Comments on: Turnabout is fair play

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:38:31 +0000

It’s obviously just me then!

By: Jakob

Jakob — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:23:04 +0000

I always thought the Wellesley had a certain high-aspect-ratio elegance myself…

By: Erik Lund

Erik Lund — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:22:35 +0000

P.B.’s letter raising the PB29 concept is somewhere in the 1939/40 run of Flight. I think.
It’s those kinds of moments that allow him to take the Dumbest Aviation Enthusiast Ever away from A. V. Roe.
And the Wellesley wasn’t ugly. It just had tumours, and not nearly as bad as the Fairey Barracuda, either.

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:20:44 +0000

Thanks for that, Nik. The flight tests of the P.12 showed that it was indeed very nimble, though I doubt the turret gunner’s aim would have been improved by all the ducking and weaving! And if it was going to be used for low-level strafing you’d probably want a bit of armour too …

By: Nik

Nik — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 22:59:26 +0000

IIRC, the DeLanne Configuration had a critical gap between airfoils which gave remarkable lift at low speed and/or low power, was verrrry reluctant to stall, with an extraordinary insensitivity to c/g. Germans were so impressed with DeLanne’s designs that they forced him to continue work on his French prototypes. After he managed to wreck them during air-raid, he barely survived prison…

That modified Lysander was probably the only aircraft of its size that could carry such a turret without the crippling performance issues of eg Defiant and Roc. Um, a Lysander was nimble enough: Trying to nail one equipped with DeLanne wings and that monster tail-turret while it danced ‘on the deck’ would have driven Luftwaffe pilots to drink…
—

One of the great aeronautical ‘WhatIfs’ must be the wondrous French designs that came just too late: Payen’s nimble, dart-like fighters protecting robust ground-attack DeLannes could, perhaps, have turned the Blitzkrieg’s armoured thrusts into smoking ruin…
—

FWIW, the original Connie had a single tail, had dire handling due to (IIRC) masking by fuselage during turns. The inspired re-design made it a Classic.

And, um, few aircraft use DeLanne system because the spacing is very tricky to get right, modern wing designs are better and commercial aircraft can unfold all those slots, flaps etc, which have a similar effect…

By: Brett Holman

Brett Holman — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:21:10 +0000

Some really good (as in bad) suggestions here! I’m particularly struck by the Seamews, the Gannet, and the Blackburd (it’s like the designer drew a box for the fuselage and forgot to smooth around the edges) but the one which I found the most offensive was the SB.3: http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/farmer/120/sb3.html That’s just wrong.

I’m surprised there’s no unlove for the Vickers Wellesley, though!

Erik:

Was P-B really still going on about that in 1940? (Agreed, it’s a monstrosity.) I thought he was into slip-wings by then …

By: Ricardo Reis

Ricardo Reis — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:26:35 +0000

The Boeing Clipper started with just one fin but lateral control needs increased it to two and the three. And don’t forget the most beautiful airliner ever, the Connie. I have read about it being for entering the hangars at the time (so you could keep it low) but I’ve also read someone saying “Bah, schmakus” about that explanation. Anyone with more info on it?

By: Christine Keeler

Christine Keeler — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:20:26 +0000

Thanks for that Erik. That would also explain the triple plane on the Constellation, which as I understand was designed late ’30s early 40s.

God, what a bunch of nerds.

By: Asher Miller

Asher Miller — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:41:23 +0000

I’ve always been a fan of the Brewster Buffalo. It’s not the fugliest machine in the world, but I love its squat, overfed proportions.

Ooh–how about the guppies? They’re postwar, but they’re frightful.

By: Erik Lund

Erik Lund — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:22:18 +0000

The twin booms, of the late 30s, anyway, were because of controllability issues. There just wasn’t the equipment to move the tailplane without lag. Not only do we see dual tailplanes all over the place, triple planes show up in 1939 (for example, the Boeing Atlantic Clipper.) The turn towards single tailplanes later in the 40s is one of those unheralded wartime technical developments.
I’m pretty sure that there’s a story behind that Westland weirdness, even if I cannot remember what it is.
And my vote for ugliest British service aeroplane of the interwar goes, like everyone else’s, to the Blackburd.
But for sheer eye-numbing stupid, I vote for our old buddy Pemberton Billing’s P.B. 29, a design concept he was still flogging in 1940.