Planes you'd never heard of - Page 8

smartcooky · 18th June 2019, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by jeremyp

This is not true. Both aircraft are long range strategic bombers. They were both designed for the same role.

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.

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.

I completely disagree with your characterisation of the Lancaster and what its original designed called for.

The Avro Lancaster originated from Air Ministry Specification P13/36. The "P" on the spec designation is for a "Medium" bomber (Heavy Bombers were Specification "B"NN/YY)

Specifically P13/36 stated that, among other requirements, the bomber was to be twin engined, multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles for world-wide use. It was to have a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs when future developments allow bombs exceeding 2000lb to be constructed. Other specifications included "a light removable form of seating for the maximum number of personnel that can be accommodated within the fuselage when the aircraft is being used for reinforcing Overseas Commands", as well as the ability to be catapult launched for overweight take-offs, and the ability to carry torpedoes.

Avro thought these specifications were unworkable so they submitted their own design (designated Avro679) which became the Avro Manchester. There was a problem with this aircraft, however, was that it was powered by two Rolls Royce Vulture engines that were not only grossly underpowered for the job they were expected to do, but they were also not very reliable. In 1940, Roy Chadwick, Avro's Chief Design Engineer, had been working on an updated and uprated version of the Manchester, with a grater wingspan and powered by four Rolls Royce Merlins. They were less powerful than the Vultures, but more reliable. The result was the Type 683 Manchester III, which was later renamed as the Lancaster.

The way I read this, there is no way that the Lancaster was originally designed to similar specification, or for the same role as the B-17.

You claim the the Lancaster was modified to do other roles, and you imply that this was not part of its original design. I disagree entirely. P13/36 called for "multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles with a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs". It is clear from this that the Lancaster was designed, right from the outset, to be able to be modified for other tasks; its airframe was constructed in such a way as to allow for those future modifications. I think even you would agree that the B-17 count not have been modified to carry out the Dambusters or the Tirpitz missions without extensive re-engineering of the airframe (in the case of the Dambusters its moot anyway, because the B-17 would simply not have the necessary handling characteristics to fly at 60 feet over water and drop bouncing bombs).

Sources:

"The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-1939: Air Staff Operational Requirements"
by Colin Sinnot pp23, Ch6, Ch7, pp229

Lancaster: The Second World War's Greatest Bomber
by Leo McKinstry

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/0...pecifications/

theprestige · 18th June 2019, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I completely disagree with your characterisation of the Lancaster and what its original designed called for.

The Avro Lancaster originated from Air Ministry Specification P13/36. The "P" on the spec designation is for a "Medium" bomber (Heavy Bombers were Specification "B"NN/YY)

Specifically P13/36 stated that, among other requirements, the bomber was to be twin engined, multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles for world-wide use. It was to have a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs when future developments allow bombs exceeding 2000lb to be constructed. Other specifications included "a light removable form of seating for the maximum number of personnel that can be accommodated within the fuselage when the aircraft is being used for reinforcing Overseas Commands", as well as the ability to be catapult launched for overweight take-offs, and the ability to carry torpedoes.

Avro thought these specifications were unworkable so they submitted their own design (designated Avro679) which became the Avro Manchester. There was a problem with this aircraft, however, was that it was powered by two Rolls Royce Vulture engines that were not only grossly underpowered for the job they were expected to do, but they were also not very reliable. In 1940, Roy Chadwick, Avro's Chief Design Engineer, had been working on an updated and uprated version of the Manchester, with a grater wingspan and powered by four Rolls Royce Merlins. They were less powerful than the Vultures, but more reliable. The result was the Type 683 Manchester III, which was later renamed as the Lancaster.

The way I read this, there is no way that the Lancaster was originally designed to similar specification, or for the same role as the B-17.

You claim the the Lancaster was modified to do other roles, and you imply that this was not part of its original design. I disagree entirely. P13/36 called for "multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles with a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs". It is clear from this that the Lancaster was designed, right from the outset, to be able to be modified for other tasks; its airframe was constructed in such a way as to allow for those future modifications. I think even you would agree that the B-17 count not have been modified to carry out the Dambusters or the Tirpitz missions without extensive re-engineering of the airframe (in the case of the Dambusters its moot anyway, because the B-17 would simply not have the necessary handling characteristics to fly at 60 feet over water and drop bouncing bombs).

Sources:

"The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-1939: Air Staff Operational Requirements"
by Colin Sinnot pp23, Ch6, Ch7, pp229

Lancaster: The Second World War's Greatest Bomber
by Leo McKinstry

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/0...pecifications/

Nicely researched and written up! Thanks.

smartcooky · 19th June 2019, 06:24 PM

I was scanning some of my Dad's old 35mm slides a while back, and I came across quite a few aircraft ones from various airshows in the UK. Here's one...

There's the unmistakable outlines of an RAF Handley-Page Victor bomber behind and to the left (and the wingtip of a Vickers Valiant on the extreme left), and a "Skyways of London" Hawker-Siddely 748 to the right.

Anyone like to have a go at guessing what the aircraft in the foreground is?

Norman Alexander · 19th June 2019, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I was scanning some of my Dad's old 35mm slides a while back, and I came across quite a few aircraft ones from various airshows in the UK. Here's one...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyfqdswyme...0120.jpg?raw=1

There's the unmistakable outlines of an RAF Handley-Page Victor bomber behind and to the left (and the wingtip of a Vickers Valiant on the extreme left), and a "Skyways of London" Hawker-Siddely 748 to the right.

Anyone like to have a go at guessing what the aircraft in the foreground is?

Is that a Handley Page symbol on the chock?

smartcooky · 20th June 2019, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Is that a Handley Page symbol on the chock?

Yup.

This aircraft is quite a bit bigger than it looks in the photo.

Captain_Swoop · 20th June 2019, 07:17 AM

HP 115?

ceptimus · 20th June 2019, 07:22 AM

HP 115

Dammit, if I'd not searched for a photo to attach, I wouldn't have been scooped by the Captain.

erwinl · 20th June 2019, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yup.

This aircraft is quite a bit bigger than it looks in the photo.

The HP.115 experimental delta aircraft?
It’s a bit of a guess, but the lines seem to work out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115

Edit: Blast! Ninjas everywhere!

Trebuchet · 20th June 2019, 10:09 AM

Well, there's one I'd never heard of! Odd looking thing.

Elagabalus · 20th June 2019, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Well, there's one I'd never heard of! Odd looking thing.

Fugly.

Just like the Lancaster.

smartcooky · 20th June 2019, 01:04 PM

Captain Swoop gets the prize.

One of the aspects (and disadvantages) of the delta wing shape is a high nose-up attitude on approach to landing, making it difficult for the pilot to see the runway. This experimental aircraft was designed to to try to mitigate this with use of a large cockpit bubble, and low sloping nose cone and a low set cockpit.

Red Baron Farms · 5th July 2019, 01:49 AM

Here are a few I never saw before.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Talk about weird, a glider that was a bomber interceptor? It had twin 30 mm cannon?

Captain_Swoop · 5th July 2019, 02:19 AM

How did the film maker know that the planes were nazis?

jimbob · 5th July 2019, 05:58 AM

Until recently, I had never heard of Aircraft One.

MRC_Hans · 5th July 2019, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Until recently, I had never heard of Aircraft One.

Oh? It's this one.

Hans

jimbob · 5th July 2019, 11:57 AM

If I'm not mistaken that's Flyer 1

Mikemcc · 5th July 2019, 08:42 PM

It totally blew me away when I was stood in the Smithsonian in front of what I thought was a replica and found out it was original!

Trebuchet · 5th July 2019, 09:00 PM

Sort of original, I think. The Wrights didn't exactly preserve it in original condition, tinkerers that they were. They were also (quite rightly) on the outs with the Smithsonian for a long time. I believe the Flyer spent some years in Europe.

Cheetah · 6th July 2019, 12:16 AM

Came across this the other day. I'm sure you airplane people must have heard of the Starr Bumble Bee II.
It just looks impossible.

30 years later someone should be able to make something even smaller and more ridiculous and dangerous looking. Why haven't they?

Red Baron Farms · 6th July 2019, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

30 years later someone should be able to make something even smaller and more ridiculous and dangerous looking. Why haven't they?

They have.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Trebuchet · 6th July 2019, 07:34 AM

Yesterday YouTube recommended a video about the Brewster Buccaneer, which was apparently thought to be WWII's worst airplane. I hadn't heard of it but it makes the hapless Buffalo sound good.

Mike! · 6th July 2019, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Yesterday YouTube recommended a video about the Brewster Buccaneer, which was apparently thought to be WWII's worst airplane. I hadn't heard of it but it makes the hapless Buffalo sound good.

Everything you want in a fighter/bomber...

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The Buccaneer was under-powered and poorly constructed

A design model copied by Detroit in the 70's and 80's.

MRC_Hans · 6th July 2019, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Came across this the other day. I'm sure you airplane people must have heard of the Starr Bumble Bee II.
It just looks impossible.

30 years later someone should be able to make something even smaller and more ridiculous and dangerous looking. Why haven't they?

AH, the Bumble Bee. Back in my flight sim days, I worked a bit with that. Seems only marginally possible to fly in the real world.

Hans

Giordano · 6th July 2019, 01:33 PM

Long thread but I don't think anyone has posted the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin yet. A "parasitic" fighter meant to be carried long range in the bay of a bomber, dropped, and provide defense over target only to be recovered after:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

The FICON project had a similar goal of extending fighter range but used more conventional fighters externally attached wingtip to wingtip of the bomber.

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

Both were very tricky in practice and both were terminated with the successful development of air to air refueling.

Trebuchet · 6th July 2019, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Mike!

Everything you want in a fighter/bomber...

A design model copied by Detroit in the 70's and 80's.

Ah, yes. My Dad had a Vega. In fact, he had two of them! I've long believed that Detroit in that era intentionally built bad small cars, so they wouldn't take sales from the more profitable big ones. The sales, of course, went to Japan anyhow.

18th June 2019, 07:26 PM	#281
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 12,890	Originally Posted by jeremyp This is not true. Both aircraft are long range strategic bombers. They were both designed for the same role. 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. 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. I completely disagree with your characterisation of the Lancaster and what its original designed called for. The Avro Lancaster originated from Air Ministry Specification P13/36. The "P" on the spec designation is for a "Medium" bomber (Heavy Bombers were Specification "B"NN/YY) Specifically P13/36 stated that, among other requirements, the bomber was to be twin engined, multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles for world-wide use. It was to have a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs when future developments allow bombs exceeding 2000lb to be constructed. Other specifications included "a light removable form of seating for the maximum number of personnel that can be accommodated within the fuselage when the aircraft is being used for reinforcing Overseas Commands", as well as the ability to be catapult launched for overweight take-offs, and the ability to carry torpedoes. Avro thought these specifications were unworkable so they submitted their own design (designated Avro679) which became the Avro Manchester. There was a problem with this aircraft, however, was that it was powered by two Rolls Royce Vulture engines that were not only grossly underpowered for the job they were expected to do, but they were also not very reliable. In 1940, Roy Chadwick, Avro's Chief Design Engineer, had been working on an updated and uprated version of the Manchester, with a grater wingspan and powered by four Rolls Royce Merlins. They were less powerful than the Vultures, but more reliable. The result was the Type 683 Manchester III, which was later renamed as the Lancaster. The way I read this, there is no way that the Lancaster was originally designed to similar specification, or for the same role as the B-17. You claim the the Lancaster was modified to do other roles, and you imply that this was not part of its original design. I disagree entirely. P13/36 called for "multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles with a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs". It is clear from this that the Lancaster was designed, right from the outset, to be able to be modified for other tasks; its airframe was constructed in such a way as to allow for those future modifications. I think even you would agree that the B-17 count not have been modified to carry out the Dambusters or the Tirpitz missions without extensive re-engineering of the airframe (in the case of the Dambusters its moot anyway, because the B-17 would simply not have the necessary handling characteristics to fly at 60 feet over water and drop bouncing bombs). Sources: "The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-1939: Air Staff Operational Requirements" by Colin Sinnot pp23, Ch6, Ch7, pp229 Lancaster: The Second World War's Greatest Bomber by Leo McKinstry https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/0...pecifications/
	__________________ "You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 18th June 2019 at 07:43 PM.

19th June 2019, 06:24 PM	#283
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 12,890	I was scanning some of my Dad's old 35mm slides a while back, and I came across quite a few aircraft ones from various airshows in the UK. Here's one... There's the unmistakable outlines of an RAF Handley-Page Victor bomber behind and to the left (and the wingtip of a Vickers Valiant on the extreme left), and a "Skyways of London" Hawker-Siddely 748 to the right. Anyone like to have a go at guessing what the aircraft in the foreground is?
	__________________ "You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 19th June 2019 at 06:28 PM.

19th June 2019, 11:46 PM	#284
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 6,431	Originally Posted by smartcooky I was scanning some of my Dad's old 35mm slides a while back, and I came across quite a few aircraft ones from various airshows in the UK. Here's one... https://www.dropbox.com/s/fyfqdswyme...0120.jpg?raw=1 There's the unmistakable outlines of an RAF Handley-Page Victor bomber behind and to the left (and the wingtip of a Vickers Valiant on the extreme left), and a "Skyways of London" Hawker-Siddely 748 to the right. Anyone like to have a go at guessing what the aircraft in the foreground is? Is that a Handley Page symbol on the chock?
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

20th June 2019, 12:26 AM	#285
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 12,890	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander Is that a Handley Page symbol on the chock? Yup. This aircraft is quite a bit bigger than it looks in the photo.
	__________________ "You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

20th June 2019, 07:22 AM	#287
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,045	HP 115 Dammit, if I'd not searched for a photo to attach, I wouldn't have been scooped by the Captain.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,045	Last edited by ceptimus; 20th June 2019 at 07:24 AM.

18th June 2019, 07:44 PM	#282
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,522	Originally Posted by smartcooky I completely disagree with your characterisation of the Lancaster and what its original designed called for. The Avro Lancaster originated from Air Ministry Specification P13/36. The "P" on the spec designation is for a "Medium" bomber (Heavy Bombers were Specification "B"NN/YY) Specifically P13/36 stated that, among other requirements, the bomber was to be twin engined, multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles for world-wide use. It was to have a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs when future developments allow bombs exceeding 2000lb to be constructed. Other specifications included "a light removable form of seating for the maximum number of personnel that can be accommodated within the fuselage when the aircraft is being used for reinforcing Overseas Commands", as well as the ability to be catapult launched for overweight take-offs, and the ability to carry torpedoes. Avro thought these specifications were unworkable so they submitted their own design (designated Avro679) which became the Avro Manchester. There was a problem with this aircraft, however, was that it was powered by two Rolls Royce Vulture engines that were not only grossly underpowered for the job they were expected to do, but they were also not very reliable. In 1940, Roy Chadwick, Avro's Chief Design Engineer, had been working on an updated and uprated version of the Manchester, with a grater wingspan and powered by four Rolls Royce Merlins. They were less powerful than the Vultures, but more reliable. The result was the Type 683 Manchester III, which was later renamed as the Lancaster. The way I read this, there is no way that the Lancaster was originally designed to similar specification, or for the same role as the B-17. You claim the the Lancaster was modified to do other roles, and you imply that this was not part of its original design. I disagree entirely. P13/36 called for "multi-role high-speed medium bomber with a maximum range of 3,000 miles with a single unobstructed bomb bay to allow for larger bombs". It is clear from this that the Lancaster was designed, right from the outset, to be able to be modified for other tasks; its airframe was constructed in such a way as to allow for those future modifications. I think even you would agree that the B-17 count not have been modified to carry out the Dambusters or the Tirpitz missions without extensive re-engineering of the airframe (in the case of the Dambusters its moot anyway, because the B-17 would simply not have the necessary handling characteristics to fly at 60 feet over water and drop bouncing bombs). Sources: "The RAF and Aircraft Design, 1923-1939: Air Staff Operational Requirements" by Colin Sinnot pp23, Ch6, Ch7, pp229 Lancaster: The Second World War's Greatest Bomber by Leo McKinstry https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2016/0...pecifications/ Nicely researched and written up! Thanks.

20th June 2019, 07:17 AM	#286
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 22,775	HP 115?

20th June 2019, 07:55 AM	#288
erwinl Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,407	Originally Posted by smartcooky Yup. This aircraft is quite a bit bigger than it looks in the photo. The HP.115 experimental delta aircraft? It’s a bit of a guess, but the lines seem to work out. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115 Edit: Blast! Ninjas everywhere!
erwinl Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,407	__________________ Bow before your king Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"

20th June 2019, 10:09 AM	#289
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 23,792	Well, there's one I'd never heard of! Odd looking thing.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

20th June 2019, 11:56 AM	#290
Elagabalus Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 4,945	Originally Posted by Trebuchet Well, there's one I'd never heard of! Odd looking thing. Fugly. Just like the Lancaster.
Elagabalus Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 4,945

20th June 2019, 01:04 PM	#291
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 12,890	Captain Swoop gets the prize. One of the aspects (and disadvantages) of the delta wing shape is a high nose-up attitude on approach to landing, making it difficult for the pilot to see the runway. This experimental aircraft was designed to to try to mitigate this with use of a large cockpit bubble, and low sloping nose cone and a low set cockpit.
	__________________ "You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 20th June 2019 at 01:16 PM.

5th July 2019, 02:19 AM	#293
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 22,775	How did the film maker know that the planes were nazis?

5th July 2019, 05:58 AM	#294
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 21,524	Until recently, I had never heard of Aircraft One.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

5th July 2019, 11:57 AM	#296
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 21,524	If I'm not mistaken that's Flyer 1
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

5th July 2019, 08:42 PM	#297
Mikemcc Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,799	It totally blew me away when I was stood in the Smithsonian in front of what I thought was a replica and found out it was original!

5th July 2019, 09:00 PM	#298
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 23,792	Sort of original, I think. The Wrights didn't exactly preserve it in original condition, tinkerers that they were. They were also (quite rightly) on the outs with the Smithsonian for a long time. I believe the Flyer spent some years in Europe.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

6th July 2019, 12:16 AM	#299
Cheetah Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,985	Came across this the other day. I'm sure you airplane people must have heard of the Starr Bumble Bee II. It just looks impossible. 30 years later someone should be able to make something even smaller and more ridiculous and dangerous looking. Why haven't they?
Cheetah Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,985	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB Last edited by Cheetah; 6th July 2019 at 12:38 AM.

6th July 2019, 07:34 AM	#301
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 23,792	Yesterday YouTube recommended a video about the Brewster Buccaneer, which was apparently thought to be WWII's worst airplane. I hadn't heard of it but it makes the hapless Buffalo sound good.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

6th July 2019, 07:44 AM	#302
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 32,895	Originally Posted by Trebuchet Yesterday YouTube recommended a video about the Brewster Buccaneer, which was apparently thought to be WWII's worst airplane. I hadn't heard of it but it makes the hapless Buffalo sound good. Everything you want in a fighter/bomber... Originally Posted by wikipedia The Buccaneer was under-powered and poorly constructed A design model copied by Detroit in the 70's and 80's.
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

6th July 2019, 10:03 AM	#303
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 22,377	Originally Posted by Cheetah Came across this the other day. I'm sure you airplane people must have heard of the Starr Bumble Bee II. It just looks impossible. 30 years later someone should be able to make something even smaller and more ridiculous and dangerous looking. Why haven't they? AH, the Bumble Bee. Back in my flight sim days, I worked a bit with that. Seems only marginally possible to fly in the real world. Hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

6th July 2019, 01:33 PM	#304
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 15,894	Long thread but I don't think anyone has posted the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin yet. A "parasitic" fighter meant to be carried long range in the bay of a bomber, dropped, and provide defense over target only to be recovered after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin The FICON project had a similar goal of extending fighter range but used more conventional fighters externally attached wingtip to wingtip of the bomber. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICON_project Both were very tricky in practice and both were terminated with the successful development of air to air refueling.

6th July 2019, 03:41 PM	#305
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 23,792	Originally Posted by Mike! Everything you want in a fighter/bomber... A design model copied by Detroit in the 70's and 80's. Ah, yes. My Dad had a Vega. In fact, he had two of them! I've long believed that Detroit in that era intentionally built bad small cars, so they wouldn't take sales from the more profitable big ones. The sales, of course, went to Japan anyhow.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.