Flyilng wings aren't stable. It takes modern computerized flight conrols to get them to be flyable with any sort of safety. The US also tried a flying wing concept both during and after the war. Wasn't until the F-117 that they got it right and I think a few of those crashed before they got it down pat. No plane or single weapon was going to change the history of the war especially by 44 argueably it was too late by 43 or even earlier.
Well, some kind of Horten variant couldn't stop Indiana Jones, and even proved dangerous to it's own ground crew. If it's so easily defeated by a middle-aged archaeologist with a whip I'm reasonably sure it'd fail in the face of the RAF etc.
Was this really the "most secret" weapon of the Luftwaffe? If so when? I think having one on display at a major museum now would mean that it's not anymore. Of course some claim all sorts of wierd devices as being German secret weapons. The so called "V3" for instance i.e. the gun with multiple chambers that might have been able to reach Britain from Germany comes to mind. Not sure it was a Luftwaffe weapon though. There's a pretty good article on them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing and a list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flying_wings
I share with you an interesting collection of pictures showing one of the projects launched at the end of World War II by Germany as part of its war effort to try to avoid the increasingly Allied bombing. The big question remains whether this rocket plane had been built in greater quantities and earlier would have changed the final outcome? What do you think? Visit the link below, see photos and give your opinion about it. http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/01/uma-visao-incomum-nos-ceus-da-europa.html Best Regards.
During World War II, the Lockheed developed a long-range version of its famous fighter P-38 Lightning, however, due to technical problems the project was canceled. The link below provides a collection of interesting photos of the plane and a question: If the plane had entered service, have reached the success of the P-38? What do you think? Visit the link, see the photos and answer this question through a poll at the end of the post. http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/lockheed-xp-58-chain-lightning.html Best Regards.
The technical problems were not with the plane, per se, but the engines.The first was under-powered, and a few others were experimental that did not reach production. The plane's problems were that the USAAC/USAAF kept changing the aircraft's primary mission - and that ran the gamut from fighter to bomber. It might have been a great fighter or it might have been a great bomber, but the USAAF already had several "great" aircraft doing or planned for all those various jobs. PS Still promoting your 2011 material I see. Shame you can't come up with anything new. But, then again, reposting photos from other websites is frowned upon nowadays.
Thought i'd seen most all ww2 weird and whacky aircraft. A pleasant surprise to see that beastie. It would have been a better post if you had included some information/stats on the plane though.
Adding an extra crew member and powered turrets to the P38 gives an aircraft quite a lot like the Northrop P61. The P38 was quite a nimble aircraft for a twin engined fighter. The P61 was a night rather than a day fighter for a reason. It was an aircraft which had no real role. It had the wrong sort of armament to be an escort and the A 20,A26 B25 and B26 were already there for low level attack and bombing. It is a little too big and expensive for close air support.
What was its designation - i could then look it up and post the stats/ info. Kinda looks like Howard Hughes had a hand in it. Or Homer Simpson.
Geeze, they wanted to put a 75 in the chin. http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=411
The XP-58 was really intended more as a bomber buster than a fighter. The improved P-38 fighter was the XP-49. This aircraft was to have the new Pratt and Whitney X-1800 engines installed giving it about 25% more power than the P-38 with an expected top speed near 500 mph. As it turned out, P&W never got the engine to work right and Continental XI-1430's were installed instead. These gave no appreciable performance increase over the production P-38 and the plane was dropped from development. The 75mm version of the XP-58 was intended to be a bomber buster. Of course, neither Axis power really had any offensive bomber force needing busting up in the sense of the ones the US and Britain deployed. This version was also designated the XA-38 Grizzly in a parallel development.
I share with you the history of the medium bomber built by the Douglas should replace a company's success, the B-18 Bolo, but eventually supplanted by its competitors. Does anyone know if the plane came into action during WW2? If so, how was your performance? In the link below you will find a fantastic collection of photos, some of them rare and colorful this amazing bomber. http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/03/douglas-b-23-dragon.html Best Regards.
It was more a refinement of the B-18 than a replacement. A small number (less than 40) were produced as the last batch of B-18's. Like the Bolo's, their primary service was as maritime patrol bombers until better aircraft were available, some were reconfigured as transport's (UC-67) and others as test bed aircraft. A surprising number survive today as post war many were turned into private executive/corporate aircraft. While better than the B-18, which was woefully obsolete by WWII, it could not compete with more advanced design's like the B-26 and B-26.
The B-23 wasn't a refinement of the B-18. It was virtually an entirely new aircraft. For example, while the wings and engine nacelles look much the same the B-23 utilized an entirely new wing of slightly greater span and new engine nacelles that owed little to the B-18. The fuselage was entirely new and one refinement was the tail gun position, the first of its kind to be put on a US bomber. That feature was successful enough that it was copied onto the B-17 and B-25 (in modified form). As patrol bombers on maritime flights their service was comparatively short being returned to training use by mid 1942. The B-18 continued on in that role longer both with the USAAF and with the RCAF where it was known as the Digby I
Then is the XP-60C a completely different aircraft, or a evolution of the P-40? A new cowling. moved armament (cowling MG's) and a lengthened fuselage might induce the impression of a different aircraft, but clearly derived from the P-40.
The XP-60 started out as an evolution of the P-40. It starts with the XP-53 that was a P-40D fuselage coupled to a laminar flow wing that was based on the P-40 wing. Because the USAAC wanted to try this with a Merlin engine the second XP-53 became the XP-60 in October 1940. The XP-53 got cancelled and the XP-60 took its place. Then the shortage of Packard Merlins hit and the XP-60 became the XP-60A using an Allison V 1710-75 with turbo-supercharging. That required a redesign of the fuselage to take the turbo-supercharger, becoming fatter and deeper. The XP-60C switched engines to the R-2800 and an entirely new wing that was supposed to have true laminar flow. Then the XP-60D was made going back to the Merlin but with a wing that combined some of the XP-60A and C in it. Following this so far? Problems with the counter rotating airscrew that the C was to use, a modified version the XP-60E was produced with a standard 4 blade propeller. Testing of that model led to the YP-60E, the principle change being the adoption of a bubble canopy. The one YP-60E was tested and flew successfully but with a top speed of 405 mph and the rest of its performance not being anything to write home about, the whole program was ended. The XP-60 I proposed would have been something akin to the original one above. That is, a P-40D/E fuselage with the R-2800 and lengthening as done on later P-40, at least initially. I'd think that maybe a redesign of the landing gear would occur at some point but not necessarily with the prototypes.
One of the most versatile and lethal aircraft of the Luftwaffe during World War II, the Junkers Ju-87 has been tested in numerous versions. The link you find on this post provides a collection of pictures showing several of them, some exclusive and never before seen by me in other publications. To see the photos, visit the link below: http://aviacaoemfloripa.blogspot.com.br/2011/02/variantes-do-ju-87-stuka.html Best Regards!
A Hat Trick! Pampa14...You posted this webpage link back in May. http://www.ww2f.com/topic/55834-stuka-in-unusual-versions/ Which make this the 3rd time you have peddled this webpage..From March, 2014 http://www.ww2f.com/topic/52607-unusual-variants-of-ju-87-stuka/