Favorite aircraft

[hinote]

Another real stunner is the Horten bros. Ho VI flying wing
sailplane with a span of nearly 80 ft. There is a nice photo of one
in flight at www.nurflugel.com. There are good photos of some of
their other planes, too. If you haven't seen this site, you'll want to
check it out.

RG

Hi, RG:

Now, you're in my territory!

The HO-VI was a tremendous leap forward in aero technology. Only thing is, it needed a similar breakthrough in structural tech, at the same time.

They had to develop a way to break through the speed for onset of flutter.

That's a poor substitute for adequate structural stiffness--but it's all they had.

The same problem occurred when the Braunschweig Akaflieg developed the SB-13 FW project in the 1980's. They solved it with a combination of materials development/application, and an engineering breakthrough.

If anybody's interested I can provide links to the SB-13 history.

Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Concepts

".......some day soon we'll be flying airplanes powered by pulsejets."

[Hank]

Hello- Yes, the Horten bros have my vote for one of the pioneering teams of aviation. I've been a fan of the nurflugel since glimpsing the Ho-9 in one of William Green's texts. I'm amazed at the amount of construction that the Hortens managed to accomplish during wartime. Of them all the Uhru constructed by Reimar Horten displayed the greatest ability for unpowered flight.
I understand a Ho-33 (powered variant of the Ho-3) has recently been built. Anyone know anything regarding this?

Hank

[yipster]

http://events.airbus.com/A380/Seeing/indexminisite.aspx but Horten's and Lippisch "nur flugel" designs, ah..!

[dynajetjerry]

The comments about the Horten sailplanes brings to my mind Rudy Kolpitz. He was a test pilot for the Hortens and, therefore, his flying wing experiences led to his being brought to Messerschmitt to help test the Me- 163 rocket fighter.
When asked about the relative efforts required to fly that plane, he explained that he had been able to fly the Me-163 with one hand, throughout its entire speed range. For comparison, he had to use both hands to control an Me-109, flying 200 mph slower! "Pitz" is a very small man, a thin version of Jimmy Doolittle.
He worked at WPAFB for a time after WW II, becoming a U. S. citizen in order to do so.
Jerry

[yipster]

Rudi tells it like it was at: http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_6.asp

[RG Rhodes]

Damn!

Another DC-3 lost forever. In Florida. MSN news.

RG

[RG Rhodes]

Howdy everyone-

Visited the www.xcor.com website yesterday and discovered that they
are seriously considering recreating the Me-163 Komet. Composite
and aluminum, with retractable gear and their own rocket power.

Gad! Would this be Fun or what?

When I call up their website on the search bar, and search their site,
I can't find it, but if you simply type Me-163 onthe search bar, it comes
up.

Check it out!

RG

[steve]

I just stumbled upon a fantastic website that has (among other things) several pages of videos of nearly all the early X planes and notible spacecraft built since the 50's. I highly reccomend that you take a look as you will be certian to find something of interest to you.
http://www.msnusers.com/spacecowboysalo ... media.msnw

Items that interested me include the videos of:
X-1
X-3 (one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built IMHO)
X-24 lifting body
X-15 (check out the one showing the damage resulting from the mach 6.73 flight!!)
X-43

pretty all of the Apollo and saturn V videos are awesome as well!

[hinote]

Visited the www.xcor.com website yesterday and discovered that they
are seriously considering recreating the Me-163 Komet. Composite
and aluminum, with retractable gear and their own rocket power.

Gad! Would this be Fun or what?

Capt. Eric Brown, retired British test pilot, says this is the only flying-wing design he's flown that he felt comfortable in.

He should know--he's flown more flying wings than anyone else out there.

Bill H.
Acoustic Propulsion Concepts

".......some day soon we'll be flying airplanes powered by pulsejets."

[dynajetjerry]

The main reason the Douglas X-3 was disappointing was the woefully inadequate jet engines Douglas was forced to use. But another problem was its very high pitch inertia. This was due to the very high wing loading and the plane's mass being distributed throughout the length of the fuselage. One result was the need to anticipate elevator control input. If the pilot waited until a climb or dive was initiated by outside forces or instabilities, his application of control was usually too late. He had to apply control before its need became apparent.

We flew many Dyna-Jet powered control line models that had the same problem. The model would climb when flying upwind and dive on the opposite side of the circle. These deviations would get worse until the model struck the ground and was destroyed. The cure consisted of applying "up" BEFORE its need became obvious and "down" immediately thereafter. In this manner, flights became more stable. Reducing wing loading also helped.

Jerry

[RG Rhodes]

Thankx, Jerry-

The wimpy engine thrust was pretty well known, but the this is
the first I've heard of the poor pitch response.

A very good read regarding the X-3 is abook entitled
" The Lonely Sky" by William Bridgeman, the primary test pilot
for the X-3 program. It was published in 1955 and may be a bit
difficult to find, but it's a full 300-page book and well written.
I thought the publisher could have picked a better title, but it"s
a good'un nontheless. I found mine at a garage sale for 50
cents(!)

RG

[dynajetjerry]

Hi. Gang,

I suddenly developed an urge to offer another airplane as my favorite: McDonnell's XP-67 fighter, that company's first complete airplane product.

Though exceptionally graceful-looking, the prototype's performance was below expectations so it was not rebuilt after a serious fire. Also, turbo-jets and turbo-props were coming on line so there was much less urgency for development of a piston-engine fighter.

The Continental IV-1430 engines (inverted V,) were intended to be "hyper" in that built-in "octanes" permitted much higher cylinder pressures and, therefore, much greater power output for its size and weight. The XP-67 specs list the engines (2) as developing 1350 HP each but, actually, there were reasons to expect 2000+ HP from mature versions. Their relatively poor output were major reasons the fighter had a less than sterling performance.

I helped the Air Force Museum obtain one about ten years ago and also a new WW I "Hisso" and an Allison V-3450 2-shaft engine for their Fisher XP-75 Eagle. They never formally asknowledged my help or thanked me. Oh well.

Jerry

[RG Rhodes]

The Fisher XP-75 Eagle.

[RG Rhodes]

Jerry-

Been trying to post a pic of the XP-67, but I'm struggling with
it and think there is something wrong at this end. Sorry.

RG

[Hank]

Hello- I haven't looked in on this "Favorite Planes" posting for a while. I just have to digress back to the Me-163 for a moment. Sir, honestly, I cannot imagine Mr. Brown or anyone else being relaxed in the cockpit of that thing. I found the remnants of one outside of Ohrdruf in the Swarztwald.(The fellow got shot attacking a 9th Airforce formation 4/29/45.) The pilots face was imprinted in what was left of the instument panel. No kiddin'? Somebody could be relaxed bottled up with tons of self combusting fuels. Lippisch, the designer of the 163, wanted to change the propulsion to a turbojet. The fight between Messerschmitt and Lippisch over this issue led to Lippisch shuffling off to Austria to work in research.
I was at the Mighty Eighth Airforce Museum outside Savanna, Georgia in 1998 and met people involved in the aircraft, both during and after the war. The museum has a Me-163B-2 on display in unrestored condition.
It sure was a well crafted bit of plywood and linen.