Canard Combat Aircraft Of World War II

[MAULET]

http://www.vectorsite.net/avcanfit.html

:applause::applause::applause:

[Rocktser2]

Canard aircraft......................."What If???" ..... alot of theories

I think they are amazing ....................but I always wondered ............

How they would take a few .50cal hits........................

If you lost a canard................or some percentage of the carnard lift surface......................would the pilot loose what percent of control.......

I invision.............a little carnard shot off..............and cork screw..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfZbvPRuShY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5lp8ORim-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpmU0GBUo4

[gedm]

Some examples from my box..

[MAULET]

gedm... Where did you get that henschel p.75 for cfs2...? I love the canard planes...
thanks in advance
Jose

[gedm]

Jose, It's a FS2002 model by Steve Robinson. I believe I found it at Flightsim and converted it to cfs2 a while ago.

And your quite welcome! :ernae:

Ed

[Rocktser2]

I was looking for canard aircraft on youtube and came across this 1936 footage............

Looks like the american copied this Sergo for the Curtiss ascender....??

Although, I think the ascender was much stiffer............the Sergo looks rather delicate.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6FeC5KiHxM

[bearcat241]

How they would take a few .50cal hits...If you lost a canard...or some percentage of the carnard lift surface...would the pilot loose what percent of control...I invision a little carnard shot off and cork screw

No different from having an elevator shot away from a bandit chewing your six...actually more secure than elevators located at the rear for that reason alone. A canard is nothing more than a forward-located elevator assembly, fulfilling the same function.

[steve1956]

I'm admittedly no engineer, but I have some significant doubts as to whether any such configuration(a canard) could have been successful in WW2. That might seem to be a foolish statement, given the Rutan designs, in particular, but I have reasons for saying that.

The Ambrosini company in Italy built a prototype canard fighter which seemed promising at one point, but which was not ordered into production because of Italy's war situation at that time.

The U.S.Army Materiel Command released a specification for a fighter which was specifically to be of "unconventional" layout and three companies responded with prototypes, Curtis(XP-55), Vultee(later Convair)(XP-54) and Northrop(XP-56). As I recall, the manufacturers all initially projected a maximum speed of about 500 mph for each of these woebegone "tin canaries", but none of them could measure up to the Mustangs, Lightnings and Thunderbolts which were flying as prototypes or in service by the time that these new types first flew.

The Northrop XP-56 was almost unflyable and a crash killed one of Northrop's test pilots.

The XP-55 was a canard and it wasn't much better in handling characteristics, either.

The Vultee XP-54 was more promising and handled reasonably well, but the engine(a Continental XH-2470) was never accepted for production. I think that the XP-56 had similar problems and the R-2800 actually installed in each of two prototypes was a crude "lashup", forced on Northrop when Pratt and Whitney cancelled a proposed engine type.

After some flight testing of a scaled-down version, Kyushu Aircraft in Japan(a.k.a., Watanabe Aircraft) came up with the J7W1, a single prototype of which flew in its final configuration once or twice in August, 1945. These flights seemed to be promising, but they were, of course, too few and too short for any definitive conclusions.

It seems to me that too little was known about drag, stability and control in the 1940s for these new designs to work.

The conventional, tractor layout of a P-51, Spitfire or Bf-109 had the advantage of being a "known quantity" at that time. There was consequently "less to go wrong" with a more conventional design using this layout.

By the 1970s and 1980s, there was a lot more data and experience in the above areas(drag, stability and control). Computers could also be used to evaluate designs before they flew(and had the potential for killing test pilots), although I don't know whether Burt Rutan used these these types of tools to evaluate his designs before they flew in the 1970s and 1980s.

Finally, electronic "fly-by-wire" control systems can now improve the stability and handling of designs which are aerodynamically unstable, something that would have been difficult to imagine in the 1940s. I gather that the F-16 "Fighting Falcon" and the B-2 "Spirit" use this approach, along with a number of recent designs.

[Rocktser2]

After posting the ".....Sergio Stefanutti SS2 pusher canard 1936..." youtube above.............. I was interested in the location of the film.

From some assumptions, I agree that it would have been a experimental test flight at the newly created....Guidonia città aeronautica

The aviation town "of Guidonia, was inaugurated with ceremony on April 27 1935. It was the "Cape Canaveral" of the 1930's.

Located just outside Roma........just north of Tivoli

Guidonia included facilities of Management Studies and Experiences, equipped for the tests and studies on materials, the Centro Sperimentale per-flight tests of prototypes and equipment carried by aircraft, the Aeronautical Plant Construction -- equipped to manufacture and processing of all types of aircraft - and finally, the residential accommodation for staff.

[Allen]

The XP-54 is not that unusual. Take a P-38 remover one engine and take the other and put behind the pilot and you got the XP-54.

Flying Wings need Fly-By-Wire to make them a combat aircraft. Wings are hazardous with out it like the XP-56 was.

Flying Wings haven't made the jump in to Modern aircraft out side of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. In a twist of faith the B-2 and it WWII Era counterparts YB-45 and YB-49 from 1946-1947 all built by Northrop, have the same exact wingspan: 172.0 ft (52.40 m).

XP-55 is unusual there was no aircraft canard in combat. However the Wright Flyer itself was a canard. The XP-55 needed more time to work out as there was not a canard plane in service by any one since WWI. An face it even conventional fighters were inferior with the XP-55 by 1944. As the jet was here to say.

Canard aircraft have made the jump to fighters. Seen a Bomber prototypes. and Experimental Aircraft. Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, North American XB-70, Grumman X-29a, Sukhoi Su-47 and Tupolev Tu-144 have canards.

[Rocktser2]

For those interested, here is a much clearer shot of the city..........

The Photo shoot was in front of the building and gates in the upper right corner of the photo............

[Cowboy1968]

where did you find the Japanese conard at......the one flying with the P-55

[bearcat241]

SimV....

CFS2 Ryushu Shinden J7W1 Ryushu Shinden J7W1 (http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/syb2.cgi?section=cfs&file=shin_cfs.zip). Prototype which flew in August 1945. A very promising design, coming too late to see action. seized intact after the war, it was flown to the states, where it still stands at the National Air and Space Museum. Build with FSDS 1.5 b by Christophe Rosenmann. Original textures, moving parts and high details. 1.8MB

[Cowboy1968]

Thanks Bearcat

[Rocktser2]

I like the idea of pusher prop...............

I like the Dornier 335, Saab J21, and the above mentioned aircraft.

I especially like the Dornier 335 "push me, pull you" config............also because it could lay a big goose egg...........

Autonomously or remote UAV's seem to use this technology............

However, it stills seem this may have been a problem for attack or piloted armed aircraft ..........and here is some further ideas......

Disadvantages

The pusher configuration can endanger the aircraft's occupants in a crash or crash-landing. If the engine is placed behind the cabin, it may drive forward under its own momentum during a crash, entering the cabin and injuring the occupants; however there is no case where this has been reported to have occurred (in the US and UK accident records). Conversely, if the engine is placed in front of the cabin, it might act as a battering ram and plow through obstacles in the airplane's path, providing an additional measure of safety.

Crew members may strike the propeller while attempting to bail out of a single-engined airplane with a pusher prop. This potentially gruesome scenario helps to explain why pusher props have rarely been used on post-WWI fighters despite the theoretical increase in maneuverability.

A less dire but more practical concern is foreign object damage. The pusher configuration generally places the propeller(s) aft of the main landing gear, but often placed above the wing. Rocks, dirt or other objects on the ground kicked up by the wheels can find their way into the prop, causing damage or accelerated wear to the blades. As a result, pusher aircraft such as the carnard homebuilts are not usually operated from unimproved runways. Also, a few centreline pusher designs (such as the Ibis canard aircraft (http://ibis.experimentals.de/) or the Rutan Long-EZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Long-EZ) pictured above) place the propeller arc very close to the ground while flying nose-high during takeoff or landing, making the prop more likely to strike vegetation when the airplane operates from a turf airstrip.

When an airplane flies in icing conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icing_conditions), a layer of ice can accumulate on the wings. If an airplane with wing-mounted pusher engines experiences wing icing and subsequently flies into warmer air, the pusher props may ingest pieces of ice as they shed, posing a hazard to the propeller blades and other parts of the airframe that can be struck by chunks of ice flung by the props.

The propeller increases airflow around an air-cooled engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-cooled_engine) in the tractor configuration, but does not provide this same benefit to an engine mounted in the pusher configuration. Some aviation engines experience cooling problems when used as pushers. Likewise, the pusher configuration can exacerbate carburettor icing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carburetor_ice). Some air-cooled aviation engines depend on air heated by the cylinders to warm the carburettor(s) and discourage icing; the pusher configuration can reduce the flow of warm air, facilitating the formation of ice.

Propeller noise often increases because the engine exhaust flows through the props. This effect is particularly pronounced when using turboprop engines due to the large volume of exhaust they produce. Aviation enthusiasts can often hear a Piaggio P180 Avanti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P180_Avanti) approach due to the loud high-pitched wail produced by the engine exhaust blowing through the props.

Vibration can be induced by the propeller passing through the wing downwash, causing it to move asymmetrically through air of differing energies and directions.

Problems may emerge when using wing flaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_(aircraft)) on a pusher airplane. First, the absence of prop-wash over the wings can slow the airflow across the flaps, making them less effective. Second, wing-mounted pusher engines block the installation of flaps along portions of the trailing edges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailing_edge) of the wings, reducing the total available flap area.

Placement of the propeller in front of the tail (as referenced in Advantages) can have a negative side effect: strong pitch and yaw changes may occur as the engine's power setting changes and the airflow over the tail correspondingly speeds up or slows down. Aggressive pilot corrections may be required to maintain the desired flight path after changing the power setting

[Rocktser2]

I've been wanting to try out the Simtech Dornier 335.

It is now freeware..................with a CFS2 conversion and weapons......I got mine at simviation...........but it is probably in SOH addons.

Be prepared for a large download.

I also like the repaint by Michael Flahault which I picked up a avsim.com.

I felt this was in the vain of this thread ........and the "What if" pusher end of WWII aircraft.

Most of you have "been there" and "done that" ........but for some of the newly acquainted...........or just lost that thread......

[Rocktser2]

It is redundant.............but I can't resist.

One of the most recent applications of the development of the pusher puller config and canard like aircraft .......................Cessna Skymaster

Here is one of the few I found with a CFS2 ......and yes........olive drab camo...........yes.

Loaded even................with rockets............

However, I have spoken with a Skymaster pilot and commented how I thought how safe such a config must be and he responded with something similar to this..........

The rear engine tends to overheat and can quit while taxiing on very hot days. This led to some accidents when pilots, unaware of the shutdown, attempted take-off on the nose engine alone even though the single-engine take-off roll exceeded the runway length. The FAA prohibits single engine take-offs and requires the installation of a placard that says; "DO NOT INITIATE SINGLE ENGINE TAKEOFF".

He seemed to feel that the rear ........unseen engine can be a problem if you assume it is to be relied on if the front "puller" enginer quits. I guess many pilots of the skymaster have flown into a tight situation and assumed they still had two engines........

[Rocktser2]

I am finding this interesting Time Travel............................

No intention of political, or religious disrespect of the region....................

But, here we have a chance ..........as with CFS2 to travel back and forth.......be it good, bad this happened in the geographic region under turbulent times..........and aviation history still echo's in the hills

Here is some more pics of now, then, and computer animations of Canard pusher tech being advanced........

Ok.............I'll stop the poetic mush

[Rocktser2]

More footage.................kyushu J7W "shiden"

Japan .....mid 1945, this test run prop hit ground..............

Not sure of location..........Mushiroda airport Hukuoka-city Hukuoka (fukuoka)

Footage poor quality .........I can't get a good geographic topographic shot for google earth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJs1O2HSosE

[Rocktser2]

Xp-55 footage.........................

The first XP-55 (42-78845) was completed on July 13, 1943. It had essentially the same aerodynamic configuration as did the final CW-24B. It made its first test flight on July 19, 1943 from the Army's Scott Field near the Curtiss-Wright St Louis plant

footage says was being shot at Wright field Ohio ??? USA

Three where made?? two crashed................Jet age and poor performance killed the
project.

No topography on footage to pick out for location analysis ........but I believe the commentator.............Wright Field Ohio 1943

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MEmHDvK9Sk

[Allen]

I bet it had the same problem as the P-39. Flat stalls. With the Engine in the back like that must have made it tail heavy.

[Rocktser2]

From what I read................yes they were testing stall characteristics of the XP-55

In both crashes....the test pilot was able to bail.............

From the photo of the crash site.................the XP-55 looks like the prototype for the Vought V-173 flying pancake....................

So, yes I agree.............it must have been a flat spin when it hit the ground...........or pancaked.......