Most agile four engined aircraft ww2?

[Admiral Beez]

Doubt that it was stressed for much G, which would restrict its manoeuvrability.

I suppose not. There were known cases of structural failure. This was no Boeing 707, where a civilian craft was built to military spec.

Plus the cockpit while comfy and modern doesn't appear to include shoulder belts, hindering our crew's chances of taking her inverted.

More pics here De Havilland Albatross / D.H.91

 

[Graeme]

View attachment 659274

I think it was Bill Gunston who mentioned in one of his books - De Havilland tried to have that photo banned from publication.

 

[ThomasP]

The incident in the photo took place during landing trials at max TOGW (32,900 lb) - a condition under which many (most?) airframes, even those built to military standards, are not supposed to land except in emergencies. The airframe was the 2nd DH.91 prototype which was specifically slated for the tests, and the break-up occurred on the 3rd landing. The airframe was subsequently repaired/rebuilt - with appropriate strengthening - and went on to serve quite well. The production airframes all received the strengthening mods. There are many photos of large aircraft that had major structural failures when landing (and in the air), both civilian and military.

 

[Graeme]

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's a good thing the rot on the Albatross was not found or reported until after the Mosquito program was well underway.

 

[Shortround6]

This is a good candidate for "most agile 4 engine aircraft."

It's minimum level flying speed of around 40mph would certainly mean a very small diameter turning circle.

Ability to loop may be rather suspect

 

[GrauGeist]

This is a good candidate for "most agile 4 engine aircraft."
View attachment 659885
It's minimum level flying speed of around 40mph would certainly mean a very small diameter turning circle.

Ability to loop may be rather suspect

Dear God...what is that thing??

 

[Admiral Beez]

This is a good candidate for "most agile 4 engine aircraft."
View attachment 659885
It's minimum level flying speed of around 40mph would certainly mean a very small diameter turning circle.

Ability to loop may be rather suspect

You know, you might have something there. Loop? Maybe in a head wind. Imagine trying to roll the Fleet Shadower. I've always liked its tiny Pobjoy engines.

best engine of the war

Let’s not forget the smaller engines, like those from Pobjoy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pobjoy_Niagara http://www.weakforcepress.com/pobjoy_type_r.shtml

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Dear God...what is that thing??

It's a dragonfly on Creatine.

 

[special ed]

It was one of two manufacturer's prototypes for the "Fleet Shadower". The two companies aircraft looked similar and I can't remember which this one is.

 

[GrauGeist]

It was one of two manufacturer's prototypes for the "Fleet Shadower". The two companies aircraft looked similar and I can't remember which this one is.

Airspeed AS.39, the other was the General Aircraft G.A.L.38

Not many military aircraft had the Pobjoy Niagara engines, so I looked it up!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Airspeed AS.39, the other was the General Aircraft G.A.L.38
Not many military aircraft had the Pobjoy Niagara engines, so I looked it up!

Now you've got me thinking of the Short S.31. The half scale Stirling with four Pobjoys.

Short S.31 aircraft

Shorts built in 1938 a 1/2-scale prototype at its own expense. Powered by four 90hp Pobjoy Niagara III engines, this Short S.31 was mostly of wooden construction apart from a semi-monocoque fuselage, and seated two in tandem. In overall silver finish and marked M4, the Short S.31 flew on...

ww2aircraft.net

With all of 392 hp I can't see this being agile. But swap out the 98 hp Pobjoys with four 300 hp Bristol Neptunes and we have a contender.

 

[yulzari]

Now you've got me thinking of the Short S.31. The half scale Stirling with four Pobjoys.

Short S.31 aircraft

Shorts built in 1938 a 1/2-scale prototype at its own expense. Powered by four 90hp Pobjoy Niagara III engines, this Short S.31 was mostly of wooden construction apart from a semi-monocoque fuselage, and seated two in tandem. In overall silver finish and marked M4, the Short S.31 flew on...

ww2aircraft.net

With all of 392 hp I can't see this being agile. But swap out the 98 hp Pobjoys with four 300 hp Bristol Neptunes and we have a contender.

Or Armstrong Siddeley Cheetahs at 350bhp. Or even Bristol Aquila's at 600 odd bop for a real performer at 2,400bhp……….

 

[Admiral Beez]

Airspeed AS.39, the other was the General Aircraft G.A.L.38

Not many military aircraft had the Pobjoy Niagara engines, so I looked it up!

I wonder if a credible fighter could be made powered by four Niagaras. Maybe in a twin nacelle, Push-pull configuration, like a four engined De Havilland DH-88 Comet. Or if we drop the four prop requirement, we could couple the four engines to turn two or even one prop.

 

[Snautzer01]

Now you've got me thinking of the Short S.31. The half scale Stirling with four Pobjoys.

Short S.31 aircraft

Shorts built in 1938 a 1/2-scale prototype at its own expense. Powered by four 90hp Pobjoy Niagara III engines, this Short S.31 was mostly of wooden construction apart from a semi-monocoque fuselage, and seated two in tandem. In overall silver finish and marked M4, the Short S.31 flew on...

ww2aircraft.net

With all of 392 hp I can't see this being agile. But swap out the 98 hp Pobjoys with four 300 hp Bristol Neptunes and we have a contender.

eBay: Short Stirling

:thumbright:

ww2aircraft.net

 

[special ed]

I wonder if a credible fighter could be made powered by four Niagaras. Maybe in a twin nacelle, Push-pull configuration, like a four engined De Havilland DH-88 Comet. Or if we drop the four prop requirement, we could couple the four engines to turn two or even one prop.

Oh, how French of you. I thought you said you were of English ancestry and yet the French Canadians have influenced your aeronautical design ability.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Oh, how French of you. I thought you said you were of English ancestry and yet the French Canadians have influenced your aeronautical design ability.

Now you've got me thinking of the Dewoitine D.750. Imagine landing that on an aircraft carrier. Maybe add two engines to bring us to spec for this thread.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Having had lunch under the -36 formerly at Chanute, this pic puts into perspective the awe I felt being so near such a huge piece of machinery.

Prowling on youtube this afternoon, came across this vid of the restoration of the Carswell B-36 (not the one I picnicked under, that was the Chanute airframe that's now in California.)

 

[drgondog]

Prowling on youtube this afternoon, came across this vid of the restoration of the Carswell B-36 (not the one I picnicked under, that was the Chanute airframe that's now in California.)

The State Dept (IIRC) shut down the project from ever flying again, classifying it as still Nuclear capable. I remember the work out at Great Southwest airport in late 69, but don't recall much about the actual build as AA also interferred when they took over Great Southwest for their HQ site as DFW completed.

 

[drgondog]

The State Dept (IIRC) shut down the project from ever flying again, classifying it as still Nuclear capable. I remember the work out at Great Southwest airport in late 69, but don't recall much about the actual build as AA also interferred when they took over Great Southwest for their HQ site as DFW completed.

I grew up to the thunder of B-36 and C-124 and will never forget the sound or sight of six turning and four burning running up on the active. The last generation will never have a clue.