What the............?

I was browsing for something else and came across this. Apparently it never flew but the Google translation is just about decipherable. interesting, especially the description of how the engine was supposed to work!

Anybody know of any other obscure oddball?

Edited By Rentman on 12/06/2012 00:57:40

Edited By Rentman on 12/06/2012 01:00:12

I like them... They look like good contenders for an E-Flite UMX.. ?

.

The lower one looks ACE...

One question tho... If it's a Jet, where does the thrust / exhaust come out..?? Or, on reflection, is it a radial, and those are exhausts in the cowling..? Getting thrown by the huge spinner..

.

This has to be one of the best looking 3Views i've ever seen... I love that top down... Phat..!!

.

And this beastie, looks like a UMX Hyper-Taxi... !!

I can only presume you're meant to land it like the Hyper-Taxi too... On it's RS.. ??

Thanks for that... Something different on a gloomy, misserable day..

Luv

Chrisie.. xx

The Pogo actual flew and was developed for a while, you can find videos of it on you tube.

Like this...

Brave brave pilot..!!

Luv

Chrisie.. xx

Edited By Cyclicscooby on 12/06/2012 13:29:44

I should say so. That was remarkable. Thanks for posting.

Very nice! Can't help but feel it actually all took quite a long time and it probably would have been a bit quicker to just do a normal take-off / landing and attack the enemy but I love a bit of prop-hanging down the patch so not going to complain!

The Lockheed XFV was a rival to the Convair XFY

It's a radial. The lower one, which actually went into service & first saw action in the Spanish Civil War right through to WW2, is the Polikarpov I-16. IIRC it was the first production fighter with retracting gear.

I know about the Polikarpov, Lockheed and Convair (didn't Ryan do one too?). Its the other one that gets me. It has a very strange radial engine with, I think, a single row of 14 cylinders. God knows how it ran.

Ian

Edited By Rentman on 12/06/2012 16:18:29

You have to love what Convair did, B36, B58, F2Y, CV880 and 990, they were all a bit different and off the wall. Compare that to the endless clones of passenger and military aircraft now. It's sad that we rarely see that sort of interesting design now.

The Lockheed XFV is available for FMS sim.

Take off is easy but I very rarely manage to do the vertical landing.

I think the full size had a temporary undercarrage for initial flights to enable 'normal' take off and landings.

Edited By Mowerman on 13/06/2012 10:53:49

Cool... Look what I found...

Check out the flyby sound track..!!

I can imagine the design engineers saying "we need 8cyls to fly, so lets build a 16cyl radial, so hopefully, at least 8 will be working at any one time"

Watch the landings...!!! Extremely well piloted, but absolutely terrifying to watch... I was expecting it to bounce or nose over.. Bum-twitching stuff..!!

It looks menacing from the front, but the side view is comical.. Certainly hasn't got the finesse of a Spit..!! That said, after reading about it's exploits, I don't think the Nazi's would have found it nearly as 'funny' seeing machine gun fire raining down from one... !!

A cool un-earthing here rentman... It's nice to see the obscure dusted off for inspection by new eyes...

Luv

Chrisie.. xx

Wow, that thing sounds incredible! Certainly looks like a handful for the pilot.

Four stroke radials always have an odd number of cylinders per bank since this gives an even firing sequence. So if the one above had 14 cylinders it is more likely to be a twin row radial...otherwise 13 or 15 would make more sense. The DC3 or C47 had a 14 cylinder twin row radial for instance.

Similarly 8 cylinders is unlikely, 7 or 9 being more suitable.

regards

John

Nice one Scooby, with that short nose ,a nose over before and after was on the cards. As you say great pilot skill. Cheers

Chrisie, It looks like they bought a squadron of Polikarpov's judging by the background in the video!

John. I know that, its just I was trying to get my head round the Google translation of the article I linked to. Here is the passage and make of it what you will. Strange

Chetyrnadtsatitsilindrovy-row air-cooled engine M-24-14 (the motor cylinder 14 And the factory on 24th), had one peculiarity - every two of its cylinders working simultaneously on a rod. Thus reducing the load on the main connecting rod, to simplify the design of the engine. The inevitable increase in diameter of the engine Ivanov rejected the use in the design of a compact circuit power transmission to the crankshaft.

Try doing a Google Translate of the URL and see what you make of it.

Ian

Ah Rentman, that makes sense...at least to some degree. So the cylinders are paired, two per connecting rod, which must be forked. So the firing order will be for one of each pair to fire on each rotation of the engine. So the loads on the big end of the rods will be less, but the rods will be more expensive and heavier. I haven't worked out if pairs of cylinders were disposed fore and aft or radially, eg was it built like a two row engine or single row? I guess the large diameter implies a single row setup. Then there would the the quetion of getting suitable timing, since rod angularity effects make this a problem on radials at the best of times.

It seems it wasn't a great success, and it also seems that one of the designers ended up felling pine trees, which is to say htat he went to the Gulag...see Solzhenitsyns books for details of what that implies.

I like the red one best, wouldn't it make a cool model! But then, I like the Geebees as well.

John

Here's another oddball I posted on another thread. Its a Stipa Caproni. The original (?) ducted fan aeroplane .This one is a 3/4 scale reproduction of the original.

And this Youtube clip of the original taking off.

Yes, I posted a link to the Stipa Caproni once in the Pitts cafe here. I'd like to see a model one flying although I have too many projects on the go to attempt one myself yet.

There was an American idea once to use a kind of half ducted fan where the wing curved down around the lower half of the propellor. If my fading memory of the Popular Mechanics article is correct, there was a prototype built based on something like one of the Cessna twins. The idea was that the propwash over the half circle shaped piece of wing gave high lift, and hence short take off, and maybe landing too although I would expect the engine to be thottled down for that. The idea seems to have disappeared, and I wonder if the likely effects of losing power in one engine would be a reason for that. Sudenly you would only have the increased lift on one side, and we know what that leads to!

John