Planes you'd never heard of

Delvo said:
Some fun oddballs for anybody who likes fighters with delta wings & canards...

An F-15 with canards:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUCZPzzUMAAWgiG.jpg

(Notice it also had flat horizontal paddles for its engine nozzles, like F-22's thrust vectoring system. This thing actually had those nozzles and more conventional-looking round nozzles at two different times, for experiments on two different thrust vectoring systems together with the canards.)

An F-4 with canards:
https://i.redd.it/gepjojlmz8p11.jpg

Weird how they just stuck canards on planes that already had tail fins but didn't build one with only the canards and no tail fins, which ended up as the standard way to do canards

A delta-winged F-16:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/51/7b/9d/517b9d4f0d3970e125218093be976d15.jpg

Another delta-winged F-16:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/51/7b/9d/517b9d4f0d3970e125218093be976d15.jpg

(Although this angle doesn't show it well, this one was made with its left wing slightly longer than its right wing, the same in the back & middle of the wings but extended farther forward at the front, to collect experimental data on both versions.)
Click to expand...
both links the same f16
 
jeremyp said:
According to most online sources, 35,000 feet against 20,000 feet
Click to expand...

Really? That would be very impressive for a piston-engined plane, and difficult to manage without a pressurized cabin. It would aso put it out of reach of all but rhe largest aaa guns. ... And most fighters.

I will have to check ....

Hans
 
B-17 service ceiling was 36,000 ft. B-29 was only 32,000 ft


Fighters like the Me109 (40,000 ft) and Fw190 (37,000) could reach them easily.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Although I recall there was a version that used two auxiliary jet engines installed in the rear of the outer engine nacelles (one in each) to assist during take-off.
Click to expand...

The Mk3 with tricycle undercarriage.
It was heavier than the previous versions with improved crew rest area and soundproofing among other things.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Really? That would be very impressive for a piston-engined plane, and difficult to manage without a pressurized cabin. It would aso put it out of reach of all but rhe largest aaa guns. ... And most fighters.

I will have to check ....

Hans
Click to expand...

You don't need a pressurised cockpit or cabin when you are using oxygen masks.
You do need electrically heated pants though.

First operational use in Europe was by the RAF in a raid on Wilhelmshaven, they bombed from 30,000 ft.
 
Last edited:
I have heard and read people disparaging the Lancaster as compared with the B-17 due to the former's comparatively low operational ceiling, but its important keep in mind that these two aircraft were designed for (and carried out) different roles.

The B-17 was designed fly at a high altitude and to indiscriminately shower their targets crap-loads of bombs. It carried out that role very well, but during WWII at least, that is pretty much all it ever did.

However, the Lancaster was designed as a medium to low altitude precision bomber, to strike difficult to hit targets both in daylight and at night. It was used in the precision raid on Peenemunde (Rocket Island), the German experimental weapons facility which produced the V1 and V2. It was also very versatile; modified to carry Barnes-Wallace's "bouncing bombs" in the famous Dambusters raid on the Ruhr Valley dams, a mission that required it to carry out its bombing runs at 60ft!!!

The Lancaster's long, single bomb bay was also ideal for carrying the giant "earthquake bombs" Tallboy and Grand Slam. They used the former to good effect when they sunk the German Battleship Tirpitz in 1944. Yet when called upon, it was still able to do a similar role to the B-17 when it took part in the strategic bombing offensive, such as the massed attacks on Hamburg in 1943 and Dresden in 1945

The Lancaster was RAF's premier strike aircraft from 1942-45.
 
Delvo said:
Some fun oddballs for anybody who likes fighters with delta wings & canards...

An F-15 with canards:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUCZPzzUMAAWgiG.jpg

(Notice it also had flat horizontal paddles for its engine nozzles, like F-22's thrust vectoring system. This thing actually had those nozzles and more conventional-looking round nozzles at two different times, for experiments on two different thrust vectoring systems together with the canards.)

An F-4 with canards:
https://i.redd.it/gepjojlmz8p11.jpg

Weird how they just stuck canards on planes that already had tail fins but didn't build one with only the canards and no tail fins, which ended up as the standard way to do canards

A delta-winged F-16:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/51/7b/9d/517b9d4f0d3970e125218093be976d15.jpg

Another delta-winged F-16:
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/e7/ca/a6/e7caa636647ddc0e6cf1a5763ba59244.jpg

(Although this angle doesn't show it well, this one was made with its left wing slightly longer than its right wing, the same in the back & middle of the wings but extended farther forward at the front, to collect experimental data on both versions.)
Click to expand...

https://i.pinimg.com/474x/e7/ca/a6/e7caa636647ddc0e6cf1a5763ba59244.jpg
 
The X-37B is one of my favorite research planes. It's a spaceplane, it's automated, and its core capability is something truly new and useful.

I think the ability to expose satellite components to space conditions for extended periods, and then bring them back for study, is a game changer. It's significant that the USAF has invested in this program. It's significant that nobody else is getting this kind of data yet.
 
smartcooky said:
I have heard and read people disparaging the Lancaster as compared with the B-17 due to the former's comparatively low operational ceiling, but its important keep in mind that these two aircraft were designed for (and carried out) different roles.

The B-17 was designed fly at a high altitude and to indiscriminately shower their targets crap-loads of bombs. It carried out that role very well, but during WWII at least, that is pretty much all it ever did.

However, the Lancaster was designed as a medium to low altitude precision bomber, to strike difficult to hit targets both in daylight and at night. It was used in the precision raid on Peenemunde (Rocket Island), the German experimental weapons facility which produced the V1 and V2. It was also very versatile; modified to carry Barnes-Wallace's "bouncing bombs" in the famous Dambusters raid on the Ruhr Valley dams, a mission that required it to carry out its bombing runs at 60ft!!!

The Lancaster's long, single bomb bay was also ideal for carrying the giant "earthquake bombs" Tallboy and Grand Slam. They used the former to good effect when they sunk the German Battleship Tirpitz in 1944. Yet when called upon, it was still able to do a similar role to the B-17 when it took part in the strategic bombing offensive, such as the massed attacks on Hamburg in 1943 and Dresden in 1945

The Lancaster was RAF's premier strike aircraft from 1942-45.
Click to expand...

I have done some research (as in looked up the stats in my library of plane books). The long-nose FW190 could do 35000ft, and so could the B17. The BF 109, not. However there is a long way from some service ceiling and what could be achieved with a heavy load under various weather conditions. A fighter at its max altitude is not at its best performance, and intercepting and fighting bombers is not necessarily an option there.

An obvious fact is that if the B17 could have sailed in over Germany at 35000 ft, little of the flak and few of the fighters could have challenged it. And that was not exactly what happened.

Hans
 
Pescara No. 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescara_Model_3_Helicopter

...The model three was the first example to use control mechanisms as modern helicopters. The helicopter is based around a central shaft with counter-rotating rotors. Each rotor was doubled into a biplane arrangement with cable supports.[3] It used a cyclic stick for forward and lateral control with rotor warping, and wheel for yaw anti-torque control.[4] The main rotor shaft was able to tilt slightly for forward control.[5] The rotors were also capable of autorotation in case of engine failure.[6]
Click to expand...

This is the No. 2 (I think)



It's good that he was able to keep his hat on and I think the roll cage was also a good safety feature.
 
smartcooky said:
The U2 got a major electronics upgrade in 2012.

Here's the U2 spotters guide to some of it many configurations

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/a-spotters-guide-to-the-u-2-dragon-lady-and-its-many-1539282603

Only two aircraft that I know of are older than the U2 (Aug 1955) and still in current US military service, the C-130 (Aug 1954) and the B-52 (Feb 1955).
Click to expand...

Since you mention the 130, the Spectre incarnation is such a piece of OMFG material.

Have a doco about it's development. It is awesome. Yet little known for some reason.

Part 1 of 3
https://www.military.com/video/airc...craft/the-history-of-the-ac-130/1017289907001
 
MRC_Hans said:
Really? That would be very impressive for a piston-engined plane,
Click to expand...
Not really.

Sptifire Vb: 36,000 feet
Sptifire IX: 40,000 feet
Bf109G: 39,000 feet
Mosquito B XVI: 37,000 feet
B24 J: 28,000 feet
B29: 31,000 feet
FW190: 37,000 feet

and difficult to manage without a pressurized cabin. It would aso put it out of reach of all but rhe largest aaa guns. ... And most fighters.
Click to expand...
Not most German single seater day fighters. Had they operated at night, it's fair to say they would have been close to untouchable at that altitude, much like the Mosquito, although the Mosquito also had the advantage of being considerably faster than German night fighters.
 
smartcooky said:
I have heard and read people disparaging the Lancaster as compared with the B-17 due to the former's comparatively low operational ceiling, but its important keep in mind that these two aircraft were designed for (and carried out) different roles.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Both aircraft are long range strategic bombers. They were both designed for the same role.

The B-17 was designed fly at a high altitude and to indiscriminately shower their targets crap-loads of bombs. It carried out that role very well, but during WWII at least, that is pretty much all it ever did.
Click to expand...
Nope. The B17 was certainly designed for high altitude attacks but it was thought that the Norden bombsight would allow them to carry out such attacks with a certain amount of precision. As with many military plans, contact with reality put paid to that idea.

However, the Lancaster was designed as a medium to low altitude precision bomber, to strike difficult to hit targets both in daylight and at night. It was used in the precision raid on Peenemunde (Rocket Island), the German experimental weapons facility which produced the V1 and V2. It was also very versatile; modified to carry Barnes-Wallace's "bouncing bombs" in the famous Dambusters raid on the Ruhr Valley dams, a mission that required it to carry out its bombing runs at 60ft!!!
Click to expand...
It wasn't designed for those raids you mentioned, it was modified for them, and then only the best crews were ever used in those raids.

The Lancaster was always designed as a strategic bomber i.e. an aircraft capable of delivering a large bomb load to targets inside enemy territory. When used in daylight, it proved to be too vulnerable as did the early B17s. The USAAC tried to solve the problem by putting loads of guns on the bomber and the RAF tried to solve the problem by flying at night. The former strategy was a failure because you could never put enough guns on a bomber and keep a reasonable bomb load. The latter strategy was a failure because the crews could not find the target. However, in both cases, technology eventually turned things around, to the detriment of the German people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom