according to wiki, yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafner_Rotabuggy
pic in flight (being towed, since it is a autogyro glider)
The most ridiculous aircraft design
- Thread starter oldironside
- Start date
pic in flight (being towed, since it is a autogyro glider)
It was the British who thought it up. And they were not exactly known for sane military thinking.
The thought of being in that while being towed by a plane is just vomit inducing...
Well at least you will have the satisfaction of dying in a way certain to make it into the papers.
Archibald
Banned
Seconded. The quest for V/STOL was (and still is) an hemorroaege of pilot lives and dollars. Aviation buff as I am, it still baffles me as dull and uninteresting. Both V-22 and F-35C still pay a high price to V/STOL.
Except given war time conditions it would be decades later I'd guess...
actually, its autogyro, so descent should be slow and controlled.
there are worse ways, just look at joe kennedy jr, who died testpiloting a bomber that was converted to a flying bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite
Yeah I never really got why the Western Allies felt the need to go with that tbh.
Driftless
Donor
Wasn't the theory to come in against the doors vs the roof; thinking the doors more vulnerable?
Having been to the Saint Nazaire Pen's I'm doubtful about the chances of flying a B 17 into them to be honest.
thorr97
Banned
Sparky,
Because the Grand Slams and Tallboys took specialized aircraft to use. The Aphrodite project took otherwise surplus bombers and outfitted them to achieve the same effect. Also, the Aphrodite bombers were precision guided missiles and expected to be more accurate than those heavy bombs dropped from miles above their targets.
The Japanese achieved much the same results and did so with devastating accuracy when they packed some of their old and worn out bombers with high explosives and flew them into their targets. Of course, their terminal guidance systems were not "remotely operated" like the Aphrodite program's....
Because the Grand Slams and Tallboys took specialized aircraft to use. The Aphrodite project took otherwise surplus bombers and outfitted them to achieve the same effect. Also, the Aphrodite bombers were precision guided missiles and expected to be more accurate than those heavy bombs dropped from miles above their targets.
The Japanese achieved much the same results and did so with devastating accuracy when they packed some of their old and worn out bombers with high explosives and flew them into their targets. Of course, their terminal guidance systems were not "remotely operated" like the Aphrodite program's....
thorr97
Banned
As in the case with the "ugly" thread, this one too seems to ignore the design requirements and the success at meeting them when it comes to evaluating whether a design is "ridiculous" or not. Which is a real shame because quite a few of these "ridiculous" looking aircraft actually accomplished their intended functions quite well.
Insider
Banned
there were no, or almost no doors. And of course the blast inside the bunker would ruin it much more then any outside explosion (save a nuclear bomb)
Something new from Airbus:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/business...y-to-test-by-the-end-of-this-year-772818.html
http://www.breakingnews.ie/business...y-to-test-by-the-end-of-this-year-772818.html
I agree and that is the problem with this sort of thread. There is always some sort of thread drift. I stated at the beginning what it was about, and gave a couple of examples to show what I meant. The Airacuda illustrates perfectly what I was looking for - ridiculous ideas that somehow made it into the air. As usual some people have taken this as licence to post their favourite weird idea that looks a bit odd, but actually wasn't at all bad.
I'll take this opportunity to add the Potez 540, which was considered by the French Air Force to be a multi-role combat aircraft - fighter, reconaissance, bomber. Now, that's ridiculous.
