Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Great planes that never made it...
DropBear    12/3/2004 12:20:02 AM
In Oz, during the years 1944 to March 1950, the skies above Melbourne were home to a homegrown fighter named the CA-15. The following is an article by Felix Noble. 1997. "On the afternoon of May 25 1948 a silver aircraft flew over Melbourne at an unprecedented 502mph. This aircraft carried a number of innovative design features, performed very well, and was considered by many people to be the ultimate piston engined fighter. The brainchild of Lawrence Wackett, head of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (C.A.C) it was totally Australian in design and manufacture. It was the CA-15. After the success of the Boomerang - albeit in a role other than it?s intended one - an order for a new fighter powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-2800 series radial engine was placed with CAC in February 1943. It was designated CA-15, and was to be a long range, high altitude, high performance fighter. By May an engine had been obtained and a mock-up constructed. This was shown to the RAAF and upon approval the design was frozen. By June, plans for development and production were rapidly advancing and the P&W R-2000-21 engine was decided upon as the powerplant. During this period Lawrence Wackett was touring extensively in the UK and the USA examining in detail their aircraft manufacturing methods and design philosophies. Upon his return in mid 1943 he recommended that the P-51 Mustang be license built here, and the CA-15 be developed "...as an exercise to keep alive the spirit of design, rather than as a war weapon for urgent development." To this end, some of the most promising younger design engineers were put onto the project and the whole thing given a low priority. Also as a result of this trip Wackett decided to redesign the CA-15 as a low altitude fighter around the P&W R-2800-10w engine. There were two main reasons; Firstly, he had become convinced that a fighter powered by a radial engine, even a turbocharged one, was more suited to low altitude work. Secondly, he saw no advantage in developing an aircraft in competition to the Mustang which CAC was soon to start building. This change meant a large re-think in design, and was expected to delay production by about twelve months. In August 1943 the RAAF issued specification no. 2/34 which covered the CA-15, and work once again advanced rapidly. By the end of the year an engine installation mock-up had been built, and detailed specifications were issued down to the smallest item. Early 1944 saw rapid progress in the manufacture of prototype components and preliminary construction. An R-2800 engine was obtained in March, and in April the last major design feature was finished. This was an innovative integrated radiator system that served both the oil system and the intercooler. Calculations indicated that this would give better results than any other radial engine installation in the world. Then on May 15 a cable arrived from the United States informing CAC that the R-2800-10w engine was no longer being produced. The replacement chosen was the R-2800-57w. This was a high altitude version of the motor, and once again necessitated a redesign. Work continued until by August, 75% of the detailed tooling and 85% of the assembly jigs had been completed. Then, again on the fifteenth, disaster, in the form of another cable, struck. This cable baldly stated that R-2800-57w engine delivery could not be guaranteed. After much deliberation the Rolls Royce Griffon 120 motor was chosen in September. Before any major work could begin however the project was cancelled by the Aircraft Advisory Committee. Despite this, CAC continued with development at a much reduced rate, whilst lobbying fiercely for the projects re-instatement. It was granted on December 12 1944. By January 1945 the Australian government had become tired of the whole project and supported it in a very listless manner. In contrast the British Air Ministry upon looking at the design was greatly impressed, and immediately lent the project two Griffon 61 motors for use until the Griffon 120 became available. The motors arrived in April, and were in place in the airframe and run in December. The decision to fly the 61 series motor came when the production of the 120 series was cancelled due to the end of the war. February 1946 saw the beginning of taxying trials for the CA-15, an aircraft that "...must be regarded as the leading example in proven technique in fighter design..." Then after a few minor adjustments, the first flight of fifteen minutes duration was undertaken by CAC, and the aircraft logged 16.75 hours in the following twenty three flights. During this period a number of RAAF test pilots flew the aircraft. One commented "... The aircraft is easy to fly and has no apparent vices...The engine installation is very good, being by far the best Griffon i
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
ambush    RE:Great planes that never made it...   12/5/2004 12:04:44 AM
YB-35/XB-49 flying wing
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Great planes that never made it...   12/5/2004 8:43:44 AM
I agree with Ambush--the Northrop flying wings were superb bombers that got killed because Stuart Symington was in bed with Convair. I nominate the P6M-1 Seamaster, the Martin-Baker MB.47 (I may have the number wrong, but it was a WWII fighter that had performance better than any of its contemporaries), the CF-105 Arrow, the TSR.2, and the F-20.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    Flying wings were lemons...   12/5/2004 9:04:09 AM
The XB-35 had lateral stability problems, similar to the jet powered successor, the YB-49. In the case of the YB-49, it was found that when the bomb bay doors were opened, it presented enormous airflow problems. These were the days before adequate CFD testing/knowledge. The YB-49 was resigned to recon, however, one crashed with Capt. Glenn Edwards, hence renaming Muroc to Edwards AFB. The XB-35 with its contra tractor pusher props wasn't a sound idea at the time. Fortunately Northrop continued with flying wings, as we have the B-2 today :) Even with the addition of wing fences (a carry over from the tractor prop design of XB-35), the YB-49 was a dog to fly. As a bomb platform, the YB-49 couldn't maintain a steady course, airspeed or altitude due to severe yaw conditions (yaw rate expansion, no less!), which could have resulted in inertia coupling and a total loss of controlled flight and ultimatelly augering into the ground(ouch!!). This yaw affect, which screwed the pooch wrt the bomb aim sight, and the fact that the YB-49 was limited to a 10 000lb bomb load, means it was on a hiding to nothing, in being selected as a future strategic bomber! Compared to the B-29, the YB-49 had lame CEP and range errors on numerous bomb trials. No, the stability wasn't as pronounced as a recon platform, as the cameras would have been mounted internally in the bomb bay with a glass, see through bomb bay door, hence no need to open inflight. RB-47E's had similar systems anyway. Without the magic of triplex/quadruplex fly-by-wire and multiplexing/Foptics, the good ol' YB-49 wouldn't have stood a chance.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:Sentinel28a   12/5/2004 9:09:08 AM
What is a Martin-Baker MB.47 ??? I have heard of the Martin-Baker ejection seat company, and the Martin-Marrieta aircraft company, but can't find any info on type???
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:Sentinel28a   12/5/2004 11:20:26 AM
Do you mean the M.B.5? "The M.B.5 (serial number R2496) flew for the first time on May 23, 1944. The performance was superlative, the Armament and Aircraft Experimental Establishment raving about the general design and layout of the aircraft. All pilots who flew it praised its qualities, and it is sort of a mystery why this airplane was never put into production, even though there would have been enough time for this plane to have entered squadron service by the time of the end of the war against Germany."
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:Sentinel28a   12/6/2004 7:25:50 PM
Thanks, Heorot; that's the one I meant. According to Jane's, it had the best potential of any British fighter designed during the war. DropBear, where did you get your info on the XB-35/YB-49? I have to do a writeup on both aircraft for an aviation museum and I'd like to check out your sources.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Flying wings were lemons.Dropbear   12/6/2004 7:44:28 PM
None of the flying wing problems were insurmountable. The main reason given for cancellation of the XB-35 were production delays not aircraft performance. Both the B-29 and B-36 had their problems-engines that caught on fire, fuel tanks that leaked at high altitude/cold temperature. To name just a few. These were solved because the resources were dedicated to them. Had the XB-35/49 had the same resources it probaly would have outperformed either of them in many respects.
 
Quote    Reply

F22    RE:Flying wings were lemons.Dropbear   12/6/2004 8:10:15 PM
I think you also have to consider that flying wings were a revolutionary concept that were a little ahead of their time. The first jets certainly weren't that great either. I think ambush is right. It was a matter of resources.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Flying wings were lemons.Dropbear   12/6/2004 8:34:40 PM
Look at the German Horten designs and other US flying wing designs, which included a fighter. All these were certainly "doable" had the resources been available. There is also military politics to consider. In the case of the US there was a lot of opposition because they did not "look like a plane should". Civilian/military politics also came into play. Which State and Congressional district is the plane manufactured in came into play just as it does today. In Germany there was the interservice fight for resources and as the Luftwaffe fell into disfavor with Hilter becuase the Battle of Britain and Stalingrade it had less pull to get what it wanted.
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear    RE:Sentinel28a - sources   12/6/2004 9:46:34 PM
"Yeager - An Autobiography". 1985. Yeager and Janos. Bantam Books. "Skunk Works". 1995. Ben Rich and Leo Janos. Warner Books. "Combat Aircraft Since 1945". 2000. Stewart Wilson. Aerospace Publications. "Aviation Record Breakers". 1988. Christopher Chant. Burlington Books. "The X-Planes". 2001. Jay Miller. Midland Publ. Hope these help :) .
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics