I had that model as a kid! And the Snoopy biplane from the same series. Forgot all about it...[video=youtube;sKw0OlvrYRk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKw0OlvrYRk[/video]
Like LuCrum asked in post 12, you should probably define "impractical". Some airplanes may have a very narrow mission profile like the XF-85 Goblin but they're very practical if you need a fighter to drop out of a B-36. Same with the Wilson Explorer. If you need a "flying living room" it's very practical....but being HBA everything seems to slide deep into the land of fantasy.
Walkway from the horizontal stabilizer up the fuselage to the front seat. Just have to remember to duck under the wing.A Breezy, period. Oh, wait...
I wanted to build mine as a taildragger but I don't think there is any way. You'd need a stepladder to get into the seats.
Wing loading and STOL. I'm pretty sure the F5U would have relied on a lot of power to get it slow and operate off a small carrier deck. Although it would have had more wing than a Bearcat, it would not have been a light floaty airplane. The V-173 surely would have had a much lighter wing loading.why not go with the XF5u just to prove it would work?