# lesser known/experimental aircraft



## Auravir (Apr 9, 2008)

Post any lesser known or experimental aircraft you know of.

Ill start the DB project C.


----------



## MONDARIZ (Apr 9, 2008)

Don't know how "lesser" known it is, but here is my entry:
Gloster E.28/39


----------



## smg (Apr 9, 2008)

what about this one
Dornier Do 31 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## olbrat (Apr 9, 2008)

Do you mean from WWII or from any time?


----------



## Auravir (Apr 9, 2008)

any time


----------



## smg (Apr 9, 2008)

oh okay kool


----------



## DBII (Apr 9, 2008)

Do 31 looks like something from the Jetsons. Is that windows on the pods on the wing tips?

DBII


----------



## smg (Apr 9, 2008)

yeap u can carry troops in the wings


----------



## smg (Apr 9, 2008)

what about this one 
PZL-230 Skorpion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BAC TSR-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lockheed YF-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ccheese (Apr 9, 2008)

How about Convair's XF-1 "Pogo" ?

Charles


----------



## smg (Apr 9, 2008)

wasent that base on a germman desain


----------



## ccheese (Apr 9, 2008)

I don't think so, but I don't know for sure...

This particular one use to sit at NAS NorVa in the late 50's. Saw it
many times.

It was very simular to the Lockheed XFV, "Salmon"

Charles


----------



## smg (Apr 9, 2008)

thats preatty kool


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 9, 2008)

smg you need to downsize your siggy...


----------



## DBII (Apr 9, 2008)

SMG, nice siggy.

DBII


----------



## smg (Apr 9, 2008)

okay 
amm.......
how do i do that


----------



## ccheese (Apr 9, 2008)

And, France's SNECMA c.450-01

Charles


----------



## johnbr (Apr 9, 2008)

Arado 440


----------



## MONDARIZ (Apr 10, 2008)

Here are a few more:

The Custer Channelwing.

Welcome to the Custer Channelwing Website.






Payen PA-49 (basically everything ever made by Payen)


----------



## Graeme (Apr 10, 2008)

smg said:


> yeap u can carry troops in the wings



The 'pods' held the Rolls-Royce lift jets.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 11, 2008)

I know this is probably really dumb but... what does the Channelwing do?


----------



## Graeme (Apr 11, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> what does the Channelwing do?



The theory...





One of the pioneers behind the concept was Roberto Bartini, an Italian communist who emigrated to the USSR in 1924 and eventually established a design office.

Robert Ludvigovich Bartini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He proposed surrounding a propeller in a close fitting ring with the lower part broadened into an aerofoil. Tests confirmed the theory which became known as the ‘Bartini Effect’.
He put the concept into a flying boat with two engines in the ‘channel’ with the props only inches apart. At the ‘eleventh’ hour it was agreed that the extra lift gained by this approach was less than the weight and drag of the duct. Eventually it flew with ordinary tandem engines in 1936 as illustrated...








As late as 1990 channel wings were still being investigated, this is the Antonov An-181...





(From Gunston's 'Back to the Drawing Board' and 'Russian Aircraft')


----------



## MONDARIZ (Apr 12, 2008)

If you follow the link next to The Custer Channelwing photo, there are plenty information on both Custer and his Channelwing. Including flight test movies.

It was quite a successful little aircraft, but never made it beyond experimentation. It was actually able to fly without the wing stubs, so as the channel produced all the lift.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 12, 2008)

Alright cool, thanks guys.


----------



## Velius (Apr 13, 2008)

I've always liked the X-29. I wonder what happened to them?


----------



## MONDARIZ (Apr 13, 2008)

The X-29 flew a successful series of tests and was retired when the project was over.

The X-plane series of test aircraft, were never pre-production aircraft, but specially designed aircraft to test aspects of aviation. Like the Bell X-1, which was designed to break the sound barrier.

Both X-29 aircraft are now on display in the USA.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 13, 2008)

Some X-planes are preliminary prototypes or technology demonstrators which are to directly link to a production plane. The X-35 and X-32 for example.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 13, 2008)

Why didn't we ever use the forward swept technology of the X-29?


----------



## MONDARIZ (Apr 14, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Some X-planes are preliminary prototypes or technology demonstrators which are to directly link to a production plane. The X-35 and X-32 for example.



Yes, they have redesignated the X-name lately. Originally they were all technology demonstrators, or research planes (at least the manned vehicles).

The X-35 and the X-32 are not "true" X-planes (as I see it).

Here is a quote from "AMERICAN X-VEHICLES An Inventory—X-1 to X-50":

There has been some criticism that the use of X designations has been corrupted somewhat by including what are essentially prototypes of future operational aircraft, especially the two JSF demonstrators. But this is not new—the X-11 and X-12 from the 1950s were going to be prototypes of the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile, and the still-born Lockheed X-27 was always intended as a prototype of a production aircraft. So although this practice does not represent the best use of “X” designations, it is not without precedent.


----------



## Velius (Apr 14, 2008)

For the sake of this thread, what X-plane type are we posting- testbeds/research or pre-production aircraft? I think it would narrow down a lot of aircraft that could be posted here.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 14, 2008)

I think he just meant the definition of the American "X-plane" was being skewed in some instances, not what the thread is for...

The X-3 also strongly resembled the later F-104 having strong ties to it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The X-3 also strongly resembled the later F-104 having strong ties to it.


Some of the data acquired by the X-3 was obviously incorporated into the F-104 but aside from that they were two vastly different aircraft. The designe of the F-104 was presented to the USAF in November of 1952, the X-3 first flight was a month later.


----------



## Velius (Apr 15, 2008)

Here are a few more experimental aircraft with swept-forward wings....

The first one is the Su-47 which is/was largely influenced by the X-29.

The Second one is the Ju-287- one of the earlier attempts at the swept forward wing concept (the first if I am not mistaken).

The third is one of the lesser known aircraft- the Tsybin LL-3. It's the Russian equivalent to the Bell X-1 used to research transonic flight. After about 100 flights with 4 different pilots it obtained a top speed of Mach .97.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 15, 2008)

The He 162D was also to use a foreward swept wing.

I think the S-32/S-37/Su-47 was a contemporary, but totaly independant design from the X-29, abeit much newer.


Foreward swept wings (and the knolege of its advantages) are nothing new, it's just that modern composite materials are making them more viable.


----------



## MONDARIZ (Apr 15, 2008)

The Tsybin LL-3 is pretty cool....

I have never seen it before. Thats so interesting about Soviet cold war experimental design, you never know what you are going to find.

I just found a page about it:
Tsybin Ts-1

A shame it didn't make it to mach 1.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 15, 2008)

Velius said:


> It's the Russian equivalent to the Bell X-1



That was probably the job of the rocket powered Biesnovat 5-2, Velius. Designed to explore supersonic flight it was *very* similar looking to the BELL X-1 except from the swept wings... 






Samolyot 5


----------



## smg (Apr 15, 2008)

how bout this one the s-32


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 15, 2008)

That became the S-37 and Su-47


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 15, 2008)

Alright, thanks for the info, but I'm still wondering why the US dosen't invest in the forward swept design. It sure looks pretty good to me.


----------



## MONDARIZ (Apr 16, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> Alright, thanks for the info, but I'm still wondering why the US dosen't invest in the forward swept design. It sure looks pretty good to me.



Unfortunatly coolness is not always the deciding factor in aircraft design  

I guess (stressing that its a guess) that whatever benefit was gained from forward swept wings, did not match the price of constructing these.

Advances in thrust vectoring technology has produced the same maneuverability for aircraft with conventional wing design. 

Likewise air combat tactics is no longer focused on short range engagement, where agility is of great importance, but instead focuses on medium range missile engagements.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 16, 2008)

Hmm.... indeed.
Still looks pretty cool though


----------



## Velius (Apr 18, 2008)

Here are a few more that I think are lesser known...

First is the Bereznyak-Isayev BI- the Russian version of the Me-163. Short endurance (2 minutes at full power!) prevented it from being further developed.

Next is the Ambrosini SS.4. An Italian canard fighter prototype- the first aircraft of the war suggesting the use of canards. It had potential, but the project was canceled by authorities after a single accident unrelated to it's design.

Next is the Westland Pterodactyl, a tail-less aircraft aiming for "stall-proof" characteristics. Only one survives in the London Science Museum.

Last one of a familiar design is the Su-9 (later known as the Su-11). Basically a Russian built copy of a captured Me-262 (however the wings had no sweepback). It was proposed to go into production as a Russian fighter, but Stalin cancelled the program in favor of the Yak-15. As a side note, the Su-9 had one of the first ejection seats used in the USSR.


----------



## Old Wizard (Apr 18, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> Alright, thanks for the info, but I'm still wondering why the US dosen't invest in the forward swept design. It sure looks pretty good to me.



They did test the Rockwell X-29





Quick Aviation Links - Grumman X-29


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 18, 2008)

He meant in actual military aircraft applying the data/experienced gained from the X-29.


----------

