• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Convair XAB-1 atomic powered bomber

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,872
Reaction score
922
Hi,

http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=43418
 

Attachments

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
531
Reaction score
16
There was an old Hawk kit of this design. In this case the word 'was' is a good thing because Hawk is back in production and they seem to be working their way through reissuing the old kits. There is hope for seeing this little beauty on the hobby shop shelves again.

Mike
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,252
Reaction score
8
The Artist said:
There was an old Hawk kit of this design. In this case the word 'was' is a good thing because Hawk is back in production and they seem to be working their way through reissuing the old kits. There is hope for seeing this little beauty on the hobby shop shelves again.
Yes, the old Hawk "Beta One". One of the first kits I ever built, way back when. I most certainly hope they do bring it back out as I'd really like one.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
85
Was that a Convair design for sure, anyway? The box doesn't give any manufacturer's name. Has anyone got a Convair-originating sketch or three-view that would validate this allocation?
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
531
Reaction score
16
Stargazer2006 said:
Was that a Convair design for sure, anyway? The box doesn't give any manufacturer's name. Has anyone got a Convair-originating sketch or three-view that would validate this allocation?
Here is the opening paragraph in the instructions for the old Hawk plastic kit - Hawk Atomic Airplane, XAB-1 BETA 1.

"Incorporated in the design of the Beta 1 are the engineering criteria established for an atomic airplane. The design, although hypothetical, is completely within the realm of possibility. In no way does Hawk Model Company intend to inply that such an airplane exists or is on the drawing boards. However, what is presented here has been checked by one of the United States' leading aircraft companies and has been declared entirely sound and possible. Therefore, this airplane could exist."

One thing bothers me about this design as implied in the instructions. According to Hawk, the bomber would have taken off and landed with the parasite fighters in place on the tail. Wouldn't there be a risk of the fighter noses buckling under the stress of the landing impact?

Mike

Note. Edited because I'm still learning the features here.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,353
Reaction score
215
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The Artist said:
One thing bothers me about this design as implied in the instructions. According to Hawk, the bomber would have taken off and landed with the parasite fighters in place on the tail. Wouldn't there be a risk of the fighter noses buckling under the stress of the landing impact?
You betcha. Also of concern is the fact that the atomic engines are the ones on the wingtips, not the ones in the fuselage. This would not only put extreme masses way out on the wingtips (meanign structural problems for the wings), this would also fail to utilize the structure of the aircraft as sheilding... instead there is a straight shot for the radiation from the reactors to the crew.

Still, it's a neato design, aesthetically.
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
74
Orionblamblam said:
The Artist said:
One thing bothers me about this design as implied in the instructions. According to Hawk, the bomber would have taken off and landed with the parasite fighters in place on the tail. Wouldn't there be a risk of the fighter noses buckling under the stress of the landing impact?
You betcha. Also of concern is the fact that the atomic engines are the ones on the wingtips, not the ones in the fuselage. This would not only put extreme masses way out on the wingtips (meanign structural problems for the wings), this would also fail to utilize the structure of the aircraft as sheilding... instead there is a straight shot for the radiation from the reactors to the crew.

Still, it's a neato design, aesthetically.
is more logical that Bomber takeoff without the parasite fighters
then the parasite fighters takeoff and dock with Bomber after reactors check

the radiation shielding on this Bomber is a nightmare
do that Reactors are in the wingtips, there can't be a heavy shielding.
I guess that Reactors are only Partially shield and rest
take fuselage and wings as Shadow shield

but i demand how much radiation will reach to the Fighters pilots....
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
6
The fighter pilots would be "jailed" in their aircraft throughout the long endurance missions - unacceptable. Not to mention the large amounts of "wash" created by the hugh bomber during docking and undocking maneuvers...
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
531
Reaction score
16
Stargazer2006 said:
Was that a Convair design for sure, anyway? The box doesn't give any manufacturer's name. Has anyone got a Convair-originating sketch or three-view that would validate this allocation?

I figured I'd post this here to give some contrast with a pair of designs that have been attributed to Convair.

Mike
 

Attachments

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
85
Thanks. Yeah, I know these, they're from the NX-2 nuclear bomber program. One of these was also credited as a Lockheed proposal in some sources, though I think both were indeed Convair variants of the same basic configuration.
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
531
Reaction score
16
This thread inspired me to build my old Hawk kit of the Beta-1 then use it to do this painting. That being the case, this thread seems to be the best place to show it.

I've reached a point on this one where I have to leave it alone for a while then see what still needs to be done. I figured I'd let everyone here take a look.

Note. I'm trying to make a better image of this (the blues are a bit too strong) and I'll replace this one when I do.

So now. Go at it. let me know what I've done wrong.

Mike
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,353
Reaction score
215
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The Artist said:
So now. Go at it. let me know what I've done wrong.
About the only thing I can see "wrong" is that the fighter pilots appear to be seated. Since I'm still working on the physical parts - doing the detailing by hand - I can assure you that no pilot larger than Minime could have sat in the thing. The pilots would have had to be prone.
 

The Artist

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
531
Reaction score
16
Orionblamblam said:
About the only thing I can see "wrong" is that the fighter pilots appear to be seated. Since I'm still working on the physical parts - doing the detailing by hand - I can assure you that no pilot larger than Minime could have sat in the thing. The pilots would have had to be prone.
Thanks for that information. Maybe that explains the extra long canopy on the fighter. I thought the thing was a two-seater at first, but then I noticed only one ejection seat triangle in the decal instructions. To be honest, I didn't bother checking the scale since I'm convinced that it is a fictional design.

Mike
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,353
Reaction score
215
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The Artist said:
To be honest, I didn't bother checking the scale since I'm convinced that it is a fictional design.
I don't think a whole lot of thought went into the details when Hawk was designing this thing fifty years ago. Hell, I'm asonished that they even determined a scale for it (1/188). Typically "sized so it fits in a box" would be about as far as they'd go when it came to fictional designs.
 

saturncanuck

Any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
299
Reaction score
1
Website
www.aerofile.ca
On a slightly related topic, does anyone remember the Aurora kits they put out in the 1970s of SF TV and movie spacecraft? This included the Orion from 2001 and the Flying Sub, et al. Anyway, one in the series was for a "fictional" USAF spacecraft called the Rajnorok. It had a little parasite fighter that was docked out of the tail.

Over time, all I have left is the little fighter, shown here....
 

Attachments

frank

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
4
Yeah, the Ragnorok Orbital Interceptor, IIRC. It had been the Russian Nuclear Powered Bomber, IIRC, in its previous life. I don't know if it had a fighter in that guise, tho.


saturncanuck said:
On a slightly related topic, does anyone remember the Aurora kits they put out in the 1970s of SF TV and movie spacecraft? This included the Orion from 2001 and the Flying Sub, et al. Anyway, one in the series was for a "fictional" USAF spacecraft called the Rajnorok. It had a little parasite fighter that was docked out of the tail.

Over time, all I have left is the little fighter, shown here....
 

saturncanuck

Any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
299
Reaction score
1
Website
www.aerofile.ca
frank said:
Yeah, the Ragnorok Orbital Interceptor, IIRC. It had been the Russian Nuclear Powered Bomber, IIRC, in its previous life. I don't know if it had a fighter in that guise, tho.


saturncanuck said:
On a slightly related topic, does anyone remember the Aurora kits they put out in the 1970s of SF TV and movie spacecraft? This included the Orion from 2001 and the Flying Sub, et al. Anyway, one in the series was for a "fictional" USAF spacecraft called the Rajnorok. It had a little parasite fighter that was docked out of the tail.

Over time, all I have left is the little fighter, shown here....
What did IIRC stand for?
 

saturncanuck

Any landing you can walk away from, is a good one.
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
299
Reaction score
1
Website
www.aerofile.ca
Thanks to "frank"s remembering of the name, I found it.

Here it is in all her glory...

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/RAGNOROCK%20INTERCEPTOR%20PAGE.htm
 

shockonlip

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
605
Reaction score
0
I still have one of each of all these boxed somewhere.

I really enjoyed building these things back then and got a real rush
about thinking about them and the technology they were based
on. It actually caused me to read up on this technology, so for me
it was very educational.

I wonder if the late John Andrews ever worked on the Hawk Atomic
Bomber, because I think he did a stint at Hawk.

He believed in designing models that were educational as well. I had
several discussions on this with him.

I recalled when he called me at Intel one day, in an official capacity
(for a change) and asked me about the feasibility of a model of a
microprocessor chip. We discussed it conceptually for some time.
Testors decided not to do anything with that, and I would not be the
proper one at Intel to finally approach on this, but that was the kind
of creative talent that he had.

As I read some AIAA papers on advanced aircraft concepts, I really
wish there was a modelling company that would take some of these
advanced designs and do something similar !

Can you imaging a model of Leik Myrabo's Mach 50 lightcraft, perhaps
with an associated model of the laser launcher, with suitable and
fascinating concept art. Explaining the whole concept, with suitable
additional references.

Or a model of say a very advanced detonation wave ramjet of the
future that would work beyond where scramjets can go.

Or an undersea aircraft carrier, like in G Harry Stine's "Starsea Invaders"
trilogy (I also enjoyed those books and they started me going too).

Anyway, great thought provoking and creative enjoyment!
 

Ju388

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
The Artist said:
So now. Go at it. let me know what I've done wrong.

Mike
Well the one thing that is wrong, I have not received my suitable for framing lithograph yet.

"let me know what I have done wrong"........... Your kidding right?
I'm serious,I want a copy of this in a frame on my wall. In my untrained eye it's perfect.
My Grandfather owned a hobbyshop in 60's and early 70's and I have built the Beta three times.
I have been a member of this message board maybe a week. And have had my eyes bug out so many times.
Don't get much better than this.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
172
"The pilots would have had to be prone"

Ouch ! If actually built, the designer of this thing probably would have been under constant
fear of being killed ... by those "happy" pilots, lying there for hours on their belly and trying to
get at some view ahead, ruining their necks. Wouldn't an inclined position have been a
healthier alternative ?
 

Attachments

Ju388

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Would it be possible that the parasite fighters would takroff independantly and dock with the Beta1 once airborne? And then land indepentantly at the end of the mission. Would a squadron of these fighters deploy in pairs along a route and relieve the previous pair in rotation? That would negate some of the human factors. Too bad the airframes and the pilots would still be glow in the dark. Another downside would be predeployment of the fighters could be a telltail as to Beta's mission. I think I've read this was a concern with SUNTAN. The appearence of hydrogen fuel handling equipment on a airfield would give away SUNTAN's presence.
And then we need to explore BETA's other two missions, XAKB-1 and XARB-1 the tanker and the recon platform.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
85
prolific1 said:
I suppose I could make a 3-view of that with the appropriate references.
Sure. Except it's probably 100% fiction, not based on any actual design from Convair...
 

frank

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
4
I think the old Hawk kit had a 3-view in the instructions.

Stargazer2006 said:
prolific1 said:
I suppose I could make a 3-view of that with the appropriate references.
Sure. Except it's probably 100% fiction, not based on any actual design from Convair...
 

tab28682

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I have always really liked this fantasy aircraft and built several of the Hawk models in my youth.

With an eye towards doing a full bodied RC model of the XAB-1, I developed a simple profile foam model of the XAB-1 to use as an RC testbed for CG location and and controlability and such. Power is by a small pusher electric motor, with the option to also use a long burn low thrust rocket motor as well.

Finally got around to trying it and it might be the first ever RC XAB-1 to fly, even if it was quite simplistic...:)

Flies very nicely with no vices. I confess to enlarging the vertical tail area using the TLAR method to help keep the pointy end forward at all times.

The first electric pusher flights were made without the parasites in place.
 

Attachments

Top