Login | Register
The Engineer's Place for News and Discussion®


OH CR4P!

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made, in a very narrow field." -Niels Bohr

These words frame the OH CR4P! blog, a place which encourages engineers to discuss, reminisce, and learn about mistakes, failures and mishaps made by those who have become "experts" the hard way.

Previous in Blog: The Problem of ESD   Next in Blog: Fireworks - Accidents and Safety
Close

Comments Format:






Close

Subscribe to Discussion:

CR4 allows you to "subscribe" to a discussion
so that you can be notified of new comments to
the discussion via email.

Close

Rating Vote:







7 comments

Failed Military Designs - Aircraft

Posted June 27, 2012 12:00 PM by cheme_wordsmithy

Scientific and engineering progress sometimes seems limited only by time, money, and motivation. Let's face it; if enough people want it done we can build something as enormous and expensive as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which spans through 27 km of tunnels and cost around $4.4 billion. Fun stuff.

(The Higg's Machine. Credit: American Physical Society -->)

Of course, if we're talking money, few organizations have more at their fingertips than our nations' militaries. And this abundance of resources, coupled with patriotic and wartime motivations, often amounts to an overabundance of enterprise and invention (i.e. military + money + zeal = big and expensive guns). Luckily for us, we can enjoy learning about most epic of undertakings in military engineering, even if they were flat-out failures.

In this edition, we look at three "visionary" mid-1900's aircraft designs that, simply put, didn't work.

#1 - The Kalinin K7

The Kalinin K-7 was a Russian designed experimental heavy bomber built in the early 1930s under the principle of "bigger is better". With wings spanning 132.5 meters (a 747 is ~68.5m), this "flying fortress" was one of the largest (if not the largest) planes to ever leave the ground. It used a total of 20 engines which powered over 14 propellers. Inside the wings of the plane was enough room to seat 120 passengers and a crew of 11. It featured as many as 12 gunner positions and could carry up to 16 tons of bombs, 112 fully equipped paratroopers, or 8.5 tons of parachutable supplies depending on the range of travel required.

(Credit: Gizmodo -->)

In its test flights, the K-7 reached a top speed of 140 mph and an elevation of 13,000 ft. Unfortunately, a crash in 1933 during one of its test flights killed 15 people as well as the plane's chances of ever reaching completion. The crash was investigated by a committee of aviation experts, and it was concluded that the aircraft failed due to surface vibrational issues due to improper weight balancing.

(Credit: Gizmag)

For more reading:

Pilotfriend

Fiddler's Green

Gizmodo

Gizmag

#2 - The XF-85 Goblin

Alongside one of the biggest planes to ever grace the skies, let's look at one of the smallest. The XF-85 Goblin was a "parasite" fighter designed by the US in 1948 to protect bombers that had to venture beyond the range of their escorts. With only a 14'10" length and 21' wingspan, it was made to be transported and released from the B-36 bomber through its payload doors; after eliminating the threat with its four .50 caliber machine guns, it would then reattach to a trapeze connection, fold its wings, and be lifted back into the bomb bay. It had no landing gear, save for a steel skid and some small wheel runners for emergencies.

(Credit: U.S. Air Force -->)

Parasite fighters had been used in other forms, such as on dirigible airships (bringing to mind the airship escape scene from Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade, with Dr. Jones' brilliant aerial defense). However, none had ever been launched in this unusual fashion. A B-29 superfortress (shown right) was used for test launches, since a B-36 prototype did not exist. Although the Goblin flew and handled well, the turbulence around the "mothership" made it incredibly hard to recover using the trapeze system in place. Eventually the project was scrapped in favor of a more promising solution to bomber escorting: aerial refueling.

For more reading:

Boeing

Military Heat

National Museum of the US Air Force

#3 Focke Wulf Triebflugel

Perhaps one of the most creative and ridiculous aircraft designs was the Focke Wulf Triebflugel. It was based off the principle of the helicopter, in that it used three large spinning rotors. Beyond this, the Focke-Wulf is very much its own creation. The rotors were designed to spin around the fuselage, and were powered by small jets on the tips which would be jumpstarted by rockets. Using ramjets made it possible to reach altitudes of 59,000 ft. It also could use a variety of cheap fuels, which would be important for expanding the costly German war machine.

(Credit: Fiddler's Green -->)

This 30' rotating wing fighter was devised in 1942 as a convenient point defense fighter that needed only a small area for takeoff. Unfortunately, designers failed to think about the practicality of landing such a machine. The spinning rotors and jet exhaust made rear visibility nearly impossible, which was essential for the vertical/backwards landing it was designed for. Ejection of the pilot from the plane was also problematic for obvious reasons. The project was terminated in 1944, mostly because it had been in the development stage for far too long.

(Credit: greyfalcon.us)

For more reading:

GreyFalcon

Fiddler's Green

Rocket Dungeon

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Guru
Engineering Fields - Optical Engineering - Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - Member

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Trantor
Posts: 3024
Good Answers: 307
#1

Re: Failred Military Designs - Aircraft

06/27/2012 3:09 PM

"Failred"?

Failed?

__________________
"...any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book." - Mark Twain
Reply
Power-User
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - Technical Writer

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 189
#2
In reply to #1

Re: Failred Military Designs - Aircraft

06/27/2012 3:20 PM

Yep. A fail on my part. Thanks for the catch.

__________________
“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is really a large matter — it’s the difference between a lightning bug and the lightning.” — Mark Twain
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Power-User

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 260
Good Answers: 7
#3

Re: Failed Military Designs - Aircraft

06/28/2012 9:34 AM

The Osprey will be added to this list in time.

Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 456
Good Answers: 23
#4

Re: Failed Military Designs - Aircraft

06/28/2012 11:46 AM

The heavy artillery on the K7 marks it as a hoax.

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 7066
Good Answers: 470
#6
In reply to #4

Re: Failed Military Designs - Aircraft

06/29/2012 2:22 PM

The image with the artillery was a doctored propaganda image, but the Kalinin K7 was not a hoax. I vaguely remember reading that the artillery was a mock up addition to a static display to impress the visiting diplomats.

__________________
"A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering." Freeman Dyson
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: California
Posts: 179
Good Answers: 10
#5

Re: Failed Military Designs - Aircraft

06/28/2012 12:03 PM

When I was a fifteen year old, my father told me that no one would ever corner the market on stupidity. This is only a few of the monstrous mistakes made by a few engineers.

I think my father was right.

______________________________________________________________________

Satisfaction is the enemy of improvement

__________________
A hand without an arm is a useless tool
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 141
Good Answers: 15
#7

Re: Failed Military Designs - Aircraft

06/29/2012 11:43 PM

While in college, I attended a lecture by a distinguished speaker whose name I can't for the life of me remember, but I do remember his advice to a group of aspiring aerospace engineers. That was "Study history. A lot has been tried. Some worked, much failed. The reasons for those failures are in the physics of the systems, and barring major technological advances, would result in the same failures now as they did back then."

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 7 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Byron Jay (1); cheme_wordsmithy (1); Envelope Guy (1); esbuck (1); osborne83 (1); redfred (1); Usbport (1)

Previous in Blog: The Problem of ESD   Next in Blog: Fireworks - Accidents and Safety