Guessing it's just a tad nose heavy. Or a lot of elevator trim!Check this baby out. They kept the weight down by slapping
a tail on the front half of the aircraft and called it quits.
View attachment 514516
Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky"
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
It looks like they were building a plane from the spare parts bin and ran out or rear fuselage sections.
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
I can't believe you guys are getting off topic like this...................
..................Shortround6
Major General
The intended engine was never developed and the method of construction can out hundreds of pounds over weight even on an aircraft this small.
Simplify and add lightness may have been the goal but they missed by a considerable margin. (Another Bell AIrcraft triumph).
Simplify and add lightness may have been the goal but they missed by a considerable margin. (Another Bell AIrcraft triumph).
From all the failures in the field of producing a single engine fighter it is quite clear that it isn't that easy to do. The people/companies that made it to mass production had a genius of flair and pragmatism and a huge amount of knowledge.
Shortround6
Major General
the Bell XP-77 was one of the sizeable group of lightweight fighters than various countries tried to build over a number of years.
The theory was that you could use a small engine not needed for other larger aircraft and by keeping the size of the fighter down get almost equal performance even if the armament was a bit light. It never worked.
The XP-77 started as the Tri-4 fighter "400 hp, 4000 pounds, 400 mph" but the engine or rather the supercharger envisioned never panned out, structural weight went up.The sometimes planned 20mm through the prop and two .50s in the fuselage became just two .50s. Delays as Bell concentrated other projects (including the XP-59 jet) meant the whole program slid slowly into the abyss.
They also weren't considering that providing enough well trained pilots was a bigger problem than providing aircraft and sticking pilots that you gave 300-400 hours of flight training to in a distinctly 2nd rate aircraft was not going to win air battles.
The theory was that you could use a small engine not needed for other larger aircraft and by keeping the size of the fighter down get almost equal performance even if the armament was a bit light. It never worked.
The XP-77 started as the Tri-4 fighter "400 hp, 4000 pounds, 400 mph" but the engine or rather the supercharger envisioned never panned out, structural weight went up.The sometimes planned 20mm through the prop and two .50s in the fuselage became just two .50s. Delays as Bell concentrated other projects (including the XP-59 jet) meant the whole program slid slowly into the abyss.
They also weren't considering that providing enough well trained pilots was a bigger problem than providing aircraft and sticking pilots that you gave 300-400 hours of flight training to in a distinctly 2nd rate aircraft was not going to win air battles.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,723
- May 13, 2018
There were two navalised P-51Ds tested on carriers as well as a navalised B-25. Earlier, a P-51B was hooked and tested on land. Eric Brown remains the only person to land and take off from a carrier in a P-39. He made four traps and takeoffs in a bird modified for Royal Navy tests.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,682
- Dec 6, 2006
Are you referring to the Lanchester Equations?
https://www.usna.edu/Users/math/wdj/_files/documents/teach/sm212/DiffyQ/de-lanchesters-eqns.pdf
Lanchester is an under appreciated genius.
Frederick W. Lanchester - Wikipedia
Aircraft in Warfare: The Dawn of the Fourth Arm : Frederick William Lanchester : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This paper on the future of air warfare is remarkable
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,723
- May 13, 2018
I flew in AMA controlline carrier competition and as a result of seeing new flyers lose their bonus points because they didn't bring documentation ( three view and/or pic of an actual landling) I put together a loose leaf binder of every acft I could find of any bird coming aboard and it's 3 view to take with me to contests so newbies wouldn't lose their 100 bonus points. Regarding the P-51, the copy had the bottom cropped so I don't have the original source but on page 100 of whatever book, reference is made to a P-51A, actually a Mustang 1A, 41-37426 (FD542) used for land based carrier trials. Not a B model as I had remembered incorrectly. It was considered unsuitable. Then a P-51D, 44-14017, was used for both land and sea trials. I cannot find the reference for the 2nd D model so I could be wrong. Lt Com Elder was called on again to test two P-51Hs in the carrier role as the D model had been rejected because of poor rudder authority coming aboard.. The H models had no modifications (no hook) and were land based trials only but proved increased fin/rudder area was satisfactory. The program was ended.
Barrett
Senior Airman
REALLY late to this one but I'll chip in. I got to know Eric and Lynn pretty well--we exchanged visits a couple of times. He adored the Wildcat, of course, readily conceding that you tend to love what brings you home. In the 80s I hosted them at the late-great Champlin Fighter Museum in Arizona. We had no sooner entered the WW II hangar than Eric spied the Wildcat (FM-2), spread his arms and exclaimed, "Ah, the love of my life!"
The ambient temperature dropped perceptibly but a second before Eric added an aside, "Except you, my dear."
Lynn gave him a sideways glance. "Nice recovery..."
The ambient temperature dropped perceptibly but a second before Eric added an aside, "Except you, my dear."
Lynn gave him a sideways glance. "Nice recovery..."
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Thank you for sharing that moment with us Barrett. I am really beginning
to like Eric very much. I wish I had gotten a chance to meet him.
.....All the stories he could tell.
, Jeff
to like Eric very much. I wish I had gotten a chance to meet him.
.....All the stories he could tell.
, JeffYes I was flying out of PDX in that time frame and visited the Late Great Champlin Fighter Museum. Some of those aircraft including the F2G and the Ta152 I last spied in Seattle.
My recollection was that the Martlett was perhaps a little easier to deck land rather than field land as the narrow track gear easily gave way to the leans on runout.
Good story!
My recollection was that the Martlett was perhaps a little easier to deck land rather than field land as the narrow track gear easily gave way to the leans on runout.
Good story!
Do you mean the Fw 190D (Long nose Fw 190, looks similar to a Ta 152)? The only surviving Ta 152 is, and always has been in storage at the Smithsonian.
Edit: Just looked it up. The Champlin/Flying Heritage aircraft is a Fw 190D-13. The only operational Dora left too.
Last edited:
Poor memory (this was 30 years ago). For that reason I always "take the fifth" when talking to the FBI. Flying Internationally I often had no idea what day it was... The Aircraft in question which is (i believe) currently in Seattle was actually on loan to both museums from the Smithsonian.
A surprisingly small aircraft! Corky Meyers, a Grumman test pilot relates the genesis of the Bearcat; Leyroy Grumman, a legitimate test pilot in his own right, flew a captured Fw 190 in England and remarked (with reference to the F6F) "This is the plane we should have built".
Cheers: T
A surprisingly small aircraft! Corky Meyers, a Grumman test pilot relates the genesis of the Bearcat; Leyroy Grumman, a legitimate test pilot in his own right, flew a captured Fw 190 in England and remarked (with reference to the F6F) "This is the plane we should have built".
Cheers: T
Colllings Foundation has a D-9 in line to be restored to flight condition to join the tour. Still a few years away unfortunately.
"Take the Fifth", something the rest of the world is learning about with each news broadcast from the USA, it seems!
On the subject of Grumman aircraft, here's a passage from Brown's Wings of the Navy as an introduction to the chapter on the Avenger.
"A dash of audacity can be perceived in the design of every truly successful combat aircraft. Indeed, audaciousness may even be considered synonymous with progress in aircraft design, for, without its infusion, the end product is inevitably pedestrian and how better could be described the carrier-based aeroplanes which Britain's Fleet Air Arm went to war! The need for RN aviators to fly such antediluvial types as the Swordfish and Sea Gladiator when hostilities began was a direct result of the pedetentious approach of the naval staff to the operational requirements of the FAA; a lack of boldness and imagination hardly calculated to inspire British naval aircraft designers of the day.
"Fortunately for the Allied cause, this lack of enterprise had not been emulated in the USA, where audacity had been displayed in no small measure by aircraft manufacturers in their efforts to meet more far-sighted shipborne combat aircraft requirements, outstanding among the companies that had created a new generation of carrier-based aeroplanes being the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Coprporation of Bethpage. It was to this Long Island based company that the British Fleet Air Arm was to contract an immense debt for boosting the service's morale at a time when it was very much the poor cousin to the RAF in the matter of frontline aircraft.
"It was not simply the fact that British naval aviation was restored to the first division by this company's progeny; Grumman aircraft gave the FAA an insight into how purpose-built naval aeroplanes could really perform, reinstating much of the naval staff thinking on operational requirements in the process. Perhaps in a way this change of attitude in which they resulted was symbolised by the way in which the abstruse thinking of Their Lordships of the Admiralty, which had led to the bestowal of the unimaginative appelations of Tarpon and Martlet on two pugnacious Grumman combat aircraft, performed a volte-face and accepted the vastly more emotive American names of Avenger and Wildcat."
On the subject of Grumman aircraft, here's a passage from Brown's Wings of the Navy as an introduction to the chapter on the Avenger.
"A dash of audacity can be perceived in the design of every truly successful combat aircraft. Indeed, audaciousness may even be considered synonymous with progress in aircraft design, for, without its infusion, the end product is inevitably pedestrian and how better could be described the carrier-based aeroplanes which Britain's Fleet Air Arm went to war! The need for RN aviators to fly such antediluvial types as the Swordfish and Sea Gladiator when hostilities began was a direct result of the pedetentious approach of the naval staff to the operational requirements of the FAA; a lack of boldness and imagination hardly calculated to inspire British naval aircraft designers of the day.
"Fortunately for the Allied cause, this lack of enterprise had not been emulated in the USA, where audacity had been displayed in no small measure by aircraft manufacturers in their efforts to meet more far-sighted shipborne combat aircraft requirements, outstanding among the companies that had created a new generation of carrier-based aeroplanes being the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Coprporation of Bethpage. It was to this Long Island based company that the British Fleet Air Arm was to contract an immense debt for boosting the service's morale at a time when it was very much the poor cousin to the RAF in the matter of frontline aircraft.
"It was not simply the fact that British naval aviation was restored to the first division by this company's progeny; Grumman aircraft gave the FAA an insight into how purpose-built naval aeroplanes could really perform, reinstating much of the naval staff thinking on operational requirements in the process. Perhaps in a way this change of attitude in which they resulted was symbolised by the way in which the abstruse thinking of Their Lordships of the Admiralty, which had led to the bestowal of the unimaginative appelations of Tarpon and Martlet on two pugnacious Grumman combat aircraft, performed a volte-face and accepted the vastly more emotive American names of Avenger and Wildcat."
