Pages

Praetorium Honoris

Friday, November 17, 2017

The Friday Flyby - November 2017

Dornier Do 31 VTOL
(Source)

So yes, it's been a while since I've done one of these. Used to do them every Friday, until the copyright Gestapo stopped by. Now I behave and try to only use pure, "free to use" photos for which I always will try to include a source. For the photos which dwell in the public domain it's not a strict legal necessity (though Advokaat can correct me if I'm wrong, hey, it happens) but I put a link to where I got the picture anyways. Usually. More often that not. I think you get my drift now and I can stop beating the deceased equine.

Whilst perusing the Web of World Wideness for something which to entertain you, gentle reader, I did a search on "odd aircraft." Wow, there are a lot of them, but the one above really caught my eye. It doesn't look like it should fly, but it does.


Yes, yes, I know the video is auf Deutsch, but you should be used to my wandering about linguistically by now. Pretty cool aircraft, neh? Cool and weird. I like that.

Now from my understanding this bird was designed for and intended to be used to support this -

EWR VJ 101 (Source)
Kinda looks like an F-104 with engines on the wing tips, not in the fuselage. Yes, those jet engines on the wing tips could be tilted to provide a VTOL experience. (Vertical Take Off and Landing if'n you were wondering.) And yes, there is a video...


Weird and kinda cool as well. But wait, there's more!

The Mixmaster

Rear view of the XB-42A in May 1947
(Source)
XB-42A with podded 19XB-2 jets
(Source)
Tail number 43-50225 (top picture) was destroyed in a crash at Bolling in D.C., the three crew members survived. Barely, from the sounds of it!
The record-breaking XB-42 prototype had been destroyed in a crash at Bolling Field. The second of two prototypes of the Douglas XB-42, 43-50225, on a routine flight out of Bolling Field, Washington, D.C., suffered in short order, a landing gear extension problem, failure of the port engine, and as coolant temperatures rose, failure of the starboard engine. Maj. Hayduck bailed out at 1,200 feet, Lt. Col. Haney at 800 feet, and pilot Lt. Col. (later Major General) Fred J. Ascani, after crawling aft to jettison the pusher propellers, at 400 feet – all three survived. The aircraft crashed at Oxen Hill, Maryland. Classified jettisonable propeller technology caused a problem for authorities in explaining what witnesses on the ground thought was the aircraft exploding. Possible fuel management problems were speculated, but this hypothesis was never proven by subsequent investigation. The remaining prototype was used in flight test programs, including fulfilling a December 1943 proposal by Douglas to fit uprated engines and underwing Westinghouse 19XB-2A axial-flow turbojets of 1,600 lbf thrust each, making it the XB-42A. (Source)
Tail number 43-50224 (bottom picture) is in storage at the Air Force Museum, awaiting restoration. I'll be wanting to see that one of these days!

Here's one named after the governor of California (yes, the current loon) -

McDonnell XP-67 "Bat" or "Moonbat"
(Source)
That one flew in 1944, very advanced but a lot of teething problems. The sole prototype was destroyed in a crash. The program cost was over four million bucks. Big money back then. Now? Well, that might buy you a toilet seat and a hammer.

Here was a bad idea looking for a sponsor -

The Goodyear AO-3 "Inflatoplane"
(Source)
Yes, an aircraft you inflate, then fly. Scares me to think about it.
The Goodyear Inflatoplane was an inflatable experimental aircraft made by the Goodyear Aircraft Company, a subsidiary of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, well known for the Goodyear blimp. Although it seemed an improbable project, the finished aircraft proved to be capable of meeting its design objectives, although its sponsor, the United States Army, ultimately cancelled the project when it could not find a "valid military use for an aircraft that could be brought down by a well-aimed bow and arrow". (Source)
Even the Army gets it right sometimes...

This one had to wait a few years, look familiar?

YB-35 Flying Wing showing its quartet of pusher contra-rotating propellers.
The option was later discarded due severe vibration in flight and later changed to traditional single rotating propeller.
(Source)
This view might give you a clue as to this bird's design descendant, sort of.

(Source)
B-2 Bomber
(Source)
See the resemblance now?

Miles M.39B Libellula
(Source)
This odd duck rather looks like something I drew when I was in the 2nd grade (when I should have been paying attention to the teacher), though this one could actually fly. What were they thinking?
The M.39B Libellula (from Libellulidae, a taxonomic family of dragonflies) was a Second World War tandem wing experimental aircraft built by Miles Aircraft, designed to give the pilot the best view possible for landing on aircraft carriers. A scale version of the M.39 design was proposed by Miles to meet Air Ministry specification B.11/41 for a fast bomber. The M.39B was used by Miles to generate data from which the M.39 design was improved, but the M.39 project was cancelled and the M.39B broken up. (Source)
Wonder what Lex would have thought of that design?

Weird and wonderful aircraft, there are many more, but I need to save some of them for a future post. (Need to get started on that book dontcha know?)



30 comments:

  1. I don't speak German so I went over to YouTube and turned on auto-translate.
    Among the auto-translated gems were, "to relax after the death automatically becomes obsolete Sunday struck to the rules," and "in early March in the 67 Logan Thibault 31 babies wood swamp the first time."
    I narrowly avoided having to clean up a coffee soaked keyboard.

    Many years ago I was browsing a used book store and bought this 1941 novel. I wish I still had it.

    https://www.amazon.com/Stratosphere-Jim-his-Flying-Fortress/dp/B0007ESXCG

    Facts usually catch up to fiction.

    The flying wing bomber makes a brief appearance in the 1953 film, "The War of the Worlds."
    This link goes to the TCM site and mentions the bomber.

    http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/95088/The-War-of-the-Worlds/trivia.html

    Fascinating aircraft, and unexpected closed caption comic relief.

    Another great post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now I need to do that as well. I love bad translations!

      Delete
  2. I'm still laughing about a "Well aimed bow and arrow."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering the VC were using teak crossbows firing bamboo darts that could go into a Huey's engine after passing through the floor, well, yeah.. (Friend o mine's father, who later flew the SR-71, was in a rescue helo that got 'bolted' by one of these things. Helo landed, killed the bow crew, and brought back a very interesting war trophy.)

      Also see Italian invasion of Ethiopia, and Ethiopia's anti-aircraft spear throwers.

      It just goes to show you that anything can be used as a 'weapon' as it is the human mind that is dangerous.

      Delete
  3. A retired Boeing engineer friend told me a flying wing configuration is the most efficient. The problems, as he related to me, is usefulness and serviceability. As an example, bombs needed to be loaded like bullets in a machine gun belt - no vertical room. As to servicing and checking, this gives some idea of the problems.

    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/midgets-doing-construction-work-on-airplanes-little-news-footage/502797689

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had no idea! Pretty interesting video, makes sense though, the little folk can get into places a normal size person can't.

      Delete
  4. Re: the Moonbat--interesting to contemplate what it might have done with decent power. IMHO, they finally got there with the F-82 twin Mustang. I read somewhere that they had no problem performing formation maneuvers with everybody on one engine.

    Re: B-2--I also recall reading that shortly before his death, Jack Northrop (in his wheel chair) was brought into the Skunk works to see the vindication of his work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, actually the Moonbat is a pretty bird. She looks aerodynamically sound.

      Nice that Mr Northrup got to see that.

      Delete
  5. The Friday Flyby, always the best blog of the week!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I miss it also. Sad that not understanding the law, and a desire to ruin other people's day, seem to be a common occurrence on the internet nowadays.

      Delete
    2. Well, there's the laziness factor to consider as well.

      I have been guilty of that from time to time.

      Delete
  6. What would Lex say? "No fighter pilot would be caught dead in one- let the attack guys have it." Plenty of "ugly" attack aircraft out there- SLUFFs, BUFFs, Queers, etc. I wonder why we didn't go with some sort of similar design for the MV-22 requirement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean similar to the first VTOL shown.

      Delete
    2. SLUFFs, BUFFs, and Queers. Oh my.

      :)

      Delete
    3. As to the second part - I knew that. Wondered the same myself. Might have had something to do with NIH? (Not Invented Here.)

      Delete
    4. I know what a BUFF and a QUEER is but what the the heck is a SLUFF?

      Delete
    5. A-7 Corsair, Short Little Ugly Fat F**k, SLUFF.

      Delete
    6. I remember that the old guys in their Nat Guard SLUFFs repeatedly skunked the newer guys in their brand-spanking new A-10s for several years in Tactical Air competitions.

      Really forced the Hog drivers to step up and get game.

      But... what the hell is a QUEER? Search attempts keep coming back to the Enola Gay, which is not what y'all are referencing here I don't think. Ah, never mind, found it, maybe. C-5 or EA6B? Still, why QUEER if EA-6B?

      Delete
  7. Thanks for the post and photos. Some mighty strange looking things have been in the air. I guess " if it'll fly, I'll try " is the standard.

    Paul L. Quandt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many out there, these are just a few of the ones which struck my fancy.

      Delete
  8. IIRC I read someplace about the inflatoplane, being designed to be air dropped to a downed pilot, who puts it together in an open field and flies off. Uh right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, waaaaay back in the mid 80s there was a covert Special Forces unit operating deep behind enemy lines (90 miles behind the East German border to be exact) who could have used the inflatable aircraft. We were considering using ultralights which we would assemble and then fly over the Wall and on out into the countryside where we would have a non-fighting chance to get away from Berlin and conduct our mission. Although we did plan for going over the Wall, we were looking for ways like this which would enable us to escape unseen and get well away and into the countryside. We were looking at using two seat versions of ultralights, one seat containing the team member, the other seat containing his rucksack and some supplies. Resupply in the event of WWIII seemed highly unlikely, so whatever we took with us was pretty much all we could expect to have until one side or the other won, we ended up being run to ground, or we managed to eventually walk to a neutral country.

    I say non-fighting chance since any use of firearms that far behind the enemy's forward lines would alert them to our presence. Their SOP for SF units operating in their rear areas was to put several divisions of troops at a double-arm interval in a kilometers wide circle and have them move inward. Eventually they would have us contained in a 1 klick square which they would then prep with 122mm rocket fire. Then send in the troops with baggies to pick up whatever pieces remained. Even with suppressed weapons, the missing soldier would eventually be missed, searched for, found and the hounds loosed upon us.

    One of those planes would have given us a good head start and a chance to get lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Odd ball designs like that are often used by special forces soldiers.

      But how would you get the engine back to where they operated? Airdrop springs to mind, but that too draws attention.

      An interesting topic of study.

      Delete
  10. Hey Old AFSarge;

    Wow, those are some strange airplanes, I surmise some of those airplanes were designed before the advent of computers. It almost seems the heyday for strange airplanes was after WWII until the 1960's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're right on the pre-computer design. The late '40s and early '50s had a lot of strange aircraft.

      Delete
  11. Ok, so speaking of strange...what/why are there what appear to be windows on the ends of the wings on the plane in the first picture? Are they exhaust ports? Or did some poor bloke get stuck sitting there? Or am I just really more confused than usual?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here is another one-off.

    https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1757

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.