Frustated Projects

[ThunderThud]

Very interesting thread, Thanks for sharing with us!

 

[Airframes]

I agree, keep it coming !

 

[gekho]

The result of talks between Junkers and Lufthansa in December 1938, the Ju 252 (EF 77) was eventually to replace the Ju 52/3m. After a somewhat protracted development, due mainly to changes made by Lufthansa, the V1 flew in October 1941. The V1 was a 35 passnger pressurized airliner with exceptional performance, however this aircraft was ordered into production by the RLM as an armed transport. Junkers had some difficulty integrating armrament into the design but eventually managed to do so. Even though this aircraft was a substantial improvement over the Ju 52, it's production order was cancelled. Only a fifteen or so airframes that were in production at the time of the cancellation were completed. Junkers was ordered to adapt the design to use non strategic materials and the result was the Ju 352.

 

[gekho]

The end of World War II, together with orders placed for the competing Convair B-36, sealed the fate of the piston-engine B-35, but foreseeing this possibility Northrop received approval from the USAF to modify two of the YB-35s to jet power. Redesignated YB-49, the first of these flew on 21 October 1947 with eight 1814kg thrust Allison J35 engines; the second had six 2540kg thrust Allison engines, four buried in the wings and two in underslung pods. Many complimentary reports on the YB-49 were filed by air force officers, and the service was convinced of the advantages of the all-wing configuration, but in June 1948 the second YB-49 was destroyed with the loss of its five man crew in a crash attributed to structural failure.

In spite of this the US Air Force ordered 30 modified RB-49A aircraft, one of which was to be built by Northrop and, because of that company's other commitments, 29 by Consolidated Vultee, but this order was later cancelled to provide extra funds for the B-36. The YB-35 programme continued for a while with various test airframes, but in October 1949 the whole programme was cancelled and the aircraft were scrapped. Sole survivor was the six-jet YB-49A, but just four years later this was broken up.

 

[gekho]

The Siebel Si 201 was a German air observation post and army co-operation aircraft designed and built by Siebel. Evaluated against other types the Si 201 did not enter production and only two prototypes were built. Designed to meet a requirement for an air observation post and army co-operation aircraft the Si 201 first flew in 1938. Evaluated against the Fieseler Fi 156 and Messerschmitt Bf 163. The Fi 156 was ordered into production and only the two prototype 201s were built. The Si 201 was a high-wing braced monoplane with a tail-wheel landing gear. Powered by an Argus As 10C mounted above the wing and driving a pusher propeller. It had a boxy, fully glazed forward fuselage with room for a pilot and observer in tandem.

 

[gekho]

No information found

 

[gekho]

During the late spring of 1942, the Junkers-Dessau project office was instructed by the Reich Air Ministry (RLM) to investigate the possibility of redesigning the structure of the Junkers Ju 252 transport to make maximum use of non-strategic materials,[2] replacing the Junkers Jumo 211F engines of the Ju 252 with Bramo 323R radial engines. The result followed closely the aerodynamic design of the Ju 252 but was an entirely new aircraft. The wing of the Ju 352 was similar in outline to that of the Ju 252 but, mounted further aft on the fuselage, was entirely of wooden construction. The Ju 352 also had a similar Trapoklappe (rear loading ramp) to that of the Ju 252. The ramp allowed the loading of vehicles or freight into the cargo hold while holding the fuselage level.

In general, the Ju 352 was considered a major improvement over the original Junkers Ju 52 but noticeably inferior to the Junkers Ju 252. Deliveries of the Ju 352 had only just begun to get into their stride when, during the summer of 1944, the worsening war situation resulted in the decision to abandon the further production of transport aircraft, and in September the last two Ju 352A's rolled off the assembly line, 10 pre-production Ju 352's and 33 production Ju 352's having been manufactured. Several developments of the basic design were proposed before production was halted, these including the Ju 352B with more powerful engines and increased defensive armament.

 

[gekho]

The XP-42 was a modification of the fourth production P-36A (S/N 38-004) and tested the use of streamlined engine cowling to reduce the drag of a radial engine. The long tapered cowling had a cooling air scoop under the engine and carburetor air scoops on top. An extension shaft was necessary to drive the propeller which had a large spinner to further reduce drag. The cowling didn't significantly reduce drag and the engine had continuing cooling problems even though numerous cowlings were tested. The XP-42, late in its test life, was fitted with a moveable horizontal stabilizer similar to a modern jet's stabilator and flown to gather test data on the modification.

 

[gekho]

In 1942, John K. Northrop conceived the XP-79 as a high-speed rocket-powered flying-wing fighter aircraft. In January 1943, a contract for three prototypes designation XP-79 was issued by the United States Army Air Forces. To test the radical design, glider prototypes were built. One designated MX-324 was towed into the air on 5 July 1944 by a P-38 making it the first rocket-powered aircraft built by America to fly. Originally, it was planned to use a 2,000 lbf (9 kN) thrust XCALR-2000A-1 "rotojet" rocket motor supplied by Aerojet that used monoethyl aniline and red fuming nitric acid; because of the corrosive and toxic nature of the liquids, the XP-79 was built using a welded magnesium alloy monocoque structure (to protect the pilot if the plane was damaged in combat) with a ⅛ in (3 mm) skin thickness at the trailing edge and a ¾ in (19 mm) thickness at the leading edge. However, the rocket motor using canted rockets to drive the turbopumps was unsatisfactory and the aircraft was fitted with two Westinghouse 19-B (J30) turbojets instead. This led to changing the designation to XP-79B. After the failure of the rocket motor, the first two prototypes were canceled. The pilot controlled the XP-79 through a tiller bar and rudders mounted below; intakes mounted at the wingtips supplied air for the unusual bellows-boosted ailerons.

The XP-79B (after delays because of bursting tires and brake problems on taxiing trials on the Muroc dry lake) was lost on its first flight 12 September 1945. While performing a slow roll 15 minutes into the flight, control was lost for unknown reasons. The nose dropped and the roll continued with the aircraft impacting in a vertical spin. Test pilot Harry Crosby attempted to bail out but was struck by the aircraft and fell to his death. Shortly thereafter, the project was canceled.

 

[gekho]

The Curtiss XP-55 Ascender is perhaps best known of the three pusher fighters built for a 1941 competition in response to US Army 'Request for Data R40-C' dated 20 February 1940 (the others being the Vultee XP-54 and Northrop XP-56). A flying wing in most respects, albeit with a small fuselage and a canard foreplane (with only the horizontal portion of this surface forward of the wing), the XP-55 went through numerous design changes at Curtiss's St Louis, Missouri, plant and, like its competitors, was long-delayed getting into the air although it eventually carried out a test programme which involved four airframes. Curtiss built a full-scale flying testbed, the company Model CW-24B, powered by an 633kW Menasco C65-5 engine. The fabric-covered CW-24B went to a new US Army test site, the ultra-secret airfield at Muroc Dry Lake, California, for 1942 tests. These revealed serious stability problems which were only partly resolved by moving its vertical fins farther out from their initial mid-way position on the swept-back wing.

The full-sized XP-55 fighter was ordered in fiscal year 1942, based on the proven 1100kW Allison V-1710-F23R engine being used for the first time as a pusher. The XP-55 used a single rotation, three-bladed propeller instead of the co-axial, contra-rotating type which had been planned and which was, in fact, employed with the parallel Northrop XP-56. The first of three XP-55 aircraft was delivered on 13 July 1943 and underwent early flights at Scott Field, Illinois. It was found that excessive speed was required in the take-off run before the nose-mounted elevator could become effective. Before this problem could be addressed, the first machine was lost during spin tests at St Louis on 15 November 1943, the pilot parachuting to safety.

The second XP-55 was flown in St Louis on 9 January 1944. The third followed on 25 April 1944 and, soon after, went to Eglin Field, Florida, for tests of its nose-mounted 12.7mm machine-guns. The XP-55 had the advantage of being constructed largely from non-strategic materials and for a time a jet version, the company Model CW-24C, was contemplated. But lingering problems, including generally poor stability, remained unsolved when the third XP-55 was returned to Wright Field, Ohio, for further tests continuing into 1945. On 27 May 1945, at a Wright Field air show and bond rally attracting a crowd of more than 100,000, the third XP-55 took off to give a public flying display. Captain William C. Glascow flew across the field leading five other fighters in formation. Glascow made one roll before the crowd, began another, and suddenly dived into the ground inverted. The pilot was thrown from the wreckage but suffered mortal injuries, while a nearby motorist was also killed. Few aircraft contributed more to advancing technology while remaining trouble-plagued and failing to reach production. The second XP-55 has survived and is among numerous historically valuable air-frames held by the Smithsonian Institue's National Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Very cool. The Ju 252/352 always looked really odd to me.

 

[Gnomey]

Cool stuff!

 

[N4521U]

The Curtiss XP-55 Ascender is perhaps best known of the three pusher fighters built for a 1941 competition in response to US Army 'Request for Data R40-C' dated 20 February 1940 (the others being the Vultee XP-54 and Northrop XP-56). A flying wing in most respects, albeit with a small fuselage and a canard foreplane (with only the horizontal portion of this surface forward of the wing), the XP-55 went through numerous design changes at Curtiss's St Louis, Missouri, plant and, like its competitors, was long-delayed getting into the air although it eventually carried out a test programme which involved four airframes.

So what's so amazing about the Rutan designs??? Just the fact he made them to stay in the air?? I did the graphics on a Long Easy many years ago, and got to fly in it and take the controls. WOW>

 

[gekho]

he Pegas (Pegasus) was conceived as a light bomber and strike aircraft for use against enemy tank and mechanized infantry units, Tectinobgicai simplicity and low cost allowing mass production were the main requirements. Hence the aircraft was made of wood, plywood and cheap high-carbon steel. Designed under the leadership of Maj. Gen. Dmitny L Tomashevich, the prototype was completed in January 1943 at aircraft factory No 288. State acceptance trials were completed in June 1943 and showed that Hie aircraft had poor maneuverability, low survivabiiity and took more than average pilot to master it. Hence, logically enough, It was not recommended for production.

There is an anecdote on how one of the test pilots took it out for a flight, saw a column of German armor, and actually destroyed a Tiger tank using the Pegas. He was about to be reprimanded for it, until reports from the front line came in describing in detail what had happened.

 

[gekho]

James Martin, broadly responding to Specification F.5/34 for a fighter using an air-cooled engine for hot climates, designed a fighter using the simple basic structure employed and developed in his earlier MB1. Constructed of steel tubing, the MB2 incorporated many detailed improvements which further simplified production as well as repair and maintenance. Powered by a special Napier Dagger III HIM 24-cylinder H-type engine of 805 nominal bhp, but capable of operation at 13 lb boost to give over 1,000 hp for takeoff, driving a fixed-pitch, two-blade propeller, the MB2 was capable of 300+ mph speeds "on paper." The undercarriage was fixed but cleanly faired in two trouser-type fairings, the port one carrying the oil-cooler. A retractable undercarriage to improve performance was "in the works" when the design was abandoned. The fuselage lines were square cut and exceptionally clean, with almost constant depth from nose to tail. An unusual feature, at that time, was that the fuselage was slightly longer than the span of 34 ft 6 in, a feature retained in later Martin-Baker designs, which contributed to good stability and control in yaw. The MB2 was the first British fighter to carry eight wing-mounted .303 Browning machine guns.

One of the hallmarks of Martin-Baker designs was the simple but efficient installation of main systems. The clean and orderly cockpit was set well back, allowing a good view downwards behind the wing. A crash post was fitted, which automatically extended to minimise structure damage and injury to the pilot in the event of a nose-over landing. A small, tapered tailplane was mounted on the top of the fuselage well forward of the stern post, while the fin and rudder combination was roughly triangular in side elevation. This arrangement placed most of the effective rudder area below the tailplane, thus providing an adequate balance to the keel surface and assuring good recovery from spins. In initial MB2 configurations, there was no fin and the rudder was mounted on the fuselage but lateral stability was unsatisfactory, with the fixed fin added later.

The MB2 was first flown by Captain Valentine Baker at Harwell on 3 August 1938 and initially tested with markings M-B-1 (G-AEZD not carried). "The Aeroplane" stated, "in spite of its fixed undercarriage, the MB2 had a performance as good as that of contemporary fighters and a capacity for quick and cheap production by the simplicity of its structure and easy assembly". Repair and maintenance were also simple, and these factors might have influenced the authorities towards putting the MB2 into production when the country's fighter strength was disproportionately low. The MB.2 was subsequently acquired by the Air Ministry in June 1939 as P9594 and returned to A&AEE for a second assessment after modifications were made to tail control surfaces. The MB2 also spent some time at the AFDU, RAF Northolt, before returning to Martin-Baker late in 1939, where it still survived in December 1941, although probably flown little or not at all after the outbreak of war.

Around this time Martin was considering various other ideas, both for complete aircraft and for certain components. The aircraft designs included a twin-engined 12-gun fighter and a twin-engined multi-seat transport, both featuring the finless layout of the early MB2 airframe. In the fighter design, the trailing edge of the engine nacelles provided additional vertical control surfaces, and also incorporated the patented ducting system evolved by Martin to reduce drag caused by the engine exhaust. The most promising of the concepts became the MB3 which would eventually spawn the superlative MB 5 prototype.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Excellent info.

 

[Gnomey]

Nice stuff!

 

[Airframes]

Keep 'em coming !

 

[Crimea_River]

I agree. That MB sure won't win any beauty contests.

 

[gekho]

This exciting float plane was actually a follower of the previous type with which the airplane was Cannot Z.501. Chief Engineer Factory CRDA Filippo Zappa, was inspired by seaplane design B-5190 Bleriot, a French production, and built an airplane very similar to just this machine. The first test flight of the prototype took place on the 17th November 1936 and test pilot flew the machine Mario Stoppani. This prototype has been designated civil registration number I-VECC. During zalétávání Regia Aeronautica ordered production of the three machines that were identified by production numbers (MM322, MM323, MM324). Since July 1937 the Army conducted another test in Vigna di Valle and successfully ended 20th December 1937. Immediately afterwards, the Regia Aeronautica include machines manufactured in its state. All three machines manufactured, used between 1937 and 1938 in the state 171.squadriglie, stationed at the base of La Spezia. In 1939, the machine přemístněny school in Taranto marine survey during 1940 and gradually phased out.

The aircraft was having three Cannot Z.508 monoplane of mixed construction, the wing struts placed at the top of the fuselage was wood and the rest of the structure was a mixture of metal and duralumin. The plane had two floats, placed on the wing struts. Driven by a trio of inline engines dvanáctiválcových Isotta Fraschini Asso XI RC.40 performance of 860 hp. Armament consisted of two mobile Breda-Safat machine guns 12.7 mm machine guns and two floating Breda-Safat caliber 7.7 mm. Machine guns were placed in the dorsal turret and a tower placed in the middle of diesel engine nacelle on the wing.