vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Nice!
Frustated Projects
- Thread starter gekho
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #82
It is perhaps surprising at first sight that, having been the second nation to fly an air-breathing jet-propelled aeroplane, Italy did not feature among the leading nations in this field of technology. But in truth the Caproni-Campini N.1 was no more than an ingenious freak which employed a conventional piston engine to drive a variable-pitch ducted-fan compressor with rudimentary afterburning. As such it did nothing to further gas turbine research, and was to all intents and purposes a technical dead-end. The engineer Secondo Campini had created a company in 1931 to pursue research into reaction propulsion and in 1939 persuaded Caproni to build an aircraft to accommodate the fruits of this work, namely the adaptation of an Isotta- Fraschini radial engine driving a ducted-fan compressor; the compressed air was exhausted through a variable-area nozzle in the aircraft's extreme tail, and additional fuel could be ignited in the tailpipe to increase thrust. The two-seat low-wing N.1 (sometimes referred to as the CC.2) was first flown at Taliedo on 28 August 1940 by Mario de Bernadi. A number of set-piece demonstration flights was undertaken, including one of 270km from Taliedo to Gindoma at an average speed of 209km/h, but it was clear from the outset that use of a three-stage fan compressor driven by a piston engine would limit further development, and the experiment was abandoned early in 1942 when Italy was faced with sterner priorities. The N.1 survives today in the Museo della Scienza Technica at Milan as a monument to ingenuity if not sophisticated technology.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #83
During the course of 1937, the Service Technique de l'Aeronautique (STA) prepared a requirement for a T3 (Triplace de Travail) aircraft, a light three-seat twin intended to perform a variety of roles ranging from tactical reconnaissance and army co-operation to light-bombing and crew training. In the same time, due to the nationalization of the French aviation industry, Dewoitine had been amalgamated into the SNCAM (Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du Midi).
To meet the STA requirement, the SNCAM began the design of the D.700 T3 in January 1938 and first metal was cut in May 1938, but shortly thereafter the STA altered the requirement stipulating the observer to be housed in the nose of the aircraft rather than in proposed ventral gondola. The aircraft was redesigned and the powerplants were switched from the intended two 220 hp Renault 6Q six-cylinder air-cooled inverted in-line engines to two 500 hp Renault 12R 00/01 twelve-cylinder air-cooled inverted V-engines, and the aircraft was redesignated D.720 T3. Immediately aft of the co-pilot's seat was a mounting for an oblique F30 of F50 or ventral F70 camera. Alternatively, a Type F and two Type J racks for a total of twenty 22 lb (10 kg) bombs could be installed in this position. A single fixed forward-firing 0.3 in (7.5 mm) MAC 34 machinegun was to be installed for the pilot, while the radio-operator/gunner was to have two of these machineguns in a manually operated SAMMA B33 dorsal turret, and a single-one on a flexible mounting firing through a hatch in the floor. The pictures prototype was first flown at Toulouse-Francazals by Marcel Doret on July 10, 1939, and after the completion of the manufacturer's flight test program, the aircraft was flown to the Centre d'Essais du Matériel Aérien (CEMA) at Orléans-Bricy on September 25, 1939, but by this time deliveries of the Potez 630 variants had begun to the Armée de l'Air, and as the crew training variant of this, the Potez 63.16 T3, was nearing completion, further development of the D.720 T3 seemed pointless, and the project was abandoned.
To meet the STA requirement, the SNCAM began the design of the D.700 T3 in January 1938 and first metal was cut in May 1938, but shortly thereafter the STA altered the requirement stipulating the observer to be housed in the nose of the aircraft rather than in proposed ventral gondola. The aircraft was redesigned and the powerplants were switched from the intended two 220 hp Renault 6Q six-cylinder air-cooled inverted in-line engines to two 500 hp Renault 12R 00/01 twelve-cylinder air-cooled inverted V-engines, and the aircraft was redesignated D.720 T3. Immediately aft of the co-pilot's seat was a mounting for an oblique F30 of F50 or ventral F70 camera. Alternatively, a Type F and two Type J racks for a total of twenty 22 lb (10 kg) bombs could be installed in this position. A single fixed forward-firing 0.3 in (7.5 mm) MAC 34 machinegun was to be installed for the pilot, while the radio-operator/gunner was to have two of these machineguns in a manually operated SAMMA B33 dorsal turret, and a single-one on a flexible mounting firing through a hatch in the floor. The pictures prototype was first flown at Toulouse-Francazals by Marcel Doret on July 10, 1939, and after the completion of the manufacturer's flight test program, the aircraft was flown to the Centre d'Essais du Matériel Aérien (CEMA) at Orléans-Bricy on September 25, 1939, but by this time deliveries of the Potez 630 variants had begun to the Armée de l'Air, and as the crew training variant of this, the Potez 63.16 T3, was nearing completion, further development of the D.720 T3 seemed pointless, and the project was abandoned.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #84
One of the strangest Luftwaffe aircraft to ever claw it's way into the air was the Junkers Ju 287. Begun in early 1943, the Ju 287 incorporated many advanced aerodynamic concepts, the most striking being the swept forward wings. This design feature was deemed radical enough to warrent the construction of a testbed aircraft, pictured above. This testbed flew on August 16, 1944. The aircraft was a Frankenstien's monster, pieced together from several diffent aircraft. Included were the nosewheels from two B-24 Liberators, the fuselage of an He 177, mainwheels off a Ju 352, and the tail was constructed of Ju 388 parts. 17 test flights proved the concept to have excellent handling characteristics and would have proven a problem had not the allies overrun the testing airfield, capturing the the V1 and the nearly complete V2. The V2 was flown by the Soviet Union in 1947. The V3 failed to get off the drawing board and would have had several improvements.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #85
The Nakajima G5N Shinzan originated due to the Imperial Japanese Navy's interest in developing a long-range attack bomber capable of carrying heavy loads of bombs or torpedoes a minimum distance of 3,000 nmi (5,600 km; 3,500 mi). To meet this requirement, it became apparent a four-engine lay-out would be necessary. As Japanese aircraft manufacturers lacked experience in building such large complex aircraft, the Navy was forced to search for a suitable existing foreign-made model upon which to base the new design. It settled on the American Douglas DC-4E airliner. In 1939 the sole prototype of this airliner (previously rejected by American airline companies) was purchased by Nippon Koku K.K. (Japan Airlines Co) and clandestinely handed over to the Nakajima Aircraft Company for dismantling and inspection.
The design that emerged from this study was for an all-metal mid-wing monoplane with fabric-covered control surfaces and powered by four 1,870hp Nakajima NK7A Mamoru 11 air-cooled radial engines driving four-bladed propellers. Notable features included a long ventral bomb-bay, glazed nose and twin tailfins replacing the DC-4E's distinctive triple rudder. The DC-4E's retractable tricycle undercarriage was retained, as well as the original wing form and powerplant arrangement. Defensive armament comprised one 20mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon each in a power-operated dorsal and tail turret plus single-mount hand-operated 7.7mm Type 97 machine guns in the nose, ventral and beam positions.
The first prototype G5N1 made its maiden flight on 10 April 1941. Overall performance proved disappointingly poor however, due to a combination of excessive weight, the unreliablity of the Mamoru engines and the complexity of the design. Only three more prototypes were completed. In an attempt to salvage the project, two additional airframes were fitted with 1,530hp Mitsubishi MK4B 12 "Kasei" engines and redesignated G5N2s. Although the Mitsubishi engines were more reliable than the original Mamoru 11s, the aircraft was now even more hopelessly underpowered and further development of the type was halted.
The design that emerged from this study was for an all-metal mid-wing monoplane with fabric-covered control surfaces and powered by four 1,870hp Nakajima NK7A Mamoru 11 air-cooled radial engines driving four-bladed propellers. Notable features included a long ventral bomb-bay, glazed nose and twin tailfins replacing the DC-4E's distinctive triple rudder. The DC-4E's retractable tricycle undercarriage was retained, as well as the original wing form and powerplant arrangement. Defensive armament comprised one 20mm Type 99 Model 1 cannon each in a power-operated dorsal and tail turret plus single-mount hand-operated 7.7mm Type 97 machine guns in the nose, ventral and beam positions.
The first prototype G5N1 made its maiden flight on 10 April 1941. Overall performance proved disappointingly poor however, due to a combination of excessive weight, the unreliablity of the Mamoru engines and the complexity of the design. Only three more prototypes were completed. In an attempt to salvage the project, two additional airframes were fitted with 1,530hp Mitsubishi MK4B 12 "Kasei" engines and redesignated G5N2s. Although the Mitsubishi engines were more reliable than the original Mamoru 11s, the aircraft was now even more hopelessly underpowered and further development of the type was halted.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #86
Fundamentally a redesigned and improved Type 151 Jockey and, indeed, initially known as the Jockey II, the Type 279, for which Vickers adopted the name Venom, was intended to meet the requirements of Specification F.5/34. Powered by a 625hp Bristol Aquila AE.3S nine-cylinder sleeve-valve radial engine enclosed by a long-chord NACA cowling, the Venom was a highly sophisticated aircraft, with a metal monocoque fuselage, its stressed skin being affixed by countersunk rivets. It was unique at the time it entered flight test, on 17 June 1936, in having 90°-deflection flaps. The Venom retained the sideways-hinging engine feature of the Type 151, and a battery of eight 7.7mm machine guns was mounted in the wings from the start of test flying. The Venom proved exceptionally manoeuvrable, with outstanding roll rate and turning radius, but it lacked the power to compete seriously with its Rolls-Royce liquid-cooled Vee-type-engined contemporaries, and, as no sufficiently compact British air-cooled radial of adequate power was available for installation, it was scrapped in 1939.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #87
Vultee had submitted a proposal in response to a U.S. Army Air Corps request for an unusual configuration. The Vultee design won the competition, beating the Curtiss XP-55 Ascender and the Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet. Vultee designated it Model 84, a descendant of their earlier Model 78. After completing preliminary engineering and wind tunnel tests, a contract for a prototype was awarded on 8 January 1941. A second prototype was ordered on 17 March 1942. Although it appeared to be a radical design, its actual performance was lackluster and the project was subsequently canceled.
The XP-54 was designed with a pusher engine in the aft part of the fuselage. The tail was mounted rearward between two mid-wing booms, with the 12-ft propeller between them. The design included a "ducted wing section" developed by the NACA that enabled installation of cooling radiators and intercoolers in the inverted gull wing. The Pratt Whitney X-1800 engine was initially proposed as the powerplant but after its development was discontinued, the liquid-cooled Lycoming XH-2470 was substituted. In September 1941, the XP-54 mission was changed from low altitude to high altitude interception. Consequently, a turbo-supercharger and heavier armor had to be added, and the estimated empty weight increased from 11,500 to 18,000 lb (5,200 to 8,200 kg).
The XP-54 was unique in numerous ways. The pressurized cockpit required a complex entry system: the pilot's seat acted as an elevator for cockpit access from the ground. The pilot lowered the seat electrically, sat in it, and raised it into the cockpit. Bail-out procedure was complicated by the pressurization system and necessitated a downward ejection of the pilot and seat in order to clear the propeller arc. Also, the nose section could pivot through the vertical, three degrees up and six degrees down. In the nose, two 37 mm T-9 cannon were in rigid mounts while two .50 cal machine guns were in movable mounts. Movement of the nose and machine guns was controlled by a special compensating gun sight. Thus, the cannon trajectory could be elevated without altering the flight attitude of the airplane. The large nose section gave rise to its whimsical nickname, the Swoose Goose, inspired by a song about Alexander who was half swan and half goose: "Alexander was a swoose."
Flight tests of the first prototype, 41-1210, began on 15 January 1943. Initial trials showed performance substantially below guarantees. At the same time, development of the XH-2470 engine was discontinued and, although it appeared possible to substitute the Allison V-3420 engine without substantial airframe changes, the projected delay and costs resulted in a decision not to consider production buys. The prototypes continued to be used in an experimental program until problems with the Lycoming engines and lack of spare parts caused termination. The second prototype, 42-108994 (but mistakenly painted as 42-1211) equipped with an experimental GE supercharger, only made one flight before it was relegated to a "parts plane" in order to keep the first prototype in the air.
The XP-54 was designed with a pusher engine in the aft part of the fuselage. The tail was mounted rearward between two mid-wing booms, with the 12-ft propeller between them. The design included a "ducted wing section" developed by the NACA that enabled installation of cooling radiators and intercoolers in the inverted gull wing. The Pratt Whitney X-1800 engine was initially proposed as the powerplant but after its development was discontinued, the liquid-cooled Lycoming XH-2470 was substituted. In September 1941, the XP-54 mission was changed from low altitude to high altitude interception. Consequently, a turbo-supercharger and heavier armor had to be added, and the estimated empty weight increased from 11,500 to 18,000 lb (5,200 to 8,200 kg).
The XP-54 was unique in numerous ways. The pressurized cockpit required a complex entry system: the pilot's seat acted as an elevator for cockpit access from the ground. The pilot lowered the seat electrically, sat in it, and raised it into the cockpit. Bail-out procedure was complicated by the pressurization system and necessitated a downward ejection of the pilot and seat in order to clear the propeller arc. Also, the nose section could pivot through the vertical, three degrees up and six degrees down. In the nose, two 37 mm T-9 cannon were in rigid mounts while two .50 cal machine guns were in movable mounts. Movement of the nose and machine guns was controlled by a special compensating gun sight. Thus, the cannon trajectory could be elevated without altering the flight attitude of the airplane. The large nose section gave rise to its whimsical nickname, the Swoose Goose, inspired by a song about Alexander who was half swan and half goose: "Alexander was a swoose."
Flight tests of the first prototype, 41-1210, began on 15 January 1943. Initial trials showed performance substantially below guarantees. At the same time, development of the XH-2470 engine was discontinued and, although it appeared possible to substitute the Allison V-3420 engine without substantial airframe changes, the projected delay and costs resulted in a decision not to consider production buys. The prototypes continued to be used in an experimental program until problems with the Lycoming engines and lack of spare parts caused termination. The second prototype, 42-108994 (but mistakenly painted as 42-1211) equipped with an experimental GE supercharger, only made one flight before it was relegated to a "parts plane" in order to keep the first prototype in the air.
Attachments
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Excellent posts!
- Thread starter
- #89
Although it looks similar to the Ar 96, it was in fact an all-new design that was intended to minimize the use of essential metals. Planning started in 1944, with the design work and production slated to take place at the SIPA works in Paris, France. Only twelve were finished before the war was over, one of which ended up in Czechoslovakia, where the German crosses were crudely overpainted with Czech roundels. After the war, SIPA in France continued producing the Ar 396 under the designation S-10, S-11, S-12, and S-121. The main difference between the German version and the French was the canopy, with the French example having a three-section center piece and the German one having a two-section one. The Arado Ar 396 had decent performance for the time, with a service ceiling of around 23,000ft and a maximum speed of 220mph.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #90
In 1935, the Czech aircraft company Avia produced a design for a small twin-engined bomber with a fixed undercarriage and powered by two 313 kW (420 hp) Avia Rk 17 radial engines. This design was abandoned in 1936, however, by a more powerful and advanced derivative, the Avia B-158, which was designed to meet a requirement from the Czechoslovak Ministry of National Defense (MNO) for a high performance medium bomber, capable of operation during both day and night, competing against Aero Vodochody's A.300.
In 1937, Avia started to build a single prototype of the B-158, a three-seat low-winged monoplane with inverted gull-wings, a retractable tailwheel undercarriage and 634 kW (850 hp) Hispano-Suiza 12Ydrs engines, making its maiden flight in mid-1938. It was fitted with a twin tail to give a better field of fire for the dorsal gun position. While the competing Aero A.300 gave superior performance, neither had entered into production by the time Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia. After testing by the Luftwaffe at their test centre at Rechlin, the prototype B-158 was scrapped in 1940.
In 1937, Avia started to build a single prototype of the B-158, a three-seat low-winged monoplane with inverted gull-wings, a retractable tailwheel undercarriage and 634 kW (850 hp) Hispano-Suiza 12Ydrs engines, making its maiden flight in mid-1938. It was fitted with a twin tail to give a better field of fire for the dorsal gun position. While the competing Aero A.300 gave superior performance, neither had entered into production by the time Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia. After testing by the Luftwaffe at their test centre at Rechlin, the prototype B-158 was scrapped in 1940.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #91
The last design by Ing. Zappata before he left Cant for the Breda organization was the Z.1018 twin-engined medium bomber, probably the best bomber actually built in Italy during the war. Although the first six examples were built of wood, the production Z.1018 contrasted with all its Cant forebears by employing all-metal construction. A number of different prototypes were built, incorporating 1500 h.p. Piaggio P.XII R.C.35, 1400 h.p. Piaggio P.XV R.C.45, and 1400 h.p. Alia Romeo 135 R.C.32 radial engines, as well as one filled with 1475 h.p. FIAT R.A.I050 R.C.58 Tifone (Typhoon) liquid-cooled engines, which were license-built DB 605A-l units. The first prototype, employing four-bladed airscrews and twin fins and rudders, flew in 1940. Subsequent changes, in addition to the variety of engines tested, included three-bladed airscrews, a cockpit moved from behind the wing leading edge to a position ahead of the engines, and a single fin-and-rudder assembly.
So exceptional was the performance of the Z.1018 that 300 production machines were ordered in 1941, to be powered by 1320 h.p. Piaggio P.XII R.C.35 or 1350 h.p. Alfa Romeo 135 R.C.32 Tornado engines, both eighteen-cylinder radials. Given the name Leone (Lion), the Z.1018 carried a maximum bomb load of six 550-lb. bombs and defended itself with one 12.7-mm. machine gun in a dorsal Caproni Landani Delta F turret, one 12.7-mm. gun in a ventral position, and two 7.7-mm. guns firing from hatches in the sides of the fuselage. An offensive forward-firing 12.7-mm. weapon was mounted in the starboard wing near the root. By early 1943 a few Z.1018 bombers reached the Regia Aeronautica, equipping the 101 0 Gruppo of the 470 Stormo Bombardimento Terrestre, which was already operating Z.1007 bis Alciones. However, the Leone saw little action, the Italian surrender coming only a short time later.
Maximum speed was 323 m.p.h., range 700-1367 miles, and service ceiling 23,785 ft. The Z.1018 climbed to 6560 ft. in 3 min. 10 sec. Span was 73 ft. 93/4 in., length 57 ft. 9 in., height 19 ft. 1P/2 in., and wing area 679.2 sq. ft. Projected but never built were two additional variants, a heavy day fighter with seven 20-mm. 'MG 151 cannon in the nose and three 12.7-mm. defensive machine guns, and a night fighter with German Lichtenstein SN 2 radar mounted in the nose. Estimated maximum speed of both models was 385 m.p.h. The 1250 h.p. FIAT A.83 R.C.24 eighteen-cylinder radial engine was also considered for installation on the Z.1018.
The Cant Z.1018 was the first Italian bomber with performance and armament comparable to the best German and Allied types, and it was unfortunate for the Regia Aeronautica that the production models began to appear too late in the conflict to have any noticeable effect on the outcome.
So exceptional was the performance of the Z.1018 that 300 production machines were ordered in 1941, to be powered by 1320 h.p. Piaggio P.XII R.C.35 or 1350 h.p. Alfa Romeo 135 R.C.32 Tornado engines, both eighteen-cylinder radials. Given the name Leone (Lion), the Z.1018 carried a maximum bomb load of six 550-lb. bombs and defended itself with one 12.7-mm. machine gun in a dorsal Caproni Landani Delta F turret, one 12.7-mm. gun in a ventral position, and two 7.7-mm. guns firing from hatches in the sides of the fuselage. An offensive forward-firing 12.7-mm. weapon was mounted in the starboard wing near the root. By early 1943 a few Z.1018 bombers reached the Regia Aeronautica, equipping the 101 0 Gruppo of the 470 Stormo Bombardimento Terrestre, which was already operating Z.1007 bis Alciones. However, the Leone saw little action, the Italian surrender coming only a short time later.
Maximum speed was 323 m.p.h., range 700-1367 miles, and service ceiling 23,785 ft. The Z.1018 climbed to 6560 ft. in 3 min. 10 sec. Span was 73 ft. 93/4 in., length 57 ft. 9 in., height 19 ft. 1P/2 in., and wing area 679.2 sq. ft. Projected but never built were two additional variants, a heavy day fighter with seven 20-mm. 'MG 151 cannon in the nose and three 12.7-mm. defensive machine guns, and a night fighter with German Lichtenstein SN 2 radar mounted in the nose. Estimated maximum speed of both models was 385 m.p.h. The 1250 h.p. FIAT A.83 R.C.24 eighteen-cylinder radial engine was also considered for installation on the Z.1018.
The Cant Z.1018 was the first Italian bomber with performance and armament comparable to the best German and Allied types, and it was unfortunate for the Regia Aeronautica that the production models began to appear too late in the conflict to have any noticeable effect on the outcome.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #92
Evolved as a competitor for the SNCAO (Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques de l'Ouest) C.A.O.600 in meeting the requirements of Programme Technique A47 which called for a twin-engined shipboard torpedo- and reconnaissance-bomber for use from the planned carriers Joffre and Painlevé, designed by the former Dewoitine team of the SNCAM (Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du Midi), employed a very similar configuration to that of the SNCAO contender for Ministère de la Marine orders. Two prototypes were ordered by the Ministère de l'Air on behalf of the Ministère de la Marine on July 26, 1939, these confirming with Edition No.3 of A47 issued on January 10, 1938, and construction was initiated at Toulouse. The fuselage housed either two or three crew members were in carried in conformity with the naval specification; pilot, navigator-bombardier and radio-operator/gunner being carried for the reconnaissance and level bombing missions but only pilot and radio-operator/gunner being carried for torpedo-bombing and smoke screen-laying missions.
Powerplants were two 500 hp Renault 12R 06/07 twelve-cylinder air-cooled inverted V-engines. Armament consisted of three 0.3 in (7.5 mm) Darne machine guns, one in a fixed forward firing position in the lower port side of the fuselage, and one on a flexible mounting in each of the upper and lower aft cabins. On a ventral rack an 1,433 lb (650 kg) torpedo could be carried, alternative loads were an 132 Imp gal (600 l) fuel tank, four 331 lb (150 kg) or two 496 lb (225 kg) bombs. The prototype was transported in parts to the Toulouse-Francazals airfield in early 1940, assembled and SNCAM's chief test pilot, Marcel Doret, made the initial flight on May 6. Manufacturer's flight trials were still in their early stages when the entire program was halted on June 25, 2943, the French-German Armistice. The first prototype was scrapped and the second abandoned before completion.
Powerplants were two 500 hp Renault 12R 06/07 twelve-cylinder air-cooled inverted V-engines. Armament consisted of three 0.3 in (7.5 mm) Darne machine guns, one in a fixed forward firing position in the lower port side of the fuselage, and one on a flexible mounting in each of the upper and lower aft cabins. On a ventral rack an 1,433 lb (650 kg) torpedo could be carried, alternative loads were an 132 Imp gal (600 l) fuel tank, four 331 lb (150 kg) or two 496 lb (225 kg) bombs. The prototype was transported in parts to the Toulouse-Francazals airfield in early 1940, assembled and SNCAM's chief test pilot, Marcel Doret, made the initial flight on May 6. Manufacturer's flight trials were still in their early stages when the entire program was halted on June 25, 2943, the French-German Armistice. The first prototype was scrapped and the second abandoned before completion.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #93
The Hawker Henley was designed as a light bomber, and was closely related to the Hawker Hurricane. It had been designed by Hawker in response to Air Ministry Specification P.4/34 of February 1934 for a light bomber and close support aircraft, with high performance and a low bomb load.
The resulting aircraft was very similar in appearance to the Hurricane, sharing most of the wing and the tail plane with that aircraft. The main difference between the two types was the cockpit, designed to carry a two man crew – pilot and observer/ air gunner. Work on the Henley progressed slowly. The prototype took two years to complete, finally taking to the air on 10 March 1937. The Henley performed well in tests, but three years after issuing the initial specification the air ministry decided it no longer needed a new light bomber. However rather than cancel the Henley it was decided to use the aircraft as a target tug. Somewhat ironically the Hawker Hurricane would later go on to perform a role very similar to that originally intended for the Henley, acting as a ground attack aircraft.
The Henley was not a great success as a target tug. The first modified Henley TT.III flew on 26 May 1938, and an order was placed for 200. In service it was discovered that the Merlin engine could not cope with high speed target towing. After a brief period towing large drogue targets, the Henley was retired in May 1942, in favour of the Boulton Paul Defiant, which was itself obsolescent as a front line aircraft (the Henley had also been developed into a turret, the Hawker Hotspur, but that never passed the prototype stage).
The resulting aircraft was very similar in appearance to the Hurricane, sharing most of the wing and the tail plane with that aircraft. The main difference between the two types was the cockpit, designed to carry a two man crew – pilot and observer/ air gunner. Work on the Henley progressed slowly. The prototype took two years to complete, finally taking to the air on 10 March 1937. The Henley performed well in tests, but three years after issuing the initial specification the air ministry decided it no longer needed a new light bomber. However rather than cancel the Henley it was decided to use the aircraft as a target tug. Somewhat ironically the Hawker Hurricane would later go on to perform a role very similar to that originally intended for the Henley, acting as a ground attack aircraft.
The Henley was not a great success as a target tug. The first modified Henley TT.III flew on 26 May 1938, and an order was placed for 200. In service it was discovered that the Merlin engine could not cope with high speed target towing. After a brief period towing large drogue targets, the Henley was retired in May 1942, in favour of the Boulton Paul Defiant, which was itself obsolescent as a front line aircraft (the Henley had also been developed into a turret, the Hawker Hotspur, but that never passed the prototype stage).
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #94
Developed as the Experimental 18-Shi Heavy Bomber Renzan (Nakajima G8N1), this was a very advanced long-range bomber powered by four 1491kW Nakajima Homare 24 radials which gave it a maximum speed of 592km/h at 8000m. Maximum range was 7465km. Armament consisted of six 20mm cannon in twin power-operated dorsal, ventral and tail turrets, two 13mm machine-guns jn a power-operated nose turret, and single machine-guns of similar calibre in port and starboard beam positions. A maximum bombload of 4000kg could be carried over short ranges. Four prototypes were built up to June 1945, but the proposed production programme was disrupted by Allied bomb- ing and was abandoned when the navy's role became defensive rather than offensive. These prototypes were allocated the Allied codename 'Rita'.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #95
The XP-67 was a spectacular-looking single-seat twin, the only piston-engine airplane that McDonnell Aircraft ever produced. The company completed just one XP-67 before jets left props in the dust and the Army cancelled the program in 1944. McDonnell's next airplane was the twin-jet FH-1 Phantom, followed by the F2H Banshee, F3H Demon, F-101 Voodoo, and F-4 Phantom II. But the XP-67, casually called Bat and Moonbat—―it didn't live long enough to get an official name—was a futuristic design nonetheless. James McDonnell, a pilot and aeronautical engineer educated at Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, apparently became fascinated with the concept of making other airplane structures besides the wings into lifting surfaces. While he was the chief engineer for the Glenn Martin Aircraft Company, he sketched at least one never-flown blended-wing design. Today the blended-wing concept has been greatly refined to mean a tailless flying-wing design, but McDonnell, while at Martin—and then later at his own company with the XP-67—tried to maintain a constant airfoil section on a conventional airframe, from the fuselage centerline all the way out to the wingtips. He included in the blended airfoil the fuselage-to-wing junctures, the engine-nacelle-to-wing interfaces, and even the nacelles themselves. From the conventional tail forward, the Moonbat was all curves. It had the skirted look not of a bat but of a flying squirrel.
McDonnell doubtless was also intrigued by the possibility of decreasing the drag created by the sometimes awkward conjunction of a wing, with its own lifting airflow, and a fuselage—or nacelle—that had entirely different ideas about where the flow should go. The interface usually created turbulence, or interference drag. Most engineers found it easier to lessen such drag with gracefully curved wing fillets or straightforward 90-degree wing-to-fuselage interfaces, typically in the form of wings mounted on the midsection of the fuselage. In fact whatever interference-drag benefit McDonnell might have created was probably nullified by drag from the increased area exposed to airflow on what were essentially oversize fillets. The engines dated back to 1932, when the Army decided it needed light, compact, high-specific-power, high-revving "hyper" engines ideally configured to be installed, in the fashion du jour, inside future bomber wings or fighter fuselages. The IV-1430 was designed by the engineers at the Army's Wright Field in Ohio, and Continental simply built what it was ordered to: a two-valve, small-displacement, low-frontal-area, inverted V-12 with separate cylinders (World War I technology) intentionally running its glycol coolant very hot. Intended to produce a competitive 1,600 horsepower, the IV-1430s (also used on the Lockheed XP-49, a modified P-38) never put out more than about 1,060, even after a turbocharger was bootstrapped onto the engine's single-stage mechanical supercharger.
The Continental was the only true hyper engine to see a modicum of production (23 engines total), but by the time it finally flew, it would have been a nice little motor for the lightweight Air Corps pursuits of the 1930s. Long-range, heavyweight fighters and super-bombers needed a minimum of 2,000 hp per engine. But it was the engine that Jim McDonnell had been led to believe would be perfect for the buried mounts on the XP-67's wings. When he discovered it to be troublesome, hot-running, and down on power, he agitated to have the XP-67 given new engines, either Allison or Merlin V-12s. Sorry, the Army said, work with what you have. What McDonnell had were engines so poorly cooled that during initial taxi tests, both caught fire.
The XP-67 first flew in January 1944. After all of six minutes, yet more engine problems forced an immediate landing. It didn't matter; by then the Moonbat had lost its mission. Conceived in an era when America saw a need to repel long-range German attackers, it was intended to blast apart bomber formations, but by the mid-1940s, neither the Germans nor the Japanese had any effective bombers left. With an intended battery of six 37-mm cannon—never actually installed—the airplane probably could have sawed small ships in half or served as a tank-buster, but it certainly never would have succeeded as a dogfighter.
McDonnell doubtless was also intrigued by the possibility of decreasing the drag created by the sometimes awkward conjunction of a wing, with its own lifting airflow, and a fuselage—or nacelle—that had entirely different ideas about where the flow should go. The interface usually created turbulence, or interference drag. Most engineers found it easier to lessen such drag with gracefully curved wing fillets or straightforward 90-degree wing-to-fuselage interfaces, typically in the form of wings mounted on the midsection of the fuselage. In fact whatever interference-drag benefit McDonnell might have created was probably nullified by drag from the increased area exposed to airflow on what were essentially oversize fillets. The engines dated back to 1932, when the Army decided it needed light, compact, high-specific-power, high-revving "hyper" engines ideally configured to be installed, in the fashion du jour, inside future bomber wings or fighter fuselages. The IV-1430 was designed by the engineers at the Army's Wright Field in Ohio, and Continental simply built what it was ordered to: a two-valve, small-displacement, low-frontal-area, inverted V-12 with separate cylinders (World War I technology) intentionally running its glycol coolant very hot. Intended to produce a competitive 1,600 horsepower, the IV-1430s (also used on the Lockheed XP-49, a modified P-38) never put out more than about 1,060, even after a turbocharger was bootstrapped onto the engine's single-stage mechanical supercharger.
The Continental was the only true hyper engine to see a modicum of production (23 engines total), but by the time it finally flew, it would have been a nice little motor for the lightweight Air Corps pursuits of the 1930s. Long-range, heavyweight fighters and super-bombers needed a minimum of 2,000 hp per engine. But it was the engine that Jim McDonnell had been led to believe would be perfect for the buried mounts on the XP-67's wings. When he discovered it to be troublesome, hot-running, and down on power, he agitated to have the XP-67 given new engines, either Allison or Merlin V-12s. Sorry, the Army said, work with what you have. What McDonnell had were engines so poorly cooled that during initial taxi tests, both caught fire.
The XP-67 first flew in January 1944. After all of six minutes, yet more engine problems forced an immediate landing. It didn't matter; by then the Moonbat had lost its mission. Conceived in an era when America saw a need to repel long-range German attackers, it was intended to blast apart bomber formations, but by the mid-1940s, neither the Germans nor the Japanese had any effective bombers left. With an intended battery of six 37-mm cannon—never actually installed—the airplane probably could have sawed small ships in half or served as a tank-buster, but it certainly never would have succeeded as a dogfighter.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #96
The Focke-Wulf Fw 191 was one of the two primary finalists in the "Bomber B" program. Two prototypes were initially built, the V1 and V2. The V1 began its flight test program in early 1942. It was intended to use the Jumo 222 engines but as these were not yet ready for use so the prototypes were powered by BMW 801 air cooled radials as they were the most powerful engines available and were generally the same physical size as the Jumo 222. The most unusual feature of the 191 was the use of electric motors for every device that would have normally been actuated mechanically or hydraulically. This extensive use of electrics had been done at the request of the research department of the RLM despite protests from Focke-Wulf. The large amount of wiring involved and the motors themselves added an immense amount of additional weight. From the outset of flight testing the electrical systems proved to be a constant source of problems. Also the aircraft with the BMW 801's was seriously under powered. After 10 hours of flight-testing had been completed the flight test program was halted and further prototype construction was shelved pending the correction of the electrical problems and the availability of more powerful engines. Three additional prototypes had been ordered but it was obvious that the Jumo 222 engines would have a longer gestation period than had been foreseen and doubts were had that it would ever achieve production status. Focke-Wulf had made repeated applications to the RLM for permission to replace the more troublesome electrical systems with hydraulics systems and in late 1942 with the delivery of two flight cleared Jumo 222's the decision to complete the least advanced prototype, the V6 with hydraulic systems and the 222's. The V6 flew in the Spring of 1943 but the flight characteristics were still far from satisfactory. Shortly thereafter the RLM announced the termination of the entire "Bomber B" program and by the end of 1943 all work on the Fw 191 ceased.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #97
The specification by the Air Ministry from 17 August 1937 Included the creation of a three-men-crew bomber attack aircraft category AB3 (Assault-Bombardier) with Cannon Armament. One of the first of Which Firms Presented draft ITS WAS Dewoitine. It Was a twin-engine all-metal monoplane with a longitudinal placement of the crew. Starting in October 1938 the firm's engineers, Commissioned by the Air Force developed a snake Several options for a Ground Attacker, the most important theses Were Among the D.770 and D.771.
The First Flight WAS done in June 26, 1939 would be a test driver Marc Dorette, WHO WAS dissatisfied with the flight performance of the new machine. Although the prototype snake good speed performance, It Was not sufficiently stable in flight. Tests of D.770.01 lasted for about 5 months, however, the Specialists of the firm fired Dewoitine achieve Significant improvements. At the end of 1939, D.770.01 WAS sent to the Research Center for wind tunnel tests. The results of theses tests only Proved Once Again That this aircraft WAS Far from being perfect and Will not Go to Mass Production. Program for Further testing WAS decided to Be Interrupted, Because That time at ground attackers Breguet Br.691 / 693 Were Produced in numbers, and for 1940, the Appearance of Large Quantities of the multi-purpose bomber Bloch MB.175 was expected. These Were aircraft carrying a large bomb load and much better snake Operational and Technical Performance.
The First Flight WAS done in June 26, 1939 would be a test driver Marc Dorette, WHO WAS dissatisfied with the flight performance of the new machine. Although the prototype snake good speed performance, It Was not sufficiently stable in flight. Tests of D.770.01 lasted for about 5 months, however, the Specialists of the firm fired Dewoitine achieve Significant improvements. At the end of 1939, D.770.01 WAS sent to the Research Center for wind tunnel tests. The results of theses tests only Proved Once Again That this aircraft WAS Far from being perfect and Will not Go to Mass Production. Program for Further testing WAS decided to Be Interrupted, Because That time at ground attackers Breguet Br.691 / 693 Were Produced in numbers, and for 1940, the Appearance of Large Quantities of the multi-purpose bomber Bloch MB.175 was expected. These Were aircraft carrying a large bomb load and much better snake Operational and Technical Performance.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #98
The Grumman G-34 proposal of 1938 for a single-seat twin-engined shipboard fighter anticipated the realisation of an operational production example of such a type by quite a few years. In fact, the proposal was then considered to be so advanced that it bordered on the revolutionary; yet only four years later, on 18 April 1942,16 North American B-25 twin-engined bombers were flown off the USS Hornet to attack Tokyo.
Not only was the G-34 an advanced concept, in its original form it was a most unusual-looking aircraft, with the leading edge of its low-set monoplane wing forward of the fuselage nose. The tail unit had twin endplate fins and rudders, and the landing gear was of the retractable tailwheel type, with the main units retracting aft into the wing-mounted engine nacelles. Powerplant comprised two Wright R-1820 Cyclones, each with a three-bladed propeller, these being geared to counter-rotate to offset the effects of propeller torque.
The US Navy was first to order a prototype, the XF5F-1, on 30 June 1938, which was flown for the first time on 1 April 1940. A number of modifications were introduced subsequently, the most noticeable being an extension of the fuselage nose so that it terminated forward of the wing. Although failing to win a production order, the XF5F-1 soldiered on until withdrawn from use in December 1944, having done some useful work as a development prototype for the more advanced Grumman F7F. A land-based version of Grumman's design interested the US Army Air Force, which ordered a single XP-50 prototype. Although generally similar to the naval version, it differed by having a lengthened nose to accommodate the nosewheel of the tricycle landing gear and had as powerplant two Wright R-1820-67/-69 turbocharged engines. First flown on 14 May 1941, the XP-50 was plagued with engine overheating problems and was eventually written off after suffering serious damage when a turbocharger exploded. No further examples of the XP-50 were built.
Not only was the G-34 an advanced concept, in its original form it was a most unusual-looking aircraft, with the leading edge of its low-set monoplane wing forward of the fuselage nose. The tail unit had twin endplate fins and rudders, and the landing gear was of the retractable tailwheel type, with the main units retracting aft into the wing-mounted engine nacelles. Powerplant comprised two Wright R-1820 Cyclones, each with a three-bladed propeller, these being geared to counter-rotate to offset the effects of propeller torque.
The US Navy was first to order a prototype, the XF5F-1, on 30 June 1938, which was flown for the first time on 1 April 1940. A number of modifications were introduced subsequently, the most noticeable being an extension of the fuselage nose so that it terminated forward of the wing. Although failing to win a production order, the XF5F-1 soldiered on until withdrawn from use in December 1944, having done some useful work as a development prototype for the more advanced Grumman F7F. A land-based version of Grumman's design interested the US Army Air Force, which ordered a single XP-50 prototype. Although generally similar to the naval version, it differed by having a lengthened nose to accommodate the nosewheel of the tricycle landing gear and had as powerplant two Wright R-1820-67/-69 turbocharged engines. First flown on 14 May 1941, the XP-50 was plagued with engine overheating problems and was eventually written off after suffering serious damage when a turbocharger exploded. No further examples of the XP-50 were built.
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #99
Conceived as a successor to the Spitfire, the Type 371 was projected from November 1942, initially mating a laminar flow wing with a Griffon-engined Spitfire XIV and progressively embracing a new fuselage. Three prototypes were ordered to Specification F.1/43, which was written around the project, and the first of these flew on 30 June 1944. This prototype comprised a Spitfire XIV fuselage with the new wing, a 2,035hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 61 engine and an armament of four 20mm cannon. Named Spiteful, the second prototype flew on 8 January 1945 with the new fuselage, an all-round vision cockpit canopy and a 2,375hp Griffon 69 driving a five-bladed propeller. Production orders were placed for 188 Spitefuls, but only 16 were flown of 19 built or partially-completed (from April 1945) as the end of World War II and the advent of the jet fighter terminated plans for RAF use of the Spiteful. The designation F Mk 14 was applied to the Griffon 69-powered Spiteful; the proposed F Mk 15 had either the Griffon 89 or 90 with a six-bladed contraprop, and a single F Mk 16 had a Griffon 101 with a three-speed supercharger and five-bladed propeller.
Attachments
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
Great stuff, keep them coming !