|
Post by Galvin on Jan 16, 2005 13:25:37 GMT -7
Well, a dirigible was a conventional kind of aircraft in its day so I guess you mean "airplane". ;D
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Jan 17, 2005 16:10:27 GMT -7
#5 -- Handley Page V-1500? 126 foot wingspan....
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jan 17, 2005 17:01:05 GMT -7
Good try, but the really big one is -- of course-- even bigger. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Jan 17, 2005 19:41:51 GMT -7
How about the Kennedy Giant of 1914 at 142' span ? Even with four 200 HP engines it was so underpowered it could do little more than fly a straight line once it got airborne. (I suspect that this was because it was in ground effect and to try and turn it would have stuck a wingtip into the ground.)
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jan 18, 2005 7:04:50 GMT -7
Nope --- Even bigger & uglier.
Any more bites at the weather research plane? You're going to be annoyed that you missed that one.
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Jan 18, 2005 13:22:23 GMT -7
OK, #5 is the Blackburn Universal Freighter/Beverly, which was designed and assembled before the Brabazon, but flew later due to a lack of a suitable airport from which to operate. Wingspan was 162 feet and it does qualify as ugly!! ;D 1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Trempe/2075.htm
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jan 18, 2005 13:37:32 GMT -7
You're getting farther away -- much older, much uglier & not quite as large (but close). If it helps -- thankfully there was only one example built. Despite nearly viceless flying qualities, it was placed in storage shortly after its flight trials -- too underpowered.
OK --- I give up ;D
The Brit monster was the Beardmore Inflexible (don't ya love those Brit names) of 1928. It was a huge (157' span, 75'6" length, 21' height & 37,000 lb) all-metal aeronautical tour-de-force. Designed to explore heavy-lift capability, the airframe components were so big that they had to be transported by barge, rather than road, to its assembly point. Powered by 3 Rolls Royce Condors (650 hp), it flew impeccably well, but lacked the power for long range missions. Rather than re-engineer it for more powerfull engines (in development) it was put in storage. It is reputed to have been so ugly that the king refused to attend the roll-out ceremony of this British wonder-plane.
The weather plane was the Douglas XB-19 of 1941-- a 4-engined heavy bomber prototype that did not go into production. The only example was scrapped in 1947 after serving as a weather research aircraft. I'm truly surprised that you guys missed that one
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Jan 18, 2005 19:30:15 GMT -7
I thought that it would had to have been either the B-15, which was scrapped in 1945 after working as a freighter throughout the war, or the B-19 which served briefly in weather research, as did several other aircraft, but was converted to Allison W-3420s and also redesignated as a cargo aircraft.
These were the only two bombers I knew of that were one offs that survived the war. It was not in being used in the weather research role when it was removed from service, however, so I figured that couldn't have been what you wanted. That and the fact it was scrapped in 1949 and not 1947.
The forward fuselage survived for several years as a real estate office but was also eventually scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jan 19, 2005 7:20:09 GMT -7
You may be right about the scrap-date of the XB-19, but The Encylopedia of Aircraft, Silverdale books (UK) 2004, by Jackson, Bowman & Partridge-- clearly state 1947.
I'll admit that I'm a bit gunshy about your encyclopedic knowledge, but I wonder about the use of the XB-19 as a cargo aircraft -- bombers are generally not well configured for cargo carrying, having limited unencumbered internal volume & few large access doors (if any).
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Jan 19, 2005 11:09:51 GMT -7
Patrick, I don't mean to be nitpicky (well, yes I do... ;D ), but I still think that the Blackburn Freighter was the largest landplane built in Britain up to the Brabazon. It was bigger than the Inflexible, just as ugly, it WAS built (just didn't fly) before the Brabazon, and it did actually see service, soooo....
Let me know where I can collect my prize..... ;D
I give up on the bug juice fueled airplane, though I'll probably slap myself when you reveal the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jan 19, 2005 12:16:29 GMT -7
Jaime, --- that's very nitpicky, but OK -- you win because I originally said "built" not "fly", or "flew" (caught in my own trap). As your prize, I'll tell you that Galvin already got the bug-juicer -- the SR-71. Now go & eat some of those nice desert (or is it dessert) worms.
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Jan 19, 2005 16:20:22 GMT -7
I guess it helps to read the thread, huh?? If the worms you refer to are at the bottom of a bottle of Mezcal, I will take you up on your offer.......!! Care to join me, Dave? ;D ;D Good thread!!
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jan 19, 2005 17:29:49 GMT -7
Hey, I like Tequila as well!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Jan 19, 2005 17:41:31 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Britbrat on Jan 20, 2005 6:09:02 GMT -7
I'm aware of the cargo conversions. They were stop-gap mods and none of them made particularly good freighters -- insufficient internal volume (with the exception of the exceptionally ugly York).
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Jan 20, 2005 14:05:40 GMT -7
The B-24 freighters (C-87 and the C-108, commonly known as the Cee-One-Oh-Boom) were actually fairly successful, due to the fairly large fuselage volume. If I remember correctly, some of the C-87s had cargo doors, or could be unloaded through the bomb bay. The C-108 was a tanker, which had a propensity to explode on occasion, prompting the nickname. Most of these aircraft were employed flying over the Hump in the CBI theatre.
More! More!!
|
|