Oddball, Experimental, or One-off

[red750]

The SNCASO SO.8000 Narval (English: Narwhal) was a French carrier-based strike fighter designed by Sud-Ouest in the late 1940s. The French Navy (Marine nationale) ordered two prototypes in 1946 and they made their maiden flights three years later. They were plagued by aerodynamic problems and unreliability issues with their piston engines. The aircraft proved to be slow, lacking in lateral and longitudinal stability and unsuitable for carrier operations; it did not enter production.

 

The French Navy ordered two prototype SO.8000 strike fighters on 31 May 1946 to equip its aircraft carriers. If the prototypes were successful, it planned to order five pre-production models and sixty-five production aircraft. Designer Jean Dupuy developed a twin-boom pusher configuration design with a crescent wing and tricycle landing gear. The horizontal stabilizer was connected at the tops of the vertical stabilizers at the ends of the booms to avoid turbulence from the contra-rotating propeller. The pilot was provided with an ejection seat and the aircraft was intended to be fitted with six 20-millimeter (0.8 in) MG 151 autocannon in the nose and to be able to carry 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb) of ordnance under the wings. In the end, only the two prototypes were built.

 

 

[Marty_d]

If they put a jet engine in it and called it a Vampire, it would have worked a lot better...

[red750]

The Douglas Cloudster II was an American prototype five-seat light aircraft of the late 1940s. It was of unusual layout, with two buried piston engines driving a single pusher propeller. Only a single example was built, which flew only twice, as it proved too expensive to be commercially viable.

 

During the early 1940s, Douglas Aircraft Company developed a configuration for high-performance twin-engined aircraft, in which the engines were buried in the fuselage, driving propellers mounted behind a conventional tailplane, in order to reduce drag by eliminating drag inducing objects such as engines from the wing. This layout was first demonstrated in the Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster bomber, which first flew in 1944, showing a 30% reduction in drag compared with a conventional twin-engined layout, while eliminating handling problems due to asymmetric thrust when flying on one engine.

 

The Cloudster II was a low-winged monoplane with a retractable nosewheel undercarriage. The pilot and four passengers sat in an enclosed cabin well ahead of the unswept, laminar flow wing. Two air-cooled piston engines were buried in the rear fuselage, driving a single eight foot diameter twin-bladed propeller, mounted behind the empennage via driveshafts taken from P-39 fighters. Two air intakes forward of the wing directed cooling air to the engines, which then exhausted beneath the fuselage.

 

 

[red750]

The Lockheed Model 34 Big Dipper was an American two-seat monoplane, designed and built by Lockheed at Burbank for research into the company's potential entry into the civil lightplane and military light utility aircraft market. Only one was built, and following its loss in an accident the program was abandoned. The single engine Big Dipper looks remarkably like the two-engined five seat Douglas Cloudster above. 

 

Developed by John Thorp and based on his work on Lockheed's Little Dipper lightplane project, the Lockheed Model 34, named "Big Dipper", was intended as a prototype for a lightplane to sell on the postwar market - Lockheed hoping to sell the aircraft at a price of $1500 - and as a potential 'flying jeep' for the United States Army. It was a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a fixed tricycle landing gear and a conventional empennage; the cabin was enclosed, seating two in side-by-side positions. Unusually the Continental C100 piston engine was fitted in the center fuselage behind the cabin, driving a two-bladed pusher propeller mounted at the rear of the aircraft.

 

Big Dipper.

 

 

Little Dipper

 

[red750]

The Junkers Ju 390 was a German long-range derivative of the Junkers Ju 290 aircraft, intended to be used as a heavy transport aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft and long-range bomber. It was one of the aircraft designs submitted for the abortive Amerikabomber project, along with the Messerschmitt Me 264, the Focke-Wulf Ta 400 and the Heinkel He 277.

 

Two prototypes were created by attaching an extra pair of inner-wing segments onto the wings of Ju 290 airframes and adding new sections to lengthen the fuselages. Only prototype 1 flew.

 

[red750]

The Fokker XA-7 was a prototype attack aircraft ordered in December 1929, and first flown in January 1931 by Fokker and then General Aviation Corporation after it bought Fokker-America in 1930, and entered in a competition held by the United States Army. However, the Curtiss A-8 won the competition, and A-7 development was not continued.

 

The XA-7 was a two-seat low-wing all-metal monoplane design. It featured a thick cantilever wing, tunnel radiator and two closely spaced open cockpits.

 

Despite some innovative features, the XA-7 did not proceed past flight test status. After testing, the sole prototype was scrapped.

 

[red750]

The Honda MH02 was an experimental business jet built by Honda, in cooperation with Mississippi State University, to research engine placement and composite construction. The prototype was completed in 1992, making its first flight on 5 March 1993.

 

The MH02 was never intended for production, but was nonetheless the first all-composite light business jet to fly; by 1996 over 170 test flight hours were accumulated on the airframe. Aside from the already unusual above-the-wing engine mounts, the design features a T-tail and a forward-swept wing. The aircraft was deregistered and exported to Japan in 1998. Only the one unit was produced.

 

General characteristics

Crew: one or two pilots
Capacity: six passengers
Length: 11.25 m (36 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 11.24 m (36 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.18 m (13 ft 9 in)
Max takeoff weight: 3,600 kg (7,937 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D1 turbofan engines, 5.3 kN (1,200 lbf) thrust each
Performance

Maximum speed: 654 km/h (406 mph, 353 kn)

 

[facthunter]

Needs anti dive forks. Forward swept wings. WHY FFS  ? 

[spenaroo]

39 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Needs anti dive forks. Forward swept wings. WHY FFS  ? 

Because its so damn cool.

 

but my guess from wikipedia:

 

Main spar location[edit]

The aft location of the main wing spar would lead to a more efficient interior arrangement with more usable space.

Inward spanwise flow[edit]

Spanwise airflow over a forward-swept wing is the reverse of flow over a conventional swept wing.

Air flowing over any swept wing tends to move spanwise towards the aftmost end of the wing. On a rearward-swept wing this is outwards towards the tip, while on a forward-swept wing it is inwards towards the root. As a result, the dangerous tip stall condition of a rearward-swept design becomes a safer and more controllable root stall on a forward-swept design. This allows full aileron control despite loss of lift, and also means that drag-inducing leading edge slots or other devices are not required. At transonic speeds, shockwaves build up first at the root rather than the tip, again helping ensure effective aileron control.

With the air flowing inwards, wingtip vortices and the accompanying drag are reduced. Instead, the fuselage acts as a very large wing fence and, since wings are generally larger at the root, this raises the maximum lift coefficient allowing a smaller wing. As a result, maneuverability is improved, especially at high angles of attack.

[facthunter]

Considering spanwise flow as able to be treated as a separate  value is BULLSHIT credited to ONE german designer long ago and discredited frequently. Who else does it and HOW do you MAKE if FLOW spanwise? . Reduced sweep back will reduce the M Crit figure. the Fokker fellowship and French Mercure are good examples  of low mach No Cruise capability and reduced range. Dutch roll may be close to non existent though.  Nev

[spenaroo]

which all goes back to my original reason....

 

its so damn cool. never underestimate the rule of cool

Edited March 28 by spenaroo

[facthunter]

My Nickname was "Joe Cool" according to some.  Nev. 

[facthunter]

I've never tried to find out why. I don't think THAT would be that cool..  Nev

[Carbon Canary]

Yet another flying car - now certified and now sold to China.
 

 

[kgwilson]

Currently on show at the Bangkok Motor Show.

[facthunter]

As always though you end up with a plane that doesn't fly well and a car that you hate driving and an empty wallet as  well. and a feeling of What was I thinking. ???. Compromise kills function and style. .  Nev

Edited March 29 by facthunter

[danny_galaga]

The main advantage of a flying car, that I can see is you don't have to pay for a hangar. But you still have to take off from an airfield, even more so because with all that extra weight, drag and complication it's not exactly in the STOL class.

 

So then, extra cost of a flying car versus paying hangar fees. 

 

Obviously a different question if a rotor craft flying car.

Edited March 29 by danny_galaga

[facthunter]

If you want to go somewhere and back at a wide choice of times, and meet a schedule, Fly with an irline Our planes are for fun but you still don't want it to be an unsafe dog. Any flying thing left exposed to traffic, the Weather and Vandals becomes unsafe very fast. . It would be cheaper to buy a good PLANE and a fairly good car. You'd need a long and sealed runway to lift off from with most of those combo's and landing something which has 4 widely spaced wheels is difficult. and impractical. Nev

[Marty_d]

That wing folding mechanism looks complicated and heavy too. 

Cars and planes are different machines for different purposes. 

As Danny mentioned a rotorcraft is a different proposition but will never drive on the road in any case.

[facthunter]

The wash from Helicopters can be very complex and the cabin wants to go the opposite way to the rotor. They were called Crazy Palm  Trees in PNG

[danny_galaga]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

If you want to go somewhere and back at a wide choice of times, and meet a schedule, Fly with an irline Our planes are for fun but you still don't want it to be an unsafe dog. Any flying thing left exposed to traffic, the Weather and Vandals becomes unsafe very fast. . It would be cheaper to buy a good PLANE and a fairly good car. You'd need a long and sealed runway to lift off from with most of those combo's and landing something which has 4 widely spaced wheels is difficult. and impractical. Nev

For a lot of us, a good plane and then with the money left over, a crappy car 😀

[facthunter]

When I was training I spent every cent ? I had on flying. My miserable wages got me about  1 and1/2 Hours in a chipmunk each week.

[kgwilson]

That would cost $5-600.00 today in a 50 year old C172. The median gross salary last year was $65,000 which translates into a monthly net income of $4,344.00 so more than half of your net income would go on flying training every week.

 

In the 70s a fairly modern 172 cost I think $22.00 an hour. I can't remember what my take home pay was but I think it was less than $100.00 a week

[facthunter]

The Chippie was probably only 13 years old.  There were 3 or 4 of them. It was the beginning of the 60's and because of my youth and tertiary education (Teaching) I  got a subsidy as a possible air force trainee/ callup. I paid about 4Pounds  five shilling / HR  subsidised from about 5 pound ten say 20% off. . At the same time I could hire a pretty Clapped out Auster from Illawarra FS for 2 pound ten/ Hr solo at Bankstown. This was abut HALF the Hourly cost.. That PLANE is still Flying. as of about 8 years ago.  The DHC-1 was dual rate. At about 100 Hours TT I got awarded a flight test by DCA examiner, a Commonwealth Gov't  Flying scholarship to CPL Plus Instructor Rating providing a similar discount. where I HAD to make an Undertaking I would apply for a job in the Industry as they reckoned they were short of pilots at the time. In the time It took to finish there were hardly any Jobs available. That's HOW these things go. I just managed a job by a whisker and there were None after that for about 5 years in the airlines.. 

[red750]

The Emsco B-8 was a two-seat, single-engine, low-wing, twin boom experimental aircraft designed by Charles F. Rocheville in 1930 while he was vice president of Emsco Aircraft Corporation, Long Beach, California.

 

Despite its name 'Flying Wing' the aircraft carried a twin-boom empennage with a single vertical fin. The two crew sat in open tandem cockpits in a central nacelle with circular cross-section, initially with a 165 hp (123 kW) Continental A-70 in tractor configuration. The nacelle ended in a jet-engine like 'exhaust' nozzle at its rear, which actually was an intake to a boundary-layer bleed system driven by the engine which blew air through spanwise slots in the rear part of the 'Flying Wing' in an attempt to increase the wing's performance. Another unusual characteristic of the design was its “reversed tricycle landing gear” with two main wheels under the front wing and a single aft wheel under the rear-end of the nacelle.