# The Coolest 'Radical' Aircaft of World War II



## Der Mensch (Jan 10, 2006)

Here is a good question: What was the coolest of the radical* aircraft of World War II?

*=like the natter, He 280, etc

In my opinion it would have to be the Horten Ho 229 Flying Wing. Had to be amazing. Seeing something like that buzz over your head just short of Mach 1 would scare the bejeepers out of anyone.

What do you guys think?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2006)

Ho 229, P-55, J7W1 Shinden, XP-56,


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 10, 2006)

Nikitin-Sevchenko IS 1 , XP-81 .Gotha GO 229 . Dornier DO 335


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)

XP-54, XP-55, XP-56, Go-229, Shiden, Natter, V-173 Flying Flapjack.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Id go for the Ho-229, XP-56, and the Flying Pancake.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 11, 2006)

I would add the Blohm&Voss projects:
the 'ugly' BV 149 (that in my opinion is a very cool design) and the tailless fighter projects P208 to P215 etc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2006)

Ambrosini S.A.I 403


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 11, 2006)

I prefer S.A.I. SS-4, for it's potential, even if it's a 1938 aircraft.

DogW


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2006)

I like the S.A.I 403 for its simplicity and general concept.

The SS4 was certainly a cool aircraft though...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Parmigiano said:


> I would add the Blohm&Voss projects:
> the 'ugly' BV 149 (that in my opinion is a very cool design) and the tailless fighter projects P208 to P215 etc.



Yes I actually really like the Bv-149 also. Not the plane itself but the design.


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 26, 2006)

The Bv 149 definately it might be the oddiest design i ever seen


----------



## delcyros (Jan 26, 2006)

I have a winner:
Ju-287 V1: four engined jet bomber prototype with 30 degrees forward swept wing and fixed landing gear (taken from He-177 and B-24!)


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 26, 2006)

Never seen this one


----------



## Hellbird (Jan 26, 2006)

ok well if you were to ask my opinion then I would say the P-51. o and rebel dude, that is an awesome cat.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 27, 2006)

P-51 was very radical but that is just my opinion...


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 27, 2006)

Maybe because its wings were almost in the middle of the fuselage and not in the front?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2006)

delcyros said:


> I have a winner:
> Ju-287 V1: four engined jet bomber prototype with 30 degrees forward swept wing and fixed landing gear (taken from He-177 and B-24!)



I forgot that! The -287 was a lush plane!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2006)

I'm still pushng the P-55


----------



## Camarogenius (Jan 27, 2006)

I sure wish you guys would post pictures in these threads! I hate having to search for all these aircraft.


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 27, 2006)

check out www.luft46.com
that's the stuff!


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 27, 2006)

check out www.luft46.com
that's the stuff!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

rebel8303 said:


> Never seen this one



Heres the Ju-287.

Type: Heavy Bomber
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerks AG
Model: V1 to V3
Crew: V3: Three
First Flight:
Ju 287 V1: August 16, 1944
Ju 287 V2: 1947 by Soviet Union
Number of Flights: V1: 17
Number Produced: 2, (V3) not completed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Ju 287 V1 V2:
Model: Junkers Jumo 004
Type: Turbojets
Number: Four Thrust: 1,980lb (900kg)
Note: Four 2,645lb (1,200kg) thrust Walter 501 takeoff
assistance rockets also mounted.

Ju 287 V3:
Model: BMW 003A
Type: Turbojets
Number: Six Thrust: 1,760lb (800kg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Span: 65 ft. 11¾ in. (20.11m)
Length:
Ju 287 V1: 60 ft. 0½ in. (18.30m)
Height: N/A
Wing Area: N/A

Weights:
Empty: 12,510kg
Loaded: 20,000kg
Performance:
Maximum speed:
Ju 287 V1: 560km/h (348mph)
Ju 287 V3: 865kn/h (537mph)
Range with max. bombs (est.):
Ju 287 V3: 1585km (985 miles)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Two MG 131 in remote control tail barbette.

Bombs: Ju 287 V3
8,818 lb. (4000 kg)

Comments:
One of the strangest Luftwaffe aircraft to ever claw it's way into the air was the Junkers Ju 287. Begun in early 1943, the Ju 287 incorporated many advanced aerodynamic concepts, the most striking being the swept forward wings. This design feature was deemed radical enough to warrent the construction of a testbed aircraft, pictured above. This testbed flew on August 16, 1944. The aircraft was a Frankenstien's monster, pieced together from several diffent aircraft. Included were the nosewheels from two B-24 Liberators, the fuselage of an He 177, mainwheels off a Ju 352, and the tail was constructed of Ju 388 parts.
17 test flights proved the concept to have excellent handling characteristics and would have proven a problem had not the allies overrun the testing airfield, capturing the the V1 and the nearly complete V2. The V2 was flown by the Soviet Union in 1947. The V3 failed to get off the drawing board and would have had several improvements.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ju287.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

Hellbird said:


> ok well if you were to ask my opinion then I would say the P-51. o and rebel dude, that is an awesome cat.



Just a question. Why do you think the P-51 was a radical design, because it was actually quite conventional in design?


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 28, 2006)

So that's the Ju 287...
Ok you win!
But in the site I mentioned there are even more radical designs. I did not checked if there were any prototypes...

F4U could be considered as a radical plane with its bent wings


----------



## Erich (Jan 28, 2006)

silly earthlings ..........

luftwaffe late war developments


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

Did that ever leave the drawing board Erich? (I don't think it did)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

I think everyone is aware of Luft46.


----------



## Erich (Jan 29, 2006)

Gnomey that is just one of about 15 mockup drawings. Actually there was at least 1-2 in the hopes of flying stages. A rather large vehicle it was too.


----------



## kiwimac (Jan 29, 2006)

HE 280; Ambrosini SAI 403; SS4; SM 91 and 92.


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 29, 2006)

Erich that I have info that there was a prototype...


----------



## grumman-cats (Jan 29, 2006)

I personally like the curtiss XP-55 with the canards. I was fortunate to have seen it when it was brought into the kalamazoo airzoo for restoration. They say it should be ready for display very soon. Can't wait to get some good pics of it.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 30, 2006)

I hope you plan on posting some of those pics, Jim! Welcome aboard, by the way.


----------



## rebel8303 (Jan 30, 2006)

The Do-335 seems quite awkward to me as well


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

perhaps but damn it looks good, i reckon it could've made it as a truely great aircraft........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

I think the Do-335 was a step in the right direction for development of piston engined aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

well it was just about the only concept that could stand up to the jets, apart from the hornet, Fury and Bearcat..........


----------



## rebel8303 (Feb 4, 2006)

I think that there would be problems of bailing out with the propellers installed that way


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 4, 2006)

It had an ejection seat...


----------



## Twitch (Feb 4, 2006)

For me the Go 229 was the super plane of the war for all the obvious reasons.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Feb 4, 2006)

As I post this I'm having 2nd thoughts... Erich, You win. Close but in 2nd is the aircraft I nominate for weird... From the conservative USA, Northrop's XP-79, as it can be argued that it was this aircraft that 1st last flew a few weeks after VJ day that set the foundation for the 'flying wings' later the 'stealth wings' of 'today'.

Some info for this aircraft can be found here http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p79.html
...The Aerial Battering Ram!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2006)

rebel8303 said:


> I think that there would be problems of bailing out with the propellers installed that way



Would not be a problem at all, there are even plenty of planes today that use the push and pull prop system.



JonJGoldberg said:


> set the foundation for the 'flying wings' later the 'stealth wings' of 'today'



I find that odd since the Horton designs and other Northrop designs were more similar to todays flying wings and the Horton Ho-229 we more stealty than that thing.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> rebel8303 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that there would be problems of bailing out with the propellers installed that way
> ...



Yeah with the Do-335 the rear engine intended to blow off when ejecting...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2006)

The aircraft was quite revolutionary.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The aircraft was quite revolutionary.


Yes it was, I'm surprised that the design was copied more than it has been (puller/pusher props that is)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2006)

Well with jets there was really no need to do so.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2006)

Yes but for prop aircraft it has been coppied and very successfull if I might add.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2006)

How about a pusher/puller jet configuration...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but for prop aircraft it has been coppied and very successfull if I might add.



Yep!!




Unk.



cheddar cheese said:


> How about a pusher/puller jet configuration...



How about 1/2 pusher puller jet?!?





Unk


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2006)

Nah its not doing it for me 

Did FR-1's see any service?


----------



## Dogwalker (Feb 12, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> How about a pusher/puller jet configuration...



The Aerfer Ariete (another Stefanutti's design) was a pusher/puller, with a front jet (1.633 kg Rolls-Royce Derwent 9), whit the intake in the nose and the exaust under the fuselage, and a rear jet (820 kg Rolls-Royce Soar RSr 2) whit a retractable intake behind the cockpit.




airpower.callihan.cc





www.planes-and-tanks.com





www.planes-and-tanks.com

DogW


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2006)

Wow, good stuff!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 12, 2006)

Good info DogW!


----------



## Twitch (Feb 12, 2006)

Here's another slant on "mixed" power





CAPRONI
About 1942 this company later began construction on a high-altitude fighter using prop and jet thrust. The Caproni CA 183bis had a DB 605 of 1,250 HP in the nose driving two three-blade contra-rotating props with a 700 HP Fiat A.30 radial behind the cockpit driving a Campini compressor expected to furnish a 60 MPH boost of jet thrust for an optimistic maximum speed of 460 MPH with a range of 1242 miles. One 20 mm was to be in the prop hub with four more in the wings. Weight was to be 16,538 lbs. with a 48-foot wingspan.

The CA 183 was not all that complicated though performance seems optimistic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 12, 2006)

I think they did carrier trials with the FR-1 but cancelled it in favor of the McDonnell Banshee...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 13, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> How about a pusher/puller jet configuration...



Been done actually. There were actually several German Designs that incorporated a prop in the front and jet engine in the back.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2006)

i think he meant pusher and puller jets, i.e. a normal jet in the back and one pulling in the front


----------



## Camarogenius (Feb 13, 2006)

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't a jet both a pusher and a puller as it is?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2006)

well it does pull air in but it doesn't really get any forward momentum from it, CC was messing round, just ignore him


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 13, 2006)

Oh


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2006)

Ah interesting concept but no!


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 19, 2007)

I would go Ta-183, P1101. We know it works because the MiG is based off these designs. I think they would be really interesting aircraft to see and 
very radical aircraft for its time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

Not really radical though were they?


----------



## merlin (Mar 19, 2007)

My choice would be the Boulton Paul P.100, a canard aircraft designed to a RAf spec for a Ground Attack aircraft, with a combination of 20mm 40mm canon + rockets to be in service by Jan 44.
See Secret British Projects 1935 - 1950 for more info. Would supply more but my copy is packed away prior to moving house!!


----------



## YakFlyer (Mar 20, 2007)

Do 335, and who couldn't say the P-38 wasn't radical, I think it was.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 20, 2007)

Luft46.com has a whole bunch of cool German designs. Especially the Blohm&Voss designs were cool.

From the ones that actually were built ... I like the Bf 109Z, Junkers EF.126 and surprise surprise the Ba 349.
Perhaps the Russian Su-6 also fits under the radical category.
Kris


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 20, 2007)

That is only because we are in an age after the MiG-15 and the MiG-17 and the Sabre. For its time that barrel design would have been quite radical. Name another aircraft other than those two with a similar tail of that time-period. Also the BMW Flying Saucer would be considered quite radical. Also the Blohm and Voss designs were quite radical in featuring the cockpit off to one side. Would perhaps have been hell on trim if seriously hit...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

I disagree about those beng radical for there time. The idea of planes looking like that had been around for quite some time allready. It was known that that was the future.


----------



## Soren (Mar 21, 2007)

The Go-229 was pretty radical for its time, and it flew great.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

Yeap I would consider the 229 a radical aircraft a good design as well.


----------



## johnbr (Mar 21, 2007)

For me it is the Lippisch P13a it was lost along with the P11v2 in a air raid Ho 229 Me p1109-01 Sanger orbital bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

I could have sworn a Lippisch aircraft like the P13 survived and is in storage at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC.


----------



## johnbr (Mar 22, 2007)

I am talking about the powered one.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 24, 2007)

Was it really, or was that just after the design had been captured and built by the Allies? If you look you don't really find this design that much. Okay there were one or two but they were never adopted really- Westland Whirlwind did have a similar tail but it was never really adopted unlike the idea of the Ta-183/ P1101. These were to be looked upon as what the German Jet Fighters should be and the Me-262 and the Me-163 were intended as placeholders until they arrived...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2007)

The Me-262 and the Me-163 were not placeholders until the TA-183 or P.1101 arrived. The Me-262 and Me-163 development can be traced back to before the war began. The Ta-183 and P.1101 were not even though of yet.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 25, 2007)

The Junkers Ju-287 was pretty radical in introducing the idea of a tail that could wing down to allow the gunner a better field of fire. Okay, it wasn't that much faster than its predecessor the Junkers Ju-87 but can anyone else name any other aircraft of the time where the tail swung down to clear the field of fire... The Heinkel Wespe and the Heinkel Lerche II look pretty radical even today in being designed in a wheel-shape. The Hs P-87 with its manta-ray like body could be considered pretty radical even today. Lets not forget the MeP-1102 with its swinging wing design that even today is in the absolute miniority of aircraft types. The Me P-1110 Ente has two separate sets of wings on it which is an interesting design feature. The Wesserflug P-1003 is an interesting aircraft being designed like the modern design, the MV-22 Osprey which could have been partly inspired by looking at the German designs. Look at modern aircraft designs and chances are that it seems the Germans probably have done something similar.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2007)

Um you are not describing the Ju-287. The Ju-287 was not the predecessor of the Ju-87. The Ju-287 (picture below) was a jet bomber design. It was a very radical design for WW2 however.

It was pieced together by parts from different aircraft.The nosewheels from two B-24 Liberators, the fuselage of an He 177, mainwheels off a Ju 352, and the tail was constructed of Ju 388 parts.

What you are talking about is the Ju-187 and it canceled before a prototype was even built in 1943 because the performance was expected to be no better than the Ju-87.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 27, 2007)

I know it wasn't the predecessor of the Ju-87. I never suggested it was. It was originally designated Ju-187 and 287 was one development of it but then it got stripped of that and the 287 was officially in October 1943 given to a forward-swept wing jet bomber that Junkers was designing. The feature that makes it radical is that tail that swings. I have yet to hear of a modern aircraft where the tail swings around like that... Have you? Information obtained from Luft '46 - WWII German aircraft projects.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2007)

There is no need for a modern plane let alone any plane to have a tail do that.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 28, 2007)

He means this one I think.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2007)

Yes I know which one he is talking about.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 1, 2007)

That is what makes it a radical aircraft. The fact that it is so different from the norm. It is a feature that no other aircraft has. It is a unique feature and thus a cool radical aircraft the Ju-187/287. It may be unnecessary but then so is an aircraft like the Osprey when you look at it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2007)

I dont argue with you that it was radical but it was pointless...

The Osprey is actually far from pointless and very innovative design.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> That is what makes it a radical aircraft. The fact that it is so different from the norm. It is a feature that no other aircraft has. It is a unique feature and thus a cool radical aircraft the Ju-187/287. It may be unnecessary but then so is an aircraft like the Osprey when you look at it.


Better not let mkloby here you say that!

INCOMING!!!!!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2007)




----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 4, 2007)

Also the Messerschmitt Me-323 Gigant was a radical concept probably for its time as I don't ever remember the Allies having anything like this as a heavy lifter. It is radical as being such a large and superheavy aircraft. Even today there are only three types defined as superheavy aircraft: the C-5 Galaxy, the Antonov An-124 Condor or the Antonov An-225 Mriya otherwise known as Cossack. These are not common types of aircraft. They are very large and can shift large amounts of cargo anywhere in the world.


----------



## Chocks away! (Apr 4, 2007)

Since most of my favorite German designs have been mentioned, how about this monster of an aircraft.
It didn't make it in time for world war two but was in fact in service from 1946 to 1950: In order to counter the introduction of German turbojet-powered aircraft such as the Me-262, the Soviet Union began a crash program in 1944 to develop a high-performance fighter which resulted in the Mikoyan-Gurevich I-250 (N). It was equipped with a thermojet, a piston engine driving a tractor propeller, which was in turn connected via an extension shaft to a compressor which powered a booster jet engine in the tail. It could reach 825km/h.


Technical data
Type /I-250/N MiG-13/N
Function fighter
Year 1945 1947
Crew 1	1
Engines 1*1500/1650hp Klimov VK-107A(R?) 1*300kg Khalshchevnikov VRDK
Length 8.18m 8.20m
Wing Span 9.5m 9.5m
Wing Area 15.0m2 15.0m2
Empty Weight 2935kg	3028kg
Loaded Weight 3680kg	3931kg
Wing load 245kg/m2 262kg/m2
Power load 2.23kg/hp 2.38kg/hp
Speed at 0m 670km/h ?
Speed at 7800m 825km/h ?
Speed without VRDK ? 600km/h
Climb to 5000m 4.6min ?
Ceiling 11900m ?
Range 1380km 1818km


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 4, 2007)

I wonder if they sufferred a bit of erosion on the upperside of the exhaust structure. C'mon. Coolest?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 4, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Also the Messerschmitt Me-323 Gigant was a radical concept probably for its time as I don't ever remember the Allies having anything like this as a heavy lifter. It is radical as being such a large and superheavy aircraft. Even today there are only three types defined as superheavy aircraft: the C-5 Galaxy, the Antonov An-124 Condor or the Antonov An-225 Mriya otherwise known as Cossack. These are not common types of aircraft. They are very large and can shift large amounts of cargo anywhere in the world.



The Me-323 just looked like a heavy lifter - compare it with a C-47...

Specifications (Me 323)
General characteristics
Crew: 5 
Capacity: 130 troops or 10–12 tonnes equipment 
Length: 28.2 m (92 ft 4 in) 
Wingspan: 55.2 m (181 ft 0 in) 
Height: 10.15 m (33 ft 3.5 in) 
Empty weight: 27,330 kg (60,260 lb) 
Loaded weight: 29,500 kg (65,000 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 43,000 kg (94,815 lb) 
Powerplant: 6× Gnôme-Rhône 14N , 700 kW (950 hp) each 


Specifications (C-47B)
General characteristics
Crew: 3 
Capacity: 28 troops 
Payload: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) of cargo 
Length: 63 ft 9 in (19.43 m) 
Wingspan: 95 ft 6 in (29.11 m) 
Height: 17 ft 0 in (5.18 m) 
Wing area: 987 ft² (91.70 m²) 
Empty weight: 18,135 lb (8,225 kg) 
Loaded weight: 26,000 lb (11,800 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 31,000 lb (14,000 kg) 
Powerplant: 2× Pratt Whitney R-1830-90C "Twin Wasp" 14-cylinder radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each 

*C-47 usefull load = 12865 Me 323 useful load = 13500*

Compare performance....

Me 323
Performance
Maximum speed: 270 km/h (170 mph) 
Range: 800 km (500 miles) 
Service ceiling: 4,000 m (13,100 ft) 
Rate of climb: 216 m/min (710 ft/min) 
Ferry range: 1,100 km (684 miles) 

C-47
Performance
Maximum speed: 224 mph (195 knots, 360 km/h) 
Cruise speed: 160 mph (140 knots, 260 km/h) 
Range: 1,600 mi (1,400 nm, 2,600 km) 
Service ceiling: 26,400 ft (8,050 m) 
Rate of climb: 1,130 ft/min (5.75 m/s) 

The only advantage the Me 323 had over the C-47 was the font loading door and wide fuselage. Aside from that I think it could be seen the thing was a flying pig that couldn't get out of it's own way....


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 4, 2007)

Good post!!!


----------



## Chocks away! (Apr 6, 2007)

Are you by any chance the master of duplicate posts??


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 6, 2007)

Why yes I am.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 10, 2007)

I somehow doubt the 825kph figure. Did it actually get built so there is some actual test data that we can look at? I see that figure for some conventional looking late Spitfires and Hurricanes and hear talk here about late war aircraft going almost to the sound barrier in a dive but I disbelieve it. I don't believe it could happen. It is not possible.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 11, 2007)

Sure it is. Many a pilot was lost in vertical dives where the high speeds resulted in control surfaces becoming ineffective.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 17, 2007)

Okay, but the aircraft should be destroyed at those speeds wouldn't it? I thought that was one of the reasons why the sound-barrier was dangerous because the aircraft up until the Bell X-1 kept hitting the barrier and blowing up or crashing...


----------



## evangilder (Apr 18, 2007)

No, that was the theory _before _the X-1. The reason is because as the mach shock wave is passing over the fuselage, the air is very rough because of the shock wave. Once the shock wave has passed over the fuselage, the air smooths out.



> As an aircraft moves through the air, the air molecules near the aircraft are disturbed and move around the aircraft. If the aircraft passes at a low speed, typically less than 250 mph, the density of the air remains constant. But for higher speeds, some of the energy of the aircraft goes into compressing the air and locally changing the density of the air. This compressibility effect alters the amount of resulting force on the aircraft. The effect becomes more important as speed increases. Near and beyond the speed of sound, about 330 m/s or 760 mph at sea level, small disturbances in the flow are transmitted to other locations isentropically or with constant entropy. Sharp disturbances generate shock waves that affect both the lift and drag of the aircraft, and the flow conditions downstream of the shock wave.
> 
> The ratio of the speed of the aircraft to the speed of sound in the gas determines the magnitude of many of the compressibility effects. Because of the importance of this speed ratio, aerodynamicists have designated it with a special parameter called the Mach number in honor of Ernst Mach, a late 19th century physicist who studied gas dynamics. The Mach number M allows us to define flight regimes in which compressibility effects vary.
> 
> ...


https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/////airplane/mach.html


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2007)

It also resulted in "Mach Tuck". Here is the Wiki explanation. Pretty good. But a visual might help.
__________________________________

Mach tuck is an aerodynamic effect, whereby the nose of an aircraft tends to pitch downwards as the airflow around the wing reaches supersonic speeds. Note that the aircraft is subsonic, and traveling significantly below Mach 1.0, when it experiences this effect.[1]

Initially as airspeed is increased past the critical Mach number, the wing develops an increasing amount of lift, requiring a nose-down force or trim to maintain level flight. With increased speed, and the aft movement of the shock wave, the wing’s center of pressure also moves aft causing the start of a nose-down tendency or “tuck.” If allowed to progress unchecked, in an aircraft not designed for supersonic flight, Mach tuck may occur. Although Mach tuck develops gradually, if it is allowed to progress significantly, the center of pressure can move so far rearward that there is no longer enough elevator authority available to counteract it, and the airplane could enter a steep, sometimes unrecoverable dive.[2]


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 22, 2007)

Ah, okay. I just wasn't sure about it occuring in WW2 aircraft but I suppose it could.


----------

