Jet intakes in the wings seem to suggest an explanation, unless my eye deceives me..

You're Correct my Friend. Know the make or common name of the aircraft?

That wouldn't happen to be a Ryan FR-1 Fireball, would it?

Indeed it is Sir!

I had no idea!

Oh, I was thinking something along the lines of the radiators dumping so much heat they actually produced thrust or something. I've heard that the P-51 took advantage of that effect.

Correct. And that was the reason why the P-51 was NOT a plane pilots could safely "Ditch" their planes in a water landing. Most accounts I've read said that pilots would prefer to bail out of the plane if they could because the massive scoop under the wings acted as a water brake and could tear the aircraft apart.

It's written in the operations manual. It says DON'T ditch unless it's the last resort, bail out instead. You have 2-3 seconds to exit the plane once it hits the water. That is if the air intake hitting the water didn't turn you into cockpit pasta on impact. There have been accounts of pilots surviving but they have been placed in the realm of miracle.

This is cool. I've never heard of this plane before.

Well, this certainly is an interesting plane...might have to look into it a bit more.

I must confess that after posting these images, I learned a lot more about the Ryan Fireball than I knew before.

There was a jet-and-prop plane used in actual service...too bad it was such a pain to work with, heh.

Oh gosh yes. The thing was a maintenance nightmare. Then again, the Navy put up with it's complexity because it saved pilot's lives. I think we're facing a similar problem with the V 22 "Osprey." I like the aircraft and it's concept, but boy is it complicated to maintain and has too many frequent breakdowns.

Well, the Osprey has finally started working correctly, after almost two decades. I was referring to the B-36 Peacemaker, equipped with six radial-piston engines and four jets. And each of those radials had 28 cylinders, 56 spark plugs and 100 gallons of lube oil, and had a fun tendency to catch fire, due to carburettor icing. The usual phrase of "six turning, four burning" was often jokingly replaced with "two turning, two burning, two joking, two smoking, and two unaccounted for." That, and it was pushed by a Secretary of Defense who didn't think the US needed an Army or Navy anymore, and so sold off most WWII surplus equipment, rather than put it into storage...just in time for the Korean War. Funny how those things work...

My friend Robert's dad was in the Air Force at the time when the Peacemakers were in use, and yes he told of his days standing on the flight line at start up, with fire extinguisher at the ready. I have seen those huge, four bank, "Corn cob" radial engines at air museums, and I have an idea that the things were maintenance nightmares. I had never heard the "Two turning, two burning, and two joking" line before, but it sure describes the engine performance accurately. Over at the Chino Air Museum there was a restored B-29 fuselage, and the engineering station was like four panels of nothing but gauges. So I can imagine the Peacemaker was far more complex. I even hear that on the Peacemaker, there was space in the wing large enough for a skinny fellow to crawl through, where he could check on the engines in flight.

Good to read they got the "Bugs" out of the Osprey these days. I like the aircraft, and I hope they'll continue to develop and improve it's concept.

It's a sound concept, but just like anything, there needs to be not only trial but a good amount of error with something so complex. Same with the Harrier. I can't imagine how anybody managed to get those things to work, before the recent advances in computer technology.

The look on the pilots face it priceless and i bet they are wondering as well how that is even possible as well but the jet air intakes are something new to see if all you have seen are propeller driven aircraft.

Thanks for your observation. One of the reasons I chose to draw the Fireball's pilot as a Raccoon was because I really wanted to show the expression in his eyes. I figure this scene took place around 1946 or 47 when jet powered aircraft were just coming into use. I remember as a small child in the early 1960s at how the sound of a jet aircraft flying low over houses would have folks running out into their yards.

so... wait. an aeroplane with a single combustion engine and two jet engines in one sinlge airplane? they really were built and operated? I had no idea. very interesting...

poor pilot. the expression on his face clearly states that something is operating despite it shouldn't, and that people are well-advised to call Houston! ^^

the trial-and-error thing reminds me of Airbus, who tested a new autopilot that was supposed to keep the bugger flying and catch the plane before it reaches a point where the air stream would cut off... that was the trial. the error was that they forgot to take into account that the jet engines could take up to 10 seconds to act on the new order and give more thrust. so, they caught on right in time to be smacked into the forest ground the (unmanned) Airbus was flying across...

I remember seeing the Airbus forest "Pancaking" on TV and I think on Youtube too. Actually the Fireball had only one jet engine. I think the Ryan corporation wanted to create a Navy jet fighter but also wanted the reliability of a piston driven plane as well. The early jets, especially the Me 262s were notorious for killing US test pilots who were used to throttling down the engines while landing. If I recall correctly, the Fireball on display at the Chino Air Museum mentioned on the placard in front of the aircraft on display that the plane was developed "In Secret" to test the flight characteristics of the early jet engines. Only recently did I learn that the working piston engine on the FR-1 was intended for "Backup," to be used for take off and landing. Quite an unusual little plane indeed.

yeah, the Me 262 was tricky. if I recall right, the jet engines were prone to blow up if the pilot overdid it with opening the throttle while climbing, and such. I believe the Arado was more reliable, if there could be any real development during the war at all.

a backup engine for starts and landing

I just found out that there is a key combo for sending the reply. wished I knew which one. XD

You're right about the unreliability of the early engines on the Me 262. When I was a member in the Chino IPMS chapter in the early 1990s, there was a flyable Me 262 in the air museum's collection. I was talking with the chief restorer about the plane, and he told me that even if they found one of the original engines from the factory still sealed in it's crate, they wouldn't use it. The darn thing had only a flight life time of about 100 hours, and so instead they refitted the aircraft with the engines from a more modern Lear Jet.

ha! I can imagine. :)

that info I have from a comic book, actaully. back in the 80's comic magazines were popular in germqany, most of which were produced by Marvel or DC. aside superhero stuff they brought a mix of their other comics. a francobelgian magazine sported a jetpilot comic, some pilot in some airforce had to face a ME262 someone used to... do unwanted things with, I don't remember anymore. and when he tried to flee into the clouds he shot the jet engines through and the ME262 drowned in some norwegian lake.

Messerschmitt, Junkers and Arado had quite the innovation going, but it's clear they would have needed far more time to test their jets through. in afterthought it's good they hadn't, because that war would have lasted way longer than it actually did...

a backup engine for starts and landing, how ...paranoid? ^^