That reads like something out of Monty Python or that old special issue of National Lampoon - the one with Tank Polo and Wing Dining (as in out on the wing - describes Hemingway losing a manuscript of one of his novels because it wasn't weighted down properly with silverware). Monty Python: . . . and just what are the commercial possibilities of ovine aviation? . . . followed by the two French aeronautical engineers in lab coats, berets, and mustaches . . . With all the windows and such and the max altitude why not make it an avant guard, yet retro excursion plane for flying over Paris - while sipping wine. A reverse He 111: it started as a bomber, but was more fun and useful as an airliner.
The most ridiculous aircraft design
- Thread starter oldironside
- Start date
I have McCall's Zany Afternoons (because that's the kind of book I buy; it's still got the 95p price tag from the remaindered bookshop in Covent Garden I got it from c1988). As @oldironside pointed out, bits have appeared in Playboy; other pieces were originally published in Esquire, Crawdaddy, National Lampoon, New Times and Oui. Well worth buying if you come across a copy.
Probably this one?
http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/wc5tb/the-worlds-weirdest-weapons--s1-e2-the-flying-soldier
Not a link to the show itself (sorry), but if this is the right name, it might help you find it.
Shadow Master
Banned
That's probably going to be the right one, but I cannot see a picture nor does the video run without me joining their site. Anyone know what the costs are for joining them? I would think that this could be the craft I was looking for, but it could also be either of the two other individual flying devices that were it's ancestors, the rocket belt, or the jetpack. Without access, I just cannot tell.
I tried: it's listed as "Not currently available". The problem with British TV sites is that programmes are restricted to UK ISPs, and then only for as short time.
That's it - Wing Dining, right on the cover, $44 from Amazon - looks like Tank Polo as well. So the blurb on the plane was a spoof, the plane as well?
Glyndwr01
Banned
Install BROWSEC into your browser and change country to UK and you can watch UK only content!
https://browsec.com/en/
thorr97
Banned
oldironside,
Actually, it was a whole lot more than that.
In the 1930s the Air Corps was starved for funds. What little money it did get it had to stretch out as far as it could. So, when it did get some money to do some research and development it tended to pile as many development efforts into it as it could. Hence the Airacuda was more of what we'd call a "technology demonstrator" today than anything else. It incorporated electrical motors for what was usually hydraulically activated. The Air Corps hoped the weight savings, lack of flammable fluids, and lower maintenance on the electrical system would be worth its development cost. The type was also altered into a tricycle landing gear configuration and that was something new for the Air Corps as well. Those pusher engines gave an unobstructed forward field of fire. The entire mission of the aircraft was a proof of concept in that the Air Corps wanted to see if the idea of a "bomber destroyer" was a practical thing. When the Airacuda first took flight most air forces in the world considered rifle caliber machine guns to be of sufficient firepower to meet their needs. Some advanced aircraft of the day might sport a single .50 cal machine gun as a "heavy" armament. So for the Airacuda to have 37mm canon as its main armament was a huge leap ahead in capability. Then the Air Corps insisted Bell develop a long range sighting system for plane that was more akin to that of naval gun directors than aerial gunsight and you've got a really cutting edge machine.
No surprise then that so much it didn't work out well enough. The pusher prop layout meant the engines didn't get enough airflow over their radiators to keep them cool enough while the plane was on the ground. That electrical motor set up had tremendous problems and simply wasn't up to the loads demanded of it. The thing would short out and that'd leave the plane in dire straits at exactly the wrong times - like landing when you needed the flaps and the gear down. Those big heavy General Motors 37mm canon were awesome guns - when they worked. The things would frequently jam due to the movement of the aircraft imparting sufficient g-loading on their components that caused them to hang up.
And worst of all, it quickly became apparent that there'd be no streams of bombers coming across the Atlantic for the Airacuda to sink its fangs into. Thus all those operational problems were deemed too expensive for the Bell Company to resolve as the Air Corps suddenly had other needs.
As a technology demonstrator, the Airacuda accomplished its intended purpose - it demonstrated that many of the technologies it had stuffed into its airframe simply were not ready for operational use. If anything, that meant the type was actually more of a success than anything else.
Actually, it was a whole lot more than that.
In the 1930s the Air Corps was starved for funds. What little money it did get it had to stretch out as far as it could. So, when it did get some money to do some research and development it tended to pile as many development efforts into it as it could. Hence the Airacuda was more of what we'd call a "technology demonstrator" today than anything else. It incorporated electrical motors for what was usually hydraulically activated. The Air Corps hoped the weight savings, lack of flammable fluids, and lower maintenance on the electrical system would be worth its development cost. The type was also altered into a tricycle landing gear configuration and that was something new for the Air Corps as well. Those pusher engines gave an unobstructed forward field of fire. The entire mission of the aircraft was a proof of concept in that the Air Corps wanted to see if the idea of a "bomber destroyer" was a practical thing. When the Airacuda first took flight most air forces in the world considered rifle caliber machine guns to be of sufficient firepower to meet their needs. Some advanced aircraft of the day might sport a single .50 cal machine gun as a "heavy" armament. So for the Airacuda to have 37mm canon as its main armament was a huge leap ahead in capability. Then the Air Corps insisted Bell develop a long range sighting system for plane that was more akin to that of naval gun directors than aerial gunsight and you've got a really cutting edge machine.
No surprise then that so much it didn't work out well enough. The pusher prop layout meant the engines didn't get enough airflow over their radiators to keep them cool enough while the plane was on the ground. That electrical motor set up had tremendous problems and simply wasn't up to the loads demanded of it. The thing would short out and that'd leave the plane in dire straits at exactly the wrong times - like landing when you needed the flaps and the gear down. Those big heavy General Motors 37mm canon were awesome guns - when they worked. The things would frequently jam due to the movement of the aircraft imparting sufficient g-loading on their components that caused them to hang up.
And worst of all, it quickly became apparent that there'd be no streams of bombers coming across the Atlantic for the Airacuda to sink its fangs into. Thus all those operational problems were deemed too expensive for the Bell Company to resolve as the Air Corps suddenly had other needs.
As a technology demonstrator, the Airacuda accomplished its intended purpose - it demonstrated that many of the technologies it had stuffed into its airframe simply were not ready for operational use. If anything, that meant the type was actually more of a success than anything else.
Perhaps I could offer the XP-55. Not necessarily a bad design, but certainly over-ambitious for the time.
Needed a better engine, and probably fly-by-wire technology. Then you might have something.
Archibald
Banned
Airacuda and BCR (Potez 540) were quite similar in concept, and equally bad in practice... The Potez 540 has a disastrous reputation, but it was an honest-to-God light bomber by 1936. Some of them were used by andré Malraux in Spain with honorable results.
XP-54, XP55 and XP-56 were waste of money.
Insider
Banned
I don't know how fly-by-wire could help it, as it is not a cure by itself, but it would simplify the design for sure. What it surely needed was an ejection seat. All single engined pusher planes needed one, because the pilot whose engine simply broke (not to say anything about actual battle damage), had to choose between trying to jump out and not being chopped, and trying to land on the fields or meadows and not getting crushed by engine.Perhaps I could offer the XP-55. Not necessarily a bad design, but certainly over-ambitious for the time.
Needed a better engine, and probably fly-by-wire technology. Then you might have something.
Actually, this design had a lever in the cockpit that ejected the propeller if the pilot needed to bail out.
In fact, a test pilot did successfully bail out of this aircraft, inverted, with the engine stopped. Subsequent design modifications reduced the tendency to enter an inverted spin, cause of the event.
Perhaps I could offer the XP-55. Not necessarily a bad design, but certainly over-ambitious for the time.
Needed a better engine, and probably fly-by-wire technology. Then you might have something.
------------------------------------------------------
Burt Rutan proved that you don't need fly-by-wire to stabilize canards.
If assigned to the Curtiss Ascender project, Rutan would have moved the Center of Gravity forward ....... making it nose-heavy, then installed a larger lifting canard to re-balance it.
The strangest thought just occured to me. Could you fit a Nene in there?
The USA had money and resources to waste. A fair number of aircraft designs made it to at least the prototype stage. The reality is that a lot of the issues that made these designs not worth it were simply unknown at the time, and these various designs advanced aeronautical knowledge. In part Germany could be excused for the "napkinwaffe", however they never had the resources to waste. Furthermore in Germany you had the sort of interference like stresses bombers to be dive bombers when inappropriate, or making the Me-262 a tactical bomber. Without being snarky, there is a reason these aircraft have "X" in front of them.
If you know in advance what will work it is eassy to charge ahead, when you are in new territory.
If you know in advance what will work it is eassy to charge ahead, when you are in new territory.
Driftless
Donor
Without high performance digital computers to do detailed (and theoretically valid) simulations, you'd need to run those prototypes through a lot more wind tunnel and fight tests to gather information. They acheived some remarkable advancements with banks of slide-rule jockeys instead of digital computers; but of course there's going to be some belly-flops too.