Stargazer2006's imaginary works

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Yeah!! Great skill in the service of tremendous imagination!

Thank you so much!! ;D

I have to point out, however--on that de Havilland Sea Devil, you've got the cockpit all off to one side.

I didn't do that... That was a feature of the real-life De Havilland Sea Vixen!

 

[Apteryx]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

I didn't do that... That was a feature of the real-life De Havilland Sea Vixen!

That was really a poke at Orionblamblam, not you. I know about the asymmetric cockpit thing.

 

[Triton]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Stephane, can you create an Airbus A400M with United States Air Force markings?

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Stephane, can you create an Airbus A400M with United States Air Force markings?

That would be an interesting challenge, and not too difficult I guess. Okay, it's on my to-do list. Thanks!

 

[Michel Van]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

i love the Corsair-III artwork

 

[Triton]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Stephane, can you create an Airbus A400M with United States Air Force markings?

That would be an interesting challenge, and not too difficult I guess. Okay, it's on my to-do list. Thanks!

Thank you. I was curious what it would look like since EADS has attempted to market the aircraft to the United States Air Force saying that the Lockheed Martin C-130J is too small for its needs.

 

[Triton]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

I also believe that it would be interesting to see an Airbus A380-based Advanced Airborne Command Post replacing the Boeing 747-based E-4B or even the Airbus A380-based missile carrier designed by BAE Systems.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Remember the Republic AP-75 project?

Well, imagine that Republic gave it a "Thunder-..." name, promoted it through a brochure, and you happened on one of the company's marketing executives in the early 1960s. Probably it would have looked something like this...

 

[yasotay]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Wow, That is great work. I especially appreciate the Parker fountain pen and the mustard yellow phone. Shouts circa 1960. Really great work.

 

[Stargazer]

Stargazer2006's works: the Northrop C-125C « Sea Raider »

Thanks a lot, yasotay! It's nice to see the work appreciated, especially on a "real aircraft" website!

Here's something new.

When someone recently mentioned the Northrop C-125 Raider, I realized how much I like that forgotten transport and what potential it held for "whiffing" (what-if-ing).

And so, from that strict U.S. Air Force landplane I developed a seagoing floatplane for the U.S. Navy, the C-125C Sea Raider. Here is a "photo" of the YC-125C prototype, and a three-view arrangement of the C-125C "production model" (allow me to repeat here that this is all imaginary work, no real aircraft variant!).

A few notes:
1°) The basic "Raider" logo is genuine Northrop.
2°) The floats on both the photo and the plan were adapted (stretched) from the Bellanca 77-320 floatplane bomber while the wing strengtheners were simplified (shortened, differently angled) from the same aircraft.
3°) The rounded underwing housings for the main triangular struts are pure invention, as is the serial number!
4°) during the early 1950s, the USAF and US Navy tried to get nearer a standardized system. To that effect, a few designations were non-standard, such as the T-28B Trojan, which in all logic ought to have been the T2J-1 before the Buckeye. However the scheme didn't catch up, and reserved USN designations such as C-138, C-139 and the likes were simply not used. So in all logic, the Sea Raider ought to have been an "R2T-1" but I thought it would be nice for it to be just a "C-125C".

 

[The Artist]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Fun design. For me, it works both as a What If and as a fantasy. I mean, I can see that flying in formation with the Sea Duck on Tail Spin.

One question. What exactly is that pipe or strut doing? (The one that starts just aft of the lower point of the red(?) trim in the photograph.) It looks like it is going to the vertical but yet it is obscured by the broad fuselage to float strut.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Fun design. For me, it works both as a What If and as a fantasy. I mean, I can see that flying in formation with the Sea Duck on Tail Spin.

One question. What exactly is that pipe or strut doing? (The one that starts just aft of the lower point of the red(?) trim in the photograph.) It looks like it is going to the vertical but yet it is obscured by the broad fuselage to float strut.

Don't know where you can see anything red in this picture! Now if you're talking about the vertical strut underneath the engine, well... it was on the Raider's wheel train, and there was also a strut in the same place on the Bellanca. I figured it would be nice to keep it as a strengthener (the Bellanca had quite a few more). This being said, I'm sure the work is not perfect and I'm bound to have made a few mistakes...

 

[The Artist]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Red was my guess at the trim color as I have a memory of seeing a colorized picture of the C-125 with red trim. But I'll admit that the red could have been the printer's choice.

I'm talking about the thin strut or pipe that either is running parallel to the fuselage (through the thick diagonal strut) or extending from the fuselage to the vertical strut under the engine (through the thick diagonal strut). If it is going to the vertical strut then it should pass in front of the diagonal strut.

Other than that little confusing detail, it looks good.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Red was my guess at the trim color as I have a memory of seeing a colorized picture of the C-125 with red trim. But I'll admit that the red could have been the printer's choice.

I'm talking about the thin strut or pipe that either is running parallel to the fuselage (through the thick diagonal strut) or extending from the fuselage to the vertical strut under the engine (through the thick diagonal strut). If it is going to the vertical strut then it should pass in front of the diagonal strut.

Other than that little confusing detail, it looks good.

Thanks for the feedback. Actually I only noticed that strut myself yesterday (a leftover from the original plan) when redrawing the profile completely for future variants (until now the profile view was only adapted from existing artwork). It's been removed from the new version. I'll update the above picture soon to get rid of it. Thanks again!

 

[Jemiba]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Great work, Stéphan ! And a plausible development.
Memories of a red trim may come from photos like this one :http://www.flickr.com/photos/batman60/6450582597/
I was always wondering, why a 3-engined layout was chosen, in a time, when engine reliabilty wasn't
such a problem anymore. Especially for the later adopted SAR role a view, unobstructed by the nose
engine probably would have been better. Replacing the piston engines with turboprops could have brought
at least the same power and the Raider could well have remained in service until the '80s ! B)

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Great development, Jens, thanks! From a technical point of view, shouldn't the engines be turned up a little more to be coherent with the original thrust line?

 

[Jemiba]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Surely ! Was just intended a very raw sketch during my lunch break, thankfully
without spilling coffee over mouse and keyboard ... :

 

[Stargazer]

Stargazer2006's works: Lockheed FTO-1 « Thunder »

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning is an endless source of inspiration for all "what-if" modelers and imagers worldwide... Introducing the Lockheed Thunder, designated as the FTO-1 by the U. S. Navy. I guess our pal Tophe must have come up with one such variation in his seemingly infinite variations on the P-38, but my challenge here was to create a fake period advert for my "fighter-torpedo" type...

Hope you guys enjoy it!

 

[Jemiba]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Great type, great work, excellent ! But it would have been the torpedo, that would have put
the fear of god into the Japanese Navy. The Long Lance torpedo would have looked like a toy
against this one with a calibre of, well, at least one meter ? Given a proportional war head and
range, just one of it could have knocked out the mighty Yamato ! ;D

BTW, what's about a light fighter based on one half of the Lockheed Thunder ?

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Thanks for the comment, Jens! Yes, the torpedo may be a wee bit large, I must admit I didn't bother to make proper measurements of existing torpedoes...

BTW, what's about a light fighter based on one half of the Lockheed Thunder ?

I actually did that one a long time ago... ;D It's the XP-73 Swordstar:

 

[yasotay]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

As always, your work is both impressive and entertaining. Well done Sir. The Lockheed Thunder is one of my favorite of your more recent works.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

I actually did that one a long time ago... ;D It's the XP-73 Swordstar

Just realized that's not correct... My Lockheed Swordstar was actually based on the XP-58 Chain Lightning, not the P-38. Sorry!

 

[GTX]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

There was actually a real world trial with a P-38 carrying torpedoes: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1639.0.html

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

The concept of the Swordstar was rejected by the USAAF, because they wanted something
more nimble and single seated only, wasn't it ?

Are we talking fantasy or real world here? Because there was NO Swordstar in the real world, only the Chain Lightning!

There was actually a real world trial with a P-38 carrying torpedoes: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1639.0.html

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that!

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Another case of reality greater than fiction...

This started as a project to turn the beautiful 1946 reconnaissance/transport Republic RC-2 Rainbow prototype into a bomber. I thought that since Republic had also projected a fighter called the Warrior, having a Republic bomber called the Rainbow Warrior was kind of a funny twist...

And then I realized that there had actually been company plans to turn the Rainbow into a bomber! The project was designated AP-60 and goes back to 1949.

So here's the Republic AP-60B Rainbow Warrior ("B" to indicate that it's not the actual project). The footer and "rainbow" logo are real, the "warrior" part was recreated.

 

[Jemiba]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

The concept of the Swordstar was rejected by the USAAF, because they wanted something
more nimble and single seated only, wasn't it ?

Are we talking fantasy or real world here? Because there was NO Swordstar in the real world, only the Chain Lightning!

About "What-If", of course, should have put a smiley at the end.
But a good What-If picture deserves a plausible story, I think. So the CGI of a T-65 X-Wing over Afghan mountains
may well be made up to the highest standards, but to me will always fail to arouse much interest.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

a good What-If picture deserves a plausible story, I think. So the CGI of a T-65 X-Wing over Afghan mountains
may well be made up to the highest standards, but to me will always fail to arouse much interest.

I agree! For the group I created on deviantART, Whifcraft, I only accept submissions that are imaginary but plausible. No sci-fi! I like sci-fi sometimes but to me it's a whole different thing altogether.

 

[Triton]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

I love the photomanipulation of the Republic AP-60B Rainbow Warrior. But I believe that the name of a Rainbow-derived bomber would have the Thunder- prefix in keeping with names of other Republic military aircraft. I also think of the Greenpeace ship also named Rainbow Warrior when I hear the name.

I would probably name this aircraft Thunderstorm or Thundershower.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

I love the photomanipulation of the Republic AP-60B Rainbow Warrior. But I believe that the name of a Rainbow-derived bomber would have the Thunder- prefix in keeping with names of other Republic military aircraft. I also think of the Greenpeace ship also named Rainbow Warrior when I hear the name.

I would probably name this aircraft Thunderstorm or Thundershower.

Of course it would probably have been a Thunder-something... but I fancied the humor in using Greenpeace's "Rainbow Warrior" instead!
Thunderstorm is a name I've already planned for a future project, but I agree it would definitely have fitted the bill here.

 

[Johnbr]

Lockheed XP-73

After the XP-58 Chain Lightning was turned down by the USAF, Lockheed took the half-assembled second prototype and reworked all the elements to turn it into a single fuselage design for a fast piston interceptor, the Model 39 Swordstar (a mix of "Swordfish", as in the XP-38E test-bed and the usual "star" suffix used by Lockheed). Though unsollicited, the proposal was judged interesting enough for the USAAF to borrow the aircraft from Lockheed and give it the XP-73 designation (serial 43-45315).

However, the Swordstar was sadly lost after only three hours of test flying in mid-air collision with a Culver PQ-8 Dart target drone gone wild, killing test pilot Shane Bolt. The embarrassment was such that the Air Force agreed on a refund of the prototype and all of Lockheed's expenses on condition that the XP-73 be erased from the records, which was done on both sides. It would have remained a lost chapter of aviation history were it not for a set of documents hidden away by one of the project's engineers that resurfaced recently after his passing. Only this one very rare photograph of it has survived to this day [link] .

The Swordstar was a sort of missing link in Lockheed design history, being the last distant grandson of the P-38 Lightning family and also the company's last piston design before the F-80 Shooting Star, which was to incorporate its tail design with very little change.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Yeah. The Swordstar was my own invention. I'm sorry if it led some into believing it was a real project!

Of late I have more or less stopped to write such accompanying stories for my what-if aircraft because I realize that stuff has a way of spreading on the web and it's tough enough to tell the real information from the bogus one and I don't want to add to the confusion. Same with the designations, I don't give my creations DoD or company designations as systematically as before, partly for the same reason.

 

[Jemiba]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Ah, that means relinquishing the most funny thing in making drawings of something, that never
existed in reality !

But you're right, there already are enough fakes around and denying them often is nearly
impossible. Nevertheless, I won't include the Swordstar in our Fake list ...

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Upon learning that Northrop's N-3PB "Norse Seaplane" had actually been designed initially as the N-3 landplane, I was inspired to resurrect an unfinished project started a couple of years ago, which consisted of exactly that... a landplane version of the N-3PB named the N-3! (who ever said reality is stranger than fiction?!? ;D )

The pictures were edited from real N-3PB photos, the text is slightly adapted from a genuine Northrop advertisement... The name "Rocket" is my own invention — although Northrop's competitor Republic did toy with that name on several occasions for unrealised projects.

I also imagined an export version for Britain, which I had designated the N-3G Sparrowhawk. This one is entirely fictitious as it features an inline engine, which the British prefered to the radial...

 

[Jemiba]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

It looks too good and too logical, not to be taken seriously somewhere ! ;D

 

[robunos]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Fairey Northrop Battle... ;D (and probably just as underpowered, if that's an Allison V-1710 in the nose...)

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

Fairey Northrop Battle... ;D

MUCH more handsome than the Fairey Battle, in my opinion!

(but then it's a tough act to look as ugly as the Battle... though some other Faireys actually beat it to it!).

 

[robunos]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

I refer to my post here :-

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9697.msg89202.html#msg89202

and here :-

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7045.msg144221.html#msg144221

Actually, I think the Battle is quite handsome, could have done with a spinner on the prop though...

A further thought, your 'Rocket/Sparrowhawk' looks a lot like the prototype Miles M.9 in it's original form...
(image from Putnam's 'Miles', page 108.)

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

A further thought, your 'Rocket/Sparrowhawk' looks a lot like the prototype Miles M.9 in it's original form...

Gosh, it never occurred to me before, but you're right! Definitely a similarity here!

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

The whole story of how my N-3 project came to be is here at deviantART:
http://bispro.deviantart.com/art/Northrop-N-3-Rocket-Musketeer-of-the-Air-375537605

And if you've never taken the time to check out the rest of my photomanipulations and imaginary aircraft, take the time to browse my dA gallery:
http://bispro.deviantart.com/gallery/24200217

Thanks to all for your interest!

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Stargazer2006's works

My two latest creations:

• The Lockheed Aldebaran, sort of the Constellation's kid brother.
  
  
  
  
  
• The Douglas DC-20 Sky Sovereign, a civilian version of the XB-19 bomber.
  
  
  

See them in full resolution in my deviantART gallery:
http://bispro.deviantart.com/gallery/24200217