Planes you'd never heard of

I've a vague recollection of driving through Seattle many years ago and seeing a Sea Dart being hoisted over a fence to the Museum of Flight, then in development and not open yet. It probably wasn't.
 
smartcooky said:
Anyone know what this one is?

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/4qdfa43hrorq1kl/2019-06-01%2016.00.28.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]


I caught a glimpse of this on a History Channel programme about the Battle of Britain. I don't recall seeing anything looking like this in that battle.
Click to expand...

Any chance of uploading the image to ISF? For complicated reasons completely unconnected with goofing off at work I can't view Dropbox links.

Dave
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Don't forget the Shackleton, some of those had contra rotating props but like the Gannet they are turboprop, not piston engines.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the Avro Shackleton was the end of the design line that started with the Avro Manchester, then the Lancaster, then the Lincoln.

manches.jpg

images

A73_32.jpg

Avro_Shackleton_MR3_in_flight_c1955.jpg
 
Last edited:
Most of the British WW2 bombers I've seen tend to be boxy (and I know the American B-24 was too). Even had boxy noses and windscreens. Isn't this the opposite of streamlining and didn't it take away from speed and range? What was the main advantage? Ease of construction? I though perhaps it enhanced interior space but I believe a cylinder has the max internal volume per surface area (being a pulled out sphere).

They certainly were successful.
 
Giordano said:
Most of the British WW2 bombers I've seen tend to be boxy (and I know the American B-24 was too). Even had boxy noses and windscreens. Isn't this the opposite of streamlining and didn't it take away from speed and range? What was the main advantage? Ease of construction? I though perhaps it enhanced interior space but I believe a cylinder has the max internal volume per surface area (being a pulled out sphere).

They certainly were successful.
Click to expand...

It allows a bigger bomb bay and proper nose and tail turrets.

Lancaster
Max speed 282 mph at 13,000 ft
Cruise speed: 200 mph Range: 2,530 mi
Bomb load 14,000 lb or a single 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay


Flying Fortress
Max speed 287 mph at 13,000 ft
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Range: 2,000 mi with 6,000 lb
Bomb load 8,000 lb or 4,500 on a long range mission
 
Giordano said:
Most of the British WW2 bombers I've seen tend to be boxy (and I know the American B-24 was too). Even had boxy noses and windscreens. Isn't this the opposite of streamlining and didn't it take away from speed and range? What was the main advantage? Ease of construction? I though perhaps it enhanced interior space but I believe a cylinder has the max internal volume per surface area (being a pulled out sphere).

They certainly were successful.
Click to expand...

There's volume, and there's usable volume. The two are often different.
 
MRC_Hans said:
OK, here is one. While it says "Danish Experimental" on this one, the general type was built in several places. The idea was the common man's aircraft. A single seater with an engine of about 30hp, it was not aimed for the higher parts of the sky. It was meant to be easy to fly, having only three controls:

- Rudder
- The angle of the main wing
- Throttle

They could fly, but as already the Brothers Wright found out, you really cannot do without ailerons: There are simply too many situations you cannot get yourself out of, and indeed several of these things crashed. Now they sit in museums here and there.

Hans
Click to expand...

I saw something similar to this on the Smithsonian channel , It was a home built with a snowmobile engine
 
As I recall, the tall narrow front profile of the Halifax allowed a full-sized front turret, but it was only when that was deleted in favour of a simpler perspex nose and the aerodynamics cleaned up that the Halifax gained the speed and ceiling to operate with the other 4-engined bombers.
 
Norman Alexander said:
See if you can tell why this was a rare kite: Avro Lancaster B.II.

[qimg]https://cdn-live.warthunder.com/uploads/10/47fea43ad550151eba7d6140a459ba806420fe_mq/92ba616fa6a7d678b10f366b6460fc88.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Hercules radial engines. There was a huge demand for Merlins, and especially before Packard started building them in the US on license, they were in short supply. So they made a version with the radials. Incidentally, that version performed nicely.

Hans
 
COLONEL said:
I saw something similar to this on the Smithsonian channel , It was a home built with a snowmobile engine
Click to expand...

Some used the Citroèn 2CV engine (two cylinder boxer, aircooled, about 500cc, in a car it yielded about 18 hp, but without muffler and cooling fan, I suppose it could have made 25).

Drove several of the cars in my time.

Hans
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It allows a bigger bomb bay and proper nose and tail turrets.

Lancaster
Max speed 282 mph at 13,000 ft
Cruise speed: 200 mph Range: 2,530 mi
Bomb load 14,000 lb or a single 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay


Flying Fortress
Max speed 287 mph at 13,000 ft
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Range: 2,000 mi with 6,000 lb
Bomb load 8,000 lb or 4,500 on a long range mission
Click to expand...

One reason for the seemingly inferior performance of the B17 was its far heavier defensive armament, up to 13 cal 50 machine-guns. The Lanc had far less and relied on operating at night.

Hans
 
Giordano said:
Most of the British WW2 bombers I've seen tend to be boxy (and I know the American B-24 was too). Even had boxy noses and windscreens. Isn't this the opposite of streamlining and didn't it take away from speed and range? What was the main advantage? Ease of construction? I though perhaps it enhanced interior space but I believe a cylinder has the max internal volume per surface area (being a pulled out sphere).

They certainly were successful.
Click to expand...
The design aims were simple: Maximise bomb load and range per aircraft. Speed and altitude were not major factors. Tonnage delivered was the goal. So they were very basic freighters.

The Lanc was essentially a flying bomb-bay with fuel-tanks for wings. The bomb bay was designed to easily carry a variety of ordnance without needing modification: Mines, napalm, small, medium and large standard design bombs, the various sizes of HC bombs (finless, basically big round canisters), Tallboys and 10-ton Grand Slams (these did require some major aircraft modifications). Even torpedoes could be carried although I don't think they ever were.

It was not until the much bigger US B-29 went into action that the US had an equivalent bomber. It was bigger, faster and flew higher for a longer range - a very new and modern breed of aircraft. But it still had a slightly less maximum carrying capacity than the Lanc.

Factoid: a Lancaster was initially considered for the atomic raids on Japan as it could definitely lift that size bomb. But it did not have the range or altitude ability needed to get there and survive the blast. It would have been a one-way suicide mission.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
One reason for the seemingly inferior performance of the B17 was its far heavier defensive armament, up to 13 cal 50 machine-guns. The Lanc had far less and relied on operating at night.

Hans
Click to expand...

Plus the tiny bomb bay and narrow fuselage.
 
That's definitely a Fulmar; the section of fuselage skin between the front and rear cockpits means it's not a Battle or the P4/34, that's a Merlin not a Griffon so it isn't a Firefly, and the chin radiator is pretty distinctive too.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
That's definitely a Fulmar; the section of fuselage skin between the front and rear cockpits means it's not a Battle or the P4/34, that's a Merlin not a Griffon so it isn't a Firefly, and the chin radiator is pretty distinctive too.

Dave
Click to expand...

I agree on the Fulmar, but I'm curious: How can you discern a Merlin from a Griffon on such a fuzzy shot? I know the Griffon is larger, still ...

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
I agree on the Fulmar, but I'm curious: How can you discern a Merlin from a Griffon on such a fuzzy shot? I know the Griffon is larger, still ...
Click to expand...

Well, really I suppose it's the difference between the nose shapes of the Firefly and the Fulmar really, but the underside of Griffon installations tends to be a lot less sharply curved than a Merlin, as well as it being noticeably longer.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom