Strange Airplanes from WWII

[MiTasol]

And the Fleet 60 (Fort) trainer - it had a fixed gear but retractable "fairings" to "simulate" retractable landing gears

Fleet 60 Fort - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To me, the photos on Wiki make it look bigger than it really is.

 

[Milosh]

And the Fleet 60 (Fort) trainer - it had a fixed gear but retractable "fairings" to "simulate" retractable landing gears

Fleet 60 Fort - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To me, the photos on Wiki make it look bigger than it really is.

Retractable fairings?

 

[Shortround6]

Gives the student a switch to play with that won't hurt the plane if left in the wrong position

 

[MiTasol]

Retractable fairings?

To quote wiki
An unusual feature was the fixed undercarriage. Although fixed, the undercarriage was fitted with a retractable fairing. This feature was intended to familiarize student pilots with an undercarriage retraction mechanism but without causing external damage by a forgetful student.

The several times I saw Forts being restored were in the late 60s at a farm in Saskatchewan Canada. I was impressed by the size (small) and workmanship but did not pay any attention to the cockpit.

It would be interesting to find if any manuals or pilot notes survived. None are listed in Worldcat.

 

[GrauGeist]

It's actually a brilliant idea, really.

The repetitive motions of raising/lowering gear becomes ingrained, reducing the chance of ground incidents - which happened quite a bit when new pilots transitioned from basic to advanced trainers and/or into front line aircraft.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh, you mean something as ugly as this? (But don't go believing all you read on Hush Kit) View attachment 611743

This is simply a Sopwith Camel suffering 'roid rage.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's actually a brilliant idea, really.

The repetitive motions of raising/lowering gear becomes ingrained, reducing the chance of ground incidents - which happened quite a bit when new pilots transitioned from basic to advanced trainers and/or into front line aircraft.

Reminds me of the Gloster F5/34

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, Blackburn was responding to official specifications, the planes they built were judged to be the best bet by the air ministry of fulfilling the specification out of all the proposals submitted. given a choice between the Blackburn design and Westland's it is a tough call.
View attachment 614081

That frog has grown wings.

 

[Milosh]

To quote wiki
An unusual feature was the fixed undercarriage. Although fixed, the undercarriage was fitted with a retractable fairing. This feature was intended to familiarize student pilots with an undercarriage retraction mechanism but without causing external damage by a forgetful student.

https://www.flugzeuginfo.net/images...t_rcaf_3540_05_canadianwarplanemuseum2013.jpg

Don't look retractable to me.

 

[MiTasol]

Certainly do not to me either and Wiki has never been known for accuracy.

However Wiki do say 100% of Forts produced were built as, or converted to, Wireless (Radio) trainers and the small football antenna just forward of the rear canopy in both the Wiki and flugzeuginfo photos suggests the CNAC example is a Wireless trainer rather than an unconverted early example. In order to compensate for the weight of all the boat anchors radios fitted I would expect the retractable fairings to have been deleted, along with anything else that was not essential for training radio operators like dual controls, instruments, etc.

The drip trays under the aircraft in the flugzeuginfo photo suggest this aircraft is airworthy and operational which is great.

 

[msxyz]

Ambrosini SS.4

Predated the J7W and the XP55 by a few years... Development was halted in 1942 and, during development, the chief test pilot died after a hard landing in the first prototype, crushed by the engine (the large mass of the engine, located at the front, actually protected the pilot in conventional planes in similar accidents).

 

[SaparotRob]

Ambrosini SS.4

View attachment 633233

Predated the J7W and the XP55 by a few years... Development was halted in 1942 and, during development, the chief test pilot died after a hard landing in the first prototype, crushed by the engine (the large mass of the engine, located at the front, actually protected the pilot in conventional planes in similar accidents).

And another new one for me.

 

[GrauGeist]

Quite a few manufacturers were experimenting with pushers in the late 30's and early 40's:
Handley-Page, Vultee, MiG, Northrop, Miles, Saab

 

[msxyz]

And another new one for me.

Somebody even made a flying RC model of it:




Piaggio (they don't make only trendy scooters ) still have a pusher in production, although, this one also has a T tail: it's as if it's as if a J7W and a DC-9 mated and had an offrsping

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Somebody even made a flying RC model of it:




Piaggio (they don't make only trendy scooters ) still have a pusher in production, although, this one also has a T tail: it's as if it's as if a J7W and a DC-9 mated and had an offrsping


View attachment 633236

Wasn't there a swept-wing turbo-prop canard, pusher civvy aircraft introduced in the 80s similar to this planform as well?

A little Googling reminds me -- the Beech Starship, sold in the tens of aircraft.

It apparently couldn't compete with Learjets et al.

 

[SplitRz]

What about this odd ball beauty from 1932...?


View attachment 633250

 

[SplitRz]

What about this odd ball beauty from 1932...?

 

[GrauGeist]

What about this odd ball beauty from 1932...?


View attachment 633251

One of the types made by Miles (I mentioned them earlier).

This is the Miles M.35, they also built one that was similar, the M.39 although it was a twin engine "tractor" configuration.

 

[SplitRz]

Aha, like the man in orthopaedic shoes, you stand corrected sir!

The airframe in question is a product of the fertile mind of GTR Hill and made in partnership with Westland. It is the Westland-hill pterodactyl v. Here it is in flight:

Some more info here - Westland Pterodactyl V - tailless fighter sesquiplane

 

[GrauGeist]

Ok, on this cellphone, the angle of the image (which is real dark, by the way) appareared to be the M.35 - looking closer, I can see the struts now.

Here's the M.35: