Favorite Warbirds That Never Were

[Larry Kraus]

I have a flight manual for the Bell FM-1 and it looks like it was probably a handful to fly if anything went wrong.There are no special instructions for emergency escape in flight,other than to note where the parachutes were stowed and how to operate the emergency exits.It does have the following warning,though,which sounds pretty ominous:

"Warning.-Due to close proximity of propeller to tail surfaces,a sudden reduction of power of one engine either through an engine failure or excessive movement of one throttle will result in a much more violent and immediate control reaction than on multi engine tractor type airplanes.Failure of one engine may result in a spin unless the other engine is retarded or trim tab control adjusted immediately.In case of failure of one engine the other engine should be retarded immediately and the throttle of good engine advanced gradually as trim tab control is adjusted to counteract turning moment.With proper adjustment of trim tab,airplanes can be safely flown on one engine.Single engine practice flights will not be engaged in below ten thousand feet.This airplane should be flown only by experienced multi engine pilots."

Under "Flight Limitations":

"a. Maneuvers Prohibited.

Loop
Roll
Immelman
Inverted Flight
Spin

[Wheels up]

The Republic Rainbow.....

http://www.air-and-space.com/Republic%20XF-12.htm

The absolute sleekest nacelles. Hard to believe they pack R4360's in there!

The Lockheed XF-90 was one of my favorites:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... _USAFM.jpg

Unfortunately the damaged hulk of the XF-90 taken from Nevada which is at the Air Force Museum in Dayton is apparently not going to undergo full restoration, but be displayed as an aircraft showing the damage effects of a nuclear blast.

[rwdfresno]

The Lockheed XF-90 was one of my favorites:

I have never seen that one before. That is a good looking diesel burner.

[TAdan]

The Lockheed XF-90 was one of my favorites:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... _USAFM.jpg

Unfortunately the damaged hulk of the XF-90 taken from Nevada which is at the Air Force Museum in Dayton is apparently not going to undergo full restoration, but be displayed as an aircraft showing the damage effects of a nuclear blast.

Thats what I saw! (maybe) I have a few pics of what might be that plane at the NMUSAF in the restoration area.

I spotted a damaged jet with a similar canopy/ intake arrangement in a far corner of one of the resto hangers. I'll check when I get home from work.

Thats what I saw! (maybe) I have a few pics of what might be that plane at the NMUSAF in the restoration area.

I spotted a damaged jet with a similar canopy/ intake arrangement in a far corner of one of the resto hangers. I'll check when I get home from work.

I would like to see those pictures.

[TAdan]

Thats what I saw! (maybe) I have a few pics of what might be that plane at the NMUSAF in the restoration area.

I spotted a damaged jet with a similar canopy/ intake arrangement in a far corner of one of the resto hangers. I'll check when I get home from work.

I would like to see those pictures.

jwc50... it looks like you may have solved the mystery. I had no idea what this a/c was... It sure looks alot like the XF-90...

[JDK]

Well for jets, I doubt you can top the B-70. Had it gone into service, it would have changed our understanding of supersonic flight and we might just have regular supersonic service today from its technology. Oh well, McNamara and his idiots at work again, although it started with idiotic decisions at the Defense Department under Ike deciding that it might be a good idea to cancel all the programs that were sharing the cost and then not explain to anyone that these cancellations would make the B-70's costs to appear to increase because it was now paying for all of the development of the associated systems.

Um ~ Concorde? And didn't that run into the 'not invented here' syndrome when route-proving within the US, as well as the far east etc? There was also genuine lobbying against the noise.

Edited to add: Of course Boeing were developing a SST as well, but that was canned - was there any significant military technology transfer there?

For piston-engined aircraft, I've always had an interest in the Martin Baker MB series and especially the MB.5. No reference I've found can fully explain why the aircraft weren't put into service as they had excellent performance compared to its contemporaries and its powerplant (the Griffon), although not as reliable when the airplane first flew, it went on to power several versions of the Spitfire and the Lincoln and Shackleton, so I doubt the fact that the engine failed on the MB.5 during a display for Churchill would be a primary reason for it never getting a production contract.

There's no great mystery. There were plenty of already adequate piston fighters available (out of the factories and in service) and it was clear the next (big) step was jet fighters, so a significantly better piston fighter to put into production had just been leapfrogged. Also happened to the Australian CAC CA-15 and the P-51H (to a degree).

Regards,

Last edited by JDK on Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[maxum96]

Howard Hughes XF-11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlkinpzZkJM

[RickH]

Even though it did get into service, albeit in limited numbers, none are flying, the Westland Wyvern.

JDK have any survived for display of any kind ?

[Dan K]

Even though it did get into service, albeit in limited numbers, none are flying, the Westland Wyvern.

JDK have any survived for display of any kind ?

For those who've grown too lazy to google...

http://www.fleetairarm.com/exhibits/planes.asp?plane=94

[CAPFlyer]

Um ~ Concorde? And didn't that run into the 'not invented here' syndrome when route-proving within the US, as well as the far east etc? There was also genuine lobbying against the noise.

Edited to add: Of course Boeing were developing a SST as well, but that was canned - was there any significant military technology transfer there?

The XB-70 development predates Concorde by at least 10 years and was quite a bit faster. Also, because there were only 2, the amount of sonic boom testing done by the aircraft was very limited. Had the aircraft been put into service (and development not slowed down by political idiocy) the extra research of sonic boom propagation and noise reduction techniques would have been vital to civilian SST development. As well, the navigation systems that never made it into the aircraft and the materials development that was still going on would have been given a chance to mature to a point that would have been much more useful as time went on.

There's no great mystery. There were plenty of already adequate piston fighters available (out of the factories and in service) and it was clear the next (big) step was jet fighters, so a significantly better piston fighter to put into production had just been leapfrogged. Also happened to the Australian CAC CA-15 and the P-51H (to a degree).

To a point, maybe, but at the time the MB.5 flew, the Meteor hadn't gotten beyond the drawing board, the Tempest, Typhoon, and Fury were all still on the boards as well as the Griffon Spitfires (the MB.5 was the first to use the Griffon engine). I doubt that at the time that the "supremacy" of jet-powered fighters was as certain as you make it out to be. At the time they were still extremely short-ranged due to the thirst of the early engines, and the engines didn't last very long, making cost an issue as well.

[JDK]

As ever somer interesting points -

Um ~ Concorde? And didn't that run into the 'not invented here' syndrome when route-proving within the US, as well as the far east etc? There was also genuine lobbying against the noise.

Edited to add: Of course Boeing were developing a SST as well, but that was canned - was there any significant military technology transfer there?

The XB-70 development predates Concorde by at least 10 years and was quite a bit faster. Also, because there were only 2, the amount of sonic boom testing done by the aircraft was very limited. Had the aircraft been put into service (and development not slowed down by political idiocy) the extra research of sonic boom propagation and noise reduction techniques would have been vital to civilian SST development. As well, the navigation systems that never made it into the aircraft and the materials development that was still going on would have been given a chance to mature to a point that would have been much more useful as time went on.

So coulda, woulda - but actually - didn't. That's just another one of a long list of 'should have happened' which is interesting, but not important. Concorde remains the only fully operational SST airliner, even allowing for commercial considerations - as to the XB-70s potential influence on, say, the Boeing SST project, you may as well point to other types like the X-15 and so forth. As I asked, was there any influence, not should there have been. You make some big jumps there too 'Had the aircraft been put into service ... the extra research of sonic boom propagation and noise reduction techniques would have been vital to civilian SST development.' Surely something that didn't happen can't be 'vital' to something that did happen, otherwise it wouldn't have been able to have happened! (Still with me? ) SSTs all faced several problems - subsonic noise footprint (which could be moderated, perhaps); sonic boom (which, I understand, can't be moderated - I'm open to correction); the 1970s fuel crisis; and national, NIMBY and environmental lobbying - AFAIK the XB-70 can't have made a difference with any of those. The other SST challange was taking passengers - no flight suits, escape pods, special issues for them.

There's no great mystery. There were plenty of already adequate piston fighters available (out of the factories and in service) and it was clear the next (big) step was jet fighters, so a significantly better piston fighter to put into production had just been leapfrogged. Also happened to the Australian CAC CA-15 and the P-51H (to a degree).

To a point, maybe, but at the time the MB.5 flew, the Meteor hadn't gotten beyond the drawing board, the Tempest, Typhoon, and Fury were all still on the boards as well as the Griffon Spitfires (the MB.5 was the first to use the Griffon engine). I doubt that at the time that the "supremacy" of jet-powered fighters was as certain as you make it out to be. At the time they were still extremely short-ranged due to the thirst of the early engines, and the engines didn't last very long, making cost an issue as well.

What? The Typhoon first flew in 1940 - albeit being problem plagued, while:

The first flight of the MB 5 prototype, serial R2496, took place on 23 May 1944

The first Tempest prototype, the Mark V, flew on 2 September 1942.

On 12 January 1944, the first Meteor F1, serial EE210/G, took to the air from Moreton Valence.

[Quotes from Wikipedia for ease...]

I'm guessing you are think of the MB-3, rather than the 5. In this case, the setback (which led to developing the -5) was the loss of the MB-3. Wiki again:

The MB 5 was actually begun as the second Martin-Baker MB 3 prototype, designed to Air Ministry Specification F.18/39 for an agile, sturdy Royal Air Force fighter, able to fly faster than 400 mph. After the first MB 3 crashed in 1942, killing Val Baker, the second prototype was delayed. A modified MB 3 with a Rolls-Royce Griffon was planned as the MB 4, but a full redesign was chosen instead.[1]

The re-designed aircraft, designated MB 5, used wings similar to the MB 3, but had an entirely new steel-tube fuselage.

I'd agree that the MB-3 could have been a significant aircraft, but it wasn't, as the loss of the prototype and Capt Baker was a major setback - effectively put the MB fighter programme out of viability due to the delays. In 1943, the jet wasn't known as a probable success (unlike in 1944/5, which is not my view, btw, just my understanding from reading about it) so yes, then there was a debate to be had, but it never got that far. By 1944/5, for the British, the jet was clearly superior, for a number of reasons - range wasn't an issue, as it was for the US Pacific types, and high altitude performance (which improved for jets as it declined for pistons, simplistically) was significantly greater. Another stumbling block, had they got that far, would have been the antipathy of the Air Min towards non- core aircraft manufacturers.

I think I've got all the ducks lined up, unless I'm missing something major?

Regards,

[CAPFlyer]

You may, but then again, this thread is about the "greatest airplanes that never were" in each person's opinion, so the whole premise is to be considering the theoretical, not the actual, thus my points on the B-70 program. I did misspeak on the MB.5, I was thinking of the MB.3, but the basis of the design was sound. For whatever reason, none of the MB series was ever given a production go-ahead despite advantages over other types already in production. Why that happened, no one will ever really know, but the MB.5 was the ultimate expression of that line and had the best performance.

Also, I think most would agree that the "superiority" of jets was in question until the late 1940s or early 1950s. If they weren't, then the Meteor would have replaced all piston-powered types in service immediately after WWII and the P-80 would have replaced all of the US piston fighters. That didn't occur because there were still doubts of how effective jets could be. Many still felt that the increased speeds would make it difficult if not impossible to fight effectively against other aircraft due to the high closeure speeds and the infancy of fighter-based radar other than basic ranging systems.

[JDK]

Hi CAPFlyer,
I think we are more in agreement than you may realise -

You may, but then again, this thread is about the "greatest airplanes that never were" in each person's opinion, so the whole premise is to be considering the theoretical, not the actual, thus my points on the B-70 program.

Yes, fair enough. But you did (IMHO) imply that SSTs relied on the XB-70 - Boeing might have done, and the Concorde team (AFAIK) didn't. It would be interesting to know, if there was any passing on of XB-70 data. It's not impossible.

I did misspeak on the MB.5, I was thinking of the MB.3, but the basis of the design was sound.

I was certainly thrown by the statement! Not to worry, it lead to an interesting discussion.

For whatever reason, none of the MB series was ever given a production go-ahead despite advantages over other types already in production. Why that happened, no one will ever really know, but the MB.5 was the ultimate expression of that line and had the best performance.

I still fail to see any mystery or 'no one will ever know'. I agree there's points that are probabilities, not certainties, but it's pretty straightforward, surely?

1. MB-3 comes out of leftfield - interesting and, for the time, unconventional - arguably radical aircraft. Company that bring it to fruition are unknown, no track record. They do hit all the right buttons, but the Air Min are v.v. conservative.

2. Prototype crashes, kills one of the two key men in the company. Loss of Capt Valentine Baker and the prototype puts programme back years (in 1942 - now looking at 1943+). Amazingly, Martin Baker continue, and regroup. Decide to 'improve' design, resulting in new fuselage, name, MB-5, and ff in 1944. By then, 'new' fighters are simply not needed, unless they show a significant improvement over existing which are doing the job (a whole new type of engine's different - must be considered.) If the MB-5 had come from a major maker (Vickers A / Supermarine, Gloster, Hawker) then the Air Min might've considered production, as they were a known quantity; however MB weren't, and the aircraft's signal changes in construction (resulting in its advantages in serviceability) mitigated against production by another existing company.

If the MB-3 hadn't crashed and killed a company founder, then it could've been too good to ignore, then. But once that crash happened, what followed was inevitable IMHO, in that any alternative scenario doesn't stand scrutiny. And if the MB-3 had entered service, the MB-5 as we know it probably wouldn't have come about - but that's very speculative...

Also, I think most would agree that the "superiority" of jets was in question until the late 1940s or early 1950s. If they weren't, then the Meteor would have replaced all piston-powered types in service immediately after WWII and the P-80 would have replaced all of the US piston fighters. That didn't occur because there were still doubts of how effective jets could be. Many still felt that the increased speeds would make it difficult if not impossible to fight effectively against other aircraft due to the high closeure speeds and the infancy of fighter-based radar other than basic ranging systems.

Far be it for me to defend the history of the early jets; what I was reporting was what I understood to be the accepted history.

A couple of postulates I won't take on board though; 1. Where did the single (jet) fighter idea come from? Other aircraft would be required, as indeed they were. The RAF didn't put all it's eggs in the Meteor basket; there was the Spider Crab and Glosters other developments. No single fighter type will do all jobs; however the MB-5 would (only) be a good deal better at the job the Tempest and P-51D are already doing more than adequately - just not a top need - 'overkill' being a modern term. The jet was a whole new approach.

2. The high closure speeds - ah, yes, that one came up in 1920, the 1930s and the 1950s and 1960s... 'some' have always believed that, others not. While the MB-5 was a very interesting idea, and would be better than anything existing, it's performance growth potential could be estimated. The new jets, while strange, operating in odd ways, had an unknown potential; and we knew that the Germans had them too, ergo they were more vital to develop than another very good piston fighter. By 1944 the jet couldn't be ignored; my understanding was that both the British and Germans realised (with hindsight) that they could've been a lot further down the track with effective jets; for various reasons, they'd lost time, and were both aware they were in a new type arms-race.

I'd love to see a 'real' MB-5, and even an MB-3, as I agree, fascinating, aircraft - the MB-5 of unarguable greatness, but it's not to be.

All interesting, and yes, the XB-70s mighty impressive. Got to be the world's largest paper-planealike, too!

Regards,