Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My 2¢ Perhaps it should count if the jet engine was intended to provide all or part of the power so that the aircraft could fly, but not if the jet was merely carried aloft by the aircraft so that the jet could be tested. The "not intended for production" clause might rule out quite a few of them, and I don't think that is what we want here.There are two P-51Ds that would *technically* qualify, though they were only test beds.
One of the tests, had a P-51D fitted with two XRJ-30 ramjets (one in each wingtip).
The other P-51D was fitted with two PJ31-1 Pulsejet engines, one under each wing.
This is just for fun, by the way - they shouldn't be on the list because they were just test aircraft and not intended for production.
The ramjet and pulsejet P-51s weren't testing the engines, they were testing the feasibility of a mixed power upgrade for fighters that were currently in production and/or available in large numbers.My 2¢ Perhaps it should count if the jet engine was intended to provide all or part of the power so that the aircraft could fly, but not if the jet was merely carried aloft by the aircraft so that the jet could be tested. The "not intended for production" clause might rule out quite a few of them, and I don't think that is what we want here.
It would have been a mighty brave pilot to fly such a scary contraption...If the P-51 with ramjets is in, what about the Do 17Z with ramjet?
Or teh Do 217E with ramjet?
The ramjet and pulsejet P-51s weren't testing the engines, they were testing the feasibility of a mixed power upgrade for fighters that were currently in production and/or available in large numbers.
They were legitimate mixed power, just proof of concept - and a fun bit of early jet history.
The small ramjet was a popular subject of experimentation on a wide range of aircraft from the mid-40's through the 50's, being tested on everything, including helicopters (on the rotors tips, no less).
The Fi103r would fall under a jet aircraft, since the As014 engine was a pulse-jet.The compressor used a piston engine, but the result was a jet, albeit a SLOW one. Nobody ever said a jet has to be fast.
Let's add it.
Hi Wayne, I suppose if it had a jet engine on it, turbojet (centrifugal or axial), ramjet, or piston-compressor jet, and flew in the 1940s, it's fair game. Let's add them, too.
Might as well include manned rocket planes like the manned V-1. After all, they all are flying without a propeller driven by a piston engine.
In post #43 above, the Mirage 4000 is mentioned, but the picture is of a single-engine Mirage.
Mirage 4000 below:
View attachment 660733
Decidedly twin-engine. Unfortunately, nobody bought it, so it remained a company demonstrator. Another company also made a company-funded fighter, the Northrop F-20, which ALSO never sold and remained a company airplane. The moral of the story would be:
Never developed a cutting-edge jet fighter without a firm order from a customer that makes the development profitable. If the customer is not your own country, you also had better make sure the sale is approved for foreign purchase before spending said money on development. If you develop an airplane without orders, the odds are not in your company's favor to sell it.
89. The Supermarine 510/517 flew in 1948, and became the Swift.
When I search "Supermarine 510 wikipedia" I get taken to the article about the Supermarine Swift, and there is a mention of the 510 being one of the early prototypes of the Swift.