Wacky Allied fighter ideas
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
As goofy as it may seem, the Russians actually built as least 2 polymorphic aircraft, in the late 30s early 40s. That word isn't my creation.
Except they went from a biplane to a high wing monoplane.
The landing gear retracted into the lower wing, then the lower wing retracted into the bottom of the upper wing.
The Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1 and IS-2, and a IS-4 was started but never completed. The first 2 were flight tested.
And someone was claiming Russian aircraft designers of that era were afraid to be very innovative in their designs.
I wonder if Nikitin and Shevchenko ended up cutting trees in Siberia?
Except they went from a biplane to a high wing monoplane.
The landing gear retracted into the lower wing, then the lower wing retracted into the bottom of the upper wing.
The Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-1 and IS-2, and a IS-4 was started but never completed. The first 2 were flight tested.
And someone was claiming Russian aircraft designers of that era were afraid to be very innovative in their designs.
I wonder if Nikitin and Shevchenko ended up cutting trees in Siberia?
parsifal
Colonel
by no means were the germans the only ones with a penchant for stupidity....
Presenting the Hafner Rotabuggy. A British-built "rotor kite" or autogyro, it was essentially a helicopter air frame built onto an ordinary Jeep. Designed to be dropped onto enemy territory during airborne operations, in tests the Rotabuggy managed to fly for several minutes at speeds of more than 60 mph (100 km/h) reaching an altitude of several hundred feet. Only one was manufactured in 1944. None were ordered.
Presenting the Hafner Rotabuggy. A British-built "rotor kite" or autogyro, it was essentially a helicopter air frame built onto an ordinary Jeep. Designed to be dropped onto enemy territory during airborne operations, in tests the Rotabuggy managed to fly for several minutes at speeds of more than 60 mph (100 km/h) reaching an altitude of several hundred feet. Only one was manufactured in 1944. None were ordered.
GregP
Major
Ruiians designers could be inventive ... IF they were successful. Failures once wasn't a death sentence. Multiple failures were not good for your health.
They DID come up with a flying tank and a design for a flying submarine. Thankfully, noboy ever "asked" them to build the flying submarine.
They DID come up with a flying tank and a design for a flying submarine. Thankfully, noboy ever "asked" them to build the flying submarine.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
How about the Hillson FH.40 "slipwing" concept based on a Hurricane?
![Hillson_FH40_Hurricane[720].jpg](https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/hillson_fh40_hurricane-720-jpg.305364/ "Hillson_FH40_Hurricane[720].jpg")
Or the Miles M.39 Libellula?
The Curtiss XP-55 (while bore a strong resemblance to the M.39)
Or the Antonov A-40 flying tank?
Or the Miles M.39 Libellula?
The Curtiss XP-55 (while bore a strong resemblance to the M.39)
Or the Antonov A-40 flying tank?
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
I wonder if the xp-55 design was the inspiration for the rutan varieze or if it was just a coincidence...lol
Nothing like the same level of crazy designs of old these days it seems... 
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
F*ck me, as if being a tanker on the eastern front wasn't bad enough, they actually expected some of those poor bu*gers to 'fly' , er, 'land' several tons of armour into combat!?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
That was the plan, at least.
Fortunately, the project didn't get far but not because of problems with the gliding T-60...the test pilot said it had remarkable handling...but because the TB-3 or Pe-8 intended to tow it could not get up to a safe enough speed because of extreme drag.
buffnut453
Captain
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
only way I could see the A-40 landing easy is if the driver had the engine started and the treads spinning at full speed upon landing....and even then. what was the max speed of the tank as apposed to the stall speed when flying. it would be like landing with the brakes on....talk about "sticking" a landing..lol! the weight of the thing would have made it a nightmare to try to tow. just getting off the ground would have been a huge task. even if they set it on a wheeled dolly kind of like a 163 I figure you would need it tethered to 2 or 3 planes be able to get enough airspeed just to get it off of the ground.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Nope...to land the tank, the gearbox was in neutral and the tank simply skidded until the tracks gained traction and then brakes applied, much like an aircraft's main gear.
The Soviets were pioneers at light armor delivery (and just about the only nation that tried such methods), they carried tankettes suspended under the wings of a TB-3 and they tried various methods of air dropping them, including water landings.
The TB-3 flew so slow that an airdrop at low altitude was fairly simple. And it should be mentioned that the tanks were dropped separately from the crew...lol
The Soviets were pioneers at light armor delivery (and just about the only nation that tried such methods), they carried tankettes suspended under the wings of a TB-3 and they tried various methods of air dropping them, including water landings.
The TB-3 flew so slow that an airdrop at low altitude was fairly simple. And it should be mentioned that the tanks were dropped separately from the crew...lol
The idea is the kind of thing you might be able to sell to a non-technical person with a few powerpoint slides. It is actually a pretty frightening idea if you think it through and consider some of the issues:
- the effect on the profile of the lower wind when the upper wing is raised - i.e., an airfoil with a concave upper surface doesn't sound like a great idea
- handling will be further affected by the weird aerodynamics as you extend and retract the upper wing
- the weight of the mechanical components and structure needed to make this work and provide sufficient rigidity
Instead of getting the speed of a monoplane and the maneuverability/low speed capabilities of a biplane, you are more likely to get the worst of all worlds.
Interestingly, the plane in the illustration has a contra-rotating prop and ejector exhausts.
Fowler flaps and slots are a much more logical idea for trying to obtain the end result.
buffnut453
Captain
Good observations, Rinkol. In fact, it would make more sense to fold the lower wing into the upper wing, that way you at least retain a clean flow over the upper surface of the top plane (the upper surface generating most of a wing's lift). Irrespective, the transition period would have been diabolically frightening. It is a fascinating (but scarily wacky) concept!
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
now that is a horse of a different color! without a flight crew to guide it in makes more sense. if you can fly low and slow over fairly flat terrain and release ( which I think would be the best tactic) you would suffer less possible damage. unmanned and drop from higher alts could be disastrous.
Which is the way the Russians did it with the IS-1 and 2.
But they had doubts about being able to maintain the aircraft in the field, plus the question of how the complicated mechanism would handle battle damage.
With a top speed of 281 mph for the IS-1, and a estimated top speed for the IS-2 of 315, nether were fast enough as monoplanes to justify further development.
That tactic, if the timing is just a little off, or not dropped exactly accurately, might end up supplying you enemy with a tank.
But not much of a tank. At 6 tons, the T-60 was about equal to a Panzer Mk I.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
its still great against a machinegun nest or light infantry
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The air-dropped tanks being tested (and in some cases, actually deployed) were theT-27 and T-37A tankette. These were typically dropped seperately from their crew.
The winged tank was the T-40, which was to be towed to their destination by either a TB-3 or a Pe-8, released and then glide in to the target area. The tank's crew was intented to be onboard during this method of deployment.
