The Best Jet?

[simon]

OK, the time has come to introduce a new topic, I think.

What in everyone's opinion was the best JET to come out of the second world war? To kick off... In my opinion the best carrier Jet has to go to the Ryan FR-1 Fireball, a composite aircraft that looked like a normal piston fighter but actually had a Jet power boost for when it needed that extra boost.

For this I will accept nominations from any nationality that entered the testing stages up to September 1945.

Your turn...

[preb]

The best jet fighter was the messerschmitt ME262

[GregP]

Lockheed P-80 by far. Faster and more maneuverable, with good armament. What else is there?

[Romantic Technofreak]

The P-80 was best because of its unique strong engines. We already had the discussion about the wing configuration of jet fighters, because the P-80 got problems over Korea, making it necessary to get coverd or replaced by F-84 and F-86 with their swept wing designs.

The Me 262 was more advanced in this, but was in the contrary situation of the P-80. It had to fight piston engined enemies, so it could not play out this advantage and received a lot of starting and landing trouble. Wrong place, wrong time! The straight wing Heinkel He 280 would have done better, I agree with Greg in this.

The Go 229 was at least the same good than the P-80. But flying wings are still not fully recognized. The speciality of the Horten brothers is the "center effect", what makes their designs controllable and unstallable. But in a German forum I already got the answer the center effect being not more than a myth. I am not an aircraft engineer, I only know that the Hortens also produced gliders for ground training as much as ones for high performance contests, so their designs MUST fly very good, in any case.
Lippisch did not know about the center effect, neither did Northrop, and that is why his YB-35 and YB-49 prototypes failed. I don´t know if the nowadays B-2 relies more on a superb airfoil concept or on permanent computer interference for controlling.

Many people, especially German, see the Me 262 as the most advanced German jet design. But remember the Me 262 was never copied in numbers anywhere. The real ancestors of the jet fighter flying ca. 1947-1954 were the German designs Focke-Wulf Ta 183 and Messerschmitt P. 1011, highly influencing the development of the F-84, F-86 and the MiG 15, so, although they did not fly during the war, it seems them to be the best jet fighter designs of WWII.

[Corsarius]

Messerschmitt was copied by Sukhoi, who produced several straight-winged copies, as well as the czechs, who continued production of the Me-262 for some time after the war.

[robert]

Given the stipulation that a subtype had to have flown by September 1945, I think you'd have to give very serious consideration to the Gloster Meteor F.4, whose prototype, converted Meteor F.III EE360/G, first flew in July 1945.

While the wartime Meteor F.1 and F.3 were not really equal to the Me 262A and P-80A, the installation of the vastly more powerful Rolls-Royce Derwent 5s in the Meteor F.4 completely transformed the aircraft - with a maximum speed of 585 mph, it was faster than either the P-80A or Me 262A. A specially modified Meteor F.4 set the first 600+ mph World Speed Record, on September 7, 1946.

The Meteor F.4 had a successful post-war career with the RAF, Denmark, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, and Egypt.

A quick comparison between the Meteor F.4 and P-80A:

Maximum speed: Meteor F.4, 585 mph; P-80A, 558 mph
Rate of climb: Meteor F4, 7,500 ft./min; P-80A, 4,580 ft./min
Ceiling: Meteor F.4, 49,000 ft.; P-80A, 45,000 ft.
Normal range: P-80A, 780 miles; Meteor F.4, 420 miles
Maximum range: P-80A, 1,440 miles; Meteor F.4, 1,000 miles

The handling and maneuverability was also improved in the F.4 over the earlier marks by the adoption of clipped wings, which especially improved the rate of roll.

[GregP]

I can understand how the German people might feel the Me262 to be technically the best, but I think not.

Yes, the outer panels were swept, but this did not make the 262 superior. The single engine P-80 was faster due to carefull attention to streamlining and a carefully thought out airfoil ... all of which would not get the job done without the engine.

The Rolls-Royce jets were better than the Junkers or the BMW units, if only in available thrust. The Metror was, indeed, a WWII design, but the Meteors in service in WWII were NOT of the later variety. In fact, they saw only limited combat to start with. The P-80 saw NONE since we didn't deploy it to Europe.

So, I'll admit this:

The Me-262 was the best jet fighter in deployed service in WWII.
The later Metor spoken of in the above post was slightly faster than the P-80.
The P-80 was probably the best overall jet available in the 1944 - 1945 timeframe.

After 1946, we get into the F-86 / MiG-15 era, and if we go a few more years down the road, then we have to include the Hunter. Meteors served the UK well, but I don't rank the Meteor (or the P-80 or the Me-262) with the swept-wing rivals that followed. Of these planes, the Me-262 probably COULD have been developed into a world-class fighter more easily than either the Meteor or the P-80, but that possibility ended with the Third Reich.

[Corsarius]

Aren't we forgetting the humble Vampire? I always liked the look of that plane. I think it's the twin booms and the stubby body that does it. Something like a vaguely pregnant mallard shooting through the sky, but with impressive armament and handling qualities.

Going on the 'airframe life' alone, you have to recall the Switzerland flew the Vampire as a front line aircraft (although in the ground attack role) right up until the mid 1908s!

It's simplicity of build and ease of maintanence (wooden construction, possibly evolved from the mosquito? someone enlighten me) would have helped there enormously.

[Pete57]

GregP

For once I've got to disagree with you: the P-80 was indeed deployed to Europe in January 1945.

Project Extraversion sent 4 YP-80A to Europe, 2 to the U.K. and two to the MTO (Italy)

One of the U.K. based aircraft exploded in mid-air killing the pilot, Maj. Borsodi, the second one was handed to Rolls Royce for the flight test program of the Rolls Royce Nene engine.

The M.T.O. aircraft performed flawless and are quoted to have taken part to combat missions (to what extent I'm still trying to research).

I'm gonna post more details later on.

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57

GregP

The M.T.O. aircraft performed flawless and are quoted to have taken part to combat missions (to what extent I'm still trying to research).

I'm gonna post more details later on.


Bill Yenne in Lockheed notes that the two YP-80s sent to Italy took part in a few patrols, but encountered no enemy aircraft.

[Pete57]

Some details on 'Project Extraversion'.

Spurred by the appearance of the German jet and rocket fighters, the USAAF decided to show the bomber crews that had to deal, day in and day out, with the new menace that 'help was on the way' and that also 'the good guys' had not been sitting idle and were developing the new 'blowtorch technology'.

The code word "Extraversion" was assigned to the Project, on November 13, 1944, pursuant to verbal request by Col. George E. Price (head of the project), by The War Department, Headquarter of the Army Air Forces, Washington D.C.
I have a copy of the original letter, signed by R.C. Wilson, Colonel AC, Chief, Aircraft Projects Br., Materiel Division, AC/AS, Materiel & Services, where the aircraft are indicated as "...special XP-80A project for ETO and MTO."

The four aircraft, earmarked for this Project were actually all YP-80As.

S/N 44-83026, c/n 1005 (ETO)
S/N 44-83027, c/n 1006 (ETO)
S/N 44-83028, c/n 1007 (MTO)
S/N 44-83029, c/n 1008 (MTO)

There is stong evidence this project received the highest priority from 'the powers that be', so much so that, in some cases, the lack of spares/items had to be made good by cannibalization performed on some of the aircraft used in the development program.

The ETO aircraft were disassembled, boxed and shipped as deck cargo to Burtonwood, England, on Dec. 15, 1944, arriving in the U.K on December 30.
It took a whole month, to reassemble and get the two aircraft ready, the extremely cold weather being appearently a major factor.

The two pilots, Col. Marcus Cooper and Major Fredric Austin Borsodi, of the Air Technical Service Command HQ, based at Wright Field, arrived sometimes in January 1945, and Col. Cooper took 44-86026 on the type's first flight outside the U.S.
Maj. Borsodi was at the controls of the same aircraft, on Jan.28, when a failure in tension of the tail-pipe flange caused part of the hot gasses to exhaust inside the after section of the fuselage,with varying degree of damage to the tail surfaces and rear empenage disintegration.
Borsodi lost control of the aircraft which crashed on farmland, near Bold. Borsodi was killed.

44-83027 was loaned to The Rolls Royce Engine Company, for flight tests of their B.41 (Nene) engine and was destroyed in an accident on Nov. 14, 1945.

For details, please go to
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/YP-80A%20%2044-83026.htm

Although the MTO aircraft performed far better, at least from the operational point of view, much less is known as of their operational service.
I have obtained a copy of the two Individual Aircraft History Cards and their contents can be best described as 'skimpy and vague'.

44-83028 is shown as departing the Con-U.S. on Dec. 26, 1945 for overseas destination code DUKO, MET (Italy, 12th A.F.). It is then listed as being back to the Con-U.S. (an Air Materiel Command in Buffalo, NY) on June 16, 1945

44-83029 is shown as departing the Con-U.S. for an unreported overseas destination on Dec. 26, 1945, returning from same on Jun. 16, 1945.

A well known photograph of the two aircraft formating Ner Mt. Vesuvius, near Naples, taken by what appears to be an Olive Drab painted F-6 Photo-Mustang, has appeared in several publications.
If someone is interested, e-mail me at pzanella84_pete@hotmail.com and I'll try to send him/her a copy.

Some considerations: although the MTO aircraft were shipped 11 days after the MTO aircraft were, the far less inclement weather of Southern Italy makes it - my humble opinion only - not unlikely the MTO aircraft were first flown around the same time their ETO counterparts first flew.

Another rumor has it that they were shipped to the relatively safer MTO to intercept the Arado Ar.234, that were flying recon missions from Udine, in Northern Italy.
However, considering there are no records of German jets operating from, or over Italy, before February 1945, this cannot be!

So far as the MTO YP-80As'combat missions are concerned, please go to
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/LockheedP80A/P-80.htm
and
http://www.largescaleplanes.com/reviews/Kits/Jets/Collectaire/P-80C/P-80C.htm


I want to take advantage of this forum to thank Mr. Dan Hagerdon of the Archives Reference team of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum and Mr. David A. Giordano of the Modern Military Records, Textual Archives Services Division of the Natl. Archives & Records Adm., in College Park, MD, for providing me with the best information on the MTO Project Extraversion aircraft I've been, so far, able to obtain.

I hope I'll be able, someday, to write the full story of this fascinating a so little known piece of WW2 history.

[BuzzLightyear]

Here is an intersting comparison chart from one of my books. Self explanatory:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/comparison.JPG

And the 2 YP-80As sent to Italy during Extraversion:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/italy.jpg

[BuzzLightyear]

BTW, I agree the P-80A was the best jet fighter to emerge from WWII. It simply gave up nothing to the Me-262 in terms of performance, being superior in just about every imaginable performance category. It was faster at all altitudes. Had a ceiling of some 8,000 feet higher. It had a better drag coefficient. It had a higher critical mach. It had better power-to-weight ratio. Better wing loading. Better range.

The P-80A roll rate was simply amazing for that era:
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/p80roll.JPG

The only area where the P-80 could have used improvement was the stick force required in longitudnal manuevers with a signficantly forward center-of-gravity. It could be very high. As center-of-gravity shifted back, control stick forces were exceptionally light.




I've seen (In the book Me-262, Smith and Creek, Volume 4) a summary of a direct comparison test done after the war that suggested the overall superiority of the Me-262. But it's important to note that that comparsion was between a stripped recon verson of the Me-262 and the XP-80 (which was dimmensionally smaller and had 1,000 lbs less thrust than the P-80A). This was the only test that I know of where both planes were present at the same place and time.

However, I know of at least 4 other comparison studies that were done by the USAAF between the P-80A and the Me-262. Results of two of those tests are unknown to me. The others concluded the general superiority of the P-80A. One pilot in one of the latter tests stated "The Me-262 may be the best jet fighter in service, but the P-80 is the best jet fighter in the world." I guess he meant combat service.

[GregP]

Thanks guys! OK we sent 4 P-80s. Live and learn.

Excluding the one that exploded, thereby eliminating an allied poilt from the fray, they didn't contribute anything to winning WWII, but obviously DID get there.

I think my earlier comments stand, however. The Me 262 COULD have been developed into something, but Messerschmitt is precluded from building military planes forever, so that didn't happen.

The Meteor would have required substantial makeover to be anything more than it was ... which was pretty good except when compared with the F-86, MiG-15, and Hawker Hunter stable of later jets. Ditto the P-80.

The Vampire is another story. They added swept wings and had a new jet! Atill, the platform was limited. I am surprised it lasted as long as it did, but that just goes to show you that the quality of a device can prolong its useful life considerdably. The Vampire / Venom series of jets were obviously well-liked by the users or they would NOT have lasted as long as they did.

We are probably missing a few 1940s jets.

The French SNCA NC 1080 that flew in 1948 was nice.
The Soviet Alekseev I-211 flew in 1947 and the I-215 flew in 1948. The model 140 of 1948 looks to me like a Junkers airplane!
The French Arsenal VG-70 and VG-90 flew in 1948 and 1949 and look mediocre, but jet-like.
Armstrong Whitworth flew the Sea Hawk and the AW52 bomber in 1947.
Avia flew a copy of the Me 262 in 1946 called the Avia S92.
I have the Vampire as flying in 1943. Is that right? I have the D.H. 108 Swallow in 1946.
I have the Douglas XB-43 jet bomber flying in 1946 (the piston version flew in 1944).
Switzerland flew the FFA Arbalete in 1949, so they made the 1940s.
FMA in Argentina flew the I.Ae.27 in 1947.
Let's not forget Whittle. The Squirt flew in 1941.
The Gloster E.1/44 flew in 1948.
The Meteor was a 1944 airplane with the F.Mk8 coming in 1945.
The Gotha Go.229 flew, but I'm not sure when. I have seen a movie of it.
The Hawker P.1040 flew in 1949.
The Heinkel He 178 flew in 1939; the He 162 flew in 1945; and the He 280 flew in 1941. Too bad it didn't get developed. I was basically a German Meteor.
The Henschel Hs 132 was supposed to have flown in 1945, but the prototype was captured by the Russians before it was fully assembled.
The Ilyushin Il-22 flew in 1947 as a 4-jet bomber. It resembles and AR 234 Blitz. The Il-28 Beagle flew in 1949!
The Junkers Ju-287 flew in 1944 and was obviously built in a version by the Soviets by Alekseev.
The Lavochkin La-15 flew in 1948, as did a dizzying array of LAvochking, MiG, Yak, and Sukhoi jets in the 1940s.
The French Leduc 0.10 and 0.16 flew in the 1940s, too, but little data is available on them other than basic performance and physical measurements. Pictures are rare, but I have a few (none of the 0.16).
The Lockheed P-80 came in 1945.
The excellent Martin XB-51 made the 1940 and came in 1949. We should have bought it.
The McDonnel XF-88, which became the F-101 Voodoo, flew in 1948.
The Messerschmitt Me 262 flew in 1941, but was delayed by politics until later. Good thing since the engines were temperamental even after several years of tinkering ... but it DID get into battle.
The Me 328 flew in 1943, but did not get developed.
The MiG-9 flew in 1946, and was faster than the Me 262 (910 kph).
The French Nord 2200 flew in 1949.
The North American B-45 flew in 1947.
The Northrop XP-79 flew in 1945. The XF-89 flew in 1948, and the YB-49 flew in 1949.
The Republic F-84 flew in 1947.
The Swedish SAAB J21 RB flew in 1949 (definitely and ugly craft), the J29 in 1948 (a VERY good fighter).
The French Sud Ouest 6000 flew in 1948 and the M.2 flew in 1949.
The SUkhoi Su-10 was supposed to have flown in 1948, but I have no definite proof; the Su-15 flew in 1949.
The Supermarine 510/517 flew in 1948, and became the Swift.
The Tuploev Tu-12 flew in 1947/1948 and lloks like a jet version of the North American B-25 Mitchell. STRANGE. The Tu-14 flew in 1947. The Tu-82/83 flew in 1949.
The Chance Vought F6U Pirate flew in 1949, with the F7U1 making it in 1948.
The Yak-15 jet flew in 1946 and was in service fast. The Yak-17 and -19 flew in 1947, and the Yak-23 and -25 (1st one) flew in 1948. The Yak-50 jet flew in 1949. The secind Yak-50 is a piston aerobatic aircraft, but the first one was a single engine jet.
Tat leaves the last 1940s jet to be the Bell P-59, essentially used as an engine test bed ... but we DID build a few to get jets into service so the pilots could get experience with them.

As far as I know, that sums up the jets of the 1940's ... although I notice I forgot the Japanese version of the Me 262.

Anybody have any OTHER 1940s jets?

[robert]

The Vampire first flew on September 29, 1943.

Three other 1940s jets (in fact in my opinion, three of the most important of all 1940s jets, although none were fighters):

de Havilland Comet, July 27, 1949

English Electric Canberra, May 13, 1949

Boeing B-47 Stratojet, December 17, 1947

[robert]

Saunders-Roe SR.A-1: July 16, 1947
Avro Type 707: September 4, 1949
Armstrong-Whitworth AW.52: November 13, 1947
Convair XB-46: April 2, 1947
Convair XF-92: September 18, 1948
Hawker P.1052: November 27, 1948
I.Ae.27 Pulqui: August 9, 1947
McDonnell XF-85 Goblin: August 23, 1948
Republic XF-91: May 3, 1949
Vickers Nene-Viking: April 6, 1948
Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner: August 10, 1949

[Corsarius]

The Japanese 'version' of the Me-262 was the Nakajima 'kikka' and would have had a much different role if it made it into service. It was an unarmed high-speed jet bomber, more like a very light Ar-234 than a fighter, at least this was it's intended role. Here is a very interesting link with pictures:

http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/kikka/index.html

As for the Vampire becoming the Venom, yes, it did, and was highly successful in the post-war period, but Switzerland continued to use the Vampire until near the turn of this century, while they stopped using the Venom. Reason: Unknown to myself, anyway.

[GregP]

Maybe the "Venom" rotted the wood structure?

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Maybe the "Venom" rotted the wood structure?


Hey... I'm the guy who does the one-liners round here.:D

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Maybe the "Venom" rotted the wood structure?


Hey... I'm the guy who does the one-liners round here.:D


Just to bump this topic back to the active list

[delcyros]

good decision.

What about soviet planes? The I-300 is around in late 45 as is the Yak 15.

I do also believe that the -262 (surprise!) was the best jet deployed in ww2, altough beeing inferior to the late 1945 P-80A versions and the late 45 Meteor F4 (I do believe the XP-80A´s send to europe are still inferior to the Me-262 as are the Meteor F3´s). It is somehow hard to judge a 1944 Me-262 and compare it with a late 45 P-80/Meteor-IV. A late 45 Me-262 would be improved as well with Jumo-004E powerplants alone, which could close the speed gap to around 924 Km/h (574 mp/h) and -in turn- equals to the late 45 P-80A.

The P-80 in particular enjois the benfit of a very clean airframe altough in the timeframe considered, the plane needed a lot of de-bugging (as all first generation jets). It´s fuel consumption is very sensitive to altitude, which prohibits the utilization of the P-80 for low altitudes (introduction of wingtip droptanks deleted this problem) and despite an excellent controllability, I have some doubts in a dogfight comparison He-162 and P-80A. On the flip side of the coin, the P-80 with later powerplants bears great performance and is utilized as trainer till today. The armament of 6 nose mounted 0.50cal M3 is simply the best if it comes down to hunt a fighter in high speed engagements.

The Meteor F4 actually suffers from a comparably low crit Mach figure, and that´s somehow of importance for hi speed jets. On the other hand it has an excellent range, a decent punch and it can outclimb and outaccellerate anything but the rocket or rocket-jet powered planes.


The best jet engined plane -in my eyes- was the four engined Ar-234C. Altough only about 14 preserial C0 and serial C1 + several prototypes have been produced (totals about 22). This jet simply kicks ass!
It´s no fighter but a superior jet recon, jet bomber and a potent night fighter as well and therefore usable in the offensive role as well. With a top speed of 895 Km/h (556 mp/h) at 6000m (bomb loaden around 845 Km/h ~ 525 mp/h) and reliable BMW-003A2 engines, a useful 994 miles range at high altitude (without drop tanks) and a payload of up to 2 t. (1 t. at this performance) plus 2-4 20mm MG 151/20, the jet simply is great. Note the Askania EZ computing bombsight perfectly fits to the plane´s purpose.
The later serial C3 and C4 should use the more improved BMW-003D.
At the given altitude, this bomber isn´t really slower than a P-80 and only marginally slower than a Meteor F4! It also outruns the latest P-47/P-51/Spitful/Yaks at any given altitude with any load.

Not bad also is the Me-262 HG-II, which might have been the best overall with her 30 degrees swept back wings, if only the prototype wouldn´t be damaged in taxiing in february 1945!

[GregP]

Hey Robert, thanks for the additional data. I am compiling a complete list and will hoefully eliminate the typos and post it including your contributions.

[GregP]

OK, looking completely at my own database as well as the ones mentioned by other people, I have the list of jet aircraft through the 1940s as shown below. The only jet NOT in the 1940s is the Heinkel He.178, the very first jet aircraft flown in 1939.

These are not in exact date of first flight order, but are arranged correctly by year at least. It's all the time I have to devote to it ...

Jet Aircraft through the 1940s
************************************************** ****
The Heinkel He 178 flew in 1939
The Gloster-Whittle E.28/39 Squirt flew in 1941
The Heinkel He 280 flew in 1941
The Messerschmitt Me 262 flew in 1941, but was delayed by politics until later
The Bell XP-59A flew on 1 Oct 1942
The de Havilland D.H. 100 Vampire flew in 1943
The Messerschmitt Me 328 flew in 1943, but did not get developed
The Douglas XB-43 jet bomber flew in 1946 (the piston version flew in 1944)
The Arado AR-234 flew in 1944
The Fieseler Fi 103 manned pulsejet flew in Sep 1944
The Junkers Ju-287 flew in 1944
The Gloster G.44 and F.Mk III Meteor flew in 1944 with the F. Mk. 8 coming in 1945
The McDonnell FD-1 Phantom flew on 26 Jan 1945
The Gotha Go.229 (Horten Ho.229?) flew on 2 Feb 1945
The Heinkel He 162 flew in 1945
The Lockheed P-80 flew in 1945
The Bell XP-83 flew in 1945
The Northrop XP-79 flew in 1945
The Henschel Hs 132 was supposed to fly in 1945, but the prototype was captured by the Russians before it was fully assembled
The Gloster NF.11 Meteor flew in 1946
The Lavochkin La-150/152/154/160 all flew in 1946
The North American FJ-1 flew in 1946
The Avia S92 flew in 1946 and was a copy of the Me 262
The de Havilland D.H. 108 Swallow flew in 1946, was the 1st British aircraft to exceed the speed of sound
The MiG-9 flew in Apr 1946 and was faster than the Me 262 at 910 kph, entered service in 1947
The Yakovlev Yak-15 flew in 1946
The Junkers-Argus EF-126/127 Elly flew in 1946
The McDonnell F2H-3 Banshee flew on 11 Jan 1947
FMA in Argentina flew the I.Ae.27 in 1947
The Armstrong Whitworth Sea Hawk flew in 1947
The Armstrong Whitworth AW52 bomber flew in 1947
The Alekseev I-211 flew in 1947
The Curtiss XP-87 flew in 1947 (and was the last Curtiss aircraft)
The Soviet Alekseev 140 flew in 1947
The Lavochkin La-156 flew in 1947
The Ilyushin Il-22 flew in 1947 and was very similar to the 4-engine Arado AR 234 variant
The North American XF-86 flew on 1 Oct 1947
The North American B-45 flew in 1947
The Republic F-84 flew in 1947
The Northrop YB-49 flew in 1947
The Tuploev Tu-12 flew in 1947 and looks like a jet version of the North American B-25 Mitchell
The Tupolev Tu-14 flew in 1947
The Yakovlev Yak-17 flew in 1947
The Yakovlev Yak-19 flew in 1947
The Leduc 0.10 flew in 1947
The Convair XB-46 flew on 2 Apr 1947
The Saunders-Roe SR.A-1 flew on 16 Jul 1947
The I.Ae.27 Pulqui flew 9 Aug 1947
The Armstrong-Whitworth AW.52 flew on 13 Nov 1947
The Boeing B-47 Stratojet flew 17 Dec 1947
The Alekseev I-215 flew in 1948
The Alekseev Model 150 flew in 1948
The Leduc 0.16 flew in 1948
The SNCAC NC.1071 flew in 1948
The SNCAC NC 1080 flew in 1948
The SNCASO SO-6020 flew in 1948
The SNCASO SO-6025 flew on 28 Dec1948
The Gloster E.1/44 (or GA.2) flew in 1948
The French Arsenal VG-70 flew in 1948
The Lavochkin La-168/176 both flew in 1948
The Lockheed T-33A flew in 1948
The Lavochkin La-15 flew in 1948
The Vickers-Armstrong Nene-Viking flew on 6 Apr 1948
The Northrop XF-89 Scorpion flew in 1948
The Sud Ouest 6000 flew in 1948
The SAAB J29 in 1948 (a VERY good fighter)
The McDonnel XF-88, which became the F-101 Voodoo, flew in 1948
The Vought F7U-1 Cutlass flew in 1948
The Sukhoi Su-10 was supposed to have flown in 1948
The Supermarine 510/517 flew in 1948, and became the Swift
The Chance-Vought F7U1 flew in 1948
The Avro Tudor 8 flew in 1948
The McDonnell XF-85 Goblin flew on 23 Aug 1948
The Convair XF-92 flew on 18 Sep 1948
The Hawker P.1052 flew on 27 Nov 1948
The Yakovlev Yak-23 flew in 1948
The Yakovlev Yak-25 (1st one) flew in 1948
The FFA EFE N-20.1 swept delta glider flew in 1949 leading to the Arbalette and Aiguillon (not really a jet, but the same airframe)
The Lavochkin La-200 flew in 1949
The Lavochkin La-15 UTI flew in 1949
The Arsenal VG-90 flew in 1949
The Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor flew in 1949
The Lockheed F-94 Starfire flew in 1949
The Hawker P.1040 flew in 1949
The de Havilland D.H. 106 Venom flew in 1949
The Yakovlev Yak-50 jet flew in 1949
The Yakovlev Yak-1000 flew in 1949
The Ilyushin Il-28 Beagle flew in 1949
The Martin XB-51 flew in 1949
The GrummanF9F-8 Panther flew in 1949
The Republic XF-91 flew 3 May 1949
The English Electric Canberra flew on 13 May 1949
The de Havilland Comet flew on 27 July 1949
The SAAB J21 RB flew in 1949
The French Nord (or SNCAN) 2200 flew in 1949
The Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner flew on 10 Aug 1949
The Avro Type 707 flew on 4 Sep 1949
The Lockheed XF-90 flew in 1949
The Sud Ouest M.2 flew in 1949
The Sukhoi Su-15 (1st one) flew in 1949
The Tupolev Tu-82/83 flew in 1949
The Chance-Vought F6U Pirate flew in 1949

That's all Ihave in my list. Please, by all means, point out any omissions! :)

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

OK, looking completely at my own database as well as the ones mentioned by other people, I have the list of jet aircraft through the 1940s as shown below. The only jet NOT in the 1940s is the Heinkel He.178, the very first jet aircraft flown in 1939.

These are not in exact date of first flight order, but are arranged correctly by year at least. It's all the time I have to devote to it ...

Jet Aircraft through the 1940s


Now that is a LOT of aircraft!!

And some of them had remarkably long service lives ... (do the Indians still run a few Canberras?)

Happy New Year everyone

[GregP]

Hi Curmugeon,

It IS a lot of jets, but they all flew in the 40's (except the He 178).

Hope it stirs some "obscure aircraft" interest in you or others.

There is a lot of information on them and a LOT of topics. Some are virtually unknown, some are well known. Depends on your level of interest in the subject.

This IS a WWII forum, so it is probably not OK to expound on the jets, but they ARE interesting.

Hey Taglia and/or Simon, how about a jet forum and one for piston survivors into the 1950's / 1960's?

Where would the Turbine Piper Enforcer fit?

It was a P-51 fitted with a turbine out of a helicopter.

Just trying to get the subjects and posts to expand a bit from present interest levels.

[curmudgeon]

moving this from Me 262 top speed

quote:Originally posted by delcyros

And from me as well: Welcome to 2007!


quote:Had the war looked like going on I understand the British plan was to mass produce Vampires. Vampires were always significantly superior to early Meteors (handling, range, speed (over 500mph in level flight through most of the altitude range by early 1944)) as well as being easier to assemble. They had better altitude performance than the 262, were docile, but had good aerobatic performance. At one (reliable) engine/aircraft and with 4 x 20mm cannon I think they would more than have matched the Me 262. For its anti-bomber role the Me 262 was stuck with its 30mm cannon.

Yes-the Vampires would have been a nasty match for a Me-262! But by the time Vampires would enter service in squadron strength, 1946 is to begin and the Me-262 certainly would have been updated by that time.

No. Allied planning was predicated on a successful invasion of western Europe in mid 1944. With the success of the Normandy landing, by late August there was a strong (but misplaced) belief that the war would be over by Xmas 1944. All strategic plans were formulated on the belief that the war would be over by mid 1945, come what may.

Decisions needed were for dH to significantly increase production of Goblins (and they were tooled, but not tasked, to do this). As an earlier post indicated the man-hours to produce a jet engine were about half those for a piston engine. Then there was the decision to produce bodies. This was not tasked to dH who were producing Mosquitos. Almost any of the aircraft producers (Roots Gp, English Electric (who ended up doing it)) could produce Vampires as it was a very straightforward and functional design.

Funnily enough, like the Mosquito, the Spidercrab/Vampire was a de Havilland private venture, starting 2 years after the Meteor. It was produced to spec (E6/41).

As the Wikipedia author has it "In postwar service, the RAF employed the Gloster Meteor as an interceptor and the Vampire as a ground-attack fighter-bomber although their roles probably should have been reversed."

quote:
Probably it´s better to compare the single engined wooden-dural He-162 with the single engined wooden-dural Vampire as they would be a good match. I have always been wondering why the Spider cap prototype didn´t received the attention it should deserve.

Possibly because it was a de Havilland project ... the Mosquito was only accepted after it flew and couldn't be ignored. By the time the Vampire was proving an embarassment (northern spring 1944) the end of the war could be foreseen, there was a heavy investment (resources, careers) in the Meteor, and nobody wanted to be shown wrong, nor was 'changing horses in midstream' to be encouraged. Allied jet development was a sideline, people were looking at positions post war (see that list of 1940s jets that GregP produced).

quote:
Nerve gases are nasty but the most dangerous weapon in Hitlers arsenal was the biotoxine Botulinum, till today the most dangerous substance, known to mankind. IG-Farben developed it to weapon suitability by mid 1943 and some stocks were filled by those bombs, altough none were actually ever used. Stocks finally reached numbers mathematically sufficiant to wipe out the earths population several times, thanks godness that the nazi regime collapsed prior to it´s use as a vengance or whatever...


weaponizing botulin toxin wasn't really achieved until the 1960s. Both the UK and Germany had looked at this (and anthrax). The important thing with the nerve gases is their fast effect at lowish doses and transcuticular action, and that they were completely outside the Allies' experience and chemically unstable so analysis would have been very difficult (OTOH both sides had large quantities of a diverse range of 'conventional' poison gases and not far from the frontline - a shipload blew up in an Italian port in 1944). So far as gas was concerned the prospect of speedy retaliation kept both sides' finger from the trigger.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Where would the Turbine Piper Enforcer fit?

It was a P-51 fitted with a turbine out of a helicopter.



The stats I have seen of the Piper Enforcer have it as being slower than the P-51, despite having more power. That said, whilst the Enforce was based on the P-51 it was slightly bigger and its empty and loaded weights were far greater than the P-51. The Enforcer was to be a ground attack plane.

[ickysdad]

Anybody that would have messed with US/UK in NBC warfare in the mid 40's on would have been crazy. One,we developed the A-bomb first. Two in bilogical warfare we had got to the stage of being to mass produce Anthrax bombs some of which could even be carried in sizes for fighter-bomber types plus we had the 4 engined bombers to deliver them especially the B-29. 3rd. we had huge stockpiles of conventional gas and a large supply of protection equipment which generally was far superior to what the Germans had. 4th. We could hit others much easier than they could hit us because of the two oceans. 5th.We had a facility in Terre Haute ,Indiana which was larger and had more production capacity than all other facilities in the world combined.
On German nerve gasses Tabun wasn't ready for quantity production till mid to late '43 and by then the Allies just had far too much advantage in delivery means and methods. Sarin never was ready for quantity production during the war. it has been estimated it would take about several hundred tons of Sarin to completely envelop Paris.We must also remember the tunnel gassing in Japan using sarin a few years ago even with modern techniques it wasn't as effective as one would think.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

Anybody that would have messed with US/UK in NBC warfare in the mid 40's on would have been crazy. One,we developed the A-bomb first. Two in bilogical warfare we had got to the stage of being to mass produce Anthrax bombs some of which could even be carried in sizes for fighter-bomber types plus we had the 4 engined bombers to deliver them especially the B-29. 3rd. we had huge stockpiles of conventional gas and a large supply of protection equipment which generally was far superior to what the Germans had. 4th. We could hit others much easier than they could hit us because of the two oceans. 5th.We had a facility in Terre Haute ,Indiana which was larger and had more production capacity than all other facilities in the world combined.

I think if 'little boy' had gone down on a German city all bets would have been off ... and we are presuming a Germany significantly stronger as 1) the Russians aren't banging on the doors of the Reich and 2) the Western Allies aren't in France. With 1) and 2) we have current history and the Manhatten project doesn't make it in time ('German' uranium was used in 'little boy').

FYI: the UK wasn't protected by 'two oceans'

It would have got very messy. I think we should be grateful history panned out as it did.

quote: On German nerve gasses Tabun wasn't ready for quantity production till mid to late '43 and by then the Allies just had far too much advantage in delivery means and methods. Sarin never was ready for quantity production during the war. it has been estimated it would take about several hundred tons of Sarin to completely envelop Paris.

I suspect 'completely enveloping' isn't a good idea. Scattered or linear 'death zones' will keep everyone inside and not moving. There were no assays for these gases in '45 and nobody on the receiving end knew how unstable they were.

quote:We must also remember the tunnel gassing in Japan using sarin a few years ago even with modern techniques it wasn't as effective as one would think.

[ickysdad]

quote:Originally posted by curmudgeon

quote:Originally posted by ickysdad

Anybody that would have messed with US/UK in NBC warfare in the mid 40's on would have been crazy. One,we developed the A-bomb first. Two in bilogical warfare we had got to the stage of being to mass produce Anthrax bombs some of which could even be carried in sizes for fighter-bomber types plus we had the 4 engined bombers to deliver them especially the B-29. 3rd. we had huge stockpiles of conventional gas and a large supply of protection equipment which generally was far superior to what the Germans had. 4th. We could hit others much easier than they could hit us because of the two oceans. 5th.We had a facility in Terre Haute ,Indiana which was larger and had more production capacity than all other facilities in the world combined.

I think if 'little boy' had gone down on a German city all bets would have been off ... and we are presuming a Germany significantly stronger as 1) the Russians aren't banging on the doors of the Reich and 2) the Western Allies aren't in France. With 1) and 2) we have current history and the Manhatten project doesn't make it in time ('German' uranium was used in 'little boy').

FYI: the UK wasn't protected by 'two oceans'

It would have got very messy. I think we should be grateful history panned out as it did.

quote: On German nerve gasses Tabun wasn't ready for quantity production till mid to late '43 and by then the Allies just had far too much advantage in delivery means and methods. Sarin never was ready for quantity production during the war. it has been estimated it would take about several hundred tons of Sarin to completely envelop Paris.

I suspect 'completely enveloping' isn't a good idea. Scattered or linear 'death zones' will keep everyone inside and not moving. There were no assays for these gases in '45 and nobody on the receiving end knew how unstable they were.

quote:We must also remember the tunnel gassing in Japan using sarin a few years ago even with modern techniques it wasn't as effective as one would think.



Well I was just going by the historical timeline wherein Tabun wasn't ready till the Luftwaffe was more or less not able to deliver the agent in sufficent quantities. Compare that to what the Allies had historically. I do agree the world is better off that it didn't happen. However the US certainly was in the lead in NBC capability and had massive strategic and geographical advantages in this type of warfare.

[Pete57]

quote:Originally posted by delcyros
(I do believe the XP-80A´s send to europe are still inferior to the Me-262 as are the Meteor F3´s). It is somehow hard to judge a 1944 Me-262 and compare it with a late 45 P-80/Meteor-IV.

The four P-80s sent to Europe (both ETO and MTO) were [u]</u>pre-production[u]</u> YP-80A, not XP-80As.

Whereas the XP-80As were strictly test machines and as such they spent their entire (and most brief) career, the YPs were to combat standards and [u]</u>their performances were the same as the production P-80A-1s'[u]</u> - from which they differed in minor details - and therefore they were by no means inferior to the Me-262s.
Also, they were not late 1945 P-80As, having been built in 1944, and were shipped to Europe in December of that year.

The MTO aircraft joined the 1st FG, then based in the Foggia area (Lake Lesina)of Southern Italy, sometimes in April 1945 where they were flown by both test (Wright Field) and operational (1st FG) pilots.

http://www.1stfighter.org/photos/P80inItaly.html

Happy New Year y'all.

[GregP]

They flew no operational sorties according to the USAAC. All were "experimental" in nature, and I can only find evidence of two aircraft that made it to Italy.

I can only assume the other two made it to Great Britain ...There are some accounts of same, including losses of same, but nothing authenticated that I have found, just rumors.

Please describe the four you are saying got there including their destinations and eventual fates.

Thanks!

[Pete57]

Geg,

Indeed, out of the four aircraft allocated to the project, two were sent to the ETO and two to the MTO.

I already posted elsewhere in this forum, details of the S/Ns of the aircraft allocated to Project Extraversion as well as the dates they were shipped from the ConUS to Europe.

The ETO aircraft didn't fare too well and one was soon lost taking the life of Major Borsodi, the other ending its career as a flying engine test-bed with the Rolls Royce Engine Company, conducting flight tests of their B.41 (Nene) engine, for which no suitable airframe could then be found in the UK.

The link I have provided with my previous post, summarizes my findings to date on the MTO portion of Project Extraversion, and the information come from e-mail and telephone interviews with Mr. James Bertoglio (then one of the 1 FG's photographers) as well as the son Major La Clare one of the operational pilots who flew the aircraft in Lake Lesina.

Maj La Clare stated that the aircraft flew test missions and mock dogfights only, and wanted to emphasize how the aircraft performed flawlessly, what a pleasure they were to fly, and how they 'felt' just like the later versions the unit was equipped with: he was definitely 'in love' with the P-80!.

Nonetheless, Bertoglio clearly remembers one of the missions as having been flown "up north", i.e. toward the frontline.

Also, I hardly find it coincidental that the aircraft - shipped from NYC in late December 1944, and thus in the MTO possibly by as early as January-February 1945 - were delivered to an operational unit in April 1945, just a few weeks after the appearance of the Luftwaffe's Arado 234s recon-jets operating out of Udine.

Best regards.

[Corsarius]

So what has happened to this list of 'best jet'?

Greg, I might get back to you on one or two of those GOT ideas. I've got some interesting stuff in my library here.

Here's my runup for a 'fantasy football' airforce made up of WWII jets...

Bomber: Ar 234C
Interceptor: Me 163C Komet
Ground Attack: Me 262 Sturmvogel
Air supremacy: Vampire
Maritime recon: Canberra

That's all I can think of right about now...

[Ricky]

Well, technically the Komet was a rocket, not a jet...[:p]

[Corsarius]

A rocket is propelled along by newton's third law, the same as a jet. Also, the rapidly exhausting gas is referred to as a 'jet'. Or do you think that jets can only be air-breathing?

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

Or do you think that jets can only be air-breathing?

Well, yeah, but I'm not so stuck on it that I really care. I just like making daft comments.[:I]

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

Quoting you:
quote:Or do you think that jets can only be air-breathing?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, yeah, but I'm not so stuck on it that I really care. I just like making daft comments.

This time, we are in agreement--on both counts. :D

Regards and Happy New Year,
Lightning

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

So what has happened to this list of 'best jet'?

Greg, I might get back to you on one or two of those GOT ideas. I've got some interesting stuff in my library here.

Here's my runup for a 'fantasy football' airforce made up of WWII jets...

Bomber: Ar 234C
Interceptor: Me 163C Komet
Ground Attack: Me 262 Sturmvogel
Air supremacy: Vampire
Maritime recon: Canberra

That's all I can think of right about now...


Canberra was too late (1949). It was also remarkably superior to the Arado (despite its very conventional appearance).

[Trexx]

Contrary to popular belief, the Heinkle 178 was a fine jet propelled aircraft, I've heard.

I've read someplace that the He 162 had a tremendous rate of climb and was very manuverable... and it sported twin 30mm cannons.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

A rocket is propelled along by newton's third law, the same as a jet. Also, the rapidly exhausting gas is referred to as a 'jet'. Or do you think that jets can only be air-breathing?


Nope. C'mon! "Jet" refers exclusively as 'air breathing'.


"Rockets exclusively carry their own oxidizer, and haven't any air scoops.

If you're designing airplanes this stuff matters.

[Pete57]

My list-of-the-best, (including rockets and thermojets), by category, and devoid of ‘paper planes’.

Bomber: Me-262A-2a Sturmvogel (light), Ar-234B/C (medium), Ju-287 (heavy)
Ground Attack: Me-262A-1a Jabo, J9Y Kikka
Special Attack (suicide): MXY-7 Ohka, Me-328, Fi-103 Reichenberg IV
Point Interceptor: Me-263/Ju-248, Me-163C, Ba-349B, BI-1, Me-163B, J8M Shusui
Short Range Interceptor: Vampire F.Mk.I, He-162
Interceptor (Bomber Destroyer): Meteor F.Mk IV, Me-262a-1a Schwalbe, P-83, Meteor F.Mk.III
Air Superiority: P-80A, Vampire F.Mk.I
Reconnaissance: F-14/FP-80A, Ar-234B/C, Me-262A-1a/U3.
Test plane: Me. P1101, P-59, He-178, E.28/39, He-176, XP-81
Naval Fighter: Sea Vampire F.Mk.I, FD-1
Mixed propulsion: FR-1
Thermojet: MiG I-250, CC1/CC2
Best lost opportunity: He-280

And last but not least…

Too Early to Work Good: Ho-229, XP-79

Best regards.

[delcyros]

OK- and here comes my list:

aerial superiority Fighter: P-80A Shooting Star (I´m serious, she wins, hands down, excellent balance of endurance, performance and punch)
ground Attack: Gloster Meteor-III
(excellent low level range, useful payload, combat proven in that role)
recon: Ar-234B (hands down)
bomber: Ar-234C (excellent performances)
interceptor: Me-262A1b (with 24 R4m, as much as I personally like the -163, it very much is only point defense)
low level fighter, escort: Vampire
I am not sure about the He-162.

regards,
delc

[Corsarius]

Forgot to add some stuff to my list:

Replace Canberra with Nakajima Kikka for ground attack.

Include Go-229 as Zerstoerer/bomber destroyer/night intruder (due to 'stealth' fetures of airframe such as RAM wings (intentional or not) and ease of construction).

Best lost opportunity: Me-P1101

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx


I've read someplace that the He 162 had a tremendous rate of climb and was very manuverable... and it sported twin 30mm cannons.


I thought in most of the production planes the cannon armament was 2 20mm Mg151s because the structure just wasn't strong enough to put up with the heavier 30mms.

[delcyros]

quote:I thought in most of the production planes the cannon armament was 2 20mm Mg151s because the structure just wasn't strong enough to put up with the heavier 30mms.

100% correct. While the He-162 A1 could and actually did carry the 30mm MK 108, the recoil of this weapon was too much for the light airframe (the typical limit for fighter A/C was a ratio under 0.1) and required further strengthening of the principal inclined transverse bulkhead. This variant is known as He-162A3 and only few prototypes were produced (altough two of them were found in JG1)
Most serial produced He-162 had 20mm MG 151/20, which weighted slightly less (despite 80% more ammo) and more importantly, had less recoil. The ballistics of the 20mm gun are also much more favourable for high speed combat than those of the short barreled 30mm MK 108.
Theoretically it was possible to fit a third 20mm gun into the fuselage considering the weight and recoil issues but the avaiable space was limited already.

[Trexx]

There is quite a bit of muddled information in regards to the He-162.

[montanamotor]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

Include Go-229 as Zerstoerer/bomber destroyer/night intruder (due to 'stealth' fetures of airframe such as RAM wings (intentional or not) and ease of construction).



In a thoroughly researched TV-presentation supported by the "Deutsches Technisches Museum" in Berlin, which was presented on screen very recently, it was stated that, the GO 229 was DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY built as a stealth-fighter.

It was massively relying on some plaster-like resin made from very thick glue and metal flakes, which then was bonded to the outer skin of the airframe all over the plane, as thick as two inches - 5 cms.

That way, the metal flakes would act like "sponge" for the radar-microwaves; Radar-energy is being transferred into heat by the flakes and then distributed to the resin, which then will pass the transferred energy to the airstream.

The same principles work until today. The F 117 as well as many Navy-ships are being coated with a resin containing metal flakes serving exactly this purpose.

It might not have sufficient effect to hide an aircraft from modern radar today, if relied on this effect solely; but 60 years back this may well have been good enough a stealth-cap to regaining air superiority for the Germans - had it come in time.

You can only fight what you can see...

Well: Does anyone offer his kitchen microwave for a test? Take two sheets of metal, coat one of it with a thick layer of resin with metal flakes, an see what happens, if you put both of them in a working microwave oven - the coated one FIRST, please...!

There MIGHT be some visible difference in displaying the sparks, compared to an uncoated sheet of metal. BTW, did you know that the frequency of kitchen microwaves is very close to the militarily used radar band? You REALLY, REALLY shouldn't stand in front of a radar-equipped fighter whenever he engages his radar. It might give you a very warm farewell...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Trexx]

Here in California around 1980 I think, a crash site near Edwards Air Force base was happened upon by some hikers. They reported that they thought it was an airplane. There was no metal, just 'surfboard-like' debris and it was all black. If I remember correctly, the hikers were the first to see it smacked into the ground and they were escorted out of the area by base authorities. Probably a F-117 when it was still secret.

[montanamotor]

Errr -

the F 117 IS made of metal. Definitely. It's a tin-can (albeit a tin-can with a high degree of ingenuity...)

Maybe those hikers have seen the debris of something else: Like a crashed prototype of the B2, for example, or - AURORA...?

Cheers!

Montana

[Red Admiral]

quote:You can only fight what you can see...

Time to start mounting Leigh lights on the back of Lancasters?

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Montanamotor,

I have come across these comments about the Go 229 as well.

Apparently the Luftwaffe were well aware that the Mosquito was much harder to detect by radar due to it's wooden construction and did a fair bit of work on radar absobent material.

I thought that the composites in the Go 229 had charcoal/carbon in them?

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/HoIX/Go-229.htm

[Pete57]

Interesting…

No doubt, total stealth technology was a dream at the time, but even reducing the aircraft radar-signature would have given the Luftwaffe an indisputable edge.

At the same time though, one should consider how the trade-off for a limited (albeit useful) reduction in radar-signature was an aircraft that could take off – provided there was nothing more than a moderate crosswind component – proceed to climb to maximum altitude while being gently steered toward its intended target, had to absolutely avoid combat with enemy fighters, with whom it would not stand a chance in a dogfight, drop its bombs with limited precision (given the altitude and inherent instability), return to an airfield were the crosswind component was manageable, hoping said base had not, in the meantime, come under attack, in which case a low fuel state was to make things even more ‘interesting’, and all this provided that, somewhere in the process, some major structural failure had not been experienced due to the defective glue used to bond the wooden components![B)]

The glue issue was indeed a major one and of difficult resolution given the status of the German industry at the end of the war, and the quality of the German aviation-glue (made by Dynamit AG from Leverkusenin), that replaced the original Tego-Film glue, was to consistently plague the development of the Heinkel 162 and sign the death warrant of the Luftwaffe’s own ‘wooden wonder’, the Ta-154.
“…Just prior to delivery the only factory making Tego-Film, in Wuppertal, was bombed out, and the plywood glue had to be replaced by one that was not as strong, and was later found to react chemically with wood. In July several [Ta-154]A-1's crashed with wing failure due to plywood delamination. This same problem also critically affected the Heinkel He 162 Spatz, Ernst Heinkel's "Volksjager" jet fighter program entry.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_154

Seriously here, I believe the Luftwaffe should have invested their efforts into replacing with low radar-signature-material some of the components of a more conventional airframe, i.e. the Arado 234, given the control problems, endemic to flying-wings, that only today’s, fly-by-wire technology has allowed to satisfactorily overcome.

Regards.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Errr -

the F 117 IS made of metal. Definitely. It's a tin-can (albeit a tin-can with a high degree of ingenuity...)

Maybe those hikers have seen the debris of something else: Like a crashed prototype of the B2, for example, or - AURORA...?

Cheers!

Montana


Well, the lore is accepted as being a F-117 or F-117 prototype. The hikers were exaggerating when they spoke of ‘no metal present’. Metal at the scene was not like the ‘normal’ wreckage associated with an airplane going down. In other words they didn’t find bent formers, stringers and skin. There was ‘foil’ and lots of ‘black surfbaord chunks’.

[delcyros]

I am really puzzled about the Horten flying wings.

On the one side, with my gliding experiances, flying wing configurations are sensitive to flight inputs and quite difficult to controll in out of order situations on the other side, after reading through Hortens book, I am pretty sure he did something new with the centre effect to add stability to his flying wings.
I found it strange that the Ho-II was fully acrobatic and able to quite a very high speed for it´s time. Then I went to Berlin for the restauration project of Horten flying wing gliders and they digged out a lot of valuable informations. It really seems they had made stable flying wings long before fly by wire with some aerodynamic cheating.

quote:proceed to climb to maximum altitude while being gently steered toward its intended target, had to absolutely avoid combat with enemy fighters, with whom it would not stand a chance in a dogfight, drop its bombs with limited precision (given the altitude and inherent instability)
Such a scenario seems to be plausible to me. As a fighter, the Ho-IX, despite having received very good notes for handling at high speed, is doubtful. But as a nightfighter it could have been great, indeed. Low radar shilluette is a significant advantage and the V6 prototype to be finished as two seater nightfighter by 70% at wars end would enjoi radar and increased endurance + excellent weaponry.
The low precision bombing is a hyptheme, given that ground visibility for the nose cockpit was excellent and that the 45 Askania EZ computing bombsight allowed a theoretical ground speed of 1200 Km/h for correct dropping solutions.
However, the Ho-IX would be in any event a special plane for special purposes and not the general Ueberplane as it is displayed in many books.

regards,
delc

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by delcyros

I am really puzzled about the Horten flying wings.

On the one side, with my gliding experiances, flying wing configurations are sensitive to flight inputs and quite difficult to controll in out of order situations on the other side, after reading through Hortens book, I am pretty sure he did something new with the centre effect to add stability to his flying wings.
I found it strange that the Ho-II was fully acrobatic and able to quite a very high speed for it´s time. Then I went to Berlin for the restauration project of Horten flying wing gliders and they digged out a lot of valuable informations. It really seems they had made stable flying wings long before fly by wire with some aerodynamic cheating.

quote:proceed to climb to maximum altitude while being gently steered toward its intended target, had to absolutely avoid combat with enemy fighters, with whom it would not stand a chance in a dogfight, drop its bombs with limited precision (given the altitude and inherent instability)
Such a scenario seems to be plausible to me. As a fighter, the Ho-IX, despite having received very good notes for handling at high speed, is doubtful. But as a nightfighter it could have been great, indeed. Low radar shilluette is a significant advantage and the V6 prototype to be finished as two seater nightfighter by 70% at wars end would enjoi radar and increased endurance + excellent weaponry.
The low precision bombing is a hyptheme, given that ground visibility for the nose cockpit was excellent and that the 45 Askania EZ computing bombsight allowed a theoretical ground speed of 1200 Km/h for correct dropping solutions.
However, the Ho-IX would be in any event a special plane for special purposes and not the general Ueberplane as it is displayed in many books.

regards,
delc


Stealth aircraft go back to circa 1913 when the Austrians produced and tested the first stealth airframe, the first person to work on “stealth Aircraft engine technology was A. M. Low during the Great War who succeeded in producing a silent airscrew which was not adopted because it reduced thrust by 10% when tested at Farnborough. The first time I heard the expression “Stealth Aircraft” was 50 years ago (1955/56) when Low said during a live interview that he could not understand why we were not producing stealth aircraft as it was perfectly possible and would be a great advantage. He produced the world’s first guided missile, worked on and patented a wire guided missile and patented a “V2” type missile that directly inspired the German Army’s rocket programme and influenced Goddard’s first missile.
Dunne started work on a swept flying wing aircraft in 1903 and it was built under licence in Canada, France, and the USA for both the Army and Navy as well as for the British Army. The wing design was very safe and produced a successful machine and was probably the first to use ailerons?

[delcyros]

quote:Stealth aircraft go back to circa 1913 when the Austrians produced and tested the first stealth airframe,

Obviously You don´t mean stealthy in a context of radar-invisible as in ww1 there was no working radar set except one private and experimental one in Wilhelmshafen, which couldn´t be used to detect (with a sound) anything other than a large ship making it through the Jade.

The Dunne swept back biplane /flying Wing I first noticed in Hortens book, as he credited the Dunno and Karl Jathos 1903 plane as beeing the first flying wings (altough the latter only made some air jumps under own power).

[montanamotor]

Hi All,

during "the Great War", the germans extensively experimented with TRANSPARENT foils and fabrics for covering their aircraft.

The idea behind this was, to break the aircraft's outer lines and make it invisible against ground and sky alike.

Bad point was, they couldn't make up for transparent engine, ribs, formers, stringers and crew alike...

Sometimes you must try the unthinkable, to identify the feasible...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57

Seriously here, I believe the Luftwaffe should have invested their efforts into replacing with low radar-signature-material some of the components of a more conventional airframe, i.e. the Arado 234, given the control problems, endemic to flying-wings, that only today’s, fly-by-wire technology has allowed to satisfactorily overcome.


You know, I always thought that the fly-by-wire (really it is the computer control, not just fbw) excuse was made by the Americans because they themselves were incapable of building in the necessary stability and control using aerodynamics and design.

The US army captured the second Horten IX aircraft at the factory. I believe it is in the Smithsonian in the same condition it was found - incomplete and missing wings. Was there any attempt to finish the aircraft to flying condition and test it?

[montanamotor]

AFAIK,

US engineers test-flew two of the Horten-gliders, but not the Ho IX. The Horten-gliders WERE fully acrobatic. Yet, the biggest problem with the flying wings always was the large wingspan required to produce sufficient lift COMBINED WITH proper control (far swept back wingtips were neccessary to create sufficient lever for the elevons when used as elevators), as well as lack of effective rudder, to counteract yaw during fast rolls.

So, the roll-rate of the purely aerodynamically balanced Horten-flying wings always was inferior to that of comparable, conventional aircraft. The rolls were gentle and overwhelmingly elegant, but they were slooow...

What about the angle at which the Horten's wings were swept back? I thing I remember, Horton's wings were by far farther swept back than the ones of the Northrop "flying wing" were...? Maybe this was the secret behind their aerodynamic stability?

Cheers,

Montanamotor

[GregP]

As it happens, the Chino Planes of Fame Museum has both Horten Ho IV flying wing glider and a Northrop N9MB flying wing.

In the 1940s and 1950s, the Horten was flown and exhibited a very good glide ratio. It has a LONG span and NARROW chord, so the aspect ratio is VERY high.

The Northrop is a 1/3 scale model of the XB-35. The XB-35 had a wingspan of 180 feet and the N9MB has a span of 60 feet. The plane is flown by Ron Hackworth and he says it is stable in pitch and roll, but "hunts" around in yaw, AS DO ALL FLYING WINGS, after a turn or "upset."

"Fly-by-wire" helps eliminate unwanted yaw, but the Horten also exhibited unwabted yawing. Since it was a GLIDER, no one cared and they came to think the yawing was "normal" for the Ho IV.

If the Ho-229 were to be used as bomber, then the unwanted yawing would come to light as an undesirable factor, and is exactly what cancelled the Northrop planes in the 1940s.

Far from it being the case that U.S.A "cannot produce" a decent flying wing without fly-by-wire, it should be noted that no one in the world has successully flown a flying wing bomber design except the U.S.A. The Northrop design flew succcessfully in the 1940s and 1950s, and it was fine as an aircraft, but it was a bit unstable in yaw for a bomber and, MUCH more importantly, the Boeing B-47 was 150 mph faster than the jet flying wing AND it was stable in yaw.

In retrospect, the U.S. Government SHOULD have paid more attention to the low radar cross section ... live and learn.

Yes, Mr. Horten help put an Argentinian flying wing into the air about the same time, but it was a cargo plane and unwanted yaw was not a real factor. If it had been a bomber then it would HAVE to have been stable in yaw. In any case, the Argentinian plane was never built in numbers.

The Soviets flew a number of small experimental flying wings, but no bomber. Same for Great Britain, no bomber flying wing. The Vulcan was close, but was a delta with a large vertical tail surface, not a flying wing.

[Wuzak]

Didn't mean to offend Greg.

It has to be said that some of the shape of the B2 is primarily for the stealth side of things, and that may also not be conducive to yaw stability.

I just don't see how the Horten could be dismissed by the argument that only modern electronics could make a flying wing effective.
Especially as you (Greg) are suggesting that any potential problems that exist with it would proclude it from being used as a bomber....which is not a mission it was intended for anyway.

And I still find it amaxing that the HoIX wasn't tested in America. (if you look at the HoIV and the HoIX you can see there is quite a bit of difference in aspect ratios, wing shape, etc.
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/horten_nurflugels.html

I saw a similar statement about Wing In Ground Effect vehicles a while back. There seems to be a Boeing WIG craft being considered - with an xtremely large lift capability. Mention was made of the longitudinal stability problem that is crucial to solve for a successful WIG. The article said that stability in a WIG could only be achieved in WIGs with modern Fly-by-wire controls.

Which must be news to the rUssians who were flying 500 tonne WIG craft at speeds up to 400km/h 40 years ago! Or the WIG designed by Lippisch around the same time....

[Pete57]

Indeed the Horten was designed as a jet fighter and the flying wing shortcomings in that role have been addressed before in the ‘Duel: Gotha Go 229 vs. Lockheed P-80’ post on this forum http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=886

The problem with flying wings lies the poor control they afford around the vertical axis (i.e. yaw).
Flying wings can be made to yaw by means of spoilers or split elevons, and this can be accomplished to a degree not too unlike that afforded by the conventional fin-rudder design.
However, whereas continuous yaw input is greatly reduced by the conventional configuration’s relative stability around the vertical axis, the same does not hold true with the flying wing, and devoid of an adequate computerized control system, this leads to a reduced authority needed in the recovery from critical situations.
This seems to have played a main role in the loss of the first two jet powered, flying wings designed for the fighter role: the Horten Go-229 and the Northrop XP-79.

Continuous iaw input leads also to poor flight coordination http://www.friesian.com/flight.htm
Flight coordination, in turn, is a key element in air to air gunnery, another reason why flying wings would make poor fighter designs.
A bomber interception may be more successful provided that the bomber is approached from its 6-o’clock position.
Some Luftwaffe Me-262 pilots related problems in intercepting the Allied bombers due to the speed difference that gave them too short a time for an accurately aimed burst, and this would have been even more critical in the Horten’s case.

As a night interceptor, its relative radar stealthness would have afforded it some advantage, but also night interception requires closely coordinated flight, especially in consideration of the limited sweep of the radar sets of the time, that easily resulted in the ‘blip’ going off the radar screen.

Given the emphasis on a reduced radar signature given to today’s fighter designs, there must be a reason why neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are flying wings…

Regards.

[montanamotor]

Hmmm -

why not take a flying wing and add a long, thin "sting-ray-like" tail-section to it's rear - either with conventional horizontal/vertical tailfins or with a not-so-conventional V-tail at it's end...?

Cheers,

Montanamotor

[montanamotor]

Aaaaah -

by the way: Did you ever think about Pilot Kenneth Arnold, who in June 1947 above Cascade, US state of Washington, saw something flying looking like

Quote:

"...a boomerang-shaped object, skipping like a saucer..."

Unquote.

See: http://www.debunker.com/arnold.html

YEP - this is the first known report which was EVER made about a UFO.

Please note that, when private Pilot Kenneth Arnold referred to a "saucer", he was ONLY refering to the way IT FLEW - and NOT to the way it LOOKED LIKE.

The description he gave about the appearance of the craft he saw, as well as the picture that was drawn after his descriptions later, (see link) convince me that instead of a UFO, he in fact DID see a GO 229 in flight - or at least some other flying wing, which was undergoing scrutineering by the US Air Force back in '47.

The drawing appears to me EXACTLY like what someone might notice when he sees a GO 229 in flight for the very first time, without knowing that someting like it would exist, at all...?

Take THAT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

And what he reffers to as "skipping": Might this be another amateur's as-good-as-he-can-description for a plane undergoing a testflight researching it's stall-capabilities - or even a YAW-test...?

And a last slap in the disbeliever's face:

http://jpcolliat.free.fr/ho9/ho9-1.htm

Speak French, anyone? Great pics, though.

And THIS ONE is killing me: http://149.142.139.138/Web/229vsP60.html

Waddayathinkofit?

Cheers!

Montanamotor

Spooky......! ;)

[delcyros]

quote:Flight coordination, in turn, is a key element in air to air gunnery, another reason why flying wings would make poor fighter designs.
A bomber interception may be more successful provided that the bomber is approached from its 6-o’clock position.
Some Luftwaffe Me-262 pilots related problems in intercepting the Allied bombers due to the speed difference that gave them too short a time for an accurately aimed burst, and this would have been even more critical in the Horten’s case.

Sorry, I cannot agree. The yawing problem has been deliberately adressed in the whole Ho-IX program. At first it had drag rudders, which prooved to be very reliable in this respect (check Hanna Reitsch comments how the Ho-III behaves), second both engines were placed with a slight inwards inclination, so that they provide addional yawing stability. The Ho-IX V1 -unpowered- glider underwent several weapontests (so called "Schiessanflüge") at Rechlin. The RLM wanted to have an additional centerline rudder but Horten discarded that because the Rechlin test attested the Ho-IX V1 aperiodical and therefore ideal behavior of the drag rudders. The Ho-IX V1 got better results than He-280 and Me-163 in yawing stability. The powered version would at all probability be even more stable due to the engine placement.

[Kutscha]

The report on the Ho-9 crash cites pilot error during a single engine emergency landing. Ziller should have had the wing with the operating engine low instead of horizontal and he extended the u/c too early.

The fatal flight had started with high speed taxi runs. During one of the runs Ziller ran out of stopping distance and decided to take off. While doing a circiut to land, one of the engines flamed out.

After a 30 minute test flight in early Dec, Ziller reported he was pleased with the lightness of the controls and the way the a/c responded. Walter also found the Ho-9V1 to be stable with pleasant flying characteristics.

The brothers disagreed on a vertical fin/rudder for the a/c. Walter was more willing than Reimar who thought the Dutch roll problem could be worked out, in time.

[GregP]

Wuzak, you did not offend at all and I apologize if I implied such.

Since the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and Mr. Horten in Argentina experimented with flying wings, it seems probable to me that they found out with their experiments that the flying wing was slower and somewhat unstable in yaw, and didn't develop bomber types in flying wing configurations because of the very fact that they knew about the yaw issues.

In the Vulcan, at least that was taken care of by a large vertical surface and it was a great bomber by any standard.

I have noticed in watching clips of the B-2 that the wing end drag flaps are almost always open when it is being filmed in seemingly stable and straight flight so I surmise, possibly without factual basis, that the B-2 is either unsatble or marginally stable in yaw when in flight with the wing end drag flaps in trail. That may well be acceptable until the bombs are about to be dropped and the drag flaps are split just before the bomb bay doors are opened to steady the yaw swings.

I don't know for sure and really couldn't care less. Just a thought.

It also may very well be that both the Soviet Union and Great Britain didn't develop a bomber flying wing because they felt the expense was not worth the anticipated result or else they flat did not have the money to complete development and so discarded the idea as interesting but too expensive. I sometimes wish WE had done that, too ... usually every year about tax time ...

Back to the original idea of this thread, I think the best jet to come out of WWII was the P80 in most situations and the Vampire in jet fighter versus jet fighter combat. For pure fighter versus fighter combat, irrespective of jet or piston, I'll stay with the thread author and go with the Ryan Fireball, which flew in 1944.

[koivis]

Very interesting topic here, but GregP, you seem to have forgotten few VERY important planes from your 40s jet list, actually one of the most significant jet fighters ever produced: The 12000+ MiG-15 fighters made from 1947. Prototype I-310 flew on 30 December 1947. It's actually amazing that this year 60 years is passed from the planes first flight.

Some milestones from MiG-15's career:

Unknown date, 1946, British Minister of Trade Stafford Cripps, and Prime Minister Clement Attlee let Soviets to acquire details on the design and manufacture of the Rolls Royce Nene jet engine, designed by Frank Whittle. This engine, in reverse-engineered form, as Klimov VK-1, was later to power the MiG-15.

December 30, 1947, first flight

1949-1950 into operational squadron use

January 14, 1950, an improved version, MiG-17 with thinner and more sweptback wings, flies for the first time

November 1,1950 first MiG-15 air victory in Korea, against 39 FS F-51D

December 1950 - July 1953 MiG-15s battle against F-86 Sabres above Korean skies

June 13, 1952, a Swedish air force C-47 is shot down by a Soviet MiG-15 east of Gotland in Baltic Sea

October 1952, first MiG-17s enter service in USSR

September 24, 1958, a Chinese MiG-15 is downed in first ever air-to-air kill with a guided missile, Taiwanese F-86F uses AIM-9B Sidewinder missile (still in use!)

March 27 1968, first man in space, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, crashes fatally with his instructor on a routine training flight, propably caused by turbulence from Su-9 interceptor, using afterburner

And today, MiG-15UTI still in in training use in China (very few examples) and North Korea, and was operational as fighter in Albania in late 90s (!!!)

Although it doesn't strictly fit into this threads scope, the best jet designed prior to 1945, but is in my opinion, the best and most widely used (at least most produced) jet plane designed in the 1940s.

[GregP]

Hi Koivis!

Actually my database doesn't HAVE a MiG-15 in it [:I] , it starts with the MiG-15bis which had a service date of 1950.

In my database, the date I use is the date of first flight for prototypes or service date for types that entered production ... so I have a pretty good hole in the database there, which I will FIX thanks to your observant post.

Thanks! And welcome to the TGPlanes community. Our friend Taglia (site owner) has a nice site here and we welcome discussion and even some mild arguments ... as long as they are semi-polite. I have been guilty of some less-than-politically-correct responses in here, but I am an engineer and EVERYONE knows how tactless we usually are (at least me ...). Bad memory, to boot.

Anyway, welcome and please stay, contribute, and discuss. I have a fondness for obscure types, and have MANY more to get to as yet, but little time these days to get to it. Maybe you can help here? :)

[delcyros]

quote:Given the emphasis on a reduced radar signature given to today’s fighter designs, there must be a reason why neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are flying wings…

They would be flying wings! If only they would be strictly subsonic!
Flying wings are no useful solution for transsonic planes at all. By the time flying wings could have made a great bomber (The Ho-XIV V1 was begun at Kahla underground facilities), the quest for speed arose quickly. Not even Horten believed that flying wings would be useful in the transsonic regime, hence the transsonic testbed should get a large vertical fin.
quote:I have noticed in watching clips of the B-2 that the wing end drag flaps are almost always open when it is being filmed in seemingly stable and straight flight so I surmise, possibly without factual basis, that the B-2 is either unsatble or marginally stable in yaw when in flight with the wing end drag flaps in trail. That may well be acceptable until the bombs are about to be dropped and the drag flaps are split just before the bomb bay doors are opened to steady the yaw swings.
I can agree to the conclusion but would like to adress that the B-2 is designed to be unstable, unlike the Horten flying wings.

[montanamotor]

Take THAT:

Gothaer Waggonfabrik, A. G.
Flugzeugbau-Entwicklung
January 27, 1945
7 pp., 2 illus.

Translated by Julius Selimerler
Edited by Dr. Robert Patek
Translation Section, Air Documents Div.
Intelligence (T-2), Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio
This is an AAF translation
21 February 1946

Excerpts from: http://149.142.139.138/Web/229vsP60.html


C. REVIEW OF FLIGHT PERFORMANCES AND FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS

1. The fact that the two compared airplanes are equipped with different propulsion units must be emphasized before a discussion of flight perfornances can take place. The differences in power caused thereby are practically of importance only at ground level or at low altitudes, and are especially of disadvantage to the Go P-60 since they reduce its power by 2.0 m/s (6.56 ft/sec) on the ground and on the runway by 120 m (393.69 ft). By transferring the propulsion units to the outside and by adopting an arrangement where the pilot is in a lying position, it becomes possible to keep the wing area in a Go P-60, in contrast to 8-229, about 12% smaller and to reduce the maximum thickness of the wing section to 13% as against 17.8%. Beyond that, symmetrical wing sections with a small leading-edge radius and a shift of the bulk of the ship towards the stern (50%) are being used in the Go P-60; also the sweepback is considerable. Because of these measures (small thickness of wing sections, small leading-edge radius, considerable shifting of thickness to the rear, strong sweepback and also small aspect ratios), it is expected that the start of the sharp rise in drag due to the approach of the flight speed to sonic velocity will be shifted in the Go P-60, as against 8-229, to larger Mach numbers (D M ~ 0.1).

The larger induced drag of Go P-60, effected by the lower aspect ratio, causes slight losses in climbing speed and ceiling which, however, is compensated by the smaller loaded weight.

The, additional drag, produced in a Go P-60 by removing the propulsion units from the wing, is partly balanced by the smaller wing area and by using thinner symmetrical wing sections. Beyond that, the magnitude of this additional drag depends largely on the possibility of transferring the propulsion units into the wing. The wing sections selected for Go P-60 are decidedly laminar sections. Should these wing sections still show laminar effects at the large Reynolds numbers with which we deal here, then the attainable cwF-value (without M-influence) in the region of high speed will be smaller than in 8-229. However, since the 8-229 as well as the Go P-60 perform at speeds where sound velocity is approached and where, consequently, a sharp rise in drag must be considered, this drag will decisively influence the maximum flight performances. Consequently, the Go P-60 is expected to show definite advantages over the 8-229.

Flight performances of both airplanes, as plotted in the attached graph, were ascertained under the same basic assumptions [DVL (Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt) - measurements of wing sections, equal cw - additions for landing gear flaps, control surface slot, good construction of surfaces]; the increase of drag at high Mach numbers was considered according to the high speed measurements of DVL. Shift of the critical M-number by sweepback in the 8-229 was D M = 0.03, in Go P-60, D M = 0.05.

2) Flight characteristics

Since, in high speed airplanes investigated thus far, the dangerous disturbances of stability around the lateral axis start only at M-numbers higher than those at which the sharp rise in drag sets in, it is to be expected that, at least in horizontal flight and climb, the disturbances in the flight characteristics around the lateral axis will also follow the same tendency in tailless aircraft, especially since the outer control surfaces might become "critical" much later because of their thinner air foil sections.

In the Go P-60 as compared with the 8-229, the symmetry, practically one hundred per cent, of suction side and pressure side might show up favorably, since any asymmetry of wing sections or of the over-all structure of an airplane produced stability disturbances around the lateral axis in comparatively early stages of high speed performance.

Since, in tailless aircraft, the directional stability and especially the stability in turning and banking is rather weak, attention will have to be focussed on this problem in discussing these models. In the Go P-60, improvements are expected by placing the propulsion units backward and outward. Special measures have been planned in both airplanes for target approach. In order to increase the stabilizing effect while making a turn the 8-229 extends the air wing brakes, the Go P-60 the wing tip plates which also are used for directional control. However, installation of an automatic target flight control is recommended for both airplanes. Yet, adequate directional stability might be attained by merely installing vertical tail surfaces.

The vertical control surfaces and, consequently, the tactical brake flaps of the 8-229 are liable to present difficulties at high speed as a result of upsetting the entire distribution of pressure along a considerable part of the wing span. In this respect, it may be more favorable to adopt brake surfaces extendable at the wing tip, although the wide gap, forming at the wing tip, is a disadvantage.
An accurate coordination of the controlling components is exceedingly difficult due to the large dimensions of the control surfaces and the high speed of flight, for the required aerodynamic balance of control surface moments must be carried so far that the unavoidable allowances, to be made in production, will make the control, without special measures, practically impossible. In the 8-229 special difficulties might be expected in that respect, chiefly at high velocities, because extreme Frise-type control surfaces were adopted.
In the Go P-60 these difficulties are alleviated by subdividing control surfaces whereby only the smaller outer control surface is directly controlled by the stick, while the main control surface is indirectly controlled by the stick, and moved by a servo-rudder.

Because of the heavy sweepback, stability is assuredly more difficult to achieve in a Go P-60 than in a 8-229. But here, too, satisfactory performance characteristics are to be expected by applying the usual remedies against tipping hazards, such as: the familiar methods of fairing along the span, leading edge split flap, or slot.
The landing of tailless aircraft naturally calls for placing the center of gravity as far to the rear as possible. In the Go P-60 this is done by arranging the landing gear, fuel tanks and ammuntion to that effect; the center of gravity is slightly shifted to the rear when the landing gear is lowered, the fuel tanks become empty and the ammunition is expended. In the 8-229 conditions are less favorable, since fuel, ammunition, and landing gear are disadvantageously arranged in regard to the position of the center of gravity at landing. Compared to the take-off, the situation on landing shows the position of the center of gravity to be further in front (approximately 7% of the reference chord = 200 mm or 7.784 in). The Ca max values still attainable under these circumstances ought to become very small and, consequently, the landing speed will increase considerably.


Cheers!

Montanamotor [8D]

[delcyros]

By the time, this report was written, no Ho-IX or P-60 flew. It is just an estimational report. The fact that neither the bell shaped lift distribution nor the centre effect is mentioned implies that we have to take these results -to one way or the other- with a grain of salt.
If You scroll down the link, You will find performance estimations, which are very crude and do not fit the RLM posted ones (max. speed for the 8-229 is plotted somewhere around 850-870 Km/h (528-540 mp/h) at 10000ft opposing to the 960 Km/h in the RLM records. Horten expected the max. speed of the V-2 (post engine redesign) to be 920 Km/h (571 mp/h) at sea level and decreasing with altitude according to his estimated crit Mach figure of M. 0.75 (uncalculated, appears to be too conservative estimate), altough the Ho-IX V2 recorded a max. speed of 606.8 mp/h on the Askania theodolite measured mile in it´s only high speed trial.

regards,

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by delcyros

By the time, this report was written, no Ho-IX or P-60 flew. It is just an estimational report. The fact that neither the bell shaped lift distribution nor the centre effect is mentioned implies that we have to take these results -to one way or the other- with a grain of salt.
If You scroll down the link, You will find performance estimations, which are very crude and do not fit the RLM posted ones (max. speed for the 8-229 is plotted somewhere around 850-870 Km/h (528-540 mp/h) at 10000ft opposing to the 960 Km/h in the RLM records. Horten expected the max. speed of the V-2 (post engine redesign) to be 920 Km/h (571 mp/h) at sea level and decreasing with altitude according to his estimated crit Mach figure of M. 0.75 (uncalculated, appears to be too conservative estimate), altough the Ho-IX V2 recorded a max. speed of 606.8 mp/h on the Askania theodolite measured mile in it´s only high speed trial.

regards,


Hi Folks,
Does the F7U Vought Cutlass rate as an example of a flying wing fighter and what was its service record and flying characteristics like? What was the original Arado fighter like?

[GregP]

Hi Groggy!

Personally, I find the Cutlass a very interesting concept but would not rate it as a flying wing. I rate it as a tailless aircraft. It had a standard fuselage and two large vertical fins.

The safety record was not very good and it was short-lived in service. The primary culprits were low-power turbojets of dubious reliability and a complex hydraulic system.

The airframe itself was fine. If it had only come as little as 5 - 7 years later, it MIGHT have had a MUCH better chance since engines and hydraulic systems were much better by that time.

There is at least one conformed instance of a Cutlass losing hydraulic control and having the pilot eject, only to watch his Cutlass fly large, lazy circles around San Diego harbor, eventually belly landing on a sand beach with minor damage! The entire incident speaks volume about stability and benign handling.

That aside, the handling around the carrier was mostly a study in not getting "behind the power curve," and I am forced to wonder if any major inprovements might have been realized with some canard foreplanes added. Of course, since they were struggling with turbojets of sufficient power, canards may have been useless if added ... they don't help the power situation in the slightest and DO add some weight.

In the end, the Cutlass was an interesting fighter that proved to be a dead end due to installed systems. The concept might have easily been a good one, but the execution doomed the concept to become a bad memory in the minds of Naval procurement personnel.

[Kutscha]

Greg sorry for going OT but on another board you mentioned the P-39 did not have a supercharger. This is incorrect for all Allisons had a supercharger. What the USAAF had removed was the GE turbocharger.

[GregP]

Hi Kutscha,

You are correct; all Allisons had a small integral supercharger. It was permanently locked in "low blower" and gave performance consistent with an unboosted piston engine. You are correct, the procurement board removed the turbosupercharger.

In point of fact, the P-39 was a zero to 12,000 foot fighter. Above there, it was pretty much at a disadvantage in all respects against almost anything else in the air. I wouldn't be surprised if a Lockheed Electra could outperform a P-39 at 20,000 feet. Not saying it COULD, just that I wouldn't be surprised.

The Allison V-1710 had enormous performance potential that was never fully exploited. I wish it had been developed, but we were more into quantity production and we seem to have simply "abandoned" development of the P-39 when the turbosupercharger was deleted.

That seems strange in light of continued development of other designs like the P-38, P-47, P-51, F6F, F4U, etc. Heck, they even tried a Merlin version of the P-40! Why not a Merlin version of the P-39 or at LEAST try re-inserting the turbosupercharger.

They even persisted in installation of the admittedly bad 37 mm cannon! When the Soviets got the P-39, they removed the bad gun and installed some good Soviet NS-23 units to very good effect.

I feel the P-39 was rendered useless by "executive decision" rather than by any lack of design features. It was unjustly maligned and could have been made MUCH better quite easily. Instead, the design was "abandoned." The Soviet Union showed that the P-39 WAS good and they inflicted enormous losses on the Luftwaffe with it. Maybe WE should have taken some flying and tactics lessons from the Soviets.

In any case, the design was innovative and could have been made into an effective aircraft with some forethought and minimal effort.

[montanamotor]

Hmmm -

maybe Bell during WWII suffered from the same problem as Ernst Heinkel did with the german authorities...?

Quite a good number of german staff and officers at the "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" as well as of the Nazi-party outright HATED Heinkel for one reason or another to an extend where they even tried to expell him from his office.

Could'n it have been that, Bell was one kind of gong-ho-guy, who tried to sell himself and his new products very busily to the US war ministry, yet stepped on too many "old aircraft-manufacturer's" and -supporters' toes while doing soo...?

Sometimes, it's your friends who make you or brake you...

One fact remains, though: The P 39 would have needed a MASSIVE redesign if it had to retain the turbocharger. Radiators had to be removed from their actual position to accomodate the GE turbocharger, and had to be installed elsewhere: Perhaps belly-scoop P 51-like, perhaps annular ring behind prop FW 190 D-like.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Guys,

Montanamotor, I have to say I think you are wrong about the politics.

As I read it Larry Bell was very highly thought of by the USAAF top brass.

That was why he was asked to build the P-59 Airacomet and the X-1.

it was probably more a problem of stop playing with a fighter we don't want and get on with building us our first jet fighter and by the way, can you do a supersonic research aircraft while you are at it?

Were you aware that "Winkle" Brown (my hero) liked the P-39 so much that he wangled it as his private 'hack' and that he was AFAIK the first person to land a tricycle aircraft on a carrier (I suspect the catch is 'landed' since Doolittle probably scored the first take off with the B-25 Mitchell)

[robert]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

Were you aware that "Winkle" Brown (my hero) liked the P-39 so much that he wangled it as his private 'hack' and that he was AFAIK the first person to land a tricycle aircraft on a carrier (I suspect the catch is 'landed' since Doolittle probably scored the first take off with the B-25 Mitchell)


The US Navy ordered a special version of the Lockheed Model 12A Electra Jr, the XJO-3, BuNo 1267, with a non-retractable tricycle undercarriage, to test the feasibility of using tricycle landing gear aircraft on carriers. On August, 30, 1939, it made 11 successful landings and take-offs from USS Lexington, proving the concept.

[Pete57]

quote:Originally posted by delcyros

quote:Given the emphasis on a reduced radar signature given to today’s fighter designs, there must be a reason why neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are flying wings…

They would be flying wings! If only they would be strictly subsonic!
Flying wings are no useful solution for transsonic planes at all. By the time flying wings could have made a great bomber (The Ho-XIV V1 was begun at Kahla underground facilities), the quest for speed arose quickly. Not even Horten believed that flying wings would be useful in the transsonic regime, hence the transsonic testbed should get a large vertical fin.



Why would they?
Although the trans-sonic limits can also account for the choice of a conventional airframe over a flying wing, the fact that most air combat maneuvering takes place in the subsonic region, and the better radar-stealthness flying wings afford, would make them a prime choice.

In reality, a fly-by-wire-ed conventional airframe is still more maneuverable than a similarly fly-by-wire-ed flying wing, and even though in a conventional airframe a similar level of radar-stealthness can be achieved only by the use of much more sophisticated technologies, the increase in maneuverability it affords is worth its choice.

I’m still not sold on the idea of the flying wing’s relative lack of instability around the vertical axis, I’m sorry but I just don’t see it happen, even more so with the technologies of the time, and indeed this was of concern even before the Ho. IX V2’s powered flights.

From: http://www.twitt.org/Farnborough_05.html#top

“…[u]The essence of the results was that the lateral oscillation was of abnormally long period – about 8 sec. At 250 kph and damped out in about 5 cycles. At low speeds the oscillation was of “dutch roll” type</u> [my emphasis] but at high speed very little banking occurred. Many fierce arguments took place at D.V.L. on desirable directional stability characteristics , the Hortens naturally joining the “long period” school of thought. They claimed that the long period would enable the pilot to damp out any directional swing with rudder and keep perfectly steady for shooting. It was found that by using both drag rudders simultaneously when aiming, the aircraft could be kept very steady with high damping of any residual oscillation.
Lateral control was apparently quite good with very little adverse yaw. …”

- It should be noted, though, that if on one hand the simultaneous use of the ‘drag rudders’ someway afforded an increase in the aircraft stability, on the other hand, it had the negative effect of causing a sudden increase in drag and therefore a sudden drop in the aircraft speed, thus reducing the aircraft’s immunity from interception by enemy fighters -

“…Directional stability was said by Scheidhauer to be very good, as good as a normal aircraft. He did not discuss this statement in detail as he was obviously very hazy about what he meant by good stability and could give very little precise information about the type and period of the motion compared with normal aircraft.
Scheidhauer had flown the Me 163 as a glider and was obviously very impressed with it; he was confident enough to do rolls and loops on his first flight. We asked him how the H IX V.1 compared with the 163; he was reluctant to give an answer and said the two were not comparable because of the difference in size. He finally admitted that he preferred the 163 which was more maneuverable, and a delight to fly (he called it “spielzeug”). …”

On the other hand, it cannot be completely ruled out that Scheidhauer’s statement was not biased: a personality problem had led him to a clash with Max Horten, and this, in turn, led to Scheidhauer’s replacement with Erwin Ziller for the Ho. IX V2’s test program.

So far as Ziller’s accident in the V2 is concerned, many sources have attributed it to a possible incapacitation caused by the cockpit filling with fumes. It is possible that this event played some role in it, but on the other hand, there was another event that could have played an even major role: right before his last flight in the V2, he received a message stating that his wife and children were now in an area of Germany that had been occupied by the advancing Soviet troops.

It can only be guessed what Ziller’s state of mind was when he proceeded to line up on the runway for what was supposed to be a routine test flight.


After 45 minutes of flight, the right Jumo 004 flamed out and Ziller was seen to dive and then pull back up to 800 meters (2500ft) in an attempt to re-start it.
From ‘The Horten Flying Wing In WW II’ by H.P.Dabrowski, Shiffer Pub., pages 29 and 36:
“The undercarriage was lowered unusually early, at an altitude of about 400 meters. The V2’s speed decreased and, accompanied by increasing engine noise, its nose dropped and the aircraft entered a right hand turn. The H IX completed a 360 degree turn with its wings banked 20 degrees. It then accelerated and completed a second and third 360 degree turn, the angle of bank increasing all the while. As it begun a fourth cycle the aircraft struck the frozen turf beyond the airfield boundary.”

On the other hand, it is interesting to notice how the right hand turn was concurrent with the increasing engine noise, i.e. when Ziller began to ‘pour the coal’ on the surviving Jumo.

Ziller was an experienced pilot and had five flights on the Me-262 under his belt in order to familiarize himself with jet flight procedures, it is therefore possible that his troubled state of mind had allowed him to get ‘behind the airplane’ and was now ‘turning into the dead engine’, and by the time he had realized his mistake, it was too late to correct it.

Could it be that one or both sets of drag-rudders had failed and lowering the landing gear was Ziller's last ditch attempt to regain a modicum of stability?

At the same time – and contrary to the Hortens’ stand – though, it cannot be ruled out that the flying wing’s yaw-lag had made single engine approach critical: true, inward-canting of the jet pods effectively reduced the thrust asymmetry, but it by no means deleted it!

A modern day’s crash-investigation could determine the exact causes, but at the time, given especially the fast advancing Allied troops, there were no resources and/or motivation to try and give some of the lingering doubts a satisfactory explanation.

Regards

[Yak My Ride]

Im going to say the yak 23 was the best jet back in the day. Yes it was late but it first flew in 1945. It would of smoked the p-80 and the ME262 at the same time. That fireball I dont think was fast enough to keep up with any of the three

[Pete57]

quote:Originally posted by Yak My Ride

Im going to say the yak 23 was the best jet back in the day. Yes it was late but it first flew in 1945. It would of smoked the p-80 and the ME262 at the same time. That fireball I dont think was fast enough to keep up with any of the three


The Yakovlev Yak-23 first flew on July 8, 1947, so if we want to compare it with the other contemporary designs we should compare it with the North American F-86 and the MiG-15 which were both superior, swept-wing designs.

Even compared with the contemporary version of the P-80 – the F-80C – the Yak-23 was still at a slight disadvantage in terms of speed 577mph /923kph (594mph/955kph) and at a distinct disadvantage in terms of range, 875miles/1400km, as compared to the F-80C’s 1380miles/2221km.

Moreover, the F-80C could carry an underwing load of 2000lb (900kg) of bombs, napalm, or rockets, making it a useful fighter-bomber, whereas the Yak-23 wing had been certified for drop-tanks only .

The Yak-23, however, was absolutely first class in terms of initial climb rate - 44116fpm (224mps) - and even as late as 1956 a Polish pilot, Andrzej Ablamowicz, was able to set two FAI, time-to-altitude records, climbing to 3000mt (9842ft) in 119 seconds and to 6000mt (19685ft) in 197 seconds

I think the Yak you refer to in your post is the Yak-15, a hasty conversion of the prop driven Yak-3U to take a Tumansky RD-10 turbojet (a Soviet-built Jumo 004).

The first Yak-15 was completed in October 1945, but (for political reasons?) was not allowed to fly until April 24, 1946 and then three hours after its main competitor, the Mikoyan & Gurevich MiG-9 (first to fly was decided by flipping a coin, according to some sources).

The Yak-3U was a 'featherweight' and this is reflected in the Yak-15’s high thrust/weight ratio (0.34), this being 36% better than the Me-262’s (0.25) and 0.3% better than the P-80A-1’s (0.33), and in its lower wing load of 38lb/sqft (177kg/sqmt), this value being 54% of the Me-262's 67lb/sqft (328kg/sqmt)and 79% of the P-80A-1's 49lb/sqft(224kg/sqmt).

Climb rate values at sea level for the Yak-15, the Me-262 and the P-80A-1 were 4724ftpm (24.0mtps), 3900ftpm (20mtps), 4580ftpm (23.3mtps) respectively, with a service ceiling of 43788ft/13350mt (Yak-15), 37565ft/11450mt (Me-262) and 45000ft/13700mt (P-80A-1)

The Yak-15 was markedly inferior in terms of maximum speed - 500mph (805kph)- compared to the Me-262’s 541mph (870kph) and the P-80A-1’s 558mph (898kph), and especially in terms of internal fuel range, 319 miles (510km), this value being only 48% of the Me-262’s (652miles/1050km) and 40% of the P-80A-1’s (780miles/1255km).

As you can see, it by no means “could have smoked the P-80 and the ME262 at the same time”!

The Yak-15 can actually be considered a short-range interceptor and as such it was more in the same league as the Luftwaffe’s Heinkel He-162 or the RAF’s early De Havilland Vampire F.MK.Is (before the modification to receive drop-tanks).
Again though, even compared with these types, the Yak appears to be no stellar performer.

Regards.

[Groggy]

Regards.

[/quote]
Hi Folks.
Potentially the best Jet, the Miles Libellula tri-jet bomber project must stand out as being unique. The only practical 2ndWW jet bomber project designed to use either piston or jet-engines and the only jet bomber that could have been in large scale service. With the political will the parallel production of piston and jet powered variants staring as early as 1943. If Miles had been given the go ahead it should have been in service by the end of 1943 with a bomb load equal to the average British heavy. Ten times more effective than a British Heavy and twenty times better than an American with immunity to interception and the ability to leaflet telling when the raids would occur. Its deployment would have shortened the war by one or two years. A third the cost to produce of any other large conventional bomber at that time. For a given bombing campaign crew requirement would be only about one fiftieth of a large bomber and a drastic reduction in ground crew needed. With a joint American, British, Canadian development / production effort the strategic impact would have been so great that Poland would have been freed and the original aim of the conflict achieved with several million casualties prevented. This aircraft was unique in the affect it could have had.

[Red Admiral]

Groggy,

Do you have any stats on the full-scale Libellula?

[delcyros]

quote:
Specifications (M.39B)

[edit] General characteristics

* DIMENSIONS
* Span: - front wing - 25ft (7.6m) - rear wing, 37ft 7in (10.5m)
* Length: 22ft 2in (6.7m)
* Height: 9ft 3in (2.8m)
* Wing area: - front wing 61.7 sq ft (6.64 m²) - rear wing 187.5 sq ft (20.16 m²)
* WEIGHTS
* Empty: 2,405lb (1,108kg)
* Loaded: 2,800lb (1,270kg)
* Powerplants: Two 140 h.p. de Havilland Gipsy Major IC

[edit] Performance

* Maximum speed: 164 mph (367 km/h)


There is no mention of a jet involvement on the M39:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060113150748/http://www.miles-aircraft.com/M.35_and_m.39b_libellula.html


BTW, with an wing area of only 6.64 m^2, the max. practical take off weight with 1000 lbs/m^2 wingload (which by any means is a huge wingload and would require 2-3 miles take off distance) is only 3 t., so there is little hope that this plane carries enough fuel AND bombload anyway.

[delcyros]

Pete,

Your comments do raise interesting questions concerning the relationship of Ziller, Schneidhauer and Horten. Whisch I knew the answers.

A single engined Horten also seems to be stable, at least judging from the example of the Ho-VII, which circled stable with one dead engine in tree top altitude in late 44 for demonstrations. It had quite a comparable layout to the Ho-IX.

The Ho-IX V2 accident deserves in depth analysis. I do not rule out that unproper glueing, pilot error, or a construction failure may be fatal.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

Groggy,

Do you have any stats on the full-scale Libellula?

Hi Red Admiral, delcyros, Folks

Two R-R Merlin 60 or two Bristol Hercules VIII or three Power Jets W.2/500.
Span, forward wing 39 ft 3 in, rear wing 55 ft; length 35 ft 9 in; wing area , forward wing 139 sq ft, rear wing 417 sq ft.
Weight empty 12,875 lb; fuel (585 gal) 4,210 lb; oil (90 gal) 810 lb; crew 600 lb;
Military equipment 1,255 lb; bombs 7000 lb; all up weight 26,750 lb.
Cruising speed piston engines 350 mph at 31,000 ft, jets 500 mph at 36,000ft. Range 1,600 miles.
The Power Jets W.2/500 for the period had the best fuel consumption figures but these were improved on by the W.2/700,The design appears to be easily adopted to use 2 Metro-Vik 4,710 lb thrust turbofans with about half the fuel consumption which was not only frugal but the best possible as tested in August 1943. The three substitute Jets weighed about the same as one Merlin with radiator and airscrew/prop. and delivered more than three times the power
The M.39B was a proof of concept flying five-eighth scale model that helped refine the design.
By 1944 the UK economic circumstances were so bad that there were to be no new military projects ordered and the design was adopted to serve as a high speed mailplane proposal for service after the war.
Arado Ar. 234b was the only jet bomber produced in quantity and for the time a superb design
but was limited by the late availability of engine. The Miles project could have had the benefit of a range of jet engines that had the political will been there should have been in large scale service at least a year before the Arado 234b.

[delcyros]

Thanks, Groggy.

I was not aware of that Miles proposal. It looks interesting. Whether or not it would be useful depends on how sensitive the winglayout would be to cg-shifts (f.e. by bomb drops). I know that was the main reason why this layout was abandoned in the dawn of aviation. However, what did Miles in refining the system to offset the problem?

estimated W2-performances:
max. thrust: 1600 lbs (4800 lbs total)
sfc: 1.13 lbs/h/lb (5424 lbs total at 100% for 60 min./90.4lbs per minute)
weight: 850 lbs (2550 lbs total)

For the proposed Libellula airframe this gives the following
estimates:

airframe weight: 10.325 lbs (38.6%)
engines: 2550 lbs (9.5%)
fuel: 4210 lbs (15.7%)
misc. weights: 810 lbs (3%)
crew: 600 lbs (2.2%)
military equipment: 1255 lbs (4.7%)
payload: 7000 lbs (26.2%)

take off weight: 26750 lbs
wingarea: 49 m^2 (556 ft^2)
wingload: 247.7 Kg/m^2 (48.11 lbs/ft^2) (for comparison: Ar-234B: 76.4 lbs/ft^2)
powerload: 8.63 lbs/ft^2 (for comparison, Ar-234B: 6.27 lbs/ft^2)
thrust/weight ratio: 0.179 (for comparison, Ar-234B: 0.180)

estimated endurances:
fuel for starting the engines, taxiing and take off:
= 631 lbs (15%)
= endurance at sea level and 100% power: 39.5 minutes
= endurance at 20000ft. and 100% power incl. climb to altitude: 63 min.
= endurance at 31000ft. and 100% power imcl. climb to altitude: 108 min.

These datas strongly disagree to a proposed range of 1600 mls at altitude & payload. A max. range of 900 mls. at 31000 ft. and 100% altitude (for 500 mp/h), only half the expected range are credible, in any event, this is too short for use as a strategic bomber.
1600 mls may be achieved at much lower payload with tradeoffs in internal fuel capacity.

Considering the much larger wingarea and the higher drag due to the large frontal diameter nacelles for the W2´s compared to the Ar-234B, I doubt that the Libellula could reach 500 mp/h. T/W ratio of both planes are identic, but the higher wingload implies a somehow better drag coefficiant of the Ar-234B. Climb and service ceiling should be substantially better than the Ar-234B on the other hand.
A top speed of in between 450 and 470 mp/h seems to me reasonable.

Assuming nothing but the powerplant changes, the original airframe has the equivalent of ~393 lbs power and 164 mp/h. So 1221 % the power should translate into exactly 500.7 mp/h top speed if all other factors beeing identic. However, they aren´t. The drag area changes, the weight increases several times, so the 500 mp/h is only valid for the scaled down testbed, not for the so proposed bomber variant. Assuming that a lineary increase in sizes of the 5/8 testbed would result in a plane with lineary greater drag, the power increase would translate into 435 mp/h top speed in the same altitude (note that the real top speed would be achieved at higher altitude than the testbed, so 450-470 mp/h seems to me more plausible). The max. adjusted range therefore is ~280 mls. at sea level (and 100% = 430 mp/h) and 846 mls at 31000 ft (at 100% = 470 mp/h)

Another aspect is jet engine avaiability. The W2B was still undergoing benchtest at may 1943 and mass production without the proper tooling processes was beyond 1944 by then (with US tooling technology, the british Dervents became ready for massproduction in 1944)

[GregP]

There was no full scale Libellula.

The M.35 had a 130 HP de Havilland Gypsy Major. The M.39 had two 140 HP de Havilland Gypsy Majors.

Neither was close to being fast, and no full size bomber was built. The M.35 was not even stable.

[montanamotor]

Pictures?

Delcyros, the links don't work!

Montanamotor

[delcyros]

I apologize. The page was shut down recently.

For pics try:

http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2006/06/images/hrubisko_tailless_14%20.jpg
It´s only a model but does give a hint how the appearence should be.

The informations covering the shut down link above are given here:

"Among the collection of projects which emerged from Miles during World War 2, two of the strangest were the Miles M.35 and M.39 tandem-wing aircraft, and while most of the projects did not materialize these two were built and flown.

The following are some of the advantages claimed regarding the design. Both wings contribute to the total lift, and the parasitic drag, weight and download of a tailplane is eliminated; span and length dimensions are less than those of a comparable orthodox aeroplane, making for constructional strength at less weight and increased man#65533;uvrability; the pilot's field of vision is greatly improved, while the general plan of the aircraft lends itself to the popular tricycle undercarriage. A further advantage of the Libellula layout is that, since the two lifting surfaces are disposed on either side of the centre of gravity, the large change in trim normally encountered by the use of high lift devices can be balanced out, while the permissible range of movement for the centre of gravity can be extended to a degree quite unattainable on either an orthodox, a tail-first or a tailless machine.

At the end of 1941 the M.35 was conceived of using the tandem-wing arrangement, with the pilot being in the extreme nose with the pusher engine mounted behind the rear wing, in the design of a carrier-borne naval fighter. The advantages of such a form being the reduced hangar space required - the short wing span meant that wing-folding was not needed and therefore simplified ship-board handling, and the perfection of view obtainable for the landing-on approach.
Such was the enthusiasm for the project that a rough flying scale mock-up was designed, built and flown in only six weeks, the first flight being made by Mr. G. H. Miles early in 1942. Slight longitudinal stability deficiencies became apparent during extended trials, but wind tunnel tests showed the problems to be curable and George Miles conceived a heavy bomber, the M.39, to be powered by three turbojet engines, or in its initial form with two high-altitude Rolls-Royce Merlin 60s or Bristol Hercules VIIIs.
A 5/8 scale model of the bomber was built and designated M.39B, flying for the first time on 22nd July 1943 and proving to be aerodynamically stable. Flight trials were initially on a private basis, but in 1944 the M.39B went to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, where it suffered two accidents. After extensive repairs the work ended and the aircraft was broken up
The whole Miles tandem-wing range of aircraft was given the class name of Libellula, which is the entomological title of members of the dragon-fly insect family."

regards,
delc

[Red Admiral]

http://www.museumofberkshireaviation.co.uk/

Miles aviation projects. Gallery 2 has pictures and drawings of the M.35 and M.37

There are a couple of other canard aircraft designs as well.

[Pete57]

delcyros.

the whole Horten/Ziller/Scheidhauer affair seems to have been a rather murky one to me, and even the Horten brothers seem to have had, at times, diverging opinions on some subjects regarding flying-wing design, e.g. Walter apparently wanted a fin on the Horten IXc, Reimar did not want a fin (Walter appears to have converted, at some point in time, to the 'finned' flying-wing theory, with Reimar remaining a staunch supporter of the pure flying-wing).

There was an online abstract of the contents of some NASM CD-ROMs dealing with some interviews with the brothers (glad I have copied and saved them in MS Word format, as I can no longer find the link): they are worth reading, despite of the rather haphazard way the whole thing is written.

It casts some light, but it by no means solves the lingering doubts surrounding the whole development as well as Ziller's accident.

If you are interested, PM me your e-mail and I'll be more than happy to send you a copy of my file.

Regards

[PMN1]

When the Meteor was being designed was there any attempt to put the engines inside the fuselage as in the later Gloster 'Rocket' - two 2,200lb thrust B.37 jets.