[Guest]

Good day chaps. It seems that you might want to look at these bloody insane British projects:

http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/modules.php?o...artid=1239

http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/modules.php?o...artid=1293

[KG64_Cnopicilin]

8)

[Oh_Frustration]

Some of those look just about reasonable. And some look just plain stupid! :mrgreen:

[VonWaffen]

Almost Crimson Skies....Nice 8)

[caldrail]

Mind you, the very staid nature of the British establishment meant that many ideas wouldn't even be considered. Martin-Baker built one of the best piston engined fighters ever, the MB5, but it was never going to be put into production because the Ministry of Supply had limited resources (despite our victory and allied assistance, Britain was close to collapse) and Martin-Baker were never seen as anything more than a nuisance.

The Germans were more forward looking and tolerated these odd projects, if not actually support them, but then... It did dissipate some of their research and production potential on diverse projects. Perhaps Britain was being more sensible? They were certainly being more elitist and partisan about whose ideas were considered worthy

[fraidycat]

I likw the Folland, looks like a Bearcat on roids.

[patton521]

Seems that the Brits liked their counter-rotating props.

[Guest]

Very interesting 8)

[caldrail]

Seems that the Brits liked their counter-rotating props.

They liked the idea. It took more efficient advantage of available power and erased gyroscopic forces on takeoff and landing. It wasn't however a lightweight or simple device, and the issues of reliability and maintenance under service conditions was a factor acting against it. Contra-props were, in other words, a technological advance and advantage that needed development before the service use was authorised. In fact, some designs might have been taken more seriously if conventional props had been substituted. Faster development, off the peg parts, and the mechanical skill in the field would have already been present.