fubar57
General
Being serious for once, would the turbulence from the front wings create a problem for the center wings which in turn created more problems for the rear wings making it impossible to fly safely?
Unusual Aircraft
- Thread starter GregP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I looks like my grandmother put wings on her trailer.
KiwiBiggles
Senior Airman
I don't usually call out spelling and typos, but this one is too good to resist.
Do you?
I read ballast shifted in flight - which caused the crash. If I was Caproni - that's what I'd be saying.
- Thread starter
- #146
GregP
Major
Perjaps a rudder might have helped the Ca 60, though I suspect an elevator and fixed tailplane might have also been high on the priority list. Probably highest would have been a chief designer!
While that Folland isn't nearly as ugly as some that came before it this thread, I have to admit it is less than the best-looking single engine bomber ever built.
Nobody ever said Howard Hughes wasn't above a little "high handedness" and, back than ... more than today even, money talked and people listened. Too bad it was banned for 50 years. I can see Horton with a good, solid case against the government worth a LOT of money, assuming it ever gets pursued and no "unfortu ate accidents" occur.
While that Folland isn't nearly as ugly as some that came before it this thread, I have to admit it is less than the best-looking single engine bomber ever built.
Nobody ever said Howard Hughes wasn't above a little "high handedness" and, back than ... more than today even, money talked and people listened. Too bad it was banned for 50 years. I can see Horton with a good, solid case against the government worth a LOT of money, assuming it ever gets pursued and no "unfortu ate accidents" occur.
Last edited:
Robert Porter
Senior Master Sergeant
I would love to see a wind tunnel test with smoke on that design. Bet it creates all kinds of odd patterns! But to answer your question I have no idea.
- Thread starter
- #148
GregP
Major
I'd like to see a wind tunnel test of Gustav Whitehead's design that supposed to have flown before the Wright Brothers.
This Caproni thing would NEVER fly. Imagine a flying boat today with a bilge that wasn't compartmented! Nobody is THAT stupid! I think Graeme was correct above when he said if he were Caproni, that's what he would be saying, too.
This Caproni thing would NEVER fly. Imagine a flying boat today with a bilge that wasn't compartmented! Nobody is THAT stupid! I think Graeme was correct above when he said if he were Caproni, that's what he would be saying, too.
fubar57
General
Last edited:
Old Wizard
2nd Lieutenant
wuzak
Captain
It was actually an engine test bed. Not meant as an operational aircraft.
wuzak
Captain
From the people though brought us the Spitfire, the Supermarine Type 322 "Dumbo".
Supermarine 322 Dumbo
Originally designed under the specification that gave us the Fairey Barracuda, one of Greg's favourites, the Dumbo was procured to test the variable wing incidence feature.
Supermarine 322 Dumbo
Originally designed under the specification that gave us the Fairey Barracuda, one of Greg's favourites, the Dumbo was procured to test the variable wing incidence feature.
Old Wizard
2nd Lieutenant
Looks like a more streamlined and robust design than the Barracuda.
- Thread starter
- #155
GregP
Major
I'm not too sure how anyone expected an operational aircaft of the time to get by with fixed landing gear ... but it does look better than the Barracuda. Then again, so does the north end of a southbound donkey.
wuzak
Captain
It was only built as a research aircraft, so didn't need the retractable landing gear.
According to Winkle it was faster too!
dogsbody
Airman 1st Class
While I can only agree that the French win the "Ugly Bomber" competition hands down I do feel the Brits did their best.
How about the Folland Frightful
