What are these following aircrafts? (British WWII experiment aircrafts)

I had been having trouble time finding more informations about these following aircrafts. I have never seen these pictures which are based on projects/documents where british were planning on buildng or experimenting during WWII?

B.44 Project
img224.imageshack.us...
img92.imageshack.us...

Type 'C"

www.xplanes3d.com...
www.xplanes3d.com...

Another type of British bomber projects

img147.imageshack.us...
img515.imageshack.us...




Chaoic out...

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Chaoic_Black_Dragon]

reply to post by Chaoic_Black_Dragon


I am no expert, but the first one looks like a fighter that has a buoy attatched to perhaps facilitate a water landing.

THe second two I don't know,

The third group is askign for a log-in, could you please link to the picture directly?

I would imagine these were concepts for future designs. The first, as stated, looks like a sea-plane type fighter/bomber. The second looks like a prototype for a jet powered bomber and the third as a traditional prop driven, if very heavy, bomber.

I'm sure Waynos, should he arrive, will know all about these!

Don't forget that during the War, the Brits came up with concepts for all manner of war vehicles. Much of the perculiar, specialised vehicles used on the beaches of Normandy were of British design, even if they were based on American variants.

We Brits, wether during the war or after, seem to have a knack for designing cutting edge technology, then reducing funding for it and handing over the plans to people who have the cash to develop it.

It's always been the drawback with the UK, we have great minds, but the Government only ever looks at the short term and inevitably cuts funding for some things that could have been truly great.

In the 50's and 60's we were right up there in terms of our own Space Programme and could well have been doing manned missions of our own, but the Politicans of the time didn't see "any benefit" in the short term and canned all the projects.

Now we're in a position of being beholden to the French for anything spacey and even then we mull over wether sending men into space is "worthwhile"....

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by Chaoic_Black_Dragon

 

The third group is askign for a log-in, could you please link to the picture directly?

My apologies, I updated the link where it directly link to the picture itself. Thank you for the head up!

And to stumason,

That is why I wanted to learn more about the british's secret projects on aircraft during WWII. And I thank you for spending your time express your thought and knowledge about this subjects.




Chaoic out...

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Chaoic_Black_Dragon]

Okay, my thoughts on the third two:

Instead of it being a jet engine, it looks like the double propellers are supposed to rotate in opposite directions.

I think this was supposed to produce a lot more thrust than just one propeller--there was essentially one pulling the plane and the other pushing it--but it was abandoned because actual jet engines were invented.

I can't remember where I heard about that, though, and like I said, I am not the aviation expert.

Here's a well done site.

rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us...

You'll enjoy it if you like WW2 aircraft and what they became.

Most countries are represented.

The majority of the aircraft were built and flown and some were simply mocked up.

Of special interest, the US B17 with five engines and another B17 with one engine.

Originally posted by asmeone2
Okay, my thoughts on the third two:

Instead of it being a jet engine, it looks like the double propellers are supposed to rotate in opposite directions.

I think this was supposed to produce a lot more thrust than just one propeller--there was essentially one pulling the plane and the other pushing it--but it was abandoned because actual jet engines were invented.

I can't remember where I heard about that, though, and like I said, I am not the aviation expert.

Contra Rotating propellors.
The British had a Spitfire that had these, but came too late to join the war effort.
The engine was a Rolls Royce Gryphon if memory serves.

One real advantage with the contra rotating props is the lack of torque during the take off run allowing full power to come on a little sooner than it would be on a single prop aircraft of similar layout and power.



Fwiw, the buoy you noted on the first aircraft is a main float.
Wing floats would be out on the wings for additional stability when the aircraft is floating on the water.

So, Burt Rutan, as brilliant as he is, merely improved on the canard design. Cool looking planes!

Originally posted by stumason
In the 50's and 60's we were right up there in terms of our own Space Programme and could well have been doing manned missions of our own, but the Politicans of the time didn't see "any benefit" in the short term and canned all the projects.

Now we're in a position of being beholden to the French for anything spacey and even then we mull over wether sending men into space is "worthwhile"....

I wouldn't hesitate to say 'they were correct' - manned space flight gets you basically nothing. The major reason to perfect manned space flight was that the technology was dual use - you got ICBMs out of it.

We have ICBMs and we didn't have to have a manned space program to accomplish it.

reply to post by RichardPrice


The first images are of a Blackburn B-44, which I don't believe ever got past the concept stage. The thought was to improve on seaplane/fighter performance through improved aerodynamics, specifically the retracting center float. It would also have been considerably up-engined relative to contemporary aircraft.

As for the last two sets of images, I wouldn't put much stock in them. They're rendered using modern CG technology and I expect they're a current enthusiasts fanciful take on what could be done with canards applied to WWII-era British heavies.

Did someone say my name?


The BlackburnB.44 was designed to specification N2/42 and was an attempt to build a flying boat fighter for operations in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese on the expected island hopping operations. The need to operate from the water plus the need to provide clearance for the propellor are of course directly conflicting with the need for a streamlined high speed shape and so this project explored the potential for a retractable hull to provide the necessary depth whilst being able to be cleaned up for high speed flight. The retractable hull was not invented for this project, however, as an earlier design for a twin engined Catalina class flying boat called the B.20 also used the concept. In the end it was found that the weight and complexity were not worth the marginal gain in performance, a later attempt at the same requirement was the Saro A1 Squirt jet fighter flying boat which actually flew, and performed surprisingly well, but was way too late for the war.

Contrary to what mr anonymous says above the Vickers scheme C was a real project from 1942-44 and was designed to the same sort of requirement that spawned the Convair B-36 in the USA, it was evaluated against a series of other designs, Scheme A was a conventional scale-up of the Vicker Windsor with six Griffons instead of four, scheme D can be described as looking like the later Northrop XB-35 but with a central fuselage accomodating the crew, bomb load and nose, tail, dorsal and ventral gun turrets while the wings accomodated the fuel needed to give it a vast range. A rival proposal to Vickers designs was the Bristol '100ton Bomber' which itself was evolved into the Brabazon airliner which flew in 1949, briefly.

In the end it was decided that with the end of the war in sight the UK did not need, and could not afford, these super bombers ans so the Avro Lincoln (ex Lancaster Mk.4) was ordered instead.


[edit on 13-9-2008 by waynos]