Hip Pocket Builders' Forum

Radio Control Forum => Scale => Topic started by: frostman on January 10, 2009, 05:31:56 PM

Title: Cessna XMC
Post by: frostman on January 10, 2009, 05:31:56 PM
Hi everyone, I have a good one for you. The Cessna 1014 XMC was built in 1971 as a proof of concept aircraft. All I can find on it is a picture, and no I can not post; as I lost it somehow. Anyhow has anyone got plans or a three view of this plane? Just fishing really to see what might be out there.

Thanks.. Frostman...

Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: frostman on January 12, 2009, 11:01:10 AM
Hello everyone just thought I would post a few black and white pictures of the XMC. This is all I have on this aircraft.

Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: BillB on January 12, 2009, 11:33:13 AM
I've got 'The Wings of Cessna' book and all it has is the in flight picture in it. No drawings!
Why don't you contact Cessna direct and ask if they have a 3 view available? You might just strike lucky!
Nothing ventured, nothing gained as they say.
I once made a similar request to the Westland Company and they sent me the Harleyford 'Book of Westland Aircraft'.
Mind you, that was 50 odd years ago!


Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: frostman on January 12, 2009, 11:52:15 AM
Thanks for the thought Bill, but others have already tried; and apparently all drawings were lost or destroyed.

Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: skyking32 on July 21, 2011, 01:48:12 AM
I did a search for them back in the 1990s and found that Cessna is using old salt mines to store some of their drawings, literally in deep storage.  I was able through some odd contacts to get a couple of drawings.  One is of a much modified Anderson-Greenwood AG-14 pusher that was a basis for the study.  The other is a rough sketch that has a basic outline of the XMC with the sweep angle and other details shown from above and a front view.  All the other drawings were apparently destroyed or are filed away in such a inaccessible location that they aren't available, even to Cessna engineers who request them.

The XMC was a cute little bird, but between the noise, added cost of production and instability revealed in flight testing (needed at least 18" more length to push the tail back to make it more effective and stable) it was not to be.   Final disposition of the plane is even a bit of a mystery.

Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: Pit on July 21, 2011, 07:19:13 AM
I don't have the production start date of the SkyMaster (push-pull twin), but the XMC looks more like a "chopped" SM. Many of the "modules" appear to be identical.   Might have been an attempt at a lower cost/simpler model of similar configuration

Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: dputt7 on July 21, 2011, 07:22:14 AM
The latest Flying Aces Club mag. has a small 3-view, I cant post it as Ive lent my copy out, but someone out there should have it.
Regards Dave

Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: Zeiss Ikon on July 21, 2011, 07:31:57 AM
I remember when Popular Science published an article on this airplane, including their reporter Bob Gannon getting to fly it (right seat).  First, for scale modeling reference, it never flew with the Cessna style nose wheel pant shown in the first photo; that was airbrushed over an in-flight shot with the cuff style nose gear shown in the last photo (I recall this from the article -- and yes, that was close to forty years ago).  Second, they had ongoing problems throughout the test program with the engine overheating (at that time, there were similar problems with the rear engine in the Skymaster, later resolved with improved cooling air ducts).  As I recall, the XMC wasn't just a chopped Skymaster, though the flying prototype used a Skymaster engine, wing center, and tail section -- the outer wing was shortened and thinned, and the cabin lightened considerably (to improve performance over a 337 flying on only the rear engine); I don't recall reading how they dealt with the massive rearward CG shift they'd get from deleting the front engine, but it looks like they added enough sweep to the outer wing panels to cover that.

As I recall, the reasons given for dropping the test program were that the XCM would have duplicated the 172 in terms of market position (four-place single), didn't perform any better, and would have cost more to produce (despite reusing some 337 components).

Another interesting prototype Cessna built using a Skymaster rear section (this one with unmodified wing) used a Ford Pinto as the passenger cabin.  The idea was that you'd drive to the airport, bolt on the wing (with attached engine and tail section), fly away, and on arrival at the destination back the whole thing into a hangar, unbolt the flight unit, and drive the Pinto around town.  It actually flew fairly well (though it never had the sophistication of Scaramanga's jet powered Javelin from "The Man With the Golden Gun"), but the same problems with engine overheating, along with the mismatch of a Pinto to the market of those who could afford a new airplane, not to mention the sheer mental image of someone screwing up the wing mounting and becoming the proud (if short-term) owner of a free-falling Pinto, combined to kill that project at the one-prototype stage.

Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: Garry on July 21, 2011, 07:36:25 AM
Here is the 3v from the latest FAC News Letter


Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: Zeiss Ikon on July 21, 2011, 07:41:36 AM
Here is the 3v from the latest FAC News Letter


I see a note in the 3-view about "unintelligible dimensions" but I can get a couple of them, and the rest could be scaled from a Skymaster -- the tail unit was identical to a 337 of 1970 vintage.  The overall length looks like 27 feet (possibly with some inches), and propeller diameter is pretty clearly 71 (inches).  There's no span even marked, but that could be scaled from the drawing well enough to build from.

BTW, this might be a model that would call for a 3- or 4-blade propeller, since diameter is limited by the tail booms.

Title: Re: Cessna XMC
Post by: Geek1945 on January 02, 2015, 09:59:55 PM
Propeller pusher aircraft usually have cooling problems in addition to the safety issue of engine mass during a crash. Besides these problems the unique design likely would have been involved in a lawsuit requiring Cessna to reveal many design criteria in court. Adding up all these factors likely doomed the production especially in single general aviation aircraft. Ed