Airborne Oddities of WWII

cheddar cheese · Nov 14, 2004

How do you know he aint talking about the I-15 or I-152, which were also biplanes. I would post pictured but evertime i try i get knocked off line

the lancaster kicks ass · Nov 17, 2004

he could be, but the I-153 was by far the best known of the 3.............

cheddar cheese · Nov 17, 2004

the lancaster kicks ass · Nov 19, 2004

thank you for that vital contribution to the conversation.............

cheddar cheese · Nov 19, 2004

Welcome; anytime you want random posts of no meaning just ask

the lancaster kicks ass · Nov 20, 2004

will do..............

cheddar cheese · Nov 20, 2004

Actually I just make em without being asked to

the lancaster kicks ass · Nov 20, 2004

although you do need inspiration sometimes..............

cheddar cheese · Nov 20, 2004

Nah not really Sometimes I choose not to make random posts cos it would destroy a discussion...

rebel8303 · Nov 24, 2004

How about this? It is Bf-109 Z anf I don't think that it ever flew.

Hot Space · Nov 24, 2004

No, it didn't, m8 But you can get it in a Combat Flight Sim and the Fire Power that comes with it would cut a country in half

Hot Space

The Jagdflieger Pips · Nov 24, 2004

rebel8303 said:
How about this? It is Bf-109 Z anf I don't think that it ever flew.

*hides in fear of that plane*

Anonymous · Nov 25, 2004

cheddar cheese said:
How about this, the Flying Pancake.

I actually think the F5U was a good concept. However, they should have made it into a bomber instead of a fighter. The proto fighter version was capable of 430 mph speed using two 1350hp P&W R-2000-7 engines, with the fixed landing gear shown above. Further testing revealed a top speed of 504 mph.

I have my doubts about this design as a fighter, I just don't see how it could roll sufficiently well to dogfight, though it might have made a good bomber interceptor. It could carry 2000 lbs of bombs in the fighter configuration. Scaled up and given either 2 or 4 P&W R2800 engines, it would have made a very fast bomber with a significant payload. And it could take off from very short runways!

=S=

Lunatic

cheddar cheese · Nov 25, 2004

I like the flying pancake, even though it looked ridiculous

rebel8303 · Nov 25, 2004

Is there a turbine between the two fans? It looks like so.

cheddar cheese · Nov 25, 2004

I dont think so, but I could be wrong.

Anonymous · Nov 26, 2004

rebel8303 said:
Is there a turbine between the two fans? It looks like so.

No, those are P&W radials, but no prop. There's a driveshaft that goes to the outside and drives the props at the outer edges. This design provides about 20% better cooling flow over the radial than having the prop directly mounted on the crankshaft.

=S=

Lunatic

R Pope · Dec 3, 2004

Guys, it's the Flying Flapjack, not pancake, and it never did fly, it was broken up after preliminary taxi trials. Just another might-have-been.

cheddar cheese · Dec 3, 2004

Im SURE its the flying pancake, and it never flew in combat operations but obviously it was being tested.

Adolf Galland · Dec 3, 2004

thats because the navy thinks that it's unsafe 2 fly such aircraft

Airborne Oddities of WWII

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Airman 1st Class

Attachments

Tech Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Anonymous

Guest

Major General

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Anonymous

Guest

Senior Airman

Major General

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads