I Deserve Reproduction

oz rb fan · **Joined:** Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:33 am **Posts:** 474

N3Njeff wrote:

Warbird Kid wrote:

N3Njeff wrote:

N1K2-J

I like your style. How bout a little bit easier one from the land of the rising sun? Sort of similar to your favorite plane. K5Y Willow.

Nope, sticking with the Violet thunder

but violent lightning (shinden) sounds so much cooler :axe:

Tiger Tim · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:48 pm

I won't be truly satisfied until I go to an airshow and see a XP-74 flying overhead...

-Tim

Rick65 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:18 pm

Was that the Cadillac Cyclone XP74 (or than Northrop beauty)

agent86 · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 3:57 am **Posts:** 926

I still think the Hughes XF-11? the plane he took out the house with is a beautiful plane and should be copied

Russ Matthews · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:15 pm

In another unsurprising move for me, I will cast my vote again for the Douglas TBD-1 "Devastator." This aircraft represents both a milestone in the development of naval aviation and a touchstone for the courage of American aircrews in the face of overwhelming odds.

Given their small size (relative to multi-engine types anyway) and early construction, it's not completely unreasonable to imagine it being done someday. Though the unique design features, like the bomb-aiming position underneath the crew seating, folding wings, etc would certainly challenge even the most talented construction team. I can't think of a suitable "donor" airframe to adapt and suspect you'd have to start from scratch.

Still, it would be a thrill to see that sillouette take to the skies again (especially in formation with an F4F and SBD).

agent86 · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 3:57 am **Posts:** 926

a Devastator would be cool.it was truely a ground breaking plane.I'm just happy that I didnt have to fly one at Midway,but thats another matter.

Steve T · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:01 pm

"XP-74"? What's that?

Far as I know the numbers 73 and 74 were not assigned to any USAAF fighter designs; they have sometimes been used retrospectively on the USAAF "reverse lend-lease" Beaufighters (P-73) and Spitfires (P-74).

Do you mean XP-72 Thunderbolt? That would, indeed, be cool...and probably, given the similarity of the airframe to a standard late-model P-47, a doable concept...

Incidentally, anyone notice the recent Ram truck ad with the fleeting appearance of the Chrysler-engined XP-47H?

S.

Rick65 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:29 pm

"Northrop also created the XP-74 Flying Wing fighter, in which the pilot lay prone between its two jet engines."
www.nationalaviation.org/northrop-john/
Was this the plane designed to knock opponents out of the air by ramming?

Interestingly lots of other references claim that the P-74 number was skipped.

Steve T · **Posted:** Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:35 pm

Ah. XP-79. Northrop's equivalent of the Horten 229...would, indeed, be an arresting sight in the air. (Both types flying "escort" to a B-2 would be especially interesting!)

Can anyone confirm that that design also bore the XP-74 designation at some point??

S.

Rick65 · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:04 am

Steve
We could set our sights higher.
XB-79B with an XB-35 or YB-49 and Horten playing attacker.
POF's N9MB involved somehow.
Though isn't the crash record of pre fly by wire flying wings not too good?
XB-79B sadly one flight for one fatal crash.

I am not sure that the initial reference to the XP-74 wasn't a humorous one to the very plane influenced concept car of that number.

Tiger Tim · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:54 am

Steve T wrote:

Far as I know the numbers 73 and 74 were not assigned to any USAAF fighter designs

I never said it would be easy to reproduce!

-Tim

DryMartini · **Posted:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:27 pm

Warbird Kid wrote:

Pogo wrote:

LMAO

Seriously, a flying Swoose, big time. This planet needs an early B-17, and the earlier the better.

My question is, couldnt you take G model centersection (Wings, nacells, engines, fuselage, etc.) and essentially backdate it to resemble an early C/D center section? Kind of like what MARC's Movie Memphis Belle is. Then all you have to produce is a new nose / cockpit section and rear fuselage / tail section. Easy...

Well, yes, you could. There are differences at Bulkheads 4 and 5, as well as the bomb racks
and catwalk, but they can be worked out. If you wanted to make a B-17G LOOK like a B-17D,
it can be done.

Now, to truly make it into a B-17D would be much more difficult, costly, and time consuming.
Earlier models (299/B/C) would be even more so, as many of the systems are different
(Electrical for one)

agent86 · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 3:57 am **Posts:** 926

Tiger Tim wrote:

Steve T wrote:

Far as I know the numbers 73 and 74 were not assigned to any USAAF fighter designs

I never said it would be easy to reproduce!

-Tim

actually it's not hard to reproduce,my 2 daughters are proof of this.however ,airplanes thats another story.sorry.

6trn4brn · **Posted:** Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:37 am

Reproduction or restoration to flying status?

B-36 of course!
B-58...soooo sexy

Warbird Information Exchange

I Deserve Reproduction

Who is online