Marton XV-01

[johnbr]

In 1943 the Marton XV-01 was developed as a heavy fighter. The twin-boomed tricycle gear design was designed to use two DB 605 engines, one tractor and one pusher. It was to be armed with a 30mm engine-mounted cannon, two heavy machine guns in the cowling, and additional cannons in the wing roots and boom leading edges. This would make for a very heavy hitting aircraft. The aircraft was to have an ejection seat, designed on a twin rail system powered by a spring. In 1944, the fuselage and wing structure were completed, but they were destroyed in an Allied bombing raid in April 1944.
lso known as the RMI-8 X/V
Data:
Length 10,2 m 10.2 m
Span 11,8 m 11.8 m
Speed 580 km/h (berechnet) 580 km / h (calculated)
Engine 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 605 A mit Startleistung 1475 PS 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 605 A with starting power 1475 hp

Armament 1 × 20-mm- or 30-mm-MK in engine crankshaft, Two 12,7-mm-MGs, 20-mm or 30 mm MK, several 12.7-mm machine guns in wings
Photo is a photoshop.

 

[fubar57]

That's a nifty looking aircraft.

Geo

 

[fastmongrel]

Never heard of that one is it Hungarian. The pic looks photoshopped though did it ever get to the metal stage or is it a paper plane.

 

[fastmongrel]

Done a quick google and that tail looks suspicously like a Fokker DXXIII

 

[gjs238]

Here's something a bit smaller and lighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_21

The nose is free for armament.

 

[Shortround6]

seems to bear more than a striking resemblance the the Fokker D.XXIII

Or Saab 21 with an engine stuck on the front.

http://ww2photo.se/air/swe/jakt/j21/08412.jpg

 

[GregP]

This is a fake aircraft with no record of it ever being produced as far as I can tell.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise if some actual records can be found, but it doesn't show up anywhere I normally look for facts. Luft46 isn't exactly grounded in factual history.

 

[Milosh]

Fake? A little harsh me thinks.

From what I can find, it was under construction when it was destroyed in a bombing raid, April 1944.

 

[gjs238]

FWIW, Wikipedia page:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marton_X/V

 

[Shortround6]

According to William Green the Fokker D.XXIII was being considered for both Merlin and DB 601 engines at the start of WW II. It had been exhibited at the Paris 1938 airshow (although it had not flown at the time) so it was hardly a secret.

How successful it might have been is another story. The Fokker had 199sq ft of wing area, and loaded is supposed to have weighed 6600lbs. Stuffing a pair of DB605 engines into that small an airframe is a puzzle.

Figures given for the Marton XV-01 as far as wing span and length go are about ONE foot more wingspan and about 1 1/2 feet shorter in overall length than the Fokker.

Something seems to off.

 

[GregP]

Under construction but destroyed means it never got built. Since it was never finished and was destroyed, where did the photoshop pics come from?

I saw the Wiki page, but have never considered Wiki as a source for anything that was definitive. Everything that can be found in Wiki and is correct has a lot of corroboration from other sources. If you go look at any real airplane in Wiki, it usually has specs ... nothing for this one, though.

Pipe dream? OK, I might buy that. Real aircraft? I don't think so. Even the US Navy flying pancake that never actually flew has project performance numbers, or else they would not have proceeded with the build.

 

[tomo pauk]

The supposed photo is actually a photoshoped image of the model with some figurines (diorama?), taken from here.

 

[GregP]

Thanks, Tomo! How do you FIND this stuff?

 

[GrauGeist]

...Even the US Navy flying pancake that never actually flew has project performance numbers, or else they would not have proceeded with the build.

It did:

As far as the Marton XV-01 is concerned, why should we be surprised that they would borrow from the Fokker design?

Saab had a similar design and so did Vultee (XP-54). Even Cessna later came out with a pusher and a push-pull twin boom configuration.

The fact that it was under construction but was destroyed is of no surprise...many Axis projects (German, Japanese, Italian, Romanian, etc.) along with their records, were destroyed during the course of the war...especially in the later stages.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks, Tomo! How do you FIND this stuff?

You know that I love unreal aircraft. I'm a member there, also

 

[GregP]

Hi Graugeist,

No it didn't. Everyone knows the V-173 test bed flew.

I was talking about the XF5U-1 that was completed and was ready to fly, but the Navy declined and scrapped it. I should have nade that clear sinstead of hinting at it using "flying pancake;" my fault. Somebody slap me.

In any case, the V-173 flew well and I'd have been really interested to see what a pair of R-2000's might have done with the configuration, myself, especially if I had PAID for it! I think it would have been VERY STOL capable, at least for a fighter with 2 radials in it.

I'll belive the Marton might have been real when I see projected performance, and it makes sense, dated back then in identifiable documents. So far, I see no real pictures, no specs; no inkling that the aircraft was ever real. I can make up a seemingly-real plane, too, if I don't have to supply any proof it ever existed.

There is no mention of any other Marton aircraft before or since, and all the references are suitably vague with faked pictures from a model as the only thing out there.

Sounds suspiciously like Roswell, New Mexico to me.

Again, if some proof turns up, I'll be delighted to have discovered a new obscure aircraft through the forum.

 

[GrauGeist]

It seems that the smaller Axis nations often get overlooked when it comes to the aircraft of WWII. Romania, Finland, Czechslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary and even Slovakia manufactured aircraft, though to a much lesser degree.

As it happens, Hungary manufactured a light bomber in the 30's based on the Fokker C.V, as the WM-21 Sólyom. So they've patterned an aircraft on a Fokker design before.

 

[tyrodtom]

In the scale drawing provided, if you tip the aircraft in the highest nose high position made possible by those skids on the tail booms, it looks like you'd lose about 2 foot off the rear propeller. That's even without any main gear squat.

Not a workable design as presented.

 

[GregP]

I like the Manfred Weiss aircraft, and I tyhink you are spot on when you say they often get overlooked. Perhaps a thread on the smaller nations aircraft of WWII is in order? Maybe just answer in here?

Lithuania had the ANBO VIII attack plane designed by A. Gustaitis. Two-seater low wing monoplane, designed as an attack plane or a light bomber. The prototype was tested on September 5th, 1939. The engine – 930 HP Bristol "Pegasus" XVIII with two-stage air compressor. The occupation of Lithuania prevented the serial production of this last type of ANBO airplanes.

The Czech N.35 and B.135 look pretty modern for 1935 and 1938, and the B.135 had a top speed of 342 mph … pretty good! They only made 2 B.35, but made 47 B.135s. The Bulgarians only managed to get 12 and scored a victory against a B-24 with one. The Letov S.50 was decent for its time.

Estonia flew the Aviotehase PN-3 in 1939, but they only built 2 of which only 1 flew. Pretty good performance for a light fighter-trainer.

France isn't eastern European but is often overlooked when it comes to WWII aircraft. Breguet built the Br.46, .482, .690 - .695, .730, .731 (post-war). CAO (later SNCAO) built the model 200 in 1939. Caudron built the C-714, 720, 760, and 770. Delanne built the 20 T in 1938. Dewoitine built the D.342, D.500/510 series in the early 1930s, the D.513 in 1935, and the D.520 in 1939. It showed great promise, but was a non-player after the Germans took France. They continued with the D.500, D.720,.730, .731, .750, and .770. Farman fielded the NC.223. Hanriot built the H.220 / 220-2 and .232 that had decent performance. They continued with the NC-510 and 530. Latecoere had many decent aircraft. Loire built several decent seaplanes. The Loire et Olivier LeO 45 was a decent bomber until France fell and they also had several pretty good flying boats as well as the LeO-451. Loire-Nieuport built 3 very interesting planes. I particularly like the LN.161 with the Hispano-Suiza of 1935 that was absorbed by SNCAO, but they only made 3. Morane Saulnier built a series of aircraft, but the MS.46 was pretty much sort like a Hurricane. The Payens were nothing if not plain old weird, but seem to have had decent performance for the power. I have not seen flight reports. Potez and Potez-CAMS made some interesting aircraft. The Potez 230 looked interesting and was fast for the power, but they only made one. The Romanos and Roussel's llok good but are obscure. Likewise the SNCAC WWII planes. Some of the SNCAO planes look decent. The model 700 looks decent for the time. SNCASE only has one offering and it didn't make it. The SUD (later LeO, later SNCASE) SE.100 of 1939 looks plain weird, but the performance wasn't bad. Have never seen landing gear like that before or since. The SUD Ouest (Bloch) 175 wasn't bad, just didn't have a chance.

Bulgaria built the DAR 10A and 10F, both not bad for less than 1,000 HP. The KB-6 and KB-11 of 1940 were decent but they only made 24 KB-6s and one KB-11. I don't mention the Lazarovs only because they were slightly post-war.

The Swiss Doflug D-3802and 36803 look very intriguing for just-post-war. The Pilatus P-2 was a decent trainer and just made WWII, flying on 2 Apr 1945. Our museum has one in flyable condition.

The Swedish FFVS J22 looks like a dandy little fighter, and there is one in restoration right now that is supposed to go back into flying condition. The SAAB's look weird, but performed well. They followed this trend right into the Jet age with the Tunan that looked fat but out-performed the F-86.

The Dutch Fokker D.XXI and XXIII are wildly differing aircraft, but seemed to have performed well for their designs along with the G.I. The Koolhoven FK-52, 55, and 58 looked pretty good but they only managed to build 13 FK-58s before France fell.

In Poland, I'll forget the L.W.S. Zubr since it was a complete and utter failure. Some of the PAL's showed promise, notably the P.37 and P.38, but were never a factor. Likewise the P.50 showed promise.

Romania flew the IAR-39 biplane in 1939 but flew the IAR-80 monoplane in 1938! Go figure! The IAR-80A, B, and C were formidable adversaries. Ask the B-24 pilots hitting Ploesti. The IAR-81, 81A, 81C and 81M were even better.

Yugoslavia flew the IK-2in 1935 and the IK-3 in 1939 but only made 12 and 13 of each. The Ikarus Orkan bomber looked pretty good for 12935, but they only built 2. The Rogozaraki's look good but were not a factor. The UTVA Aero 2 was a decent trainer, later was Ikarus.

Hungary built the Mavag Heja II of 1940 and it looks like a Seversky. It was decent for 1,000 HP or so, if outperformed by contemporaries. Manfred Weiss built the WM-23 that looked decent for a 1,000 HP unit.

From Belgium, I like all the Renards, but have little in the way of flight data on them. The R.37, .38, and .40 look very good for the time. The SABCA S.47 looks dated even for the time.

The Austrian Skoda-Kauba SK 257 looks pretty darned good for a low-powered fighter-trainer but never went anywhere.

In Latvia, VEF or Valsts Elektrotechniska Fabrika (State Electro-Technical Factory) designed by Irbitis, the I-16 looks dated but the I-17 trainer looks OK.

Finland had some interesting planes, probably the most interesting of which was the VL (Valtion Lentokonetehdas) Pyorremyrsky that was supposed to be as good as Bf 109. They made ONE!

I can't verify the Marton as real yet.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Saab Tunnan J29 outperformed the F-86 ???

In what performance category ?

Other than a about 1000 ft higher service ceiling, it has no performance figures higher than even the F-86A. It's roc is about 3000 fpm less.