'd have hypersonic dive bombers in service by now. :-D I'd love to see what would have happened if Northrop and Bell had teamed up on a aircraft design in the late 1930s, as the outcome would probably have been memorable indeed. Pat > This was Bell's first military aircraft, and looking at it, you'd > suspect that was the case (at least by the P-39 they had a better grasp > on how a fighter was supposed to be designed) Back in the 1970s, a guy in the downstairs apartment showed me pictures that his father had taken of the P-39. The gentleman had worked for Bell in Buffalo during the testing phase of that aircraft and one of the albums showed several of the crashes of test aircraft (and they seemed to be numerous). The son told me that from what his father had mentioned, one of the biggest problems was that silly car- door system. Try opening the door of your car while driving at 200mph! (you know what I mean) The air pressure makes it almost impossible, but that factoid didn't stop the engineers.... Most of the doors didn't open at all and the aircraft could dig in some fifteen feet before stopping {measured in the photos) plus the engine was BEHIND you. He also had a sixteen millimeter film (about twenty minutes long in COLOR!) of an early X-1 drop. I'd love to see those pictures again, but haven't seen that guy since I moved out in 1975. on 10/28/2007 4:51 PM The Old Man said the following: > >> This was Bell's first military aircraft, and looking at it, you'd [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Well, it's too late now, but maybe they should have had the hinges on the front of the door. No problem opening that at 200 MPH. I had a 61 Lincoln with the suicide doors. Never reach back over the seat and try to close a door that is slightly ajar at 40 MPH :-) SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ > Well, it's too late now, but maybe they should have had the hinges on > the front of the door. No problem opening that at 200 MPH. > I had a 61 Lincoln with the suicide doors. Never reach back over the > seat and try to close a door that is slightly ajar at 40 MPH :-) I can imagine what having the doors fly open at full speed is going to do to the airflow over the horizontal stabilizers. :-) Your very own set of auxiliary dive brakes. Pat > > Well, it's too late now, but maybe they should have had the hinges on > > the front of the door. No problem opening that at 200 MPH. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pat Perhaps. Or, they are torn off and wrap themselves around the empennage. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. on 10/30/2007 12:49 AM Mad-Modeller said the following: > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Yeah, but, he's bailing out anyway, and if the door takes off the tail, that's one less thing he might hit. :-) SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ > Back in the 1970s, a guy in the downstairs apartment showed me > pictures that his father had taken of the P-39. The gentleman had [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but that factoid didn't stop the engineers.... > I never could figure out why they did that on the aircraft, or why they thought it was necessary to have a door on either side, rather than just on one side. > Most of the doors didn't open at all and the aircraft could dig in > some fifteen feet before stopping {measured in the photos) plus the > engine was BEHIND you. > I'd never thought of the wind problem; you would have assumed they would have had a button or handle you could use to jettison the doors in a emergency. "Don't give me a P-39. With the engine that's mounted behind. For it will tumble and roll...and dig a big hole. Don't give me a P-39" Little pilot's song of the period. Pat on 10/26/2007 6:52 PM The Old Man said the following: > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > aircraft was stationary on the ground, the thought of being in it with > no power and no controll gave him nightmares. If he could bail out, he would have to avoid that propeller in the rear. SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ When you consider that this fighter was as large as a medium bomber, the wheel isn't so odd. And, P-38s had wheels instead of sticks. That was weird. OTOH, one wonders why an attack version escaped being developed. It had a 1600 mile range as the YFM-1B. It might have been a slick mover. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > When you consider that this fighter was as large as a medium bomber, the > wheel isn't so odd. And, P-38s had wheels instead of sticks. That was > weird. > The prototype was a completely circular wheel on it: http://uscockpits.com/Early%20Fighters/YP-38%20Lightning.JPG Early versions have a prominent stick of some sort mounted to the left of the control wheel on the base of the instrument panel. Anyone know what that's all about?: http://uscockpits.com/Early%20Fighters/P-38F-1-LO%20Lightning.JPG It seems to be associated with that knob with the arrow on it that sits inside the inverted "Y" shaped base of it. Fuel tank selector? Something associated with the nose guns? The wheel starts getting cut down as production moves forward...here's one on a P-38G: http://uscockpits.com/Early%20Fighters/P-38G%20Lightning2.jpg At least that looks like something you'd find in a race car rather than a Studebaker. Here's another, yet smaller variant off of a P-38L: http://uscockpits.com/Early%20Fighters/P-38L%20Lightning2.JPG Whatever the stick on the panel was, it's not on the later versions. Pat I'm guessing it might be a gun charging handle based on the appearance of a pumping action. I notice the lack of the handle in the later pictures. Whatever it was has been redesigned or eliminated. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > I'm guessing it might be a gun charging handle based on the appearance > of a pumping action. I notice the lack of the handle in the later > pictures. Whatever it was has been redesigned or eliminated. > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > In the pictures it looks like you can rotate the base knob to four separate positions; each separated by 45 degrees... this works fine for the four nose .50 caliber machine guns, but what about the central 20 mm cannon? I'm guessing it's a fuel tank/drop tank choice valve, but a mighty involved way of doing it. Pat > > I'm guessing it might be a gun charging handle based on the appearance > > of a pumping action. I notice the lack of the handle in the later [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pat I don't know about the pre-production run, but on the prototype the big guns were dummies, with minimal stuff on them. >> I'm guessing it's a fuel tank/drop tank choice valve, but a mighty >> involved way of doing it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > big guns were dummies, with minimal stuff on them. > Whatever it is, you are apparently to supply a fair amount of force to it, based on the size of the handle. Pat Here is the resin kit I mentioned previously: http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/preww2/horrellxfm1.htm SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.2 (2.6.13) AUS ..... He gets it from your side of the family, you know. No monsters on my side. -- Homer Simpson Treehouse of Horror II > Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, > twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Air Force Colors, Vol. I" - dark, and useless for details, > but it is there nonetheless.) If you go to www.hobbyshop.cz, you'll find the FE resin kit an the LF resin kit in 1/72. The FE is about half the price of the LF kit. Check it out. --- Stephen > Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, > twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Air Force Colors, Vol. I" - dark, and useless for details, > but it is there nonetheless.) Lucky you, just got an email today: 72036 1/72 Bell YFM1B Airacuda Long-Range Heavy Fighter $56.00 Picture looks cool. Frank On Oct 21, 10:37 pm, Greg Heilers <gNOSPAMheil...@earthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote: > Is there a kit of that intriguing, yet totally unsuccessful, > twin-pusher "gun platform" from the late 1930s: the Bell [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- Homer Simpson > Treehouse of Horror II I am having a real mess getting access to my web site to post pix of the completed Rareplanes XFM-1. I will email to a reasonable number of requesters. If you want to see a pix, email me. |
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
|
©2008 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.