• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Planes you'd never heard of

3point14

Pi
3point14
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
23,085
I have an odd an unexplained fascination with military aircraft. I'm not really sure why. I think it's because they tend to be cutting edge and because I'm fascinated with the reasons they haven't really become any faster in the last 50 years or so.

Preamble aside, I simply wasn't aware that this thing (nearly) existed and it's one of the most stunning airplanes I've ever seen.

I give you, the Martin P6M SeaMaster

http://www.aviation-history.com/martin/p6m-8a.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Martin_P6M_Seamaster_in_flight_c1955.jpg

Look at it!!!



If anyone wants to tell me about any others of which I may be unaware, that'd be cool :)
 
I'll try to think of some.

Meanwhile seaplanes are fascinating. For a brief period after the invention of airplanes and before the development of aircraft carriers and long range jets, seaplanes were the perfect tool for the perfect job.

But they're way less efficient than anything that lands on dry ground with wheels, so as soon as carriers came along, seaplanes became almost entirely obsolete. Outside a few very limited applications.
 
3point14 said:
:D Yeah, I thought that. I really don't mind looking at planes I've seen before.




I like that one. As The Prestige says, seaplanes are very cool. It's just a shame they never really found a use.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong: Seaplanes absolutely found a use. They were extremely useful. It's just that the steady march of progress gave them a very small window in history.

Same with high-altitude strategic bombers. We were all set to have whole generations of high-flying, fast-moving bombers. Planes like the XB-70 Valkyrie and beyond, that would apply and build on what we'd learned from planes like the SR-71 and the X-15. Then advances in rocketry, both for anti-air missiles and ballistic missiles, made that whole category of aircraft obsolete.

I would love the XB-70 Valkyrie so much, if it weren't so pragmatically Not What Is Needed.
 
The disappearance of the large seaplane has a significant historical aspect. The 1930s designs, like the Boeing and Martin Clippers, and the Empire Flying Boats were quite useful at connecting the world.

Then WW-II happened. Tens of thousands of long range land planes were built, and thousands of military airfields in almost any spot large enough to fit. When they became available to civilian operators after the war the flying boat was no longer economical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lomiller said:
The Avro Arrow

Just a shade under MACH 2 in level flight and one of the first fly by wire systems before it was cancelled in 1958. Probably one of the first modern looking planes, most of it's supersonic contemporaries were basically missiles with stubby wings.

[qimg]https://vmcdn.ca/f/files/sudbury/images/LocalImages/avroarrowsized.jpg;w=630[/qimg]

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Avro_Arrow_rollout.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Another good plane at the wrong point in history. Dedicated interceptors for going after the next generation of high-speed, high-altitude bombers were obsoleted at the same time as the bombers themselves.

---

One place to possibly find planes you've never heard of is the Wikipedia articles on the planes currently in use on US aircraft carriers. There are F-35s and F/A-18s in the interceptor/fighter/bomber role, and F/A-18Es in the electronic warfare role. If you read those articles, you'll see some familiar faces in the planes they replaced: the F-14, the A-6, and the EA-6. But if you look at the planes *those* replaced, you may start to see stuff you hadn't heard of before. You can trace the lineage of those roles, and the planes that filled them, all the way back to World War 2 and the inception of carrier-based warfare.

It's a fascinating journey through several generations of what was needed versus what was possible. Interceptors that were just supposed to throw a bunch of missiles at a Soviet bomber and then go home. Nuclear bombers that were supposed to lob their payload on a carefully-calculated trajectory that would allow them to escape the worst of the blast (memo to pilot: try not to look back at the explosion while flying away).

Reading through that history is what made me realize that pretty much *all* military aircraft are interim designs - essentially ad hoc intersections of what's needed versus what's possible, at that particular moment in time. All of them are only supposed to fill a capability gap until something better comes along, or until the game changes so much that a different capability is required.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How about the Bristol Tramp, steam powered triplane?
Two were built but never flew.
There were development problems with the flash boilers and shaft drive system

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/bristol_tramp.php
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider designs that never flew. Especially designs from the other side of the materials science divide, where everyone was struggling to build an engine strong enough to contain the necessary power, and light enough to lift itself as well.

I would love to learn about a steam powered triplane, but for my money it would actually have to fly. Mounting a non-performant steam engine between triple-decker wings and never getting the assemblage off the ground doesn't really count as a "plane" in my book.

Mike! said:
It almost sounds too ridiculous to be true. Almost.
Click to expand...

Almost. However, there was a point in history where the aerodynamics of heavier-than-air flight were understood, and could be successfully applied, but it was almost impossible to build engines that could contain the combustion energy and still be light enough to lift themselves off the ground. There were a lot of failed attempts before the right combination of alloys, fuels, and other factors came along to make it real.
 
Last edited:
How about the Christmas Bullet.

Probably the worst aircraft to ever fly?
Designed by Dr. William Whitney Christmas who thought wings didn't need struts or braces as they should be flexible and free to move.
Two were built and both crashed on their first flight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Bullet
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How about the Christmas Bullet.

Probably the worst aircraft to ever fly?
Designed by Dr. William Whitney Christmas who thought wings didn't need struts or braces as they should be flexible and free to move.
Two were built and both crashed on their first flight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Bullet
Click to expand...

That's a tough one. It did fly, up to a point. I guess I'd put it provisionally at the lower boundary of what constitutes an actual "airplane".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom