Another bit of aviation daydreaming. These are some sketches I did recently on break at work for a parasol wing fighter. The parasol wing is a concept that aeronautical engineers explored in the early days of aviation for monoplane designs. The concept was rather in vogue in the 1920's and 30's. The concept was particularly popular in Europe, with Morane-Saulnier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morane-Saulnier in France being one of the champions of the parasol wing.
Engineers in the US. developed aircraft employing the parasol wing, but the concept never seemed to be as fashionable here in the States. Still I imagined this fighter being developed for some US Navy or US Army Air Corp. order. It represents a design period when concepts like enclosed canopies, retractable landing gear, and monoplane airframes are just starting to become accepted. And yet this design still has several old-fashioned ideas about it. It is not monocoque in construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque . The wings and the front part of the fuselage are metal, but the back part of the fuselage and all the control surfaces are doped fabric. Its armament is the same prosaic twin rifle caliber machine guns that had equipped fighter aircraft since 1916. Armor for the pilot, seal-sealing fuel tanks, radios, and improved navigation equipment are concepts that are either uncommon or considered unnecessary at this time.
Engineers in the US. developed aircraft employing the parasol wing, but the concept never seemed to be as fashionable here in the States. Still I imagined this fighter being developed for some US Navy or US Army Air Corp. order. It represents a design period when concepts like enclosed canopies, retractable landing gear, and monoplane airframes are just starting to become accepted. And yet this design still has several old-fashioned ideas about it. It is not monocoque in construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque . The wings and the front part of the fuselage are metal, but the back part of the fuselage and all the control surfaces are doped fabric. Its armament is the same prosaic twin rifle caliber machine guns that had equipped fighter aircraft since 1916. Armor for the pilot, seal-sealing fuel tanks, radios, and improved navigation equipment are concepts that are either uncommon or considered unnecessary at this time.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1200 x 358px
File Size 47.5 kB
Well, that's also true. The interwar period was interesting cause most of the designs were just starting to implement the advances they'd made in the 30's.
And some of the designs from this period are my favorite of all time. I've always been a big fan of the Granville Bros Air Racers (like the R-2, or the model Z).
And some of the designs from this period are my favorite of all time. I've always been a big fan of the Granville Bros Air Racers (like the R-2, or the model Z).
Looks more to me like a cross between a Grumman F3F and the Boeing XP-15/XF5B ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-15 ). It very definitely has the "growing out of biplanes" feel that all of the different design styles of interwar aircraft had. It's perhaps a pity that WWII forced aircraft design the way it did; air racing had engineers trying all sorts of different designs to reach the best performance, then the war drove aircraft design, and after the war, 90% of what you saw in air races were ex-military fighters, because those designs had had so many man-hours poured into making them better than the enemy's fighters that original designs were too expensive to be competitive when you could just buy a surplus P-51 and hot-rod it.
Looks like a nice civilian flyer, but from a military standpoint it seems to be at that awkward spot between fabric biplane and all-metal monoplane. If anything, from what you described of its construction, armament, and other features, this would be the ultimate WWI-style fighter. For WWII, this would be the kind of fighter you'd have because you gutted your defense budget after the first Great War and then everyone else decided that they were going to go and have a second one. Still, a very plausible-looking design.
It strikes me that this could be a losing entry in the US Navy fighter competition that gave us the Brewster Buffalo and Grumman Wildcat (XF4F-2 and subsequent models, not the unbuilt XF4F-1 biplane). For a further development, go with a gull wing like the PZL-11 et al. used (or the upper wing on the proposed fighter derivative of the Beech Modlel 17).
FA+

Comments