Wacky Allied fighter ideas

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

The nose of that British thing above (Handley-Page Manx) shows a distinct possibility of being wood. They only built one and the regular flight crew were all killed flying the Hermes. It was scrapped in 1952.

Interesting and obscure. Just what I like!
 
I used to read every Pop. Science, Mechanics, Mechanics Illustrated, and others like them I could get my hands on. I've got stacks of them out in the upstairs of my garage going back to the early 50s.
Every month they'd have a weird idea, or solution to a problem. Most of them unworkable.
One was a sort of tug to assist airliners on takeoff, except the tug pushed from the rear.

But that 3 carriers in a row has to take the award for wackiest.
 
Actually, it's not a bad idea. All you need are some extending ramps that interlock to join up the 3 carrier decks to provide a single, contiguous take-off run. Removes the need for aircraft to "hop" between the carriers. Piece of cake, really. Don't understand why anyone would have a problem with it.

Ok...I'll get my coat.

(Yes, for the record, I was absolutely NOT being serious).
 
I think the XP-83 was somewhat wacky - take an unsuccessful jet fighter, then stuff it with gas, see what happens...
 
Hi Tom.

About your idea to join the three carriers, I suggest using rigid elastic material to allow for some slight ship misalignment due to ocean waves. I think it is a combination of steel and elastic rubber. We could floor it with flexible steel planking. Then we'd need a 500 foot big rubber band that could stretch to 2,000 feet and we could eliminate the catapult entirely.

You may be onto something there ... especially if the planes are equipped with the vectoring engine shown above. This is all based on sound quasi-scientific gibberish combined with novatrunions and a differential girdle spring aligned with the tremmy pipe in semiboloid slots in such a way as to eliminate side fumbling.
 
Last edited:
But you're not accounting for the horizontal differential slippage in the turbid sprocket manifoldium. Your approach risks very greatly amplitude flippy-floppy sinusoid oscillatory movement in the tremmy pipe which damping from the girdle spring will irrevocably over-extend.

Oh dear, I seem to have contracted a nasty case of the Stanley Unwins.
 
Reclining seats for dive bombers featured in the May, 1943 issue of Popular Science magazine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Allied Bombers and Fighter Bombers in 1942:, North Africa, China, Burma, Pacific, Aleutians
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
4K
MikeMeech
M
An even greater inter-Allied cooperation on the technical & tactical matter?
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
Barrett
B
American fighter ops, 1944 and beyond
Replies
5
Views
2K
Barrett
B
C
Tricycle Training(?) for Fighter Directors
Replies
5
Views
2K
EAIAnalog
A
Would any other designs like the Arado E.583, the Blohm & Voss P 215 or the Lippisch P.13a have been better than the Horten Ho 229?
Replies
1
Views
1K
bada
B
Menu
Log in
Register