lesser known/experimental aircraft

[smg]

okay
amm.......
how do i do that

[ccheese]

And, France's SNECMA c.450-01

Charles

[johnbr]

Arado 440

[MONDARIZ]

Here are a few more:

The Custer Channelwing.

Welcome to the Custer Channelwing Website.



Payen PA-49 (basically everything ever made by Payen)

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by smg

yeap u can carry troops in the wings

The 'pods' held the Rolls-Royce lift jets.

[Flyboy2]

I know this is probably really dumb but... what does the Channelwing do?

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Flyboy2

what does the Channelwing do?

The theory...



One of the pioneers behind the concept was Roberto Bartini, an Italian communist who emigrated to the USSR in 1924 and eventually established a design office.

Robert Ludvigovich Bartini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He proposed surrounding a propeller in a close fitting ring with the lower part broadened into an aerofoil. Tests confirmed the theory which became known as the ‘Bartini Effect’.
He put the concept into a flying boat with two engines in the ‘channel’ with the props only inches apart. At the ‘eleventh’ hour it was agreed that the extra lift gained by this approach was less than the weight and drag of the duct. Eventually it flew with ordinary tandem engines in 1936 as illustrated...




As late as 1990 channel wings were still being investigated, this is the Antonov An-181...



(From Gunston's 'Back to the Drawing Board' and 'Russian Aircraft')

[MONDARIZ]

If you follow the link next to The Custer Channelwing photo, there are plenty information on both Custer and his Channelwing. Including flight test movies.

It was quite a successful little aircraft, but never made it beyond experimentation. It was actually able to fly without the wing stubs, so as the channel produced all the lift.

[Flyboy2]

Alright cool, thanks guys.

[Velius]

I've always liked the X-29. I wonder what happened to them?

[MONDARIZ]

The X-29 flew a successful series of tests and was retired when the project was over.

The X-plane series of test aircraft, were never pre-production aircraft, but specially designed aircraft to test aspects of aviation. Like the Bell X-1, which was designed to break the sound barrier.

Both X-29 aircraft are now on display in the USA.

[kool kitty89]

Some X-planes are preliminary prototypes or technology demonstrators which are to directly link to a production plane. The X-35 and X-32 for example.

[Flyboy2]

Why didn't we ever use the forward swept technology of the X-29?

[MONDARIZ]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Some X-planes are preliminary prototypes or technology demonstrators which are to directly link to a production plane. The X-35 and X-32 for example.

Yes, they have redesignated the X-name lately. Originally they were all technology demonstrators, or research planes (at least the manned vehicles).

The X-35 and the X-32 are not "true" X-planes (as I see it).

Here is a quote from "AMERICAN X-VEHICLES An Inventory—X-1 to X-50":

There has been some criticism that the use of X designations has been corrupted somewhat by including what are essentially prototypes of future operational aircraft, especially the two JSF demonstrators. But this is not new—the X-11 and X-12 from the 1950s were going to be prototypes of the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile, and the still-born Lockheed X-27 was always intended as a prototype of a production aircraft. So although this practice does not represent the best use of “X” designations, it is not without precedent.

[Velius]

For the sake of this thread, what X-plane type are we posting- testbeds/research or pre-production aircraft? I think it would narrow down a lot of aircraft that could be posted here.