Comments on: A sister to assist 'er http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-sister-to-assist-er Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Wed, 23 May 2012 10:08:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Airminded · Future schemes of air defence http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/comment-page-1/#comment-163110 Airminded · Future schemes of air defence Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:21:00 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/#comment-163110 [...] latter to save fuel and extend its range: There is now nothing to prevent a large boat or seaplane carrying one or two fast interceptor fighters far out to sea, the latter to save their fuel until they take off on their own to attack any [...] [...] latter to save fuel and extend its range: There is now nothing to prevent a large boat or seaplane carrying one or two fast interceptor fighters far out to sea, the latter to save their fuel until they take off on their own to attack any [...]

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/comment-page-1/#comment-127571 Brett Holman Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:10:20 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/#comment-127571 Thanks, Les. The patent applications can be seen online: <a href="http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_gb&FT=D&date=19350611&CC=GB&NR=429948A&KC=A" rel="nofollow">34787/33</a>, <a href="http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_gb&FT=D&date=19350611&CC=GB&NR=430068A&KC=A" rel="nofollow">28033/34</a> and <a href="http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_gb&FT=D&date=19350611&CC=GB&NR=430071A&KC=A" rel="nofollow">33023/34</a> (though only the first page of the PDF version seems to show up). It looks to me like North did consider the aerodynamic characteristics of the two aircraft as a whole, and maximised the characteristics of each for their particular purpose. So it does seem like P-B was not the first to have this idea. I wonder if he knew of North's patent? As an inventor it would have been his business to keep up with new patents, and he was just getting back into aeronautics at this time (1935). So he probably ought to have, but doesn't seem to have mentioned it. Thanks, Les. The patent applications can be seen online: 34787/33, 28033/34 and 33023/34 (though only the first page of the PDF version seems to show up). It looks to me like North did consider the aerodynamic characteristics of the two aircraft as a whole, and maximised the characteristics of each for their particular purpose. So it does seem like P-B was not the first to have this idea. I wonder if he knew of North's patent? As an inventor it would have been his business to keep up with new patents, and he was just getting back into aeronautics at this time (1935). So he probably ought to have, but doesn't seem to have mentioned it.

]]> By: Les Whitehouse http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/comment-page-1/#comment-127043 Les Whitehouse Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:33:17 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/#comment-127043 The idea of a heavily loaded bomber or passenger aircraft getting off the ground with a lighter upper component which then detached (or vice versa) was not new. It was patented by J. D. North of Boulton Paul Aircraft Ltd around the same time that Mayo patented his first ideas for the opposite, a large aircraft getting a smaller on into the air. North GB Pats Applications 34787/33, 28033/34 and 33023/34. Both Dornier and Junkers proposed much the same earlier in the 1920's, while wartime experiments proposed aircraft such as Fulmar above Whitley and Hurricane above B-24 for convoy protection. The idea of a heavily loaded bomber or passenger aircraft getting off the ground with a lighter upper component which then detached (or vice versa) was not new.
It was patented by J. D. North of Boulton Paul Aircraft Ltd around the same time that Mayo patented his first ideas for the opposite, a large aircraft getting a smaller on into the air. North GB Pats Applications 34787/33, 28033/34 and 33023/34. Both Dornier and Junkers proposed much the same earlier in the 1920's, while wartime experiments proposed aircraft such as Fulmar above Whitley and Hurricane above B-24 for convoy protection.

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/comment-page-1/#comment-46837 Brett Holman Wed, 18 Apr 2007 04:22:45 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/#comment-46837 Ah yes, <a href="http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/mistral.html" rel="nofollow">Mistel</a> -- good call! It's pretty close to a slip-wing in that it would be a biplane in aerodynamic terms, and the payload aircraft is slung underneath, not on top. I guess the main difference is in purpose -- the point of the pairing is not to boost the performance of one of the components but to act as a guidance/delivery system for a very big bomb. There's a list of parasite aircraft concepts at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_aircraft" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> and another at <a href="http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/n_o_d/weird_05.htm" rel="nofollow">Nest of Dragons</a>. Ah yes, Mistel -- good call! It's pretty close to a slip-wing in that it would be a biplane in aerodynamic terms, and the payload aircraft is slung underneath, not on top. I guess the main difference is in purpose -- the point of the pairing is not to boost the performance of one of the components but to act as a guidance/delivery system for a very big bomb.

There's a list of parasite aircraft concepts at Wikipedia and another at Nest of Dragons.

]]> By: Paul Gilster http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/comment-page-1/#comment-46781 Paul Gilster Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:48:02 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/04/18/a-sister-to-assist-er/#comment-46781 Brett, not the same concept, I realize, but didn't Focke-Wulf do some experiments with FW-190s and JU-88's in which the fighter was mounted above the bomber, the latter used as an unmanned flying bomb? I'm unaware, though, of any German efforts toward the slip-wing concepts the British were interested in. The Pemberton-Billing article was a real find! Brett, not the same concept, I realize, but didn't Focke-Wulf do some experiments with FW-190s and JU-88's in which the fighter was mounted above the bomber, the latter used as an unmanned flying bomb? I'm unaware, though, of any German efforts toward the slip-wing concepts the British were interested in. The Pemberton-Billing article was a real find!

]]>