TrustMe Posted May 27, 2025 Posted May 27, 2025 (edited) This idea of mothership and fighter concept was proposed for the deep penetration fighter project run by the USA AF for use of bomber going to China over the Pacfic. It seems that this project was terminated years ago. Edited May 27, 2025 by TrustMe
Ivanhoe Posted May 27, 2025 Posted May 27, 2025 They never recaptured the magic of the post-WWI-era combos; https://www.twz.com/remembering-the-navys-doomed-aircraft-carrying-airships
Ol Paint Posted May 27, 2025 Posted May 27, 2025 Project Tip Tow That's a Culver Q-14 or PQ-14 Cadet. The GRB-36 and RF-84K combination actually saw limited service. The 40s thru early 60s were a weird and wonderful time... Lockheed XFV-1 Salmon Convair did it better with the XFY-1 Pogo: Ground handling was interesting... Then there was the later Ryan Vertijet: Trust the French to push the boundaries of weird, with the Snecma C.450: The Army tried to get in the game with the Piasecki Airgeep: Doug
Ol Paint Posted May 27, 2025 Posted May 27, 2025 The Grumman XF5F probably warrants a mention for the unfortunate nose/wing placement. Lengthening the forward end of the fuselage into a proboscis and changing the name to XP-50 didn't particularly improve the aesthetics. Doug
shep854 Posted May 28, 2025 Author Posted May 28, 2025 2 hours ago, Ol Paint said: The Grumman XF5F probably warrants a mention for the unfortunate nose/wing placement. Lengthening the forward end of the fuselage into a proboscis and changing the name to XP-50 didn't particularly improve the aesthetics. Doug Indeed. The Navy version did turn in some pretty impressive performance, though.
shep854 Posted May 28, 2025 Author Posted May 28, 2025 Regarding parasites, the Soviets also tried some ideas in the '30s and the '50s.
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 28, 2025 Posted May 28, 2025 13 hours ago, TrustMe said: This idea of mothership and fighter concept was proposed for the deep penetration fighter project run by the USA AF for use of bomber going to China over the Pacfic. It seems that this project was terminated years ago. On at least one occasion the aircraft refused to hook back up, and they had to belly land it if I recall correctly. That the aircraft were wholly inferior to the fighters they would have to fight meant it was a very short lived experiment. 8 hours ago, Ol Paint said: The Grumman XF5F probably warrants a mention for the unfortunate nose/wing placement. Lengthening the forward end of the fuselage into a proboscis and changing the name to XP-50 didn't particularly improve the aesthetics. Doug Perhaps, but I suspect you can draw a line from the Xp-50 to tigercat.
shep854 Posted May 28, 2025 Author Posted May 28, 2025 4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: On at least one occasion the aircraft refused to hook back up, and they had to belly land it if I recall correctly. That the aircraft were wholly inferior to the fighters they would have to fight meant it was a very short lived experiment. Perhaps, but I suspect you can draw a line from the Xp-50 to tigercat. Yes, I recall one video that made that connection.
Ivanhoe Posted May 28, 2025 Posted May 28, 2025 13 hours ago, Ol Paint said: Viewed from this angle, the F-84 looks like it oughta reach about Mach 3. That is one sleek profile!
sunday Posted May 28, 2025 Posted May 28, 2025 (edited) Disagree: no area rule, and engine outlet way too small. There was a thing flight attendants used to say about the earlier Airbus A340s: those planes had hairdryers instead of engines. Edited May 28, 2025 by sunday
shep854 Posted May 28, 2025 Author Posted May 28, 2025 Was that in reference to the sound or amount of thrust?
sunday Posted May 28, 2025 Posted May 28, 2025 (edited) Thrust, I think. They need a lot of runway when taking off at load. Edited May 28, 2025 by sunday
Ol Paint Posted May 28, 2025 Posted May 28, 2025 Area rule is for trans-sonic drag reduction. Republic could build some good-looking aircraft: XR-12 Rainbow (competition for the Hughes XF-11) with the odd-looking but functional RC-3 Seabee. Apparently LS-swapping the RC-3 is not uncommon. Of course, there was the XF-91 Thunderceptor that combined turbojet and rocket power, reverse taper wings, outward folding bogie wheel main landing gear, and a variable incidence wing. Although she looks pretty good from some angles: A V-tail was also tried, for the pilot that flew Bonanzas on the weekend: The XF-84H Thunderscreech was a pretty bird, in my opinion the best looking of the F-84 family, if also the most flawed: As far as hybrids go, the XF-88B Voodoo wasn't terrible looking, although the One-Oh-Wonder has better proportions: Middle River Stump Jumper--XB-26H bicycle landing gear testbed is a bit odd: The Gilbert XF-120 adopted the landing gear layout, but is a looker, if a bit weird with the engine placement. The Martin XB-51 pioneered the rotary bomb bay door later adapted to the US B-57 Canberra variants. WRT the XF-85 Goblin, I remember seeing the Monogram Flapjack kit as a kid and I assumed there was an inspirational link: Doug
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 29, 2025 Posted May 29, 2025 I built several of the Egg Planes, which were all interesting. Particularly enjoyed the corsair as I recall.
sunday Posted May 29, 2025 Posted May 29, 2025 11 hours ago, Ol Paint said: Area rule is for trans-sonic drag reduction. Yes, so no way that F-84 is going Mach 3.
shep854 Posted May 29, 2025 Author Posted May 29, 2025 That Seabee is a classic example of form following function. One ugly little bird, but it worked remarkably well. I read a pilot review of one long ago, and a main point was how remarkable spaciousness of the cabin.
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 29, 2025 Posted May 29, 2025 42 minutes ago, shep854 said: That Seabee is a classic example of form following function. One ugly little bird, but it worked remarkably well. I read a pilot review of one long ago, and a main point was how remarkable spaciousness of the cabin. I often wondered what it was. The same type also turned up in the original film of 'The Wicker man.'
Ol Paint Posted June 3, 2025 Posted June 3, 2025 Airborne FLIP ship? If that's not goofy enough for you, try this: Doug
shep854 Posted June 3, 2025 Author Posted June 3, 2025 13 hours ago, Ol Paint said: Airborne FLIP ship? If that's not goofy enough for you, try this: Doug Yeah, that's goofy. I'd like to see the Mariner fly with that rig...
Ol Paint Posted June 15, 2025 Posted June 15, 2025 (edited) A stroll through the parasite fighter programs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcmmQbCoWx4 Doug Project Eclipse doesn't get a mention in the video, though. Edited June 15, 2025 by Ol Paint
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now