Nice to see this aircraft covered! Originally it was to be the Payen-Melot Pa-22/1R Flechair powered by the Melot 1R steam-oil powered ramjet type engine. This aircraft was built and had four wheels, the main landing gear, a tailwheel, and a 4th under the engine as it was so heavy the aircraft "bounced" as Monsieurs Payen and Melot tried to get if off of the ground. It was hoped to enter it into the Coupe Deutsch de la Meurthe air race, but when the aircraft failed to perform, it was re-engined with the conventional propeller piston engine. During this same period, another canard aircraft was built in Italy, only with a pusher propeller, the SAI Ambrossini SS.4, destroyed in a crash in 1939. Germany investigated this concept with the Henschel He.P.75 of 1941. In the United Kingdom this concept was continued with the Miles M.35 Libellula in 1942, then came the American Curtiss XP-55 Ascender of 1943, the Japanese Kyushu J7W1 Shinden in 1945, and the Russian Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8 Utka of the same year. Many nations were curious of this concept.
This plane was really interesting; thanks for shedding light on the subject. I really like how the designer germanised the design by adding a cannon firing through the prop hub... and that's on top of a tandem-engine contra-prop concept. The line on this thing... methinks that the Star Wars designers took license from these plans when creating the prequels. About the only practical use of a tandem engine vs a large powerplant (switching from a radial to keep the frontal aspect small) would be what the Gannet performed as that odd duck during the jet age: the ability to toggle off an engine while cruising to maximize time on target (run on one prop, feather the other; a configuration for a two-engine prop to not suffer asymettric thrust compared to a standard two-nacelle design). As sexy as the concept is, especially in WWII where they were still pushing the limits on props, contra-propeller set-ups were just too complex or too unreliable for front-line duty. The Dornier Pfeil, even had it become popular, would still have been niched into high-altitude bomber-killing (scramble, Intercept, and return) vs kinetic dogfighting against smaller birds. The Luftwaffe front-line props just kept getting simplified as their factories were continuously bombed. Here's the weird part... you'd need to be performing around critical mach numbers against the wing for the benefits of a delta wing to overcome its negatives. There's a good reason why many props today that aren't operative at an extreme envelope don't employ deltas, with some of the faster movers instead adopting a swept wing arrangement.
"germanised the design by adding a cannon firing through the prop hub". Stop being a Wehraboo; The French, Russians and Germans all used this technique.
I always find it amazing how early after the invention of the plane they were already working on transitioning to jets. The first plane flew 118 years ago, and the first jet aircraft only 36 years later.
The problem I see with this configuration is one known as vortex popping. This is what happens when deviances in angle of attack affect the downwash of the canard, which is statically down several degrees, and might normally flow under the wing, can be provoked to flow over the wing affecting both the lift, balance and attitude of the aircraft. This is why todays canard aircraft are dominated by high wing canards. The maingear chosen for the second is of a type used in the Verhees Delta D1 and D2. It is a weight efficient idea perhaps more important in smaller aircraft. That and, second only to the engine the cost of the gear is among the highest price hardware.
It's failure as a fighter would have been for an even simpler fact than that, with the cockpit set that far back there's no chance that the pilot could have pulled off a deflection shot because the target would have disappeared under the nose from where the pilot would have sat.
That may well have a bearing on why the area ration between wings and cannards is so much more marked in all the modern versions (although other factors no doubt impinge)? There does seem to be an alternative solution of mounting the cannards low & the wings high. Unlikely the designers didn't consider that option so presumably other factors make it less efficient or limit some aspects of performance?
@@Farweasel Generally if a canard is inside of 2 chord widths it is in interference of the mainplane flow. The net effect is the mainplane is always operating in its downwash, and therefore needs more angle of attack dialled in to do its job. So just normal operating has it flying uphill all the time. However, if the canard is situated above the mainplane, its downwash can be used to excite the flow over the mainplane, keeping the boundary layer attached. It might be worthwhile, to point out that the canards use in this context isnt about sharing the weight of the aeroplane (and subsequent areas selected are beholding to that), it is for purposes as a control device, although the former in some small way may still occur. This takes it out of the usual regime of canard equipped aircraft as efficient weight carriers, to aircraft not impaired by long take off and landing rolls.
@@marcamant7258 it must have had some lift effect being in the up wash ahead of the main wing. The Wrights did notice the destabilising effect of the canard, so it must have been generating a lifting force.
Man. Just when I think I knew all the obscure WWII airplane projects, this channel constantly proved me wrong. Great find! Also, the PA-122 design looks so sexy and honestly is begging to be fitted with a BMW 003!
I have to say I thought I knew quite a lot about aviation in the 30s to 60s (having had a father and uncle working respectively as engineers for Farman and Bloch/Dassault) but these Payen prototypes are a total surprise!👍
The J7W Shinden also flew with a canard delta on August 3, 1945. But a certain couple of events in the next week after that meant that it never got past the prototype stage.
I built a few Payen style aircraft in X-Plane and they fly surprisingly well. The canard carries more weight than you'd expect. But stalls arent terrible and slow flight is very controllable. I know X-Plane is somewhat limited in it's ability to predict flying characteristics of aircraft that are too far outside the normal layout, but it was interesting to see the performance.
I’ve made a light ~100hp prop plane along these lines in X-plane. It can take off at rather low speed while still getting to a high top speed for the horsepower. But the very high AoA and massive induced drag involved in flying slow are quite awkward.
BTW there were multiple flying prototypes with delta like wing designs in USSR in 20th ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%98%D0%A7-3 and 30th ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%98%D0%A7-7
I don't think this is really delta canard, and calling it a tandem wing might even be a stretch. One might call it a delta tailplane and be more accurate. Look at the position of the front wing in relation to mass of the engine. The center of gravity has to be nearer the front wing than the back, which makes it the front wing the main wing rather than a canard used as a pitch control surface. If anybody has more info on location of center of gravity and center of pressure please share.
You are right, it is obvious that Lippisch was inspired by this design but he cut the plane in two and used the rear portion to build first DM-1 and then P'13 A.
Convair at one time proposed an advanced F-106 variant with canards and bigger nose radar. Another interesting "what if" idea. I remember as a kid decades ago building a model of Sweden's Viggen fighter, first canard plane I was aware of. Seemed really odd!
I'm pretty sad that lots of these experimental WW2-era aircraft were destroyed. Would be really nice if someone tried recreating them for research and historical purposes.
Hi Ed , another what if that kind of links in with the French connection is a post war super sonic project by the Farie aircraft company on Britain which as usual did what they wanted until like the TSR 2 the vandals in Whitehall did there usual number on it . It also had a drop nose like another Anglo French design. Great videos mate , thanks .
I have it in my head that Marcel Dassault said that "There is no reason that the British couldnt have developed the Mirage - except their government." I may have that wrong, but it was something along those lines.
That postwar jet powered jet plane reminds me of the BD5 recreational jet. I also suspect that the delta+forward canard had to wait for "fly by wire" technology to catch up?
I wonder how bad the view out of that cockpit would have been. Fw190s and Corsairs were known to be difficult to operate on the ground, but this certainly raises the bar. Other than that, you have to give the French some credit. Alexander Lippisch was also famous for his delta wings, but these "canards" are something special. There was a late war Japanese design (Shinkanzen ???) that used canards but had a more conventional wing at the back; it was a "pusher" as well.
Are you ever going to do a video about the LACAB GR.8 Doryphore and the Stampe et Vertongen SV 10? Aka what happens when the Belgian Air Force draws up a specification for a plane that can do everything, from multi-purpose bomber, long-range reconnaissance aircraft, and heavy/escort fighter.
To your site, I say "bloody marvellous" where do you find this stuff, ah, no don't tell me, don't want to give others ideas. Also love your presentation, a tad humorous, tongue in cheek, fits you perfectly, very enjoyable.
There are canards and there are canards. The canard on the Payen is quite different in concept to those of a modern fighter like the Rafale or the Gripen. Those are all-moving slabs designed to influence the airflow over the delta and delay stalling, making for higher agility. This is closer in concept to the Viggen, in that it provides a degree of lift in its own right.
I must agree with you on the engine layout, for the cannon to work, the drive would need to be driven by gears ideally. And the cockpit greenhouse looks terribly impractical.
If you look at Thunderbirds and state - of - the - art research of the time, there's overlap in what is portrayed and real projects. But then Anderson always wanted to do real, big budget, live action sci-fi, not puppetry. That was down to cost. Edit: but he still tried to get hard, sci-fi projections in, apart from some fanciful speed figures in UFO, and the whole of Space 1999. You're allowed one preposterous element of course, like the Mysterons in Captain Scarlet. I wish someone would do a good live action version of that without overly modernising it.
@@Dave5843-d9m What would concern me would be with overly fast cutting and over-the top action scenes and mumbled dialogue. Gender or colour of the protagonist I don't care about as long as it's well plotted (just use the original plots) and the action scenes are well done. Mind you, watch something like old Dr. Who or Blake's 7 and the issue is often the underwhelming action scenes.
A 6 cylinder 180hp engine that allowed this thing to go 224mph is pretty damn impressive. Spit took nearly 10x that much power to reach 60% more speed.
That last suggestion, that the Payen may have led to te the design of the Mirage cannot be right, surely. I thought the Mirage delta design was taken from the Fairey Delta which the UK inexplicably sold to the French company .
You.. Love the channel? Already enjoyed the book? Have issues with Patreon censorship? Want to send money to support fascinating content but have nowhere to send it? What next....
Not realy : the Fairey Delta 2 had very specific desing details , the works from Payen was well known in France, and the delta wing was still use on the Nord 1402 Gerfaut turbojet prototype who fly before the delta 2...
Imagine an improved version of the Payen powered by the Argus pulse jet. You'd have a cheap and simple motor. A cannon/machine gun combo in the nose. Fuel tank in front of the pilot. It would probably be a crappy dog fighter, but as a short range interceptor it might have excelled. Since the air frame was captured when France fell, it may have been possible for it to inter service in early 1943. All this is just my imagination trotting along. I can see it knifing through bomber formations with fighter escorts in pursuit.
Please cover the Vampire F.2 / F.30 / FB.31, most definately superior to Meteor F.8 in performance, cheaper with no less firepower, more range and less maintenance. RAAF and French Air Force used it extensively and if RAF got a chance to ditch the Meteors and go with Vampire F.2 development, they would have served against MiG-15s at Korea much better than Meteor F.8s.
I am grateful the Germans had the technical skills to develop the most advanced equipment, the wind tunnel data etc. and the allies had the industrial capacity to defeat them and use their ideas.
There was an faled plane in the 20's or 30's that had a delta wing. It never flew since it had an heavy liquid cooled in line engine. The designer had the idea but not the technology.
The Saab SA37 Viggen had a sort of canard and this was designed starting 1952. I don't think its true canard, as the engine intakes are forward of the canard - but it does look like one!
Blending the cockpit into the tail section looks like it pretty much destroyed rearward visibility. I can't imagine pilots would have liked that much, not to mention that fighter design in WWII evolved in the opposite direction, with various versions of bubble canopies that stressed all-around visibility (presumably because of pilots telling designers in no uncertain terms, "In combat if I'm going to live, I have to see!!")
![An Experimental Soviet Tailless Bomber | Kalinin K-12 [Aircraft Overview #52]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/S64jq0TEWMc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Heinkel's Forgotten and Most Elegant Plane | Heinkel He 70 'Blitz' [Aircraft Overview #46]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5bf3wRceDro/mqdefault.jpg)
thought I'd seen most every WW2 air oddity till finding Ed's channel---now an oddball every day! bravo sir
More flying wing and blended wing body designs please. Love your stuff man.
Nice to see this aircraft covered! Originally it was to be the Payen-Melot Pa-22/1R Flechair powered by the Melot 1R steam-oil powered ramjet type engine. This aircraft was built and had four wheels, the main landing gear, a tailwheel, and a 4th under the engine as it was so heavy the aircraft "bounced" as Monsieurs Payen and Melot tried to get if off of the ground. It was hoped to enter it into the Coupe Deutsch de la Meurthe air race, but when the aircraft failed to perform, it was re-engined with the conventional propeller piston engine.
During this same period, another canard aircraft was built in Italy, only with a pusher propeller, the SAI Ambrossini SS.4, destroyed in a crash in 1939. Germany investigated this concept with the Henschel He.P.75 of 1941. In the United Kingdom this concept was continued with the Miles M.35 Libellula in 1942, then came the American Curtiss XP-55 Ascender of 1943, the Japanese Kyushu J7W1 Shinden in 1945, and the Russian Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8 Utka of the same year. Many nations were curious of this concept.
The interesting and odd subject matter plus the regularity of videos is making this one of the best military aviation channels on UA-cam!
Hey Ed, You're Definitely The King Of The "What Ifs" & The "Never Heard Ofs!" I Subscribe & Love Your Stuff.
;)
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters he's right, you know?
Nice coment kkkk Ed rules
this is classic Blake and Mortimer L'Espadon stuff, awesome!
This plane was really interesting; thanks for shedding light on the subject. I really like how the designer germanised the design by adding a cannon firing through the prop hub... and that's on top of a tandem-engine contra-prop concept. The line on this thing... methinks that the Star Wars designers took license from these plans when creating the prequels.
About the only practical use of a tandem engine vs a large powerplant (switching from a radial to keep the frontal aspect small) would be what the Gannet performed as that odd duck during the jet age: the ability to toggle off an engine while cruising to maximize time on target (run on one prop, feather the other; a configuration for a two-engine prop to not suffer asymettric thrust compared to a standard two-nacelle design). As sexy as the concept is, especially in WWII where they were still pushing the limits on props, contra-propeller set-ups were just too complex or too unreliable for front-line duty. The Dornier Pfeil, even had it become popular, would still have been niched into high-altitude bomber-killing (scramble, Intercept, and return) vs kinetic dogfighting against smaller birds. The Luftwaffe front-line props just kept getting simplified as their factories were continuously bombed.
Here's the weird part... you'd need to be performing around critical mach numbers against the wing for the benefits of a delta wing to overcome its negatives. There's a good reason why many props today that aren't operative at an extreme envelope don't employ deltas, with some of the faster movers instead adopting a swept wing arrangement.
"germanised the design by adding a cannon firing through the prop hub". Stop being a Wehraboo; The French, Russians and Germans all used this technique.
These planes keep getting weirder, do keep it up!
TL;DW? “If you thought a goblin shark was ugly… imagine it with wings”
A flying Goblin Shark?
How cool is that.
Easily outclasses flying Monkeys.
I always find it amazing how early after the invention of the plane they were already working on transitioning to jets.
The first plane flew 118 years ago, and the first jet aircraft only 36 years later.
..world wars helps alot...
Damn. You find some of the most fascinating aircraft.
The problem I see with this configuration is one known as vortex popping. This is what happens when deviances in angle of attack affect the downwash of the canard, which is statically down several degrees, and might normally flow under the wing, can be provoked to flow over the wing affecting both the lift, balance and attitude of the aircraft. This is why todays canard aircraft are dominated by high wing canards. The maingear chosen for the second is of a type used in the Verhees Delta D1 and D2. It is a weight efficient idea perhaps more important in smaller aircraft. That and, second only to the engine the cost of the gear is among the highest price hardware.
It's failure as a fighter would have been for an even simpler fact than that, with the cockpit set that far back there's no chance that the pilot could have pulled off a deflection shot because the target would have disappeared under the nose from where the pilot would have sat.
That may well have a bearing on why the area ration between wings and cannards is so much more marked in all the modern versions (although other factors no doubt impinge)?
There does seem to be an alternative solution of mounting the cannards low & the wings high. Unlikely the designers didn't consider that option so presumably other factors make it less efficient or limit some aspects of performance?
@@Farweasel Generally if a canard is inside of 2 chord widths it is in interference of the mainplane flow. The net effect is the mainplane is always operating in its downwash, and therefore needs more angle of attack dialled in to do its job. So just normal operating has it flying uphill all the time. However, if the canard is situated above the mainplane, its downwash can be used to excite the flow over the mainplane, keeping the boundary layer attached.
It might be worthwhile, to point out that the canards use in this context isnt about sharing the weight of the aeroplane (and subsequent areas selected are beholding to that), it is for purposes as a control device, although the former in some small way may still occur. This takes it out of the usual regime of canard equipped aircraft as efficient weight carriers, to aircraft not impaired by long take off and landing rolls.
You are do right, the Canard configuration goes all the way back to the Wrights.
technically no so sure: the front "wing" has no lift effect.
@@marcamant7258 it must have had some lift effect being in the up wash ahead of the main wing. The Wrights did notice the destabilising effect of the canard, so it must have been generating a lifting force.
Man. Just when I think I knew all the obscure WWII airplane projects, this channel constantly proved me wrong. Great find! Also, the PA-122 design looks so sexy and honestly is begging to be fitted with a BMW 003!
When a Lippisch is fused with a Caudron...
Love the Mirage III (RAAF). I remember seeing them fly as a kid. Very impressive 😁👍🏻
I have to say I thought I knew quite a lot about aviation in the 30s to 60s (having had a father and uncle working respectively as engineers for Farman and Bloch/Dassault) but these Payen prototypes are a total surprise!👍
I really love your coverage of prototype or unusual aircraft I look forward to what other strange and wonderful aircraft you show us
Whoooo! I can't wait for the next video. I did not know deltas were that old
The amount of research that you must be doing is awesome.
Never heard of it, and that is a complement. Well done sir
The fighter version would probably have worked if it had a bubble canopy placed more forward and the engine in the rear.
Loving these French and low country aircraft. They seemed weird, superb and bonkers. Great stuff Ed👍👍
The SAAB 37 Viggen flew in 1967, so it wasn't as long as you'd think before this design was used, though the Viggen was a pioneer.
The J7W Shinden also flew with a canard delta on August 3, 1945. But a certain couple of events in the next week after that meant that it never got past the prototype stage.
This channel keeps getting better.
I built a few Payen style aircraft in X-Plane and they fly surprisingly well. The canard carries more weight than you'd expect. But stalls arent terrible and slow flight is very controllable. I know X-Plane is somewhat limited in it's ability to predict flying characteristics of aircraft that are too far outside the normal layout, but it was interesting to see the performance.
Just when you think that you’ve heard it all, Ed comes up with another WW2 aircraft story that I’d never heard off. This is so interesting.
Now that is an oddball aircraft. Love these vids and please keep them coming!
I’ve made a light ~100hp prop plane along these lines in X-plane. It can take off at rather low speed while still getting to a high top speed for the horsepower. But the very high AoA and massive induced drag involved in flying slow are quite awkward.
i love your obscure aircraft , you rock!!
Appreciate the video Ed. Not sure where you’re finding all these goofy, but cool aircraft but please keep it up
You should have had some gentle Canard Delta Blues playing in the background Ed.
Son, I need you air plane scribbles.
Why, daddy?
I am going to make a plane out of them!
Great video, Ed...👍
Damn, two days, two French-built planes that feel straight out of Crimson Skies lol
BTW there were multiple flying prototypes with delta like wing designs in USSR in 20th ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%98%D0%A7-3 and 30th ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%98%D0%A7-7
Oooooooo!
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Don't worry, you did a good job indeed!
I don't think this is really delta canard, and calling it a tandem wing might even be a stretch. One might call it a delta tailplane and be more accurate. Look at the position of the front wing in relation to mass of the engine. The center of gravity has to be nearer the front wing than the back, which makes it the front wing the main wing rather than a canard used as a pitch control surface. If anybody has more info on location of center of gravity and center of pressure please share.
Keep it up mate! Love your vids! 🙂👍
Very interesting. The cockpit design seemed to have made it into the Lippisch DM-1 - also a delta winged experiment.
You are right, it is obvious that Lippisch was inspired by this design but he cut the plane in two and used the rear portion to build first DM-1 and then P'13 A.
Payen had several concept aircraft based on this layout that would have been amazing to see.
Loving your channel! So many aircraft I’ve never heard of. (Bizarre a/c today.)
Very interesting video. Thanks
another incredible vid!, keep `em coming, thanks!.
So COOL ED Where do you find this stuff!!! I anxiously await each of your posts!!! The best net show of it's type!!! BY A MILE!!!!!!
That cannard configuration looks very similar to the Kyushu J7W Shinden, cool planes none the less
Hats off to you Pedro, I was JUST thinking about that aircraft too🤔🤔🤓
Thank you for posting
Convair at one time proposed an advanced F-106 variant with canards and bigger nose radar. Another interesting "what if" idea. I remember as a kid decades ago building a model of Sweden's Viggen fighter, first canard plane I was aware of. Seemed really odd!
224mph on 180hp? That is pretty good, especially with a fixed gear.
The P-26 went 234 mph on *600* hp so that sounds outstanding.
That's what I was thinking.
Km p/h...not that impresive
What do you mean? He clearly states it's in mph @ 2:31.
It's jaw dropping performance
Payen appears to be inspired by sailboats, which use a jib sail to control air flow over the main sail/airfoil.
So were the Miles Brothers in England with their Libelle tandem wing fighter design
Interesting blend, monoplane, with delta tail
I'm pretty sad that lots of these experimental WW2-era aircraft were destroyed. Would be really nice if someone tried recreating them for research and historical purposes.
very radical indeed even with that tiny engine it could get up over 200 mph
Aero-Bizzaro… ..just when you think you have seen em all …. ! Along come Ed’s channel and Voila’ …. one gets schooled ….Kudos to the Author …!
Hi Ed , another what if that kind of links in with the French connection is a post war super sonic project by the Farie aircraft company on Britain which as usual did what they wanted until like the TSR 2 the vandals in Whitehall did there usual number on it .
It also had a drop nose like another Anglo French design. Great videos mate , thanks .
I have it in my head that Marcel Dassault said that "There is no reason that the British couldnt have developed the Mirage - except their government."
I may have that wrong, but it was something along those lines.
Payen worked on many such designs, for transports, and an ambulance.
You keep making gems of stories, thanks, ^oo^
That postwar jet powered jet plane reminds me of the BD5 recreational jet. I also suspect that the delta+forward canard had to wait for "fly by wire" technology to catch up?
Canards aren’t hard so long as the forward wing stalls first. A delta wing guarantees that because delta’s are VERY hard to stall.
I wonder how bad the view out of that cockpit would have been. Fw190s and Corsairs were known to be difficult to operate on the ground, but this certainly raises the bar.
Other than that, you have to give the French some credit. Alexander Lippisch was also famous for his delta wings, but these "canards" are something special.
There was a late war Japanese design (Shinkanzen ???) that used canards but had a more conventional wing at the back; it was a "pusher" as well.
Are you ever going to do a video about the LACAB GR.8 Doryphore and the Stampe et Vertongen SV 10? Aka what happens when the Belgian Air Force draws up a specification for a plane that can do everything, from multi-purpose bomber, long-range reconnaissance aircraft, and heavy/escort fighter.
When you build an aircraft based on Popular Mechanics cover art.....
P.S. I know all about this, a bloke called Ed Nash filled me in.
You Sir, make very nice and interesting videos...................
To your site, I say "bloody marvellous" where do you find this stuff, ah, no don't tell me, don't want to give others ideas. Also love your presentation, a tad humorous, tongue in cheek, fits you perfectly, very enjoyable.
I think i can't stop watching this channel. Is this good or bad?
Who wants to bet these things were inspiration for the Delta-7 starfighter seen in Star Wars Episode II?
Would the Curtis XP-55 from 1943 count as a canard fighter? If so this would surely help to fill the gap between the PA-22 and the SAAB JA-37?
I'd say so! I should've specified "service fighter" :)
I'm sorry did I misunderstand the pictures I grew up with of Box-Kites ALL of which have a forward controllable wing Surely a canard definition ???
Let's not forget the Saab 37 Viggen in any discussion on fighters utilising canards.
he shows the Viggen ( one of my all time fav designs) at the end
@@mikepette4422 Thanks Mike, that got past me.
does anyone feel the mirage gets overlooked when we think of the cold war jets? It is as much of a stalwart as the phantom.
no I think it gets a lot of press
I assume it could be overlooked in the US but in the Nations that used it, there are of those, it is well known.
There are canards and there are canards. The canard on the Payen is quite different in concept to those of a modern fighter like the Rafale or the Gripen. Those are all-moving slabs designed to influence the airflow over the delta and delay stalling, making for higher agility. This is closer in concept to the Viggen, in that it provides a degree of lift in its own right.
I must agree with you on the engine layout, for the cannon to work, the drive would need to be driven by gears ideally. And the cockpit greenhouse looks terribly impractical.
Isn't there a jet delta by Alexander Lippish?
He tells you it is not.
@@marcamant7258 yes, gliders only but deltas nonetheless
Lippich saw it and used the idea, but the rear part only
That’s actually pretty cool
Sir please do the Port Victoria PV2 or any Port Victoria float plane. Please.
Another interesting one....unfortunatly you are filling up my available brain space. Thanks..I think.
ngl, i've got a huge crush on the Gripen
That's even weirder than the planes on the Thunderbirds tv show
If you look at Thunderbirds and state - of - the - art research of the time, there's overlap in what is portrayed and real projects. But then Anderson always wanted to do real, big budget, live action sci-fi, not puppetry. That was down to cost. Edit: but he still tried to get hard, sci-fi projections in, apart from some fanciful speed figures in UFO, and the whole of Space 1999. You're allowed one preposterous element of course, like the Mysterons in Captain Scarlet. I wish someone would do a good live action version of that without overly modernising it.
@@wbertie2604 Captain Scarlet is best left as it is. Today’s producers would have a black female main character with white male Mysterons.
@@Dave5843-d9m What would concern me would be with overly fast cutting and over-the top action scenes and mumbled dialogue. Gender or colour of the protagonist I don't care about as long as it's well plotted (just use the original plots) and the action scenes are well done. Mind you, watch something like old Dr. Who or Blake's 7 and the issue is often the underwhelming action scenes.
Excellent!
The PA-112 looks very cool, but I reckon the propellers would be way above the center of mass.
A 6 cylinder 180hp engine that allowed this thing to go 224mph is pretty damn impressive. Spit took nearly 10x that much power to reach 60% more speed.
Early Burt Rutan designs here! ;-)
That last suggestion, that the Payen may have led to te the design of the Mirage cannot be right, surely. I thought the Mirage delta design was taken from the Fairey Delta which the UK inexplicably sold to the French company .
You..
Love the channel?
Already enjoyed the book?
Have issues with Patreon censorship?
Want to send money to support fascinating content but have nowhere to send it?
What next....
Wasn't the '50s Fairey 'Delta 2' also an influence on the designers of the Dassault 'Mirage' fighter ?
Not realy : the Fairey Delta 2 had very specific desing details , the works from Payen was well known in France, and the delta wing was still use on the Nord 1402 Gerfaut turbojet prototype who fly before the delta 2...
@@leneanderthalien Bien vu
Imagine an improved version of the Payen powered by the Argus pulse jet. You'd have a cheap and simple motor. A cannon/machine gun combo in the nose. Fuel tank in front of the pilot. It would probably be a crappy dog fighter, but as a short range interceptor it might have excelled. Since the air frame was captured when France fell, it may have been possible for it to inter service in early 1943. All this is just my imagination trotting along. I can see it knifing through bomber formations with fighter escorts in pursuit.
Please cover the Vampire F.2 / F.30 / FB.31, most definately superior to Meteor F.8 in performance, cheaper with no less firepower, more range and less maintenance.
RAAF and French Air Force used it extensively and if RAF got a chance to ditch the Meteors and go with Vampire F.2 development, they would have served against MiG-15s at Korea much better than Meteor F.8s.
Amazing!
Wonderful
Advanced design, I like it and I like my Citroen
I am grateful the Germans had the technical skills to develop the most advanced equipment, the wind tunnel data etc. and the allies had the industrial capacity to defeat them and use their ideas.
There was an faled plane in the 20's or 30's that had a delta wing. It never flew since it had an heavy liquid cooled in line engine. The designer had the idea but not the technology.
The Saab SA37 Viggen had a sort of canard and this was designed starting 1952. I don't think its true canard, as the engine intakes are forward of the canard - but it does look like one!
Presumably a stable centre of gravity design so rather a different kettle of fish from the unstable modern delta canards.
This thing looks like it was designed for use with a rocket motor.
Blending the cockpit into the tail section looks like it pretty much destroyed rearward visibility. I can't imagine pilots would have liked that much, not to mention that fighter design in WWII evolved in the opposite direction, with various versions of bubble canopies that stressed all-around visibility (presumably because of pilots telling designers in no uncertain terms, "In combat if I'm going to live, I have to see!!")
So has anyone tried a model of this in wind tunnel ?
Steffanutti and Stipa Caproni?
" . . . surprisingly the basic idea has been around for quite awhile . . ." yes, like the Wright Flyer in 1903.
that 1 wheel design thing is no more to wheel the moc up model around. The model would obviously get a retractile system
Not swept wings, but full on delta wings and canards in the 1930's wow! Yet French leadership 🤔 to slow to take advantage.