Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Models / March 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Odd Keystone passenger trimotor

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Pat Flannery - 15 Mar 2008 09:34 GMT
Never saw this one before, which looks like some sort of 1930's French
bomber:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/11-1929/baby_cars/xlg_ba
by_cars_1.jpg

Did these ever see service?

Pat
The Old Man - 15 Mar 2008 12:06 GMT
> Never saw this one before, which looks like some sort of 1930's French
> bomber:http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/11-1929/baby_...
> Did these ever see service?
>
> Pat

Keystone made a number of bombers during the 1920s before the
company's demise, so it's possible that this type might have seen at
least limited service. Next time I go to the library, I'll check out
the late-1920s Jane's for further details.
Enzo Matrix - 15 Mar 2008 20:18 GMT
>> Never saw this one before, which looks like some sort of 1930's
>> French
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> least limited service. Next time I go to the library, I'll check out
> the late-1920s Jane's for further details.

It's a Keystone K-78.

http://www.aerofiles.com/_keys.html

<Quote>
K-78, -78D Patrician 1929 (ATC 260, 2-85, 2-350, 2-354) = 21pChwM; three
525hp Wright Cyclone; span: 86'5" length: 61'7" load: 6376# v: 148/120/60
range: 480-550. $85,000; POP: 3; 1 K-78 [NX7962], and 2 K-78D [NX=NC98N,
NC10N] with extensive design modifications. (2-350) specific to [NC98N] in
1931 as a Wright Corp executive plane. Load-carrying record set in 1929, in
which it was reported that "33 girls, two pilots, and a mechanic were
carried to 10,200' in 25 minutes"—a payload of 4600#.
</Quote>

Photo http://www.aerofiles.com/keys-78.jpg

Signature

Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Mad-Modeller - 16 Mar 2008 06:28 GMT
> >> Never saw this one before, which looks like some sort of 1930's
> >> French
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Ah, the founding ceremonies for the Mile-High Club!

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Pat Flannery - 17 Mar 2008 07:48 GMT
> It's a Keystone K-78.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> </Quote>
>  

Much better than either the Ford or Fokker trimotor from a areodynamic
point of view, and better passenger capacity as well.
Why didn't she see widespread commercial service in the pre-DC-2/ Boeing
247 days?

Pat
Pat Flannery - 17 Mar 2008 07:36 GMT
> Keystone made a number of bombers during the 1920s before the
> company's demise, so it's possible that this type might have seen at
> least limited service. Next time I go to the library, I'll check out
> the late-1920s Jane's for further details.
>  

It's supposed to be a 40 passenger civilian transport, although I've
never seen on one in commercial transport colors.

Pat
Bill Shatzer - 15 Mar 2008 20:19 GMT
> Never saw this one before, which looks like some sort of 1930's French
> bomber:
> http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/11-1929/baby_cars/xlg_ba
by_cars_1.jpg
 
>
> Did these ever see service?

Looks like the Keystone K-78 although the cockpit area is slightly
different than the photos of the actual aircraft. Perhaps an artist's
error or perhaps the drawing is of the prototype and not the
"production" aircraft.

http://www.aerofiles.com/keys-78.jpg

Three were built - one prototype K-78 and two "production" K-78Ds[1].

Never in actual passenger service although used for route testing and as
an executive aircraft.  Lindbergh did some demonstration flying for TAT
in one of the K-78Ds.

[1] Or, perhaps, the original K-78 prototype was reworked to K-78D
standards and there were only two K-78s.  Sources differ.

Cheers,
Don Stauffer in Minnesota - 17 Mar 2008 15:32 GMT
> Never saw this one before, which looks like some sort of 1930's French
> bomber:http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/11-1929/baby_...
> Did these ever see service?
>
> Pat

This is taking the thread a little off-topic, but maybe easier than a
new thread. I recently picked up a vacuform Stinson Tri-Motor which
did see service, and a local museum has one, so I can get lots of
photos.

The vacuform engines, of course, are not adequate. It used Lycoming
radials. I do not see any of these in Engines and things. I DO see a
small Jacobs radial and think that is likely to be the closest resin
engine I can find.

Is anyone aware of a 1:72 scale Lycoming 640 radial in resin, or what
would folks think would be the closest to that.
maiesm72@netscape.com - 17 Mar 2008 16:19 GMT
Robert's Models has/had a nine cylinder Lycoming if you can track
those down.TomOn Mar 17, 7:32 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota
<stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:> On Mar 15, 3:54 am, Pat Flannery
<flan...@daktel.com> wrote:> > > Never saw this one before, which
looks like some sort of 1930's French> > bomber:http://
blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/11-1929/baby_...> >
Did these ever see service?> > > Pat> > This is taking the thread a
little off-topic, but maybe easier than a> new thread. I recently
picked up a vacuform Stinson Tri-Motor which> did see service, and a
local museum has one, so I can get lots of> photos.> > The vacuform
engines, of course, are not adequate. It used Lycoming> radials. I do
not see any of these in Engines and things. I DO see a> small Jacobs
radial and think that is likely to be the closest resin> engine I can
find.> > Is anyone aware of a 1:72 scale Lycoming 640 radial in resin,
or what> would folks think would be the closest to that.
 
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.