Awesome WW2 experimental Aircraft

it says this plane was short takeoff and landing, but lists the takeoff distance at 900ft ....doesn't sound tooo much like a short takeoff

The V-173 concept demonstrator took off and landed in 50 feet. The XF5U took off once during taxi tests, but trials, and the aircraft itself were cancelled.
 

Driftless

Donor
Thanks I'm not in the air craft until pre World War II. Thank you for the answer but the first thing I thought when I saw the plane was Indiana Jones.

The German plane in Raiders was a fiction, kinda of a riff on later flying wings. It's flat wing form and other configuration was calculated to serve as an integral prop to the big fight scene. Spielberg needed it shaped that way for Indy to fight on, over, under, and have it move around; sort of predictably, sort of not. The plane was kind of the fourth player in the scene: Indy, Marian, the big German Sgt, and the plane.
 
Thanks I'm not in the air craft until pre World War II. Thank you for the answer but the first thing I thought when I saw the plane was Indiana Jones.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Alas, the flying wing in the first Indiana Jones movie was purely fictitious. It vaguely resembles the un-built Lippish P-94-106 proposal with extra gun turetts, wing cranks etc. Wing cranks were added to allow Indy to chase the bad guy up and over and under and around the airplane.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned

But it looked furiously like an Arado E.555, except with propellers instead of the jets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_E.555

The problem with the flying pancake [flapjack] (XF5U) was that the engines were buried mid-wing and thus had a transmission and engine out PTO drive and gearing. These shafts were long and spindly. And the thing vibrated like a banjo. it was dangerous to fly and mechanically complex to build and maintain. I think the roll-out to take off should read 190 feet. (V-173).

I readily agree about the flying pancacke. The aerodynamic concept was sane, and outstanding, but the engines killed it.
It is beyond me somebody never rebuild a F5U with PT-6 turboprops. It would be a world beater.
The PT-6 is small enough it could go behind the propellers - no need for the big intakes.

I should start a thread "Flying marvels of WWII - with PT-6 turboprops".
 
XF5U--
As I posted earlier the ultimate proposed configuration of the Zimmerman pancake would have had tip mounted small diameter turboprop engines (here things get murky, as to just what engines were proposed- Napier Niad (same as Convair 600 conversion) or half a T-40). This for later Navy VTOL program, so I assume some hover capability was available with the much improved power/weight ratio.

Indiana Jones transport.

Whoever designed the German flying wing mock-up was really a student of that-time technology. The beautiful blade contours of VDM propellers was retained. Also the Arado-like attackers in a later Indy movie, complete down to the pitch change vanes on the spinners.

Dynasoar
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
XF5U--
As I posted earlier the ultimate proposed configuration of the Zimmerman pancake would have had tip mounted small diameter turboprop engines (here things get murky, as to just what engines were proposed- Napier Niad (same as Convair 600 conversion) or half a T-40).

This for later Navy VTOL program, so I assume some hover capability was available with the much improved power/weight ratio.

I knew it. It just makes so much sense - dropping the heavy and complicated piston engines, transmissions, large, rounded intakes for turboprops. Is there any documentation available somewhere ?

And I'm not surprised either it ended as a VTOL rather than STOL - with all the weight removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_T38

Napier should be Naiad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Naiad The 1500 hp makes sense, it matches the original piston-engine power.
An alternative could have been the T-31 that flew on the Convair XP-81
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_T31

Imagine. In 1945 a XF-5U is rebuild with T31, then T38. Later the British and French build their own variant with their own turboprops. Finally in the 60's a PT-6 variant is made.
 
Last edited:
How can you forget the North American XP-55 Ascender

Curtiss_XP-55_Ascender_in_flight_061024-F-1234P-007.jpg


and the McDonnell XP-67 Moonbat

640px-McDonnell_XP-67_in_flight_061024-F-1234P-033.jpg
 
sam-13-6-andreev.jpg


6079715_orig.jpg



The Russian Moskalev SAM-13. Far more experimental than awesome. A pusher puller emergency light fighter type of plane. All wooden construction. How do you say death trap in Russian?
 

Driftless

Donor
Via Wikipedia:

The Latvian VEF I-16, designed by Karlis Irbitis. It did get to the prototype stage and was flown in 1940.

37080221db21c5686ee4a5a34e69d16e.jpg
 
dropping the heavy and complicated piston engines, transmissions, large, rounded intakes for turboprops. Is there any documentation available somewhere ?

Sadly, the US experience with high HP gearboxes was not a happy one in the '40-50s.

See the Skyshark and XB-35
 

Driftless

Donor
Was there not a twin engine naval interceptor proposed for the USN circa 1939 or 1940? A Gruman prototype perhaps?

Grumman XF5F (top photo) They tried this, that, and the other thing with it; including a USAAC version XP-50 (mid photo). While the XF5F didn't materialize, it provided much useful input for the F7F Tigercat(way below)
grum-xf5f1.jpg


f7f-1a.jpg
 
Sadly, the US experience with high HP gearboxes was not a happy one in the '40-50s.

See the Skyshark and XB-35

One of the XB-35s big problems was with the counter-rotating props and the required gearbox's and shafts. Note the B-36 used the same engines (P&W R-4360 Wasp Majors) and shafts but stuck with single props. I wonder how the XB-35 would of done with single 5 bladed props.
 
Top