That got designated as XP-75... so does that mean it should be the F-15 Eagle II?
Many of the designs had multiple roles, including tactical reconnaissance for the Army, hence the greenhouses on the belly. In the 20's and early 30's, the Army had a strong voice in French military aircraft purpose and design. That doesn't explain the otherwise boxy look though... Several of the French military planes from the late 30's were quite handsome by contrast.Every French bomber and transport aircraft designed in the 1930s was terrifyingly ugly. Several of the worst offenders have already been mentioned. Many of them have a greenhouse tacked on underneath the nose, perhaps so the crew can grow shallots and Cabernet-Sauvignon grapes while not fighting les Boches. I really do wonder why, though. You'd expect France to design beautiful aircraft, but what they produced in the 1930s was usually both ugly and ineffective.
My comment on the Warthog is that I'm not sure that even if you sent 21st century aviation designers back in time that you could create something that fit the design requirements better. Sometimes I think the sum total of the requirements were,Heretic the Warthog is the greatest airplane ever. It’s the Volvo of combat airplanes, all function and it’s glorious for it. All American history served only one purpose; to create the Warthog, it’s a war god flying among the lesser mortals.
Not quite true, it was their time in storage that caused the corrosion issues. They were laid up for 10 years and at some point during that time the corrosion set in....and somebody at Saunders Roe forgot to use anti-corrosion paint on the fuselage, especially the part of it that was supposed to float submerged in SEAWATER.
"I hate to think how many Paras broke their jaw dropping through it, something known as ringing the bell.
It looks like it would be just as happy going backwards as forwards. I wonder how effective it would have been. Depends on its resiliency to small arms fire I would suppose.
Anti-corrosion paint, properly applied, "should" have defeated corrosion despite immersion; if the planes were dry stored. ANY exposure to salt water, will defeat any anti-corrosion application that is botched.""
Similar to the second-hand submarines that the Brits sold to the Royal Canadian Navy?
What the Murphy happened to the ground guide? You aren't supposed to taxi without one. Was anyone charged?"
Most radial-engined tail-draggers hav terrible forward visibility on the ground.
A couple years ago, a Grumman TBM Avenger taxied over top of an RV kitplane at Oshkosh. The TBM's propeller sliced the kitplane into scrap metal, killing both inhabitants. The TBM pilot never saw the tiny two-seater kitplane!
A too late response to the 1940 invasion scare. This bad boy first flew late July 1941. Apparently it was manuverable, but the project dwindled anywayIt looks like it would be just as happy going backwards as forwards. I wonder how effective it would have been. Depends on its resiliency to small arms fire I would suppose.
Well, if the A-10 can get a tank to fly, what would it take for the Upholders to fly? (and would it be any uglier than some of the other planes on this thread?)The Upholders are off topic. Cannot comment at all on failure to weatherproof and cocoon the stored subs. Only aircraft for this topic, I'm afraid.
Sorry, the 20mm cannons were the anti-invasion reference. There were plans to fit them to the wheel mounts that usually held the .303 Brownings. I meant later on in the War as some form of ground attack variant, turret combined with cannons.A too late response to the 1940 invasion scare. This bad boy first flew late July 1941. Apparently it was manuverable, but the project dwindled anyway