Seaplane Jetfighters

Hi,

was that a SARO P.122 ?.

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201280.html
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    351.8 KB · Views: 1,591
Well it is just a model but it does not feature the revised wing, cockpit or rear step that were a feature of the initial version of the P.122. Also this is a report from Farnborough 1946, a year before the SR.A1 flew and a couple of years before the P.122 project.
 
Schneiderman said:
Well it is just a model but it does not feature the revised wing, cockpit or rear step that were a feature of the initial version of the P.122. Also this is a report from Farnborough 1946, a year before the SR.A1 flew and a couple of years before the P.122 project.

OK,and thank you Schneiderman.
 
From; Авиация и Время 2017-02,

a nice pictures to Convair F2Y.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    488.1 KB · Views: 1,056
  • 2.png
    2.png
    514.3 KB · Views: 928
  • 3.png
    3.png
    670.9 KB · Views: 860
  • 4.png
    4.png
    462.9 KB · Views: 791
  • 5.png
    5.png
    734.1 KB · Views: 227
  • 6.png
    6.png
    737.9 KB · Views: 226
  • 7.png
    7.png
    536 KB · Views: 305
The project of the Soviet seaplane jetfighter, late 50s. Speed with the engine AL-9 - up to 1700 km / h. Flight range - 2000-2100 km. Armament - a pair of 23 mm cannons and two air-to-air missiles.

Source: https://afirsov.livejournal.com/397536.html
 

Attachments

  • 530544_original.jpg
    530544_original.jpg
    47.2 KB · Views: 327
  • 531703_original.jpg
    531703_original.jpg
    45.7 KB · Views: 325
  • 531760_original.jpg
    531760_original.jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 336
  • 531370_original.jpg
    531370_original.jpg
    37.7 KB · Views: 369
Oh my God,amazing find YouROKer,

and they were from TsAGI .
 
From Ali Nuove 3/1953,

the Convair Betta.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    600.5 KB · Views: 343
hesham said:
the Douglas Skyrocket model with hydro-ski-equipped and a ski-plane
fighter by Mr. Henry Knowler.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1952/1952%20-%203459.html

From Ailes 4/1952.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    838.1 KB · Views: 268
  • Les_Ailes___journal_hebdomadaire_[...]_bpt6k3200957z_4.jpeg
    Les_Ailes___journal_hebdomadaire_[...]_bpt6k3200957z_4.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 260
About one thing i am sure : the ending of seaplane fighters and jetfighters must be researched in primary role of carriers during and after wwii !
—————————————————————-

Seaplanes were developed primarily to compensate for a shortage of runways. All the concrete runways built during WW2 rendered seaplanes pretty much obsolete after the war.
Also consider that seaplane empty weight is usually double that of landplanes flying the same mission. That huge hull takes a beating landing on any but the calmest water. Water impact forces limit most seaplane operations to calm inland waters.
The best way to limit water impact loads is limiting touch-down speed, but that requires a huge STOL wing and STOL wings are too big for supersonic flight.
 
From Ailes 11/4/1953.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    539.9 KB · Views: 245
  • 2.png
    2.png
    784.8 KB · Views: 231

Attachments

  • SR.A1.jpg
    SR.A1.jpg
    93.7 KB · Views: 205
  • 70916407_136014477745569_7480793332518808811_n.jpg
    70916407_136014477745569_7480793332518808811_n.jpg
    128 KB · Views: 189
  • tumblr_pprkooQL5V1th7tzzo1_640.jpg
    tumblr_pprkooQL5V1th7tzzo1_640.jpg
    33.5 KB · Views: 192
  • tumblr_pprkooQL5V1th7tzzo8_500.jpg
    tumblr_pprkooQL5V1th7tzzo8_500.jpg
    130.8 KB · Views: 245
  • tumblr_p7gdn52jFT1uryk28o8_1280.jpg
    tumblr_p7gdn52jFT1uryk28o8_1280.jpg
    175.6 KB · Views: 258
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    316.6 KB · Views: 197
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 208
From; Авиация и Время 2017-02,

a nice pictures to Convair F2Y.

Did Convair ever solve problems with pounding in large waves?
Which ski configuration worked better: one ski or two?
 
'Sensitivity to sea-state' would seem the critical weakness, conversely a 'displacement' hull shape is ill-suited to high sub-Mach speed, never mind beyond...

{ Warily side-stepping hypersonic 'lifting body' issues, despite some superficial similarities due convergent CFD solutions... ;-) }

IIRC, there are precious-few modern designs, none 'fast', and larger models only used for island hopping, 'water bombing' and coastguard / marine patrol stuff. Is the big Beriev the only sizeable pure-jet ? I don't remember any of the Russian surface-effect Ekranoplan designs suiting 'fighter' applications. Then again, some Ekranoplans surely approached size which could carry 'parasite' V/STOL fighters. Fitting such with a 'ski' against contingencies may appeal, but probably safer and lighter to eject entire cockpit as off-shore survival pod...
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    320.2 KB · Views: 227
  • 2.png
    2.png
    354.8 KB · Views: 214
  • 3.png
    3.png
    121.8 KB · Views: 204
  • 4.png
    4.png
    113.9 KB · Views: 186
  • 5.png
    5.png
    316.4 KB · Views: 178
  • 6.png
    6.png
    284.4 KB · Views: 212
From; Авиация и Время 2017-02,

a nice pictures to Convair F2Y.

Did Convair ever solve problems with pounding in large waves?
Which ski configuration worked better: one ski or two?
They found the single ski was better, as there was less vibration. But it still took a pounding, depending on sea state.
 
Curtiss P-565 Seaplane Night Fighter proposal, I believe for OS-116.
Interestingly, it was designed to operate from water, and also have
a quick change ski package for snow and ice operations.
Here are a few bits 'n pieces from NARA II
 

Attachments

  • P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Color-Cover.jpg
    P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Color-Cover.jpg
    102.1 KB · Views: 185
  • P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Design-Artist-Concept.jpg
    P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Design-Artist-Concept.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 175
  • P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Design-General Arrangement.jpg
    P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Design-General Arrangement.jpg
    63 KB · Views: 201
Curtiss P-565 Seaplane Night Fighter proposal, here is the manufacturing
breakdown for those you, like me, that enjoy such drawings.
 

Attachments

  • Curtiss-P565-23-Assembly-Breakdown-Navy-Night-Fighter.jpg
    Curtiss-P565-23-Assembly-Breakdown-Navy-Night-Fighter.jpg
    139 KB · Views: 196
First image is the proposed armament of the AN/APG-26 Gun Laying Radar with four 20mm cannons with 200 rounds of ammunition each.
The second image shows the skis for snow and ice operation.
Finally the cockpit arrangement.
 

Attachments

  • P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Cockpit-Arrangement.jpg
    P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Cockpit-Arrangement.jpg
    128.3 KB · Views: 159
  • P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Design-Snow-Ice-Provisions.jpg
    P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Design-Snow-Ice-Provisions.jpg
    64.8 KB · Views: 136
  • P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Armament.jpg
    P-565-Z-1-Curtiss-Wright-Seaplane-Night-Fighter-Armament.jpg
    114.1 KB · Views: 151
There was also a Vee-Tail version of the Bureau of Aeronautics' DR 56 NACA Tank Model 248
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930086549_1993086549.pdf

P.S. My mistake the model you are showing is TANK Model 280 NOT Model 248 got sucked in by the similarity in Hull and Wing Configuration between Model 248 & 280
I believe that this model is in the collection of the Patuxent River Naval Air Museum, if not still on display. I took some photos of it (recognizing just how odd of a design it was) when I visited back in 2016 but haven't posted them, knowing nothing of the type until now.
Curious to know more about this BuAer DR 56 design, as BuAer seems to considered a lot of fairly obscure and interesting designs.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6163.jpg
    IMG_6163.jpg
    519.9 KB · Views: 162
  • IMG_6166.jpg
    IMG_6166.jpg
    524.5 KB · Views: 132
  • IMG_6172.jpg
    IMG_6172.jpg
    591.6 KB · Views: 142
When Allies decided to counterattack in the Pacific, with insufficient number of aircraft carriers, they had to face the fact that airborne operations depended on the availability of landing strips and that most of them –along with the islands where others might be built- where in Japanese hands. It proved to be very costly in lives and resources to occupy them.


Circumstances demanded the use of any type of floatplanes and flying boats that the Allied had in great numbers. Main problem was the absence of shore-based floatplane fighters able to protect them and to provide the necessary air support for their amphibious forces.

The main disadvantage came from the way in which the bulk of their floats penalised their performance compared with the conventional Japanese fighters.


Americans performed some testing with a float equipped F4F-3S Wildcat at the beginning of 1943 but they renounced to use it in combat due to its low performances.


The British updated the old idea of a floatplane Spitfire, developed during the Norwegian campaign, and they modified a Mk. IX (MJ892) that during testing proved to have superior maximum speed and manoeuvrability compared to the enemy floatplane fighters Mitsubishi A6M2-N and Kawanishi N1K1, but the whole scheme was abandoned early in 1944.


By 1943 turbojets were available and other manufacturers proposed jet fighters with a low-drag flying boat hull not requiring water clearance for a propeller.

Jet power would be able to provide the Allies with a water-based fighter of superior performance against the Japanese piston-engine types.


The Airspeed firm suggested to the Admiralty the transformation of the radio-controlled flying-boat target aircraft AS-37 into a scaled-up jet fighter, powered by one de Havilland Halford H.1 centrifugal-flow turbojet with 1,225 kgf static thrust in the forward area of the hull with the air intake positioned in the extreme nose.


Technical data

Wingspan: 32.5 ft (9.93 m), length: 30 ft (9.14 m), height: 5.9 ft (1.8 m), wing area: 187 sq. ft (17 sq. m), proposed armament: four 4.5 in (11.5 cm) recoilless cannons

In December 1943 the Saunders-Roe firm presented their SR.44 project to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The original design, with low-set gull-wing configuration and Halford turbojet, was modified to meet the E.6/44 specification and three prototypes, powered by two Metrovick Beryl F2/4 axial-flow turbojets, were ordered in April 1944 under the denomination SR/A-1.


By 1945 the Americans were able to build enough aircraft carriers to support air operations in the Pacific, official interest in the SR/A-1 waned and their development stayed at low priority.

With the end of the war Saunders-Roe concentrating its resources in the development of the SR.45 Princess long range civilian flying boat.

The SR/A-1prototype (TG263) flew on July 16, 1947 but the project was suspended on August 1949 after the cancellation of the Beryl turbojet.


Technical data

Wingspan: 46 ft (14 m), length: 50 ft (15.2 m), height: 16 ft 9 in (5.1 m), wing area: 415 sq. ft (37.3 sq. m), max speed: 512 mph (824 km/h), max weight: 19,033 lb (8,622 kg), ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m), proposed armament: four 20 mm Hispano Mk V cannons with 760 rounds each, power plant: two Metropolitan-Vickers Beryl F.2/4 axial-flow turbojets with 1,463 kgf static thrust.
 

Attachments

  • 187.jpg
    187.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 168
  • 188.jpg
    188.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 156
  • 189.jpg
    189.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 144
  • 190.jpg
    190.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 152
Earlier designs were for a twin seat, radar equipped night fighter, shifting later to the single seat
interceptor, which was ultimately built in the form of the XF2Y Sea Dart.
___________________________________________________________________________

An interesting feature is the nose armament, which consisted of a turret, which
formed the nose cone, probably containing two guns, besides a small radar antenna. Two
additional guns were placed in the wing roots. A spray dam, probably retractable, is fitted
to the bow.

(Cut-away from Treadwell “Strike from beneath the Sea”)
Yes... its been 16 years, but I hadn't seen this.

That turret looks a lot like the one tested in a Grumman F9F-2 Panther:


Grumman F9F Panther  Emerson Turret Page 1.jpg


Grumman F9F Panther  Emerson Turret Page 2.jpg


X-17A Gunsight web.jpg
 
In the late 1940s, Ed Heinemann at the El Segundo Division of Douglas Aircraft Company was contacted by an engineer at the US Office of Naval Research in Washington DC to develop a jet aircraft that could be operated from a submarine. His design team looked at developing a fighter that could utilize the hanger for the Regulus missile in US Navy submarines.

Attached illustration of aircraft design concepts using the Regulus missile hanger by Ed Heinemann. Concept labeled "1" in the drawing is Douglas Model 640.

Drawing by Ed Heinemann of Douglas Model 640.
Makes sense, Regulus, especially Regulus II, was already the size of a small fighter...


Seaplanes were developed primarily to compensate for a shortage of runways. All the concrete runways built during WW2 rendered seaplanes pretty much obsolete after the war.
Also consider that seaplane empty weight is usually double that of landplanes flying the same mission. That huge hull takes a beating landing on any but the calmest water. Water impact forces limit most seaplane operations to calm inland waters.
The best way to limit water impact loads is limiting touch-down speed, but that requires a huge STOL wing and STOL wings are too big for supersonic flight.
I wonder if supercritical wings with high lift devices could give good STOL as well as supersonic performance? Crank the sweep back another 10-15deg to 42-47deg, use drooping ailerons, big leading edge slats, triple flaps...
 

Attachments

  • Convair SKATE 01.jpg
    Convair SKATE 01.jpg
    224.5 KB · Views: 98
  • Convair SKATE 02.jpg
    Convair SKATE 02.jpg
    76 KB · Views: 103
  • Convair SKATE 03.jpg
    Convair SKATE 03.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 102
  • Convair SKATE 3V.jpg
    Convair SKATE 3V.jpg
    72 KB · Views: 101
  • Convair SKATE 07.jpg
    Convair SKATE 07.jpg
    144.9 KB · Views: 97
  • Convair SKATE 06.jpg
    Convair SKATE 06.jpg
    192.1 KB · Views: 92
  • Convair SKATE 05.jpg
    Convair SKATE 05.jpg
    44.6 KB · Views: 86
  • Convair SKATE 04.jpg
    Convair SKATE 04.jpg
    92.8 KB · Views: 92
  • Submarine Tender for Sea Dart .jpg
    Submarine Tender for Sea Dart .jpg
    23.3 KB · Views: 109
From Naval Aviation News 1952.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    958.9 KB · Views: 72
  • 2.png
    2.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 77

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom