Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Spikes on May 28, 2009, 03:24:11 PM
-
Figure this would be a fun little topic...
What is the weirdest plane you've seen WWII wise, and what role do you think it would play in Aces High? How well do you think it would be at it's role?
This does include planes that were experimental, etc.
-
The B-17WW Fighter Interceptor... :lol
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/B17WW.jpg)
Seriously...Take a look at the Focke-Wulf Triebfluegel
This weird-looking device was a Focke-Wulf project for a vertical take-off fighter to counter the ever-increasing bomber threat near the end of World War 2. It combined both aircraft and helicopter technology, propulsion being provided by a 3-ramjet powered rotor swinging around the fuselage. I imagine it would be somewhat like a 163 in it's role for AH. Bomber interceptor high alt work. How well do I think it would do in this role? I hope there is no trees around when that thing starts spinning! :D
(http://www.bd-holzinger.de/bilder/triebfluegel/trieb01.jpg)
-
(http://aircraftwalkaround.hobbyvista.com/bv141/bv141_6.jpg)
Arado 141 - 26 built, but didn't went operational, FW-189 was being preferred.
(http://www.strange-mecha.com/german/luftvaffe/bv/bv40.JPG)
My favorite - A fighter with 2 30mm MK 108 but no engine. Not operational.
-
(http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/air3.jpg)
(http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/picturesq/br1.jpg)
(http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/picturesp/aa20.jpg)
(http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/picturesm/au15.jpg)
(http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/picturesn/ac21.jpg)
^^^^^^^^^^ CANNONS :huh :aok
In game i always found the typhoon to be weird. looking out the window and seeing the wingtips so close to you, and the engine noise from the sound-pack I use. I don't really like how it handles Either. Somehow people land 7 kills in it too...
-
Why post garbage photoshops?
-
How about this for a odd plane design...
J21
(http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/cl-pln10/2003cl/images/SAAB-J21A.jpg)
-
Like this stuff? Check out this site:
http://www.luft46.com/luftart.html
-
Check 6?
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2492/img1t.jpg)
wrongway
-
Check 6?
(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2492/img1t.jpg)
wrongway
It will be known as... the P51 Defiant.
-
Bacham Natter I always though was a weird plane.
-
How about this for a odd plane design...
J21
(http://www.ne.jp/asahi/airplane/museum/cl-pln10/2003cl/images/SAAB-J21A.jpg)
I bet that thing turns like "mad crazy" :rock
-
If you think the F4U is a "UFO" check out this prototype VSTOL fighter from Chance-Vought.
(http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Others/v-173_zimmer_skimmer.jpg)
it lead to the XF5U-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JGRd43QLug8/RcNdsf1sXrI/AAAAAAAAAQk/r-g4eCQ9wQM/s400/db_1234_26.jpg)
(http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/FlyingWings/xf5u_title.jpg)
The XF5U never flew but the V-173 did.
-
Jack Northrop at his best.
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9461/xp79title7ed.jpg)
(http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/6369/xp7931vu.jpg)
Built to ram other planes. Tell me that wouldn't be fun in the MA. :aok
-
The tomcat looks like an evolution of that one.
-
(http://aircraftwalkaround.hobbyvista.com/bv141/bv141_6.jpg)
Arado 141 - 26 built, but didn't went operational, FW-189 was being preferred.
You mean Blohm & voss?
-
I would like to see the Ar234C-1 in game, it's not really "weird" but it's got 2 20mm frontal guns. Wonder what kind of damage I could do with that :devil
-
Jack Northrop at his best.
Built to ram other planes. Tell me that wouldn't be fun in the MA. :aok
Wouldn't like to ram other planes with that glass cockpit :huh
Maybe it was built to BE rammed by other planes? :aok
-
The ultimate plane to HO with:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo82/bzavasnik/heavy1.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo82/bzavasnik/heavy2.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo82/bzavasnik/heavy3.jpg)
Built in Russia during the 1930s, it flew 11 times before crashing and killing 15 people.
The designer, Konstantin Kalinin, wanted to build two more planes but the project was scrapped.
Later, Stalin had Kalinin executed.
Evidently, it was not good to fail on an expensive project under Stalin.
It's got propellers on the back of the wings, too. You can count 12 engines facing front.
And you think the 747 was big... not only a bunch of engines but check out the cannons the thing was carrying.
In the 1930s the Russian army was obsessed by the idea of creating huge planes.
At that time they were proposed to have as many propellers as possible to help carrying those huge flying fortresses into the air, jet propulsion has not been implemented yet.
Not many photos were saved from those times because of the high secrecy levels of such projects and because a lot of time has already passed.
Still, on the attached photos you can see one such plane - a heavy bomber K-7.
-
The ultimate plane to HO with:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo82/bzavasnik/heavy1.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo82/bzavasnik/heavy2.jpg)
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo82/bzavasnik/heavy3.jpg)
Built in Russia during the 1930s, it flew 11 times before crashing and killing 15 people.
The plane on the pics is fantasy and did never fly.
This is how the real Kalinin Ka-7 did look like:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Kalinin_K-7_01.jpg)
(http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/149755.jpg)
-
The Westland P.12 is a bit odd, would make a great dedicated base capper :)
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Braas/4080.jpg)
In its original form this was the first of two Westland P.8 Lysander prototypes, and later it was brought to Mk.I standard. Thereafter it was fitted with two 20 mm (0.787 in) cannons, one mounted above each wheel fairing. In this form it was used in trials intended to attack German invasion barges.
As shown in the picture K6127 was extensively modified to another intended form of strafing power against ships or ground troops. The fuselage was shortened 1.45 m (4 ft 9 in) to 7.85 m (25 ft 9 in) and a tail turret mock-up (to carry four guns) was fitted. A second wing (de Lanne type) with full-span elevators and twin endplate fins and rudders, was fitted beneath the fuselage, just in front of the turret. This increased the wing area from 24.15 sq.m (260 sq.ft) to 36.46 sq.m (392 sq.ft). Flown by the company’s test pilot Harold Penrose it handled well, however none were ordered.
The aircraft is also known as "Wendover" and "Tandem Wing".
(http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Images/2-Airplanes/Allies/3-UK/05-Reconnaissance-Liaison/Westland-LysanderP12/Front.jpg)
The Hillson F.H.40 Hurricane would be a nice dogfighter (if a bit slow) :D
(The top wing was used to shorten takeoff and had additional fuel, it could be jettisoned in flight)
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/fh40/fh40-6.jpg)
The Mistel flying bomb could be fun as a HQ or CV killer
(http://aerostories.free.fr/appareils/compopara/mistel-us.jpg)
(http://www.2worldwar2.com/images/mistel.jpg)
Bachem Ba 349 Natter could be a fun point defence fighter.
(http://www.lonesentry.com/features/pics/natter-takeoff.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0103.jpg)
-
Wouldn't like to ram other planes with that glass cockpit :huh
Maybe it was built to BE rammed by other planes? :aok
You sliced the tail off with the wings.
-
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/fh40/fh40-6.jpg)
It was developed to assist in ferrying the planes to distant fields. They had to use precious carriers to ferry them normally. The wing could be jetisoned if it was engaged by an enemy aircraft.
I believe they were never put into actual use.
-
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/SpitFloatplane.jpg)
Port defence fighter
(http://www.masportaviator.com/ntp/contestphotos/ntp_june2006.jpg)
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/VanTilborg/2769L.jpg)
Perk port defence fighter :devil
(SARO SRA-1, wasn't built until 1947 or so)
-
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/SpitFloatplane.jpg)
Port defence fighter
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_YhGsknrK8Io/R4NLZdKqzpI/AAAAAAAABwY/uN06ISiAEqg/s1600-h/saunders+roe+sra51.jpg)
Perk port defence fighter :devil
(SARO SRA-1, wasn't built until 1947 or so)
Another version not implimented as it killed the flight characteristics.
-
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/fh40/fh40-6.jpg)
Is it just me, or does that top wing (and the sky behind it) look badly photochopped?
-
Another version not implimented as it killed the flight characteristics.
It performed very well, it just wasn't needed. Supermarine have quite a distinguished history putting floats on fast aircraft :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Supermarine_S.6B_ExCC.jpg/800px-Supermarine_S.6B_ExCC.jpg)
-
It performed very well, it just wasn't needed. Supermarine have quite a distinguished history putting floats on fast aircraft :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Supermarine_S.6B_ExCC.jpg/800px-Supermarine_S.6B_ExCC.jpg)
The plane in this picture was developed for the Schneider Trophy races. The Spit float plane did not perform well. A fighter is required to go beyond what a racer is required to do.They are 2 different aircraft.
-
The plane in this picture was developed for the Schneider Trophy races. The Spit float plane did not perform well. A fighter is required to go beyond what a racer is required to do.They are 2 different aircraft.
That's the S6B, i know they are different.
I thought i read a bit from Jeffrey Quill the Spitfire test pilot about the performance, but can't seem to find the quote. I guess we need Guppy's help, i could be wrong but from what i have read it was successful, but in the meantime a bit about the floatplane Spitfires can be found here: http://www.spitfires.flyer.co.uk/spitfire_floatplane.htm
-
Of course all I know is what I have read, but I remember the floats adding too much drag and weight to maneuver competitively in a fight.
OOOOoooohhhh Daaaannnnnn :)
-
XP49
:noid
-
Of course all I know is what I have read, but I remember the floats adding too much drag and weight to maneuver competitively in a fight.
That is not the reason it was not produced, the original prototypes were drawn up due to the Norway campaign, the IX was due to the war against Japan.
The below makes it appear like you are saying it was cancelled because of the poor flight characteristics, which isn't true AFAIK, more like the tactical necessity disappeared.
Another version not implimented as it killed the flight characteristics.
-
Too bad they never beuilt that float-equipped P-38 for ferrying to the far reaches of the pacific. :)
(http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=152050&stc=1&d=1176220439)
-
XP49
:noid
"The only twelve-engined interceptor in USAAF history."
-
Or how about the Flugkreisel...
(http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/FJ/HImage59.gif)
(http://www.byerly.org/thollowt/nazi_ufo2.jpg)
-
That is not the reason it was not produced, the original prototypes were drawn up due to the Norway campaign, the IX was due to the war against Japan.
The below makes it appear like you are saying it was cancelled because of the poor flight characteristics, which isn't true AFAIK, more like the tactical necessity disappeared.
Your correct in it's tactical necessity being the reason for not continueing tests and implimentation. Once the island hopping commenced, land bases meant it was no longer required. The point I was making is, it was said that it was just as well because of its' loss of nimbleness in the air.
I'm not familiar with the float planes being tested for Norway. I'm aware of the hurricanes that were sent there via carrier (Glorious IIRC). All were lost when they were evacuated and the CV was sunk by german surface vessels.
-
"The only twelve-engined interceptor in USAAF history."
Gee I thought it was what the 38 coulda been!
2x20mm+4x50cals..... all in the nose :t
-
Gee I thought it was what the 38 coulda been!
2x20mm+4x50cals..... all in the nose :t
They changed what engine it was supposed to have 6 times, and the USAAF did extensive testing with multiple armament packages on the .38- they found that its production loadout of four .50s and a 20mm was ideal. Anything else was either too heavy or too complicated to service to make it viable.
-
Blohm und Voss P.170 (never built)
(http://www.luft46.com/kwart/kw170-1.jpg)
(http://www.simviation.com/pageimages/BV%20P170.JPG)
From the Internet:
This fighter-bomber was designed by Dr. Vogt of Blohm und Voss in 1942, designer of the BV 141 and other asymmetric designs. Although the BV P.170 was of a symmetrical design, it was still unorthodox in appearance. The wing was of constant chord, and contained the ailerons and landing flaps, which were to be constructed of wood or a light metal. Three BMW 801D radial engines (rated at 1600 horsepower each) provided the power; each drove a three-bladed 3.5 m (11' 5") propeller. One engine was located on the front of the main fuselage, while the other two were mounted on wingtip gondolas, each with a single vertical fin and rudder located at the rear. Each engine gondola (including the center fuselage) contained a 2000 liter (528 gallon) fuel tank, which could only feed the engine ahead of it. The two outside engines rotated in opposite directions, to help cancel out excessive torque. The two man crew (pilot and radio operator/ observer/ bombadier) sat in a cockpit located in the extreme rear of the center fuselage, of which there were two main designs. A normal "tail-dragger" undercarriage was fitted, with the exception of there being three main landing gear legs (1015 x 380 mm wheels were to be fitted to each leg), one located just aft of each engine. Each main landing gear leg retracted to the rear into the engine nacelle or main fuselage. 2000 kg (4400 lbs.) of bombs could be carried in underwing mountings. The project's speed was thought to preclude interception, thus no defensive armament was to be fitted.