Planes you'd never heard of

BillC said:
This strikes me as well with ASW aircraft. After searching with airborne radar or magnetic anomaly sensors, a seaplane would be able to then land on the water and conduct a sonar search. (Or vice-versa.)
Click to expand...

They drop a sonar buey. Why would they need to land?
What would they do with a contact if they were on the surface?
ASW helicopt have a 'dipping' sonar they lower in to the water without landing.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It depends how you define 'the time' the Gloster Meteor served for decades with air forces around rthe globe. The RAF retired it's last few working as target tugs in the 80's.
Martin Baker still operate two as test aircraft.

It's engine theRolls-Royce Derwent was used in all kinds of applications for many decades.

It can't be compared with the contemporary German Jumo that needed a rebuild every 8 or so hours.
Click to expand...

The time is during WW2, of course. Its contemporary German turbojets, while vastly more efficient, had serious reliability problems. The ME626 had a time between overhauls of 50 hours, at least in the beginning.

Progress was quick and by the time of the Meteor (which barely saw active service before the war ended), it was an entirely different matter.

... Although I expect any still in service have probably been through several sets of engines, with improvements.

My point was that a piston powered duct fan with afterburner could be built with wartime standard materials, and if correctly constructed could have an edge over contemporary prop fighters.

As it were ... well I read somewhere that Il Duce was quite pleased to be able to say he now had a jet in his inventory, and when you have to serve under a dangerous despot, that would be an advantage in itself.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
A matter of definition, of course, but I think Pope130 termed it accurately: A ducted fan with an afterburner.

More competent design might have rendered it a usable concept, but the
(high) weight/power ratio and (low) efficiency of the piston engine would always leave it mediocre at best.

OTOH, it could be built with the technology of the time. This was only marginally true of real jets.

Hans
Click to expand...
Almost exactly the opposite of the turbo-compound engine, which used exhaust gas from a piston engine to drive a turbine to drive a propeller. In it's ultimate form, I think there was no mechanical connection from the crankshaft to the prop, it was just a gas generator.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Add the Wight Quadruplane to this one.
Another similar quad winged aircraft with a similar lack of success.

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

Or the much bigger Pemberton-Billing Nighthawk. A twin engined quad with a 37mm cannon and searchlight.

It had an endurance of 18 hours and was supposed to be able to wait all night for a Zeppelin to arrive and then shoot it down.
Unfortunately it only made about 60 mph and took over an hour to reach 10,000 feet.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Nighthawk
Click to expand...

An hour?!? Wow! My understanding is also that Zeppelins proved at first to be unexpectedly resistant to attack once the fighters reached them. Large but very diffuse targets with relatively few crucial parts to shoot at. It took experimentation until fighter attacks became effective - I think shooting an entire load of incendiaries at a single gas bag was found to be the best approach. But once this was discovered it first drove the development of high altitude airships, then eventually convinced Germany to completely abandon Zeppelin attacks on London.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
An interesting concept was the General Aircraft Fleet Shadower.

Designed in the 30s as an early 'stealth' aircraft. It was very quiet and had a very long endurance. It could shadow enemy warships at night out of hearing and sight. It had a stall speed of only 39 knots.

It was superseded by radar and never saw widespread service going in to service in 1940 and being retired in 41.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aircraft_Fleet_Shadower
Click to expand...

Reminds me in general concept of the Lockhead YO-3 used in the Vietnam War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YO-3
A very quiet/high endurance plane designed to shadow enemy troops (at night) without being detected. Pretty much a prop-assisted glider.
 
Last edited:
Has the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech been brought up yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H_Thunderscreech

Two counter-rotating forward props on concentric turbo-driven shafts. Apparently fast but also the loudest airplane ever made. The tips of the props were supersonic at operating speeds so the plane emitted constant sonic boom shock waves even when on ground that could incapacitate unprotected personnel, disrupt operations throughout an airport and were heard up to 25 miles away.
 
I suspect most of you have heard of the B-58 Hustler but I will mention it in this thread because the Vulcan has already been brought up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler

A supersonic nuclear bomber and IMO one of the sexiest most beautiful airplanes ever built (ignoring its grim mission). Relatively quickly made obsolete by events, but for me as a young boy this was exactly what a jet plane should look like!
 
Giordano said:
Has the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech been brought up yet?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H_Thunderscreech

Two counter-rotating forward props on concentric turbo-driven shafts. Apparently fast but also the loudest airplane ever made. The tips of the props were supersonic at operating speeds so the plane emitted constant sonic boom shock waves even when on ground that could incapacitate unprotected personnel, disrupt operations throughout an airport and were heard up to 25 miles away.
Click to expand...

I kind of assume that the XF-84 is one of those "Things That Nobody Has Heard Of" That Everybody Has Heard Of.

Like somebody who doesn't really care about airplanes has probably never heard of it, but they don't care, so what's the point? Meanwhile everyone who does care about airplanes has heard about that crazy brown note airplane.
 
I think you meant to say Vulcan and Victor.

I remember walking along the Crinan Canal as a teenager and experiencing the Vulcans practicing low-level runs. They were monsterous beasts, fantastic aircraft.
 
It has been said about sailboats that if they look "great" (sleek and sexy) they usually sail great (with only a few exceptions). I suspect the same applies to airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Burnelli

The Burnelli lifting fuselage aircraft of the late 1930s. Very efficient design, it was a step on the way to modern lifting body, flying wing and spanloader technologies. Had WW-2 not intervened, with it's high demand for proven designs, the Burnelli concept might have succeeded.
 

Attachments

  • cby3.jpg
    cby3.jpg
    46.7 KB · Views: 4
Mikemcc said:
I think you meant to say Vulcan and Victor.

I remember walking along the Crinan Canal as a teenager and experiencing the Vulcans practicing low-level runs. They were monsterous beasts, fantastic aircraft.
Click to expand...

Yes Victor of course.

I don't see the fuss about the Vulcan, It's a boring triangle, the Victor is the sexy one, those swooping crescent wings and scifi front end.
 
To me the Victor looks like it was designed by someone who learned everything they knew about jet bombers from the Bell X-1. Advanced, but somehow also primitive. And those intakes just look saggy.

For me, the peak bomber aesthetic is probably the B-1B.

But I'm also fond of the F-117 (which is a bomber despite its nomenclature). Its form is pure "interim", but also an absolute dedication to singular function: Lowest possible radar cross section. Only the most meager concession is made to the aerodynamic requirements of flight. Low RCS is everything.
 
theprestige said:
But I'm also fond of the F-117 (which is a bomber despite its nomenclature). Its form is pure "interim", but also an absolute dedication to singular function: Lowest possible radar cross section. Only the most meager concession is made to the aerodynamic requirements of flight. Low RCS is everything.
Click to expand...

For a proper designation, I'd say it should have had an "A" (Attack), rather than a "B" (Bomber). But it certainly isn't an "F".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom