"Cé hé sin" (michael-m-mouse)
07/28/2015 at 14:26 • Filed to: Junkers, Ju 287, Planelopnik
1
10|
"Cé hé sin" (michael-m-mouse)
07/28/2015 at 14:26 • Filed to: Junkers, Ju 287, Planelopnik | 1
| 10 |
No obvious car for today so we’re reduced to a historical plane.
Meet the Junkers 287. Yes, the picture is a clue that it was weird. Swept wings are de rigueur nowadays, but not forward swept ones.
The designer, the wonderfully aristocratically named Philipp von Doepp, wanted to increase lift at low speeds and also intended to use the rearward location of the wing spar to provide a large bomb bay forward of it. The plan was to use six jet engines in groups of three under each wing, but the first and only flying prototype was a lash up of bits from a variety of planes including American B24s and using a combination of two underwing and two fuselage mounted engines.
After a series of test flights the design was abandoned only to be taken up again the last few weeks of the war in Europe with grandiose plans for production of 100 per month.
At the end of the war the Soviets seized designer, staff and two prototypes and flew one in 1947 but by then design had moved on and so nothing came of the 287.
There had been a plan to use a Mistel combination, explosive packed 287 as a large missile and a Me262 strapped above to fly it to near its target. Never built but other variants, usually involving the Ju88, were used with limited success.
What appears to be a camera on a tripod just in front of the tail fin is indeed a camera, used for aerodynamic testing involving wooden tufts glued to the plane (seen as spots here) which could be filmed during flight.
Margin Of Error
> Cé hé sin
07/28/2015 at 14:34 |
|
This plane is all wrong, and it only have 2 engines.
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> Cé hé sin
07/28/2015 at 14:35 |
|
I know in the case of the X-29, they depended on the wings being able to flex a great deal to make it practical. I must wonder, then, if the 287 would have been plagued in service with fatigue issues.
|
Cé hé sin
> Margin Of Error
07/28/2015 at 14:42 |
|
I count four. Like I said, one under each wing, one either side of the fuselage (front fuselage, look at the pictures).
|
Cé hé sin
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
07/28/2015 at 14:43 |
|
Who knows? It flew 17 times but metal fatigue wasn’t well understood at the time.
|
Margin Of Error
> Cé hé sin
07/28/2015 at 14:44 |
|
Oh ok, nice plane !
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> Cé hé sin
07/28/2015 at 14:47 |
|
Precisely - one reason I wonder if it would have cropped up. There’s been one more modern plane in operation with a forward sweep, the Hansajet, but it’s a mild sweep and made with some knowledge of fatigue presumably taken into account. The long-term effects of buffeting at the wingtips in a positive feedback mode, let alone the likely results of emergency manuevers, might have wrecked the Junkers in full service.
Jcarr
> Margin Of Error
07/28/2015 at 14:49 |
|
I’m getting a little tired of your 2-engine discrimination! :)
RallyWrench
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
07/28/2015 at 15:24 |
|
I remember learning about the X-29 when I was a kid, and thinking then that it was stupid to make an airplane that was unflyable without computers because I pictured a bunch of Mac II GS’s flying an airplane that looked like something I’d draw on my math homework. I still have the Micro Machines version though.
ttyymmnn
> Cé hé sin
07/28/2015 at 16:41 |
|
And it looks like it needed a RATO pod just to take off. This looks like a Walter HWK or something similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_HW…
The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!)
> Cé hé sin
07/29/2015 at 16:38 |
|
I love how the camera shroud is tapered to cut down on drag.