Awesome WW2 experimental Aircraft

I had to look up Rezunoidism, and I think I'l pass on finding out what klukwa means. It certainly is my understanding from decades of undocumented reading, that the upper echelon of the RNII underwent a Stalinist purge, with some executions, and that Korolev was taken to Lubyanka and tortured, sent to a gold mining camp, and confined to engineers' camp, sharashka, all of which seems counterproductive to the development of a rocket engine. I'm not sure where my mistake is.

A problem facing aircraft designers of the era was not weird supersonic physics but weird trans-sonic aerodynamics. Just as an aside, it took me hours of practice to be able to pronounce TsAGI, the whole name, properly in full. I mentioned it to my brother-in-law, who immediately repeated it perfectly, like a Russian. Talk about a piss-off.
Rezunoids and Rezun is russian analogue of conspiracy theorists only their theories related to GPW . In West Rezun is known as Suvorov and in russia he known for:Aggresive autobahn tanks bullshit, IS-130 et cetera.
 
arm_whitley.jpg

Just to clear things up, per glasnost, the A-35B has wing incidence, flies OK but doesn't dive bomb accurately. The Vengeance, on the right, has no wing incidence, zero, sticks its nose up snobbishly, but drops the pickle in the correct barrel. It was changed, because target towing doesn't need bombing accuracy.

The aircraft top right, the F8U Crusader, had a wing which was raised 7 degrees to allow better take-off and landing performance while keeping the nose down for pilot vision. The Supermarine 322 torpedo bomber also had this feature, variable incidence, from 2 to 16 degrees. The Whitley was designed with 8.5 degrees angle of incidence, because John Lloyd didn't know how to build a split flap. When someone showed him how, it was included in the design, but the angle of incidence remained at 8.5, just a bit more than a Crusader in take-off and landing mode. What a drag.
 
Give it the turbine and tall rudder and it would look a bit like the Me-163 Komet.
I've noticed that. It would've been safer. (With the pusher prop running, it was probably safer.:openedeyewink:)
413261779.jpg

Then there's the Vickers 407 & 421 pressurised Wellie projects...
 
Last edited:
Just to bring this thread back again One of my favorite for years has been the Boeing XPBB1 Patrol bomber flying boat . It was a large twin engine plane with a range of 6300 miles or 72 hours. In overload condition using JATO it could fly 11,000 miles! Only one was built (It subsequently was nicknamed The Lone Ranger') A factory was built to produce it at Renton, Washington which ended up being used for B-29 production. It was used for various trials by the Navy and the design used features later incorporated in the B-29 especially wing design and R-3350 engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XPBB_Sea_Ranger
 
Messerschmitt Me-263.

latest

2_18.jpg
me263_488.gif

mig-me.jpg
That retractable undercarriage would vastly simplify ground operations.
I doubt if that shallow-swept wing would contribute to pitch stability. Most flying wings have swept wings to move elevators as far as possible from the CofG to improve control authority.
The fact that swept wings help with yaw and roll stability is a bonus.
Even Marske's forward-swept sailplanes benefit from placing the elevator as far aft as possible.
 
... and the Me262 was swept for CoG reasons, rather than compressability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes!
The Me262 prototype first flew without jet engines but with a tail wheel and (heavy) piston engine in the nose. It flew a few times like that to prove the basic aerodynamic concept.

When they finally got working jet engines, they removed the piston engine. Removing an engine from the nose hopelessly unbalanced the jet Me262, so they swept the wings to bring the Center of lift back in line with the Center of gravity.
 
Top