BullPup clones

[JeromeK]

Scale kits.. non-scale kits... I love them all!

Though the Estes Bullpup is really a nice looking rocket.. you got to admit that. It just has a little bit of character. You know what I mean?


Jerome

 

[Micromeister]

Originally posted by CTimm
I know of a few scale kits that can be trusted to be an accurate source of data on the real thing!!!!!!

Most are of rockets.
One is of a missile.

CTimm

There are exceptions to every rule Tim, but I'll bet if you really get into the detail measurments you'll find plenty of discrepencies. Let's not split hairs here!. That wasn't the intent of these comments either. No one can't be "Sure" of the accuracy of any Kit, unless the source data is provided with the kit. I'm sure you'll agree "Most" available mod-roc "Scale" kits do not fit that bill. Even some that do provide data like AT's Arcas are not even close. One would think Plastic models are accurate scales of the prototype aircarft or whatever but again most kit manufacturers take a LOT of artistic license, using dimensions from different varients on the same model while making the molds. Result: Plastic models are really not accurate Scale models at all. Pete's point was and I fully agree: NO Kit can be trusted for accuracy without the modeler actually doing the scaling themselves to determine "how accurate" the model is to Scale and adapting, omitting or changing inaccurate parts to more closely resemble the prototype. Did you know the tail cone on the bull-pup isn't a cone? I didn't until I did a little research. The research on a vehicle is part of the Fun of Scale modeling.. Sluthing out those little detials that make the model more interesting. Scale Modeling is sort of History in minature. Maybe that's why some of us are a little "over the top" in the persuit of accuracy. But I can tell you for sure NONE of my "Scale" models are completely accurate, every single one has SOME inaccurate parts. But NOT the obvious "outline" type mistakes. To all reading these words Please. Build Scale models. as rough or detailed as your skills will allow, but build them after attempting to locate some basic configuration data on the subject vehicle. Rockets of the World "Plug" is a great place to START the search.
Really guy's We're not trying to preach Scale simple give a little helpful direction

 

[adrian]

I can certainly agree with the statement that plastic models aren't always accurate! At the time when I built my model of the Bachem Ba349 Natter, the only "source" I had was a small 1/72 scale Heller model. So the nose ended up totally the wrong shape. Oh well, I've got a weird looking rocket which sort of looks vaguely like the real thing. Normally I end up with approximate scale models - I try to get original measurements or photos, then end up compromising due to available materials and my own building skill, or shortage thereof...

As for upscales or downscales of the Estes Bullpup, they are accurate scale models. But not of the AGM-12 missile. They're accurate models of the Estes kit.

(Incidentally, was it really an Estes Bullpup that James Bond used to shoot down a helicopter in "The World Is Not Enough"?)

 

[GlennW]

2 Things here.

First, as far as building close to scale, you have to make a decision. Do you build these things to fly 'em, or as a static display. Because for me, the flying is the main thing. Now I know that if I built it true to scale, I would go nuts and be such a perfectionist about it that I'd end up investing so much time in the build and thus would be hesitant to fly the model. So yeah, my space shuttle doesn't have all the detail I'd like, but it's close enough, same with the Mercury Redstone I'm building now. I'm aware of its shortcomings, but I'm going to build it to fly and try not to worry about the fact that the capsule detail is not exact to the Liberty Bell 7, among other things.

Second thing, as far as building items from the 70's, my next build after the MR is an Estes LTV scout that I got in about '79 as a gift. It is still sealed in the bag, and I am fully aware that I could probably get upwards of $60 for it on ebay, maybe more, but I don't care. In the grand scheme of things, the joy of building and flying it is worth more to me than 60 bucks. (That having been said, everyone has their price. If you told me it would fetch $200, I'd be selling it and getting an Apogee Saturn V, which I will still probably buy anyway, along with the 1B!)

Glenn

 

[CTimm]

Originally posted by Micromister
"No one can't be "Sure" of the accuracy of any Kit, unless the source data is provided with the kit."

I was stealthily plugging the BMS Arcas and Astrobee 1500 as well as my own AIM-47A kit. All three come with scale data for the modeler to use in whatever manner their skills permit.
I know the AIM-47A data is more detailed than the kit materials allow, and has little details that are omitted from the kit altogether. Stuff that close-up photos would explain better than a drawing.

"Did you know the tail cone on the bull-pup isn't a cone? I didn't until I did a little research."

Well, yeah I did. But then I'm probably one of the few people who go overboard taking snapshots of every inert display I come across.

Have you seen the Bullpup displayed in Orlando at a VFW on Pershing (street, road, lane?)? Its got a wild paint job!!!
I'll dig up pics of it on sunday and give everyone a good chuckle.
If you build it with the same crappy paint job as the display, complete with missing fins, will it do well in competition???
The Pershing display was missing fins as well. Probably a PINK BOOK loophole begging to be exploited! )))

"The research on a vehicle is part of the Fun of Scale modeling.. Sluthing out those little detials that make the model more interesting."

I freely admit I enjoy the researching much more than the actual construction. Probably due to time constraints when NOT on vacation. When ON vacation, research IS my vacation. Just ask the wife. ) She's the one at the beach.

"Rockets of the World "Plug" is a great place to START the search."

Don't forget "FOURTEEN US ARMY MISSILES OF THE COLD WAR".
As an entirely volunteered effort, the Air Force & Navy versions make take awhile, if at all, to be completed.

Chris Vincent Timm (two m's)

"I found this pic on the internet, can I use it for scale data???"

 

[kelltym88]

Hey BobH48,
Do not be discouraged. I think your Bullpups look great and not a bad job of cloning for being out of the hobby for so long. I'm not a scale "purist" so I don't care. If it looks good and flies good, then that's all that matters. Keep building, scale or not, and post those pictures.

 

[BobH48]

Originally posted by Micromister
I ment to attach this page in the previous post. It's the whole Bull-pup family, the copy may be to poor a res. for reading I had to really lower it to get it in here. I'd be happy to e-mail you a high res. copy if your interested.

Sure, I would like that. I'm building up a supply of rockets to launch without worrying too much about.

After that, I just might take a stab at making a scale rocket. Or at least "very close to scale".

 

[CTimm]

Heres 2 pics of a heavily whitewashed Bullpup at an Orlando VFW parking lot.

CTimm

 

[Micromeister]

OH! Now that is truely ugly! But at least the fins are in the right place The tail cone doesn't look right either, looks more like something the VFW boy's may have cobbled or made up to finish off a partical exhibit gift of this missile . The photo angle is kind of off so it's really hard to say for sure.
Tim generally speaking display pieces like this are very often a conglomeration of bits and pieces of many different varients of the same general prototype. Sometimes a display vehicle can not be used as a scale round because the configuration never flew. If there were a lot of vehicle production, as with the Sidewinder, Sparrow, and the Bull pup family you might get away with entering a copy of this thing. You could in fact submit these photos as color data in your packet and try to convince the judge(s) that at some point this paint scheme was valid during the missiles active life??? I wouldn't think most folks would bother as the points lost could be great. Besides it's just plain butt ugly

BobH48:
still waiting for your e-mail address.

 

[Peter Alway]

Originally posted by Micromister
You could in fact submit these photos as color data in your packet and try to convince the judge(s) that at some point this paint scheme was valid during the missiles active life??? I wouldn't think most folks would bother as the points lost could be great. Besides it's just plain butt ugly

There is no need in competition to make such a case, (at least not in Sport Scale, which is what is usually flown). If you like the bogs colors of a display round, you simply model that display round. Perfectly legal. Theory here is that the only data you might find on some missiles is a display round.

Oh, and photoshop is scary!

 

[Micromeister]

Yes your right peter I was thinking of "Scale" instead of Sport Scale. I stand corrected. That bull pup is still UGLY!

 

[BobH48]

Well I finally got to fly all four of the bullpups at the CMASS launch on July 17th.

The stock Estes kit went on a C6-5.

 

[BobH48]

The BT-50 size with the 18mm engine mount went on a B6-4 but all I got was a smoke trail.

The BT-50 size with the 13mm engine went on an A3-4T and I was surprised at the altitude it reached on an A engine.

It's at the top of the picture, I barely missed getting another smoke trail

 

[BobH48]

The little guy went on an A3-4T also and I lost sight of it

But someone found it while looking for their rocket so I got it back

No picture for this one

 

[eugenefl]

You mean to tell me that all this time Estes had it wrong?! Oh boy...

See attached. Check out the G80 blue flame on the blast defletor. I'm sure this one will get Peter going!

Nice work Bob. I always loved the Estes version of the Bullpup. I guess I grew up always thinking that their version was the correct version. I recall seeing a version made by "The Launch Pad" which is supposed to be closer, if not exactly, to scale. I recall thinking "dang that thing is ugly!"

 

[eugenefl]

Here's a better look...

(Sorry to hijack your thread, but it's always fun to share!)

 

[BobH48]

Originally posted by eugenefl
You mean to tell me that all this time Estes had it wrong?! Oh boy...

It's not like Estes tried to pass it off as an accurate model.

It says semi-scale right on the package

So.... Thats a cool launch pic. I like the blue flame.

What size upscale is it? What size mmt did you use? What motors are you using? I'll bet it really rips!

All my little ones go high and fast on little motors

 

[eugenefl]

Originally posted by BobH48
It's not like Estes tried to pass it off as an accurate model.

It says semi-scale right on the package

So.... Thats a cool launch pic. I like the blue flame.

What size upscale is it? What size mmt did you use? What motors are you using? I'll bet it really rips!

All my little ones go high and fast on little motors

2.2x Upscale based on a 3" I.D. mailing tube with a custom boat tail. This bird is sporting a 29mm MMT capable of accepting up to a 29/180 with no engine casing exposed up top. A few people were telling me to use a 38mm MMT but I can't see putting anything more than an H in it. It's flown on as little as an F20 and as much as a G80. My favorite motor for it is the G40-7W. The G64 is pretty cool too! I'm looking forward to a G75J flight.