The Coolest 'Radical' Aircaft of World War II

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

rebel8303 said:
I think that there would be problems of bailing out with the propellers installed that way

Would not be a problem at all, there are even plenty of planes today that use the push and pull prop system.

JonJGoldberg said:
set the foundation for the 'flying wings' later the 'stealth wings' of 'today'

I find that odd since the Horton designs and other Northrop designs were more similar to todays flying wings and the Horton Ho-229 we more stealty than that thing.
 

Yeah with the Do-335 the rear engine intended to blow off when ejecting...
 
cheddar cheese said:
How about a pusher/puller jet configuration...

The Aerfer Ariete (another Stefanutti's design) was a pusher/puller, with a front jet (1.633 kg Rolls-Royce Derwent 9), whit the intake in the nose and the exaust under the fuselage, and a rear jet (820 kg Rolls-Royce Soar RSr 2) whit a retractable intake behind the cockpit.

airpower.callihan.cc


www.planes-and-tanks.com


www.planes-and-tanks.com

DogW
 
Here's another slant on "mixed" power


CAPRONI
About 1942 this company later began construction on a high-altitude fighter using prop and jet thrust. The Caproni CA 183bis had a DB 605 of 1,250 HP in the nose driving two three-blade contra-rotating props with a 700 HP Fiat A.30 radial behind the cockpit driving a Campini compressor expected to furnish a 60 MPH boost of jet thrust for an optimistic maximum speed of 460 MPH with a range of 1242 miles. One 20 mm was to be in the prop hub with four more in the wings. Weight was to be 16,538 lbs. with a 48-foot wingspan.

The CA 183 was not all that complicated though performance seems optimistic.
 

Users who are viewing this thread