PDA

View Full Version : RAF '46



leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 01:48 PM
Heh heh

http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=...ewarticle&artid=1129 (http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=1129)

luftluuver
09-28-2006, 02:20 PM
For sure the Brits, and the American, a/c designers were sitting around with their thumb up their bung hole. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
09-28-2006, 03:04 PM
Nice. Good to know that the Allies had some equally interesting designs on their books.

Gibbage1
09-28-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Nice. Good to know that the Allies had some equally interesting designs on their books.

Not only did we have some interesting designs, we flew them and not just drew them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif B-35 is a good example. How about a US swept wing cannard fighter?

http://www.aviationpics.de/prev/curtiss-wright%20xp-55%20ascender%20prototype%20%7Busa%7D.jpg

Ow, wait. That was in 42, not 46. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif How about a 400MPH medium bomber?

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/xb42-2.jpg

Ow, again. That was in 1943, not 46.

How about this freaky little swept wing fighter?

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Northrop/xp-56/xp-56_3.jpg

Whoops again. 1942. Man, and here I thought only the Germans had that super secret swept wing technology...

MEGILE
09-28-2006, 04:27 PM
Either gibbage has been on too much caffiene, or he has a superiority complex

NetDaemon
09-28-2006, 04:36 PM
He´s just tired of hearing the Luftwhiners here all the time preaching that Nazi Germany made all the cool aviation inventions and the allies just copied them during and after the war.

Half-true, I know, but better than not true at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Gibbage1
09-28-2006, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by NetDaemon:
He´s just tired of hearing the Luftwhiners here all the time preaching that Nazi Germany made all the cool aviation inventions and the allies just copied them during and after the war.


Bingo! Like how the Germans invented rockets, using Dr Goddards engine. Or how the Gotha 229 somehow lead too the B2 stealth bomber even though it shares many many features of the B-35/45 project, and none of the Gotha.

The Allied sides had some amazing high tech stuff that gets forgotten in favor for German stuff. Fritz X? HA! US had a RADAR GUIDED anti-shipping bomb deployed and used before WWII ended. Nobody has ever heard of that, but they heard of the German manual guided bomb. Well guess what? US had one of those also, and developed and used at about the same time!

Daiichidoku
09-28-2006, 05:45 PM
uhhh yea Gibbage, the ascender and the Black Bullet were total world-beaters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

at least most of the freaky stuff Germany put out performed at least as well, or mostly better than contemporary orthodox designs

btw Gib, don't forget the FRENCH....you wouldnt want anyone to overlook anyone's good ideas, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


how about a delta-wing canard ramjet powered type?

ok, the ramjet wasnt ready....but the Pa.22 Flechair FLEW with a piston engine...
http://home.att.net/~dannysoar2/Payen.htm (http://home.att.net/%7Edannysoar2/Payen.htm)

leitmotiv
09-28-2006, 06:12 PM
Yeah, luftluvver is right---the assumption is that the Western Allies stopped developing interesting aircraft after the Mustang and suddenly started up with brilliant designs inspired by the Germans post-WWII. Hog swill.

Gibbage is right---USN Liberators were using their guided missiles routinely to blast Japanese shipping. B-29s had Eagle radar which allowed the few aircraft specially equipped with it to carry out accurate low-level raids on Japanese refineries. Did the Germans ever come up with the brilliant idea of using small aircraft like Mustangs and Mosquitoes to dive bomb and place target markers right on the roofs of priority targets for the main force bombers?

The Germans played around with intercontinental bombers, but the AAF actually produced one in the B-36. The origin of its design was a bomber the U.S. could use to hit Germany if Britain went under.

The British developed the most advanced radar of WWII, centametric. The Germans never had anything like it and had to copy the radars they found in crashed Allied aircraft.

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2006, 06:14 PM
That Hawker P.1067 is sweet. Looks like La-190.

~> http://xplanes.free.fr/lavo/arl-11.html

btw...this is a very interesting website. Lots of stuff on rocket interceptors like the Trident series. Very difficult to navigate however, so I managed to find these links. Maybe I'm missing a plug in or something.

Trident and other rocket interceptors
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/trident/trident-1.htm

La http://xplanes.free.fr/lavo/arl-1.html
MiG http://prototypes.free.fr/ye8/ye8-1.htm
Su http://prototypes.free.fr/t6/t6-1e.htm
YaK-50 http://prototypes.free.fr/yak50/yak50-1.htm
YaK-1000 http://prototypes.free.fr/yak1000/yak1000-1.htm
RAMJETS http://xplanes.free.fr/stato/stato-1.html
FLOROV http://xplanes.free.fr/florov/afr-1.html

woofiedog
09-28-2006, 07:09 PM
McDonnell XP-67 Bat

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/1913L.jpg

Based upon interest in an earlier McDonnell study for a long-range fighter, the A.A.C. issued an order for two prototype airplanes on July 29, 1941, designating them XP-67. The aircraft was unusual in that the design team sought to maintain true aerofoil sections throughout the entire fighter including the center fuselage and merging the rear portions of the engine nacelles with the wing. A number of armament configurations were considered including six 0.5 inch machine guns, four 20 mm cannon, and even a 75 mm cannon before the configuration of six 37 mm cannon was chosen.

The first XP-67 was ready for ground trials on December 1, 1943 although it was not yet complete for flight. The aircraft was fitted at this time with XI-1430-17/19 engines and General Electric D-23 turbo-superchargers. On December 8, however, the aircraft was damaged by fires in both engine nacelles, caused by a malfunction of the exhaust manifold slip rings. But, by January 6, 1944 the damage was repaired and the XP-67 made its first flight. The flight, however, ended after six minutes due to difficulties with the experimental engines. After a number of modifications were made to the engine installations two test flights were accomplished. On the fourth flight the engine bearings burned out when the engines were unintentionally overspeeded.

As a result of wind tunnel tests the tail-plane was raised a foot while the aircraft waited for replacement engines. On March 23, 1944 flight trials restarted and continued for several months. After five test flights by A.A.F. pilots found the aircraft cockpit layout fair and ground handling satisfactory, but that the aircraft appeared underpowered with long take-offs, poor initial rate of climb, and slow acceleration. Other flight characteristics were good, such as light stick forces, effective control at all speeds with flight stable longitudinally, but a tendency to dutch roll.

Upon return to the factory the cooling ducts were reworked and the tailplanes raised a foot. Then followed more flight tests before AAF pilots finally got to fly the plane on 11 May of 1944. During the following flights, several problems were cured, but engine related ones never were satisfactorily corrected. The biggest problem was engine overheating which led to a fire in the right nacelle on 6 September 1944. The ensuing fire caused major damage and on 13 September, McDonnell and the USAAF agreed to terminate the contract. The second airframe was never completed.

Specifications (XP-67)
General characteristics
Crew: one, pilot
Length: 44 ft 9 in (13.64 m)
Wingspan: 55 ft (16.76 m)
Height: 15 ft 9 in (4.80 m)
Wing area: 414 ft² (38.50 m²)
Empty weight: 17,745 lb (8,050 kg)
Loaded weight: 22,114 lb (10,030 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 25,400 lb (11,520 kg)
Powerplant: 2Ӕ Continental XI-1430-17/19 twelve cylinder inverted vee liquid-cooled engine, 1,350 hp (1,000 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 405 mi/h at 25,000 ft (650 km/h)
Range: 2,385 statute miles (3,840 km)
Service ceiling: 37,400 ft (11,400 m)
Rate of climb: 2,600 ft/min (13 m/s)
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (260 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.06 hp/lb (0.09 kW/kg)
Armament
Six 37 mm M-4 cannon

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/5427L-4.jpg

LStarosta
09-28-2006, 07:33 PM
The U.S. developed the Mustang.

There's your worldbeater, Daiichidoku. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Gibbage1
09-28-2006, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
at least most of the freaky stuff Germany put out performed at least as well, or mostly better than contemporary orthodox designs


Like what? Me-262? Ya. Great. Sling the engines into under wing pods and add a ton of drag! REAL advanced there. How many of todays fighters use engines in pods under the wings? None. Lets look at the P-80. There is a novel idea! Put the engine INSIDE the aircraft, no drag! How many of todays fighter aircraft put there engines INSIDE the body and use ducts?

The P-80 did everything the Me-262 could, and more with only 1 engine.



btw Gib, don't forget the FRENCH....you wouldnt want anyone to overlook anyone's good ideas, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


What did the French provide us with other then submissions into the ugly aircraft thread?



how about a delta-wing canard ramjet powered type?

ok, the ramjet wasnt ready....but the Pa.22 Flechair FLEW with a piston engine...
http://home.att.net/~dannysoar2/Payen.htm (http://home.att.net/%7Edannysoar2/Payen.htm)

Drawing it and FLYING it are two differant things.

Viper2005_
09-28-2006, 08:35 PM
It isn't that simple.

The 262's nacelles are very similar to those used on B-47 and 737.

And the fastest manned airbreather of them all (SR-71) had wing mounted podded engines...

The biggest problem around here with both sides is that there is an assumption that the other side's engineers were stupid.

The reality of the situation is that for the most part they did the best they could with the kit they had available. YP-80 wasn't especially well engineered. It swallowed its own intake for goodness' sake!

It was a good aeroplane. But so was the 262. The reality was that YP-80 was allowed to develop, whilst 262 wasn't. Given an equal "crack of the whip" the 262 would have kept up with YP-80 quite easily.

(And on a similar track, TSR-2 would have eaten F-111 for breakfast given the chance; different politics, same story.)

CUJO_1970
09-28-2006, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The P-80 did everything the Me-262 could, and more with only 1 engine.




Not in 1945 it didn't, and doubtful even by 1946 when P-80s were still being grounded.

Gibbage1
09-28-2006, 09:58 PM
Do some history. P-80's were flying sorties in Italy in 45. Also about 80 P-80's were built and combat ready in the Pacific before Japan surrendered.

Daiichidoku
09-28-2006, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Like what? Me-262? Ya. Great. Sling the engines into under wing pods and add a ton of drag! REAL advanced there.

how about the He-280 instead? for 1942, VERY VERY advanced...and was still a better performer than the the P-80, and the Me 262 in all ways but firepower (vs the 262)...and not by too much, even then...



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lets look at the P-80. There is a novel idea! Put the engine INSIDE the aircraft, no drag! How many of todays fighter aircraft put there engines INSIDE the body and use ducts?

ummmm and you are the one who made the Go-229 for FB? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




Originally posted by Gibbage1:
What did the French provide us with other then submissions into the ugly aircraft thread?
most Potez types were rather attractive....and id hardly call the Arsenalt VG.33 ugly
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/vg33photo11gu.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/azu_48018.jpg

read up on the VG.33..for 1940, quite a ship..558kph/5200m, 6mins26secs to 5000m, rng 1060km (2hrs 20mins endurance)

the VG.38 version had an estimated Vmax of 670kph/8400m!

the VG.39 version FLEW 625kph/5700m May 1940..not too shabby
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=htt...6safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://arsenalvg33.free.fr/entrer.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Darsenalvg33.free%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26 safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG)




how about a delta-wing canard ramjet powered type?
ok, the ramjet wasnt ready....but the Pa.22 Flechair FLEW with a piston engine...
http://home.att.net/~dannysoar2/Payen.htm (http://home.att.net/%7Edannysoar2/Payen.htm)

Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Drawing it and FLYING it are two differant things.

re-read what you quoted Gib...ok, the RAMJET didnt fly, but the same airframe, still a deltawing, and still a canard, and dating from 1935, flew, albeit with a piston engine

BTW, Gib, assuming the P 80s even had their drop tanks while in P.I., could they have even seen any combat from that far back from action at that stage of the war? seriously. wondering about this, im not sure myself



@Viper, I have read about the P80s imploding intakes at high speed before myself, but have since been unable to find anything about this; do you have a source of can point me to a refereence for this plz?

ColoradoBBQ
09-29-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Man, and here I thought only the Germans had that super secret swept wing technology...

What's the deal here? Swept wing technology was tested as far back when they built gliders in the late 19th century.

Saburo_0
09-29-2006, 01:59 AM
What very few people realize is that BOTH the Me262 and the HE280 were very small airframes................

http://www.rcgroups.com/articles/ezonemag/2000/feb/aspach2/He280-Me262_big.jpg

notamuppet
09-29-2006, 02:10 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif they would be hard to hit!

DmdSeeker
09-29-2006, 02:31 AM
btw Gib, don't forget the FRENCH....you wouldnt want anyone to overlook anyone's good ideas, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


how about a delta-wing canard ramjet powered type?

ok, the ramjet wasnt ready....but the Pa.22 Flechair FLEW with a piston engine...
http://home.att.net/~dannysoar2/Payen.htm (http://home.att.net/%7Edannysoar2/Payen.htm)

There's some really funky designs on that page.

WTE_Ibis
09-29-2006, 06:38 AM
Mine's bigger than yours
No it's not mines bigger than yours
No it's not mines bigger.
ok, ok you've got the biggest Gibbage.Whatever.

Bloody hell what a lot school yard stuff.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

F6_Ace
09-29-2006, 06:44 AM
^ Agreed. The signal to noise ratio following the return of you know who appears to have fallen to zero.