American jets in '44

If it had been put there by anyone but Kelly, I would dismiss them, but Johnson was a genius at design so I have to at least give it a passing glance.

Well this was a Miles design from '41

Miles_M.39b.jpg



As you can see it flew, it was a common sight flying around Reading in the second half or WWII.
 
Well this was a Miles design from '41

Miles_M.39b.jpg



As you can see it flew, it was a common sight flying around Reading in the second half or WWII.

Are we defining canards as a fixed forward wing or a moveable one?? My experience with more modern planes is that they move (hence my control issues), but if they are just a fixed wing it should make matters simpler. (What speed did that weird bird do? Issues tend to get worse as speed goes up...) What did the Lockheed have, fixed or moveable?
 
I agree, I just wonder if (like stabilisers on ships), the control theory and mechanisms of the time just weren't up to making them workable in practice.

Which is probably why the L-133 has such a "squashed" fuselage; they crammed in as much horizontal surfaces as possible to damp out any PIO due to the canard...

Simon ;)
 
Radar bombing makes it easier to hit the targets (Page 11 refers to a radar CEP of 1,925 feet using B-36s at 40,000 feet), though of course that is still atrocious compared to what you could get lower, but with nuclear weapons, you can miss by that much or more and still destroy the target.


Urr , thats for 1949/1950 bombers with improved post war radar bombing systems after having made multiple pass on the target. The 1949 figures look like 3000-5000 feet CEP against first run targets, with repeated runs this could be down for 2000-4000 feet CEP.
 
Are we defining canards as a fixed forward wing or a moveable one?? My experience with more modern planes is that they move (hence my control issues), but if they are just a fixed wing it should make matters simpler. (What speed did that weird bird do? Issues tend to get worse as speed goes up...) What did the Lockheed have, fixed or moveable?

They also made a fighter version. These Libelluas (Dragonflies) were scaled down proof of concept prototypes powered by 150hp DeHavilland Gypsy Moth engines and flew at about 200mph. I would imagine full size versions with Merlin's or Gryphon's would be a lot faster.


libellula_m35.jpg


They also made this converted 1935 M3 Falcon, a low speed flying testbed in '43 for the canceled 1,000mph M52. It had the first completely movable tail-plane and a compression proof supersonic capable wing.

gillette.jpg
 
Last edited:
They also made a fighter version. These Libelluas (Dragonflies) were scaled down proof of concept prototypes powered by 150hp DeHavilland Gypsy Moth engines and flew at about 200mph. I would imagine full size versions with Merlin's or Gryphon's would be a lot faster.


libellula_m35.jpg

The tailplane of this one reminds me of that Lysander prototype with a heavy bomber tailunit.

examples here:
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/lysander.php
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1955/1955 - 0491.html
 
Top