Category Archives: Aircraft

Riout 102T wings up

Riout 102T Alérion Ornithopter

By William Pearce

French engineer René Louis Riout was interested in ornithopters—aircraft that used flapping wings to achieve flight. His first ornithopter, the DuBois-Riout, was originally built in 1913, but testing was delayed because of World War I. The aircraft never achieved sustained flight and was destroyed in an accident in 1916.

Riout 102T wing frame

The nearly-finished Riout 102T Alérion is just missing the fabric covering for its wings and tail. Note the wing structure and how the spars are mounted to the fuselage.

After the war, Riout designed a new ornithopter that had two sets of flapping wings. He continued to refine his ornithopter design, but no one was interested in producing such a machine. Riout worked for a few other companies, including a time with Société des Avions Bernard (Bernard Aircraft Company) from 1927 to 1933. While at Bernard, Riout was involved with their Schneider Trophy racer projects.

In 1933, Riout presented his ornithopter designs and research to the Service Technique de l’Aéronautique (STAé or Technical Service of Aeronautics). Riout’s presentation included designs and models of two- and four-wing ornithopters. The models weighed 3.5 and 17.6 oz (100 and 500 g) and performed flights up to 328 ft (100 m). As a result of these tests, STAé ordered a 1/5-scale model with wings powered by an electric motor.

Riout 102T wings up

Completed, the Riout 102T ornithopter resembled a dragonfly. An engine cylinder and its exhaust stack can be seen behind the rear wing. Note the enclosed cockpit; the rear section slides forward for entry.

The 1/5-scale model was built in 1934. From 11 November 1934 to 1 February 1935, the model underwent 200 hours of testing in the wind tunnel at Issy-les-Moulineaux, near Paris, France. The successful tests established the feasibility of Riout’s design and indicated the ornithopter would be capable of 124 mph (200 km/h) if it were powered by a 90 hp (67 kW) engine. Based on the test results, STAé ordered a full-scale ornithopter to be built and tested in the wind tunnel for research purposes. On 23 April 1937, Riout was awarded a contract for the construction of an ornithopter prototype.

The ornithopter was designated Riout 102T Alérion. The word alérion, or avalerion, is the name of a mythical bird about the size of an eagle. The single-place ornithopter had a cigar-shaped fuselage. Its frame was made of tubular-steel and skinned with aluminum. The enclosed cockpit occupied the nose of the aircraft. Two wheels on each side of the aircraft retracted into the fuselage sides. The landing gear had a 4 ft 3 in (1.3 m) track.

Behind the cockpit were two pairs of flapping wings. The two-spar wings had metal frames and were fabric-covered. A hinge at each spar mounted the wing to a large structure in the center of the fuselage. Immediately behind the wings, a 75 hp (56 kW) JAP (John Alfred Prestwich) overhead valve V-twin engine was installed with its cylinders exposed to the slipstream for air-cooling. The exact engine model has not been found, but the 61 cu in (996 cc) JAP 8/75 is a good fit. The 102T ornithopter had conventional vertical and horizontal stabilizers that were made of tubular steel frames and covered with fabric.

Riout 102T wind tunnel

On 12 April 1938, the wings of the 102T failed during a wind tunnel test. Stronger wings could have been designed and fitted, but the impractically of the ornithopter left little incentive to do so. The landing gear was removed for the tests. Note the engine cylinder behind the rear wing.

A drawing indicated the wings had 50 degrees of travel—40 degrees above horizontal and 10 degrees below. However, a detailed description of how the wings were flapped has not been found. The method appears to be somewhat similar to the system used on the DuBois-Riout ornithopter of 1913, in which the engine was geared to a crankshaft that ran between the wings. A connecting rod joined each wing to the crankshaft, but each wing was on a separate crankpin that was 180 degrees from the opposite wing. However, images of the 102T show both sets of wings in the up position, as well as one set of wings up and the other down. If a crankshaft was used for the wings, it must have employed clutches and separate sections for each pair of wings. It appears the standard operating configuration was for the wings to be on different strokes: one pair up and one pair down. Wing warping was used to achieve forward thrust, with the portion of the wing behind the rear spar moving.

The Riout 102T had a 26 ft 3 in (8.0 m) wingspan and was 21 ft (6.4 m) long. At its lowest position, the wing had 2 ft 2 in (.67 m) of ground clearance. At its highest point, the wingtip was 13 ft 5 in (4.1 m) above the ground. The aircraft’s tail was 8 ft 2 in (2.5 m) tall. The ornithopter weighed 1,102 lb (500 kg) empty and 1,389 lb (630 kg) fully loaded.

The aircraft was built in Courbevoie, at the company of coachbuilder Émile Tonnelline (often spelled Tonneline). Final assembly was completed in late 1937 by Bréguet (Société des Ateliers d’Aviation Louis Bréguet or Luis Bréguet Aviation Workshop) in Villacoublay. With its four wings and side-mounted landing gear, the completed ornithopter resembled a dragonfly.

Riout 102T frame

Restoration efforts provide a good view of the Riout 102T’s frame. Note how neatly the landing gear folded into the fuselage. The ornithopter’s aluminum body was saved, but the original wings were lost. (Shunn311 image via airport-data.com)

After some preliminary testing, the 102T was moved to the wind tunnel at Chalais-Meudon in early 1938. First, tests lasting two minutes with the wings stationary were conducted. These tests were followed by wing flapping tests. Eventually, the ornithopter test sessions lasted a continuous 20 minutes, but all tests were conducted without the wings warping (providing thrust). It was noted that the engine was only producing around 60 hp (45 kW), but the tests were continued. On 12 April 1938, the 102T was in the wind tunnel undergoing a flapping test with a wind velocity of 81 mph (130 km/h). When the engine speed was increased to 4,500 rpm, one wing folded, quickly followed by the other three. The outer third of all the wings bent, with the right wings folding up and the left wings folding down. At the time of the mishap, the ornithopter had operated in the wind tunnel for around three hours and had satisfied initial stability tests.

Before the wings failed, Riout had notified the STAé of some modification he would like to make to the ornithopter. However, there was no interest to fund repairs or continue the project after the aircraft was damaged. The damaged wings were discarded, but the fuselage of the 102T was somehow preserved. Today, the Riout 102T Alérion is undergoing restoration and is on display at the Espace Air Passion Musée Régional de l’Air in Angers, France. While a few manned ornithopters flights have been made, the aircraft type has been generally unsuccessful.

Riout 102T frame restoration

The frame of the ornithopter consisted of small diameter steel tubes that were welded together. The aluminum wing supports may not be original. The Riout 102T is currently on display in the Espace Air Passion Musée Régional de l’Air. (Jean-Marie Rochat image via flikr.com)

Sources:
“Avion à ailes battantes Riout 102T” by Christian Ravel Le Trait D’Union No 225 (January-February 2006)
Les Avions Breguet Vol. 2 by Henri Lacaze (2016)
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=18681.0
“Flying Machine with Flapping Wings” US patent 1,009,692 by René Louis Riout (granted 21 November 1911)

Dubois Riout front wings down

DuBois-Riout Ornithopter

By William Pearce

When humans began to contemplate heavier-than-air flight, it was only natural to emulate birds. However, the complications of an ornithopter—using flapping wings to achieve flight—proved to be insurmountable. By 1900, most aviation pioneers focused their efforts on propellers and fixed wings; however, some persisted with the ornithopter.

Riout 1911 Patent

Drawings from René Riout’s US patent of 1911. Fig 1 shows the ornithopter design, which had a passing similarity to the aircraft built in 1913. Fig 2 and Fig 3 show the wing flapping mechanism. Fig 4 and Fig 5 show the wing in a gliding position. Fig 6 and Fig 7 show the wing warped for thrust.

In the early 1900s, French engineer René Louis Riout shifted his focus from automobiles to aviation. Initially, Riout designed models of gliders and propeller-driven aircraft, but his attention soon turned to ornithopters. By 1907, Riout was successfully flying his model ornithopter designs. In 1909, one of Riout’s models flew 164 ft (50 m) at an altitude of 10 ft (3 m). In 1910, his ornithopter model was flying 558 ft (170 m), and the distance expanded to 722 ft (220 m) in 1911.

In late 1910, Riout was granted French patent 419,140 for his flapping wing mechanism and ornithopter design. The same invention was patented in Great Britain (191117951) and the United States (1,009,692) in 1911. Riout’s patent described how power from an engine was geared at a reduced speed to a crankshaft. The crankshaft had two crankpins that were positioned 180 degrees apart. A connecting rod linked each crankpin to the pivoting mechanism of one wing. As the crankshaft turned and the crankpin moved to the horizontal position nearest the wing, the wing was moved to its highest position. As the crankpin moved to the horizontal position farthest from the wing, the wing moved to its lowest position. Thus, the up and down movement of the wing was controlled by the speed of the engine. The drive system incorporated a heavy flywheel to smooth out power pulses from the engine. For small aircraft, a heavy spring could be substituted for the flywheel.

Dubois Riout front

Front view of the DuBois-Riout ornithopter with the three-cylinder Viale engine. The engine cylinders can be seen protruding above the cowling. The wings are positioned around 20 degrees above horizontal. Note the quarter-turn belt drive for the wheel axle.

The patent details how the wings would warp as they moved. The upstroke was made in a neutral, gliding position. On the downstroke, the wing’s trailing edge would deflect up to provide thrust. Springs in the wing regulated the warp to match the power of the downstroke. A slow downstroke would result in the wing maintaining its glide form. The warp of the wing was greatest at the tip, tapering to very little warp at the root.

By 1913, Riout had partnered with Jean Marie DuBois, and a full-scale ornithopter was built. Exactly what role DuBois played in the creation of the ornithopter has not been found, but the resulting machine was known as the DuBois-Riout monoplane. The DuBois-Riout ornithopter had a slender, streamlined airframe that was made from tubular-steel and covered in fabric. A vertical stabilizer with a rudder protruded from below the fuselage. A horizontal stabilizer extended to the sides from the top of the fuselage and incorporated an elevator. The single-place cockpit was positioned between the ornithopter’s wings. The wings had a tubular-steel frame and were fabric-covered. The aircraft was supported by taildragger landing gear.

Dubois Riout front wings down

The ornithopter’s wings in the down position were about 20 degrees below horizontal, which was enough to make them contact the ground. This is why wing flapping would only be initiated after the aircraft was airborne, having been propelled to takeoff speed by the wheels. A shroud can be seen covering the top part of the drive belt.

The ornithopter was powered by a three-cylinder Viale Type A engine. The three cylinders were spaced 65 degrees apart in a fan configuration. The air-cooled engine had a 4.13 in (105 mm) bore and a 5.12 in (130 mm) stroke. Its total displacement was 206 cu in (3.4 L), and it produced 35 hp (26 kW) at 1,500 rpm. The engine was positioned in the nose of the ornithopter and encased in a cowling, but its cylinders protruded into the air stream for cooling. The engine drove a crankshaft to flap the wings, just like the patent described.

A major problem facing ornithopter designs was how to start the takeoff roll and gain enough forward speed to achieve flight. Via a belt, the DuBois-Riout used engine power to drive the main wheels during the takeoff run. The drive pulley was positioned behind the engine, and the follower pulley was positioned on the main wheels’ axle and perpendicular to the drive pulley. The follower pulley was offset to the left so that its front edge was directly below the left side of the drive pulley. As the belt came off the rear of the follower, it traveled to the right to reconnect with the right side of the drive pulley. The belt twisting 90 degrees enabled the longitudinal rotation of the engine’s crankshaft to be converted to transverse rotation for the aircraft’s wheels. Once the ornithopter was up to speed, the machine was glided off the ground. Via clutches, engine power was transferred from the pulley to the flapping wings for sustained flight. The DuBois-Riout ornithopter had a 34 ft 5 in (10.5 m) wingspan and a predicted max speed of 84 mph (135 km/h). The machine weighed 794 lb (360 kg).

Dubois Riout side

Side view of the DuBois-Riout ornithopter illustrates the vertical stabilizer under the fuselage and the elongated horizontal stabilizer. Note the large pulley on the wheel’s axle.

In late 1913 or early 1914, Riout initiated tests of the ornithopter but encountered issues with the engine. It is not clear if the engine was not running correctly or if more power was needed. Before the issues were resolved, Riout left to serve in World War I. In 1916, Riout was granted permission to restart tests on the ornithopter. A 50 hp (37 kW) Gnome-Rhône engine was acquired and installed in the aircraft. No information has been found as to what modifications were made to the ornithopter to handle the rotary engine or its gyroscopic torque. Reportedly, the ornithopter made it into the air but quickly came down hard and was wrecked. No one was injured in the mishap, but Riout needed to return to the war, and no further work was done on the ornithopter.

One might think that with the destruction of the DuBois-Riout machine and conventional aircraft proving their worth throughout World War I, Riout would move away from the ornithopter design. However, he persisted, but 20 years passed before his next ornithopter, the Riout 102T Alérion, was built.

Dubois Riout rear

The ornithopter’s rudder can be seen in this rear view. Note the large control wheel in the cockpit and the fabric gap between the wings and fuselage.

Sources:
“Flying Machine with Flapping Wings” US patent 1,009,692 by René Louis Riout (granted 21 November 1911)
“French Monoplane with Flapping Wings” Popular Mechanics (February 1913)
French Aeroplanes Before the Great War by Leonard E. Opdycke (2004)
Rotary Wing Aircraft Handbooks and History Volume 11: Special Types of Rotary Wing Aircraft by Eugene K. Liberatore (1954)
“Avion à ailes battantes Riout 102T” by Christian Ravel Le Trait D’Union No 225 (January-February 2006)

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk airbrakes

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk Attack Helicopter

By William Pearce

In the late 1960s, Sikorsky Aircraft had many helicopter models in production, but they had lost contracts to develop new helicopters. In 1966, the United States Army’s Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS) contract was awarded to Lockheed, but their AH-56 Cheyenne attack helicopter ran into serious design issues. On 20 November 1969, Sikorsky initiated development of a new helicopter to be used primarily as a gunship, but it could also be used in other roles. This helicopter was designated S-67 Blackhawk, and its design and construction was self-funded by Sikorsky.

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk airbrakes

The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk was a very versatile helicopter that exhibited great performance, but it also had various shortcomings that the US Army could not overlook. The helicopter’s narrow fuselage and air brakes are illustrated in this image.

The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk was designed as a high-speed attack helicopter with a small wing to generate lift. The pilot and copilot/gunner sat in tandem in the helicopter’s cockpit, with the copilot in the front seat and the pilot in the rear seat. The pilot accessed the cockpit from the left side of the helicopter and the copilot from the right. The narrow, streamlined fuselage was only 3 ft 10 in (1.2 m) wide, which decreased the helicopter’s drag and increased its survivability by presenting a smaller target to enemy gunners. Behind the cockpit was a compartment that could be used for additional equipment or to transport personnel.

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk tail

This image shows the S-67’s original tail that did not have any rudders. Note the tail’s camber. Air brakes can be seen on the upper wing surfaces. The main gear had a 7 ft (2.1 m) track.

To cut expense and development time, the S-67 was designed to use the dynamic drive power system from a Sikorsky S-61/SH-3 Sea King. This included two 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) General Electric T58-GE-5 turboshaft engines and their drive, rotor, hydraulic, and electrical systems. The S-67’s five-blade rotors had 22 in (559 mm) of their tips swept back 20 degrees to delay compressibility effects, lower vibration, and reduce noise. The net effect was that the blades allowed the helicopter to achieve higher speeds. The main rotors also had a hub fairing, and their collective pitch control was modified to increase sensitivity and range.

The S-67’s main gear retracted into sponsons mounted on the fuselage sides. The helicopter’s thin wings extended from the sponsons. Each wing featured two hardpoints for weapons, auxiliary fuel tanks, or equipment. Each wing also had three air brakes: two that deployed along its upper surface and one that deployed along the lower surface. With the air brakes deployed, the helicopter slowed twice as fast as without the air brakes. In addition, the air brakes could be deployed during combat to offer unrivaled maneuverability. The S-67 was the first helicopter with air brakes.

A five-blade, 10 ft 7 in (3.2 m) diameter tail rotor was mounted to the left side of the S-67’s vertical fin. A lower fin with a non-retractable tailwheel extended below the helicopter’s tail. The large upper and lower fins were cambered to counteract the torque of the main rotor at speeds above 46 mph (74 km/h). This enabled controlled flight without the tail rotor as long as the S-67’s forward speed was in excess of 46 mph (74 km/h). If the tail rotor was lost, the helicopter could be flown back to base and landed like a conventional aircraft. The S-67 used an all-moving horizontal stabilizer that increased the helicopter’s maneuverability and decreased rotor stress.

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk landing

Note the angle of the all-moving horizontal stabilizer as the S-67 comes in for a landing. The landing gear was found to be insufficient for operating from unimproved locations. The helicopter’s double main wheels sunk into soft ground, and the gear doors only had 9.75 in (248 mm) of clearance.

With a 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) payload, the S-67 could accommodate a variety of armaments. A removable Emerson Electric Company TAT-140 turret mounted under the cockpit could carry a 7.62 mm minigun (M134), a 20 mm three-barrel rotary cannon (M197), a 30 mm single-barrel cannon (XM140), a 30 mm three-barrel rotary cannon (XM188), or a 40 mm grenade launcher (M129). The four underwing hardpoints could carry two drop tanks, up to 16 TOW missiles, or up to eight rocket pods. Each 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket pod contained 19 rockets, for a total of 152 rockets.

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk side

The S-67’s rudders can be seen in this image. One is on the upper fin below the tail rotor, and the other is on the lower fin. Pylons have been installed on the wings’ hardpoints, with drop tanks mounted to the inner stations. The turret is installed with a M197 three-barrel 20 mm cannon.

The S-67 had a wingspan of 27 ft 4 in (8.3 m) and a rotor diameter of 62 ft (18.9 m). The fuselage was 64 ft 2 in (19.6 m) long, and the helicopter’s total length including the rotor was 74 ft 1 in (22.6 m). The S-67’s mast height was 15 ft (4.6 m), and the top of the tail rotor was 16 ft 4 in (5.0 m). The helicopter’s top speed was 213 mph (343 km/h); maximum cruise speed was 201 mph (324 km/h), and normal cruise speed was 167 mph (269 km/h). The S-67 could climb at 2,000 fpm (10.2 m/s) and had a service ceiling of 20,000 ft (6,096 m). The helicopter could hover in ground effect up to 9,700 ft (2,957 m) and could hover without ground effect up to 6,500 ft (1,981 m). Maximum range on internal fuel was 325 miles (523 km), but its normal combat range was 220 miles (354 km). With external fuel tanks, range was extended to over 600 miles (966 km). The S-67 had an empty weight of 12,525 lb (5,681 kg), a normal weight of 18,500 lb (8,391 kg), and a maximum takeoff weight of 22,050 lb (10,002 kg).

Sikorsky S-67 Colonge Germany 1972

The S-67 seen in the same configuration as the previous image. The helicopter is over Cologne, Germany on its European and Middle Eastern tour in 1972.

Construction on the S-67 started on 15 February 1970 and proceeded rapidly. The helicopter made its first flight on 20 August 1970. Flight testing proved the S-67 to be very responsive, maneuverable, smooth, and quiet. The helicopter was able to perform rolls, loops, and split-S turns—although, only rolls to the right were made. On 14 December 1970, Sikorsky test pilots Kurt Cannon and Byron Graham in the S-67 established a new absolute speed record by averaging 216.841 mph (348.971 km/h) over a 3 km (1.86 mile) course. They then set a new record on 19 December 1970 by averaging 220.888 mph (355.485 km/h) on a 15–25 km (9.3–15.5 mile) course.

In 1971, the S-67 covered 3,500 miles (5,633 km) touring 12 US military bases. In addition to Sikorsky demonstration flights, the helicopter was flown on 147 demo flights with military personnel. The S-67 completed 155 rolls and 140 split-S turns during these flights.

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk fan-in-tail

A fan-in-fin anti-torque system was tested in the S-67. Note the rudders above and below the fan. No issues were encountered with the fan-in-fin, but the helicopter was converted back to a conventional tail rotor.

Between 25 May and 13 June 1972, the S-67 was flown 26 hours for a series of flight evaluations by the US Army. The helicopter was competing against the Bell 309/AH-1 KingCobra to replace the AH-56 Cheyenne, which had been cancelled. For the AAFSS role, the S-67 was designated AH-3, and Sikorsky’s proposal included adding an additional hardpoint to each wing, bringing the total number to six. This would enable the S-67 to carry up to 24 TOW missiles. While the S-67 was praised for its performance and most of its flight characteristics, the evaluation recorded a number of shortcomings. The Army did not award either Sikorsky or Bell a contract and decided to initiate a new Armed Attack Helicopter program, which eventually was won by the Hughes AH-64 Apache.

The S-67 underwent a number of modifications in late 1972. Rudders were added to the ventral and dorsal fins to increase yaw control. The compartment behind the cockpit was altered to enable the transport of six troops. Hardpoints were added to the wingtips for each to carry a Sidewinder missile. A hoist was added under the helicopter that allowed the S-67 to transport a 7,000 lb (3,175 kg) external load.

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk cockpit

After the fan-in-tail rotor tests, a small door was added on the left side of the fuselage to access the compartment behind the cockpit. Initially, access was gained (with some difficulty) via the door under the fuselage (seen above). The S-67 was then painted a light desert camouflage, and this was the helicopter’s final configuration.

With no interest from the US Armed Forces, Sikorsky offered the S-67 for export. In late 1972, the S-67 was taken on a two-month tour of Europe and the Middle East. More than 7,500 miles (12,070 km) were covered, and the helicopter was flown for 136 hours. Despite interest from Israel, no orders were placed. Sikorsky then modified the S-67 to test a fan-in-fin tail rotor installation. A 4 ft 8 in (2.6 m), seven-blade rotor was installed in the modified tail. The helicopter underwent flight tests, including a dive at 230 mph (370 km/h). After the tests in 1974, the S-67’s tail was converted back to its previous configuration (with rudders), and a door to access the rear compartment was installed in the helicopter’s left side. The S-67 was then painted a light desert camouflage. The data from the fan-in-fin test was used for the Sikorsky H-76 fantail demonstrator, which tested the tail configuration later used in the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche.

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk inverted

The S-67 made hundreds of rolls in its lifetime, but they were always to the right. The square in the fuselage above the wing is the window in the new rear compartment access door. What appear to be two rectangular windows can be seen father aft. Note the helicopter’s rudders and deployed air brakes.

On 26 August 1974, the S-67 arrived in the United Kingdom to start another European tour. On 1 September 1974, the S-67 was destroyed after failing to recover from a second roll during a practice session for the upcoming Farnborough Air Show. The copilot, Stu Craig, was killed in the crash, and the pilot, Kurt Cannon, died from his injuries nine days later. The accident was caused by the second roll being initiated in a less than ideal configuration combined with low altitude. However, the accident investigators believed that the crash was survivable had the helicopter been fitted with five-point harnesses rather than four-point harnesses. The S-67 had accumulated 598.7 hours at the time of the crash.

With the prototype destroyed and no interest from the US military, Sikorsky decided to end the S-67 Blackhawk program. Its swept-tip rotor blades were developed into those used on the Sikorsky S-70/UH-60 Black Hawk (the name similarity is a coincidence) and other helicopters. The S-67’s speed record stood for eight years until it was broken on 21 September 1978 by the Soviet Mil A-10 (modified Mi-24B) at 228.9 mph (368.4 km/h).

Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk crash

The S-67 tries to recover from a roll a split second before it impacts the ground. The helicopter’s low altitude left no room to recover from the roll, which was rushed and initiated in a flawed manner. The crash would ultimately kill the pilot and copilot and end the S-67 program.

Sources:
http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/S-67%20BLACKHAWK.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-67_Blackhawk
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-67.php
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/6269.htm
“Blackhawk’s Last Flight” Aeroplane Monthly (June 1976)
Attack Helicopter Evaluation, Blackhawk S-67 Helicopter by George M. Yamakawa, et al (July 1972)

Douglas XB-42 no1 in flight

Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster Attack Bomber

By William Pearce

In the early 1940s, Edward F. Burton began to investigate ways to simplify bomber aircraft. Burton was the Chief of Engineering at the Douglas Aircraft Company (Douglas), and he had noted that each subsequent generation of bomber aircraft was substantially larger, more complex, and more expensive than the preceding generation. Burton and his team started with a clean sheet of paper and designed what would become the XB-42.

Douglas XB-42 no1 in flight

The Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster had a unique design that provided very good performance. However, it was too late for World War II and too slow compared to jet aircraft. The first prototype (43-50224) is seen with its short tail on an early test flight.

Acting on their own, with no official United States Army Air Force (AAF) requirement, Burton and his team worked to design a two-engine tactical bomber with a top speed of over 400 mph (644 km/h) and that was capable of carrying 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs to a target 2,500 miles (4,023 km) away. The aircraft’s high speed would eliminate the need for extensive defensive armament, which would minimize the bomber’s crew and save weight. Burton’s team placed the wings, tail, and propellers in their optimal positions; the designers then filled in the rest of the aircraft with the needed equipment. What emerged from the drafting table was the Douglas Model 459: a mid-wing aircraft operated by a crew of three. At the rear of the aircraft were a set of coaxial contra-rotating pusher propellers driven by engines buried in the fuselage. In May 1943, Douglas proposed the aircraft to the AAF, and they were sufficiently impressed to order two prototypes and a static test airframe on 25 June 1943.

The AAF originally gave the aircraft the Attack designation XA-42. Douglas had presented the aircraft in a variety of roles that suited the Attack aircraft profile. However, the aircraft was reclassified as a bomber and redesignated XB-42 on 25 November 1943. Unofficially, the XB-42 was given the name Mixmaster, on account of its eight contra-rotating propeller blades loosely resembling a popular kitchen mixer.

The Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster was a very unique aircraft. It was an all-metal aircraft with a tricycle landing gear arrangement, which was novel at the time. A plexiglass nose covered the bombardier’s position. Atop the fuselage were two separate bubble canopies for the pilot and copilot. At the rear of the aircraft was a cruciform tail; its ventral fin contained an oleo-pneumatic bumper to protect the propellers from potential ground strikes during takeoff and landing.

Douglas XB-42 no1 nose

Nose view of the first prototype shows the twin bubble canopies to advantage. Both XB-42 aircraft were originally built with the canopies, but they were disliked. The second aircraft was later modified with a more conventional canopy.

The aircraft’s long wing used a laminar flow airfoil and was fitted with double-slotted flaps. An inlet in the wing’s leading edge led to the engine oil cooler and radiator, both fitted with electric fans for ground operation. After air flowed through the coolers, it was expelled out the top of the wing. The main landing gear retracted back into the sides of the fuselage, below and behind the wings. The complex retraction required the gear legs and wheels to rotate 180 degrees. Fuel tanks in each wing carried 330 gallons (1,249 L) of fuel. Four additional 275 gallon (1,041 L) fuel tanks could be installed in the bomb bay to extend the aircraft’s range. In addition, a 300 gallon (1,136 L) drop tank could be installed under each wing.

Housed in the fuselage behind the cockpit were two Allison V-1710 engines. Each engine was installed with its vertical axis tilted 20 degrees out from center, and the engines were angled toward the tail. Ducts flush with the aircraft’s skin and positioned below the cockpit on both sides of the aircraft brought induction air to the engines. A row of exhaust stacks was located above the leading edge of each wing, and two rows of exhaust stacks were positioned along the aircraft’s spine. The engines of the first XB-42 prototype produced 1,325 hp (988 kW) at takeoff and 1,820 hp (1,357 kW) at war emergency power. The second prototype had engines that produced 1,675 hp (1,249 kW) for takeoff and 1,900 hp (1,417 kW) for war emergency power.

Douglas XB-42 no2 gear retract

A unique view of the second prototype (43-50225) that displays the aircraft’s slotted flaps and uncommon main gear retraction that required the legs and wheels to rotate 180 degrees into the fuselage sides. Also visible are the wing guns and revised leading edge inlets, both features exclusive to the second prototype.

Extending from each engine was an extension shaft made up of six sections. The shaft sections were like those used in the Bell P-39 Airacobra (which used two sections). The shafts extended around 29 ft (8.8 m) and connected the engines to a remote, contra-rotating gear reduction box from an Allison V-3420-B engine. The gearbox had been slightly modified for the XB-42 and used a .361 gear ratio that was unique to the aircraft. Each engine turned a three-blade Curtiss Electric propeller. The left engine drove the forward propeller, which was 13 ft 2 in (4.01 m) in diameter. The right engine drove the rear propeller, which was 13 ft (3.96 m) in diameter. The engines and propellers were operated independently—if needed, one engine could be shut down and its propeller feathered while in flight.

To eliminate the danger the propellers presented to the crew during a bail out, a cord of explosives (cordite) was threaded through holes carefully drilled around the gearbox mount. Before bailing out, the crew could detonate the explosives, which would separate the gearbox and propellers from the aircraft.

Douglas XB-42 Allison engine test

Two Allison V-1710 engines connected to the V-3420 remote gear reduction for the contra-rotating propellers as used on the XB-42. The power system accumulated over 600 hours on the test stand and never caused serious issues during the XB-42 program.

The XB-42’s bomb bay was covered by two-piece, snap-action doors. The bay accommodated 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) of bombs, or a single 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) bomb could be carried if the doors were kept open six inches. The bay was long enough to carry two 13 ft 9 in (4.2 m) Mk 13 torpedoes. Two fixed .50-cal machine guns with 500 rpg were installed in the aircraft’s nose. Housed in the trailing edge of each wing, between the aileron and flap, were a pair of rearward-firing .50-cal machine guns, each with 350 rpg. The guns were concealed behind snap-action doors. Once exposed, the guns could be angled through a range of 30 degrees up, 15 degrees down, and 25 degrees to the left or right. Their minimum convergence was 75 ft behind the aircraft. The rear-firing guns were operated by the copilot, who rotated his seat 180 degrees to use the gun’s sighting system.

Douglas designers envisioned that the B-42 aircraft could be fitted with a solid nose containing different weapons for different roles. This is the same concept that was applied to the Douglas A-20 Havoc and A-26 Invader. Three of the possible B-42 nose configurations were as follows: eight .50-cal machine guns; two 37 mm cannons and two .50-cal machine guns; or a 75 mm cannon and two .50-cal machine guns. Douglas also thought the aircraft’s speed and range would make it very useful in a reconnaissance role. None of these plans made it off the drawing board.

The XB-42 had a 70 ft 6 in (21.49 m) wingspan and was 53 ft 8 in (16.4 m) long. Originally, the aircraft was 18 ft 10 in (5.7m) tall, but the tail and rudder were extended to cure some instability. The extension increased the XB-42’s height to 20 ft 7 in (6.3 m). A brochure published by Douglas in April 1944 predicted the B-42 would be able to carry 2,000 lb (907 kg) of bombs over 5,333 miles (8,583 km) and have a top speed of 470 mph (756 km/h). These numbers proved very optimistic. Perhaps the speed was a misprint, because some sources indicate the anticipated top speed was 440 mph (708 km/h). Regardless, the aircraft only achieved 410 mph (660 km/h) at 23,440 ft (7,145 m), and its cruising speed was 312 mph (502 km/h). The XB-42 had an empty weight of 20,888 lb (9,475 kg) and a maximum weight of 35,702 lb (16,194 kg). The aircraft’s service ceiling was 29,400 ft (8,961 m). Its combat range was 1,800 miles (2,897 km), but additional fuel tanks in the bomb bay could extend the XB-42’s range to a maximum of 5,400 miles (8,690 km).

Douglas XB-42 no2 rear

Rear view of the second prototype shows the ventral tail and rudder. Note the oleo-pneumatic bumper on the tail and its minimal ground clearance. The wing guns and new canopy are just barely visible.

Construction of the XB-42 proceeded rapidly. The AAF inspected and approved an aircraft mockup in September 1943, and the first prototype (43-50224) was completed in May 1944—one year after the aircraft was proposed and 10 months after the contract was awarded. The XB-42 flew for the first time on 6 May 1944, flown by Bob Brush and taking off from the Palm Springs Army Airfield in California. The second prototype (43-50225) flew for the first time on 1 August 1944, taking off from Santa Monica Airport in California.

Both XB-42s were originally fitted with separate bubble canopies. This cockpit layout was not very popular with the pilots. Although they could communicate via intercom, the pilots often found themselves leaning forward to speak with one another face to face under the canopies. The second aircraft was modified with a more conventional single canopy that encompassed both pilot and copilot. While the bubble canopies reduced drag, the single canopy was preferred. Another issue facing the aircraft was that cracks formed in the plexiglass nose. After the plexiglass was replaced several times, the nose was eventually covered with plywood.

Both prototypes were heavier than expected, which reduced performance. Some work went into lightening the second aircraft, like the use of hollow propeller blades. However, issues with vibrations occurred when disturbed air encountered the propellers, and this phenomenon was exacerbated by the hollow blades. No issues were encountered when the aircraft was clean, but when the bomb bay doors were open or when the gear or flaps were deployed, the vibration issue occurred. Some pilots lived with the vibrations and dismissed the issue, but other pilots found it very disconcerting. An improved propeller was designed that featured reversible blades to decrease landing roll and to slow the aircraft in flight. However, it was cancelled in March 1945 and was never built.

Douglas XB-42 no2 with canopy

Front view of the second prototype illustrates the aircraft’s revised canopy. The canopy on production aircraft would have been similar but more refined. Again, note the tail clearance and wing guns.

Some cooling issues were encountered, and modifications to the air intakes were made to improve airflow. The main gear was also modified a few times to improve its retraction and performance. Overall, the aircraft flew well, but the controls were not well harmonized. In addition, the XB-42 aircraft would encounter a slow dutch roll oscillation if not counteracted by the pilot. As previously mentioned, the tail of the aircraft was enlarged to resolve the issue, but it was never entirely solved. The XB-42 required a very long takeoff run of some 6,415 ft (1,955 m). Because there was only about 9 in (.23 m) of clearance between the ventral tail and the ground, the aircraft needed to build up a substantial amount of speed before it was carefully rotated for liftoff.

The second XB-42 prototype was the only aircraft to have revised wing inlets and to be fitted with its machine gun armament, although the guns were never tested. The second aircraft was flown around 70 hours before it was turned over to the AAF. On 8 December 1945, Lieutenant Colonel Henry E. Warden and Captain Glen W. Edwards flew the second XB-42 from Long Beach, California to Bolling Field in Washington, D.C. The record-setting, point-to-point flight covered 2,295 miles (3,693 km) in a time of 5:17:34—an average of 433.6 mph (697.8 km/h). The XB-42 had benefited from a favorable tailwind, and the aircraft’s average true airspeed was around 375 mph (604 km/h).

Douglas XB-42 wing guns

The guns in the left wing are seen aimed 30 degrees up and 25 degrees inboard. Only the second aircraft was fitted with the guns, and they were never tested. Note the snap-action doors that covered the guns. When open, the doors increased the XB-42’s directional stability, resulting in additional rudder force to give the desired yaw.

On 16 December 1945, the second XB-42 was lost during a test flight near Bolling Field. The aircraft was in a landing configuration when there was an issue with extending the landing gear. While the crew was troubleshooting the problem, the left engine began to overheat and then died. The right engine was taken to full power and began to overheat. The decision was made to bail out, and two of the crew safely jumped free before the pilot remembered to jettison the propellers. The propellers and their gearbox were successfully severed from the XB-42, and the pilot bailed out. All three crew members survived the ordeal without any injuries, but the aircraft was completely destroyed.

An exact cause of the crash was never determined, but it was speculated that the coolant doors were inadvertently left in their nearly-closed landing configuration while the crew investigated the gear issue. This resulted in the engines overheating. At the same time, a fuel tank switch was made a bit late and probably led to fuel starvation of the left engine. The second XB-42 had accumulated a little over 118 hours of flight time when it crashed.

The first XB-42 prototype had made 42 flights and accumulated over 34 flight hours by 30 September 1944. A year later, that number rose to around 150 flights, with the aircraft accumulating around 125 flight hours. Before the XB-42 had even flown, Douglas contemplated adding jet engines to the aircraft. An official proposal for the modification was submitted on 23 February 1945. The proposal was approved on 8 March 1946, and modifications to the aircraft began on 26 June 1946. At the time, the first XB-42 had made 168 flights and had flown around 144.5 hours. The two Westinghouse 19XB-2A (J30) jet engines were finally delivered in October 1946 and were installed on the aircraft.

Douglas XB-42A rear

Rear view of the XB-42A illustrates the notches in the new flaps to avoid the jet exhaust. The rest of the aircraft remained relatively unchanged from the XB-42 configuration. The cooling air exit can be seen on the right wing. Note the various Douglas aircraft in the background.

With the jet engines added to the first prototype, the aircraft was redesignated as the Douglas XB-42A. The 1,600 lbf (7.12 kN) thrust jet engines were mounted under the aircraft’s wings. New flaps were installed that were notched behind the jet engines. The notches allowed the flaps to avoid the jet exhaust when they were deployed. The fuel tanks in the wings were modified because of the jet engine mounts. Total wing tankage was decreased by 154 gallons (583 L), but two additional 74 gallon (280 L) tanks were installed in the fuselage. The jets themselves burned the same fuel as the piston engines. The aircraft’s instrumentation was also modified to accommodate the jet engines.

The XB-42A is listed as having a 70 ft 7 in (21.51 m) wingspan and a length of 53 ft 10 in (16.4 m). In reality, the wingspan was probably the same as the XB-42, and the length was slightly longer due to a different spinner. The aircraft’s height was 20 ft 7 in (6.3 m). The XB-42A had a predicted maximum speed of 488 mph (785 km/h) but only achieved 473 mph (761 km/h) at 14,000 ft (4,267 m); cruising speed was 442 mph (711 km/h). The XB-42A had an empty weight of 24,775 lb (11,238 kg) and a maximum weight of 44,900 lb (20,366 kg). The aircraft’s service ceiling was 34,500 ft (10,516 m). The XB-42A had a normal range of around 1,200 miles (1,931 km), but a maximum range of 4,750 miles (7,644 km) could be achieved with additional fuel tanks in the bomb bay.

Douglas XB-42A

The XB-42A makes a low pass over Muroc Air Base during an early test flight. Note the exhaust stains above the wing and the oil stains below the wing. The aircraft was outclassed by other jet aircraft, including its XB-43 cousin.

The first flight of the XB-42A (still 43-50224) occurred on 27 May 1947 at Muroc (now Edwards) Air Base in California. The aircraft required a lot of maintenance and did not prove remarkable in any category to justify further development. Despite the increased performance, the XB-42A was perched on the awkward dividing line between piston-powered aircraft of the past and jet-powered aircraft of the future. There is no better indicator of this than the fact that Douglas had already moved forward with an all-jet XB-42 aircraft, designated XB-43. The Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster had its jet engines buried in the fuselage, near were the Allison engines were installed on the XB-42. The first XB-43 was built using the XB-42 static test airframe. The jet-powered XB-43 made its first flight on 17 May 1946—little more than a year before the jet/piston-powered XB-42A first flew. The XB-42A made only 23 flights, accounting for a little under 18.5 hours of flight time.

With technological progress outpacing the XB-42A, the aircraft was donated to the Air Force Museum on 30 June 1949. It was later moved to the National Air and Space Museum’s Paul Gerber Facility in Silver Hill, Maryland, where it was stored for a number of years. In 2010, the XB-42A was transferred to the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The aircraft, along with second XB-43 prototype, will eventually be restored for static display.

Douglas persisted with the pusher configuration and designed a number of other military and commercial aircraft. The most developed design was that of the Model 1004, which was actually designated DC-8. Known as the Skybus, the aircraft was similar to an XB-42, but with an extended fuselage for airline service. The aircraft could seat a maximum of 48 passengers, and the extension shafts from the Allison engines travelled under the passenger compartment. First proposed in October 1945, the Skybus was never built, and the DC-8 designation was reapplied to Douglas’s first jet airliner.

Douglas DC-8 Skybus

Although visually similar to the XB-42, the Douglas DC-8 Skybus was an entirely new design. The aircraft’s excellent performance and great single-engine handling was not enough to justify its expense over more conventional designs.

Sources:
American Bomber Development in World War 2 by Bill Norton (2012)
Vee’s for Victory! The Story of the Allison V-1710 Aircraft Engine 1929-1948 by Daniel D. Whitney (1998)
McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920: Volume I by René J Francillon (1979/1988)
The Allison Engine Catalog 1915–2007 by John M. Leonard (2008)
“The First, The Last, and the Only” by Walt Boyne, Airpower Vol. 3 No. 5 (September 1973)
“The Douglas DC-8 Skybus” by R. E. Williams, Douglas Service Vol. 41 (second quarter 1984)
http://www.enginehistory.org/Propellers/Curtiss/XB-42Prop.shtml

Martin-Baker MB5 dH front

Martin-Baker MB5 Fighter

By William Pearce

On 12 September 1942, the Martin-Baker MB3 fighter crashed after its Napier Sabre engine seized. Company co-founder Captain Valentine H. Baker was killed during the attempted forced landing. James Martin, the aircraft’s designer, had already designed the MB3A, which was the production version of the MB3 that incorporated several changes to enhance the fighter’s performance. The second MB3 prototype was to be completed as a MB3A. After the MB3 was destroyed and Baker was killed, Martin wanted to further alter the aircraft’s design to improve its safety and performance. Perhaps the paramount change was to replace the Sabre engine with a Rolls-Royce Griffon.

Martin-Baker MB5 Rotol front

The Martin-Baker MB5 was one a few aircraft that sat at the pinnacle of piston-engine fighter development. Here, the aircraft is pictured at Harwell around the time of its first flight. The Rotol propeller is installed but the 20 mm cannons are not.

The British Air Ministry doubted the quick delivery of the two MB3 prototypes still on order and was agreeable to a contract change. They authorized the construction of a single prototype of the new aircraft design designated MB5. The MB5 was given serial number R2496, which was originally allocated to the second and never-built MB3 aircraft. The third MB3 prototype was cancelled.

The Martin-Baker MB5 was officially designed to the same Air Ministry Specification (F.18/39) as the MB3. Also, the aircraft’s construction closely followed the methods used on the MB3. The aircraft’s fuselage was made of a tubular steel frame with bolted joints. Attached to the frame were formers that gave the fuselage its shape. Aluminum skin panels were attached to the formers, and detachable panels were used wherever possible. A rubber seal attached to the formers ensured the tight fit of the detachable skin panels, which were secured by Dzus fasteners. The large and easily removed panels helped simplify the aircraft’s service and maintenance.

Martin-Baker MB5 Rotol org tail rear

Again, the MB5 is shown at Harwell. The original vertical stabilizer and rudder were very similar to those used on the MB3. The inner gear doors are not installed on the aircraft.

The MB5’s wings were very similar to those used on the MB3, except that each housed only two 20 mm cannons with 200 rpg. All control surfaces used spring servo tabs; the rudder was fabric-covered, but all other control surfaces were metal-covered. The aircraft’s brakes, split flaps, and fully retractable landing gear were pneumatically controlled, and the air system operated at 350 psi (24.13 bar). The main wheels had a wide track of 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m). Two fuel tanks were housed in the aircraft’s fuselage: an 84 gallon (318 L) tank was positioned in front of the cockpit, and a 156 gallon (591 L) tank was positioned behind the cockpit. The cockpit was positioned directly above the wings and was enclosed with a bubble canopy. The cockpit had very good visibility, and its design was praised for the excellent layout of gauges and controls. The three main gauge clusters hinged downward for access and maintenance.

The MB5 was powered by a Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 engine capable of 2,340 hp (1,745 kW) with 25 psi (1.72 bar) of boost and 130 PN fuel. The engine originally turned a six-blade Rotol contra-rotating propeller, but by late 1945, a 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m) de Havilland contra-rotating unit was installed. A small scoop under the spinner brought in air to the Griffon’s two-speed, two-stage supercharger. The intercooler, radiator, and oil cooler were arranged, in that order, in a scoop under the fuselage. This arrangement provided some heat to the oil cooler when the engine was first started and prevented the oil from congealing and restricting the flow through the cooler.

Martin-Baker MB5 2nd tail

An intermediate modification to the MB5’s tail involved a more vertical leading edge that increased the fin’s area. This version of the tail did not last long before the completely redesigned unit was installed. The aircraft still has the Rotol propeller.

The aircraft had a 35 ft (10.7 m) wingspan, was 37 ft 9 in (11.5 m) long, and was 14 ft 4 in (4.4 m) tall. The MB5 had a maximum speed of 395 mph (636 km/h) at sea level, 425 mph (684 km/h) at 6,000 ft (1,829 m), and 460 mph (740 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,096 m). Normal cruising speed was 360 mph (578 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,096 m). The aircraft stalled at 95 mph (153 km/h) clean and at 78 mph (126 km/h) with flaps and gear extended. The MB5 had an initial rate of climb of 3,800 fpm (19.3 m/s) and could reach 20,000 ft (6,096 m) in 6.5 minutes and 34,000 ft (10,363 m) in 15 minutes. The MB5’s service ceiling was 40,000 ft (12,192 m), and it had a range of around 1,100 miles (1,770 km). The aircraft had an empty weight of 9,233 lb (4,188 kg), a normal weight of 11,500 lb (5,216 kg), and an overload weight of 12,090 lb (5,484 kg).

Construction of the MB5 started in 1943, and some components (possibly the wings and tail) of the second MB3 prototype were used in the MB5. The work on the aircraft was delayed because of other war work with which Martin-Baker was involved. In addition, Martin continued to refine and tinker with the MB5’s design, much to the frustration of the Air Ministry. However, the Air Ministry decided that Martin was going to do whatever he thought was right and that the best course of action was to leave him alone; the MB5 would be done when Martin decided it was done.

Martin-Baker MB5 dH front

The MB5 pictured close to its final form. The de Havilland propeller, inner gear doors, and taller vertical stabilizer and rudder have been installed. Note the smooth lines of the cowling. The position of the cockpit gave a good view over the aircraft’s nose and wings.

Captain Baker was Martin-Baker’s only test pilot and was never replaced. As the MB5 neared completion in the spring of 1944, Rotol test pilot (Leslie) Bryan Greensted was loaned to fly the aircraft. On 23 May 1944, the MB5 was disassembled and trucked from Martin-Baker’s works in Denham to the Royal Air Force (RAF) station in Harwell. The aircraft was reassembled and underwent some ground runs. Later that same day, Greensted took the MB5 aloft for its first test flight. To disassemble, transport, reassemble, and flight test an aircraft all in one day speaks to the MB5’s impressive design.

Greensted was not overly impressed with the aircraft’s first flight, because the MB5 exhibited directional instability; in fact, he said the aircraft “was an absolute swine to fly.” Martin listened intently to Greensted’s comments and immediately went to work on a solution. The increased blade area of the contra-rotating propellers had a destabilizing effect when coupled with the MB3 tail that was originally used on the MB5. To resolve the issue, Martin designed a taller vertical stabilizer and rudder, which were fitted to the MB5. The change took six months for Martin to implement, but when Greensted flew the aircraft, he was impressed by its performance and handling. In addition, a new horizontal stabilizer was fitted, but it is not known exactly when this was done. From its first flight until October 1945, the MB5 accumulated only about 40 flight hours. Martin-Baker had been informed around October 1944 that no MB5 production orders would be forthcoming, given that the war was winding down, and any production aircraft would most likely enter service after the war was over.

Martin-Baker MB5 dHf

The MB5 undergoing maintenance. A large panel has been removed from under the aircraft, and one of the inner gear doors has also been removed. Note the Dzus fasteners on the cowling and that the spinner is now painted black. The small scoop under the spinner delivered air to the engine’s supercharger.

Some sources state the MB5 was prepared for a speed run in the fall of 1945. The Griffon engine was boosted to produce 2,480 hp (1,849 kW), and the aircraft reached 484 mph (779 km/h) on a measured course near Gloucester. However, the speed record claim seems highly doubtful. On 29 October 1945, the MB5 was one of the aircraft exhibited at the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough. It was the only aircraft present that had contra-rotating propellers. While Greensted was demonstrating the aircraft before Winston Churchill and RAF officials, the Griffon engine failed. With his vision obscured by oil and some smoke in the cockpit, Greensted jettisoned the canopy. The canopy flew back and struck the tail, but Greensted was able to land the MB5 without further damage.

The MB5 had accumulated around 80 flight hours by the time it was handed over to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Boscombe Down. In March, April, and May 1946, the MB5 was flown by various pilots, and the aircraft’s performance and handling characteristics were well praised, but it was noted that the MB5’s acceleration and its roll rate were not quite on par with contemporary fighters. Overall, the tests showed that the MB5 was an excellent aircraft and that it was greatly superior from an engineering and maintenance standpoint to any other similar type. The MB5 was back at RAE Farnborough for an exhibition in June 1946. During the show, Polish Squadron Leader Jan Zurakowski flew the aircraft in a most impressive display and later stated that the MB5 was the best airplane he had ever flown.

Martin-Baker MB5 show

The MB5 was present at RAE Farnborough in October 1945. The display featured the latest British aircraft and several captured German aircraft. In the foreground is a Supermarine Spiteful and the MB5, with its 20 mm cannons installed. Other visible British aircraft include a Blackburn Firebrand, Bristol Brigand, Fairey Firefly, and Fairey Spearfish. Visible German aircraft include a Dornier Do 335, Fieseler Fi 103, Junker Ju 188, a pair of Focke-Wulf Fw 190s, and a Messerschmitt Bf 109. Many other British and German aircraft were present at the display.

The MB5 was flown sparingly until a number of flights were made toward the end of 1947. Wing Commander Maurice A. Smith flew the aircraft during this time and highly regarded the MB5’s layout and performance. From mid-November to the end of 1947, the MB5 was loaned to de Havilland at Hatfield for propeller testing. In 1948, the aircraft returned to RAE Farnborough, where it was flown by legendary pilot Captain Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown. Although Brown was slightly critical of the aircraft’s lateral handling qualities, he said the MB5 was an outstanding aircraft and that he had never felt more comfortable in a new aircraft.

On 5 May 1948, the MB5 was sent to the Air Ministry Servicing Development Unit at RAF Wattisham. There, it served as a training airframe until it was moved to RAF Bircham Newton around 1950. Reportedly, the MB5 was used as a ground target until its battered remains were burned in 1963—an inglorious end for such a fine aircraft.

Martin-Baker MB5 takeoff

The MB5 taking off from Chalgrove in 1948 with Wing Commander Maurice A. Smith at the controls. The MB5’s flaps did not have any intermediate positions—they were either up or down. The 20 mm cannons have been removed. Note the belly scoop’s outward similarity to the scoop used on the P-51 Mustang.

The Martin-Baker MB5 is one of a handful of aircraft that demonstrated superlative performance and flight qualities yet never entered production due to the end of World War II and the emergence of jet aircraft. It is quite impressive that the MB5 was created by a small firm that produced a total of four outstanding aircraft—each being a completely different model. Despite the quality of Martin-Baker’s aircraft and their best efforts to enter the aircraft manufacturing business, the MB5 was the company’s last aircraft. Martin-Baker turned their attention to other aircraft systems and became a pioneer and world leader in ejection seat technology.

An MB5 replica has been under construction by John Marlin of Reno, Nevada for a number of years. Although not an exact copy, Marlin’s reproduction is a labor of love intended to commemorate one of the most impressive aircraft of all time and to honor all who created the original MB5.

Martin-Baker MB5 Martin

James Martin is pictured in front of his masterpiece, the MB5. Martin-Baker’s aircraft never found success; however, the company’s ejection seats have saved thousands of lives and are still in production.

Sources:
RAF Fighters Part 2 by William Green and Gordon Swanborough (1979)
British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II by Tony Buttler (2012)
Wings of the Weird & Wonderful by Captain Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown (1983/2012)
Sir James Martin by Sarah Sharman (1996)
“The Martin-Baker M-B V” Flight (29 November 1945)
“M-B V in the Air” by Wing Commander Maurice A. Smith, Flight (18 December 1947)
“Martin-Baker Fighters,” by Bill Gunston, Wings of Fame Volume 9 (1997)
The British Fighter since 1912 by Francis K. Mason (1992)
http://johnmarlinsmb5replica.mysite.com/index_1.html

Rumpler Loutzkoy-Taube front ground

Rumpler-Loutzkoy-Taube Aircraft

By William Pearce

Boris Loutzkoy (also spelled Lutskoi, Luskoy, Lutsky, and probably other ways) was a Russian engineer who went to Germany to continue his education in the 1880s. Initially, his main interests were with internal combustion engines and automobiles, but it was not long before Loutzkoy turned his focus and engineering talents to aviation.

Rumpler Loutzkoy-Taube front ground

The tandem-engine Rumpler-Loutzkoy-Taube employed coaxial propellers that rotated the same direction. The second engine can just be seen behind the first engine and between the wings. Note the aircraft’s double main wheels.

By 1911, he had teamed up with Rumpler Flugzeugwerke in Berlin, Germany to test an innovative propulsion concept. Loutzkoy’s idea was to use two engines to power separate propellers on a common shaft. Since the propellers shared the same shaft, they were coaxial. However, they were not contra-rotating, because they rotated the same direction. The propellers in Loutzkoy’s system were of different sizes and turned at different speeds. Loutzkoy believed this power arrangement would improve the aircraft’s low- and high-speed performance, with the twin propellers achieving a level of efficiency beyond what could be obtained with a single propeller of any size. In addition, two engines with separate propellers would provide a level of reliability well beyond that of a single power plant. At the time, engines were notoriously unreliable.

To test his theories, Loutzkoy made many modifications to a Rumpler Taube aircraft. The Taube (Dove) was designed in 1909 by Igo Etrich of Austria-Hungary. The aircraft first flew in 1910 and proved to be very stable. A number of manufacturers purchased licenses to build copies, and Rumpler probably produced the most. The Taube was a monoplane with a mostly wooden frame. The front of the aircraft and back to the cockpit was covered in metal, but the rest of the aircraft was fabric-covered. The Taube used wing warping for roll control.

Rumpler Loutzkoy-Taube front

This drawing of the Loutzkoy-Taube illustrates the aircraft’s similarity to a standard Taube. The obvious differences include the double propellers and two main gear wheels.

The Loutzkoy-modified aircraft was named the Rumpler-Loutzkoy-Taube. Changes from a standard Taube included a slightly modified and strengthened airframe, strengthened landing gear (including double wheels), and a slightly larger wing. These changes were made to handle the extra weight and power of a second engine. The approximate dimensions of the Loutzkoy-Taube were a wingspan of 49 ft 10 in (14.3 m) and a length of 34 ft 1 in (10.4 m). The aircraft weighed around 1,764 lb (800 kg) empty. The Loutzkoy-Taube had a top speed of 93 mph (150 km/h), about 31 mph (50 km/h) more than a standard Rumpler Taube.

Powering the Loutzkoy-Taube were two Argus Type 4 engines. The Type 4 was an inline, four-cylinder, water-cooled engine with a 5.51 in (140 mm) bore and stroke. The engine displaced 526 cu in (8.62 L) and produced 100 hp (75 kW) at 1,300 rpm. The two engines drove separate propellers that were mounted on a common shaft: the front engine drove the front propeller, and the second engine drove the second propeller. Both sets of propellers had two blades.

Rumpler Loutzkoy-Taube engines

A basic drawing of the engine installation in the Loutzkoy-Taube.

The front engine was positioned in its normal location, in the nose of the aircraft. However, rather than having its propeller mounted directly to the engine, a short extension shaft was used. The second engine was mounted behind and below the front engine. Power from the second engine was transferred to the front of the aircraft via an extension shaft that ran under the front engine. A sprocket on the end of the extension shaft was connected via a chain to the second propeller, which was positioned between the first propeller and the front engine.

Although the propellers turned the same direction, the second propeller was a larger diameter, turned at a slower rpm, and had a coarser pitch. The first propeller was 8 ft 2 in (2.5 m) in diameter, direct drive, and turned about 1,300 rpm. The second propeller was 9 ft 10 in (3.0 m) in diameter, had a .615 reduction through the chain-drive, and turned around 800 rpm. The aircraft could be flown on either engine if a failure occurred, but the intention was to have both engines operating at all times.

Rumpler Loutzkoy-Taube patent

A drawing from Loutzkoy’s patent shows the basic engine layout that was used in the Loutzkoy-Taube aircraft and includes a change-over gearbox. The gearbox was meant to provide braking after touchdown by reversing the rotation of the second propeller. However, such a gearbox was never installed in the aircraft.

In his German patent no. 263,059 (granted 29 October 1911), Loutzkoy explained how a change-over gearbox could be used to reverse the rotation of the second propeller. This feature would be used for braking after the aircraft landed. In flight, shortly before landing, the second engine would be stopped and the change-over gearbox engaged. The second engine could then be started on touchdown. Its propeller rotating in the opposite direction would slow the aircraft down. Most aircraft at the time did not have any brakes, and using the propeller as a brake would become common with turboprops. However, the reversing propeller idea was never implemented on the Loutzkoy-Taube aircraft.

Rumpler Loutzkoy-Taube Argus engines

Detailed right and left views of the Loutzkoy-Taube’s twin-Argus engine installation. Note the size difference of the propellers. The extension shaft and chain drive from the second engine to the larger propeller can clearly be seen.

The Loutzkoy-Taube was first flown in early 1912, possibly in February, at Johannisthal airfield, near Berlin. With a combined rating of 200 hp (149 kW), the Loutzkoy-Taube was one of the most powerful and fastest aircraft of its time. A number of subsequent flights were made, and Hellmuth Hirth was the pilot for most of the Loutzkoy-Taube’s flights. The aircraft passed an inspection test for the Russian Army on 8 March 1912, achieving a speed of 81 mph (130 km/h). The Loutzkoy-Taube was displayed at the Berlin Airshow in April 1912. However, engine drive issues continued to plague the aircraft. By 1913, Loutzkoy had moved on to another aircraft project. Nothing more was heard of the twin-engine Loutzkoy-Taube and its coaxial propellers.

While it was not the first twin-engine aircraft to fly, the Loutzkoy-Taube was certainly the first aircraft to fly using coaxial, non-contra-rotating propellers. A very small number of aircraft have used this method of propulsion, as it really does not have many advantages over a single propeller and has disadvantages over contra-rotating propellers. Still, Loutzkoy’s ideas demonstrate innovation and creativity in the early days of aviation.

Rumpler Loutzkoy-Taube rear

This rear view of the Loutzkoy-Taube illustrates the aircraft’s similarity, with the exception of the double propellers, to a standard Taube. Note the fuel tanks attached to the cabane strut above the cockpit.

Sources:
“The Loutzkoy 200-Horsepower Monoplane” Daily Consular and Trade Reports (29 May 1912)
“Rumpler-Taube mit Zwei-Motoren-Anlage System Loutzkoy” Flugsport (13 March 1912)
“Polytechnische Rundschau: Rumpler-Taube mit Motoranlage nach System Loutzkoy” Dinglers Polytechnisches Journal (16 March 1912)
“Flugzeug mit zwei gleichachsig und unmittelbar hintereinander angeordnetem Propellern” German patent no. 263,059 by Boris Loutzkoy (granted 29 October 1911)
Rumpler: zehn jahre deutsche Flugtechnik (1919)
Typenhandbuch der deutschen Luftfahrttechnik by Bruno Lange (1986)
Argus – Flugmotoren und Mehr by Wulf Kisselmann (2012)
http://rusaviagold.narod.ru/HISTORY/lutskoi.htm
http://alternathistory.com/samoletostroitelnyi-zavod-rumpler-flugzeugwerke-i-ego-razvitie-v-1908-1913-e-gody
http://flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft26875.htm

Fokker Dekker CI front

Dekker-Fokker C.I Rotary Propellers

By William Pearce

In the 1920s, Adriaan Jan Dekker helped redesign windmill sails in the Netherlands to improve their efficiency. His modified sails were streamlined and acted more as airfoils than the traditional sails in use. Dekker’s first sail was tested briefly in 1927, with more expansive tests in 1928. By 1930, 31 windmills were using Dekker’s sails, and the number increased to 75 by 1935.

Dekker patent rotary propellers

Drawings from Adriaan Dekker’s rotary propellers patent (US 2,186,064). The direction of rotation was actually opposite of the unit that was built and installed on a Fokker C.I. Note the airfoil sections of the blades.

In the 1930s, Dekker began to focus on improving aircraft propellers. In 1934, Dekker filed for a patent on a new type of turbine rotor blade for aircraft use. British patent 450,990 was awarded on 27 July 1936, and it outlined the use of a single rotation, four-blade rotary propeller. However, Dekker found that a single set of rotors caused a divergent airflow that virtually bypassed an aircraft’s tail. This caused control issues because it decreased airflow over the aircraft’s rudder and elevator.

Dekker continued to develop his design and applied for another patent in June 1936, before the first patent was awarded. The new British patent (476,226) was awarded on 3 December 1937 and outlined the use of contra-rotating rotors. Strangely, the gearing for the propellers was not included in the British patent but was included in the US (and French) patent filed on 19 May 1937 and granted patent 2,186,064 on 9 January 1940.

Dekker propeller construction

Construction images of the Dekker rotary propeller. The images are mainly the hub and blades of the front set of rotors. (hdekker.info image)

Almost all of the information contained in the British patent was also in the US patent. However, the US patent was more detailed and included additional information. The patents illustrate a large, streamlined hub from which two sets of four-blade rotors protrude. The original patent stated that the ideal blade length was one third of the hub diameter. The fixed-pitch blades were highly curved airfoils of a complex shape. The angle of the blade decreased from 40 degrees at the root to 5 degrees at the tip. In addition, the blade’s cord (length from leading edge to trailing edge) steadily increased from its root to its tip.

The two sets of blades were contra-rotating. The rear set of blades served to straighten the airflow from the front set, providing additional thrust and increasing efficiency. The contra-rotation of the blades also helped eliminate torque reactions. Through a gear reduction, the rear set of blades only turned at two-thirds the speed of the front set of blades. Dekker also noted that the rotary blades would be quieter than conventional propellers.

Fokker Dekker CI front

Dekker’s finished C.I with its large rotary propellers. Note the complex airfoil shape of the blades.

The drive for the rotors consisted of a sun gear mounted on the engine’s crankshaft that turned planetary gears against a fixed, internally-toothed ring gear. The planetary gears were mounted in a carrier from which a shaft extended to power the front set of blades. These blades rotated in the same direction as the engine and at an unspecified reduction. Attached to the shaft powering the front set of blades was another sun gear. This sun gear turned three idler gears that turned three planetary gears against another fixed, internally-toothed ring gear. This gear train reduced the rotation speed by 66% from the sun gear (and front set of blades). A hollow shaft extended from the planetary gear carrier to power the rear set of blades. Inside the hollow shaft was the propeller shaft for the front set of blades. The rear set of blades rotated the opposite direction of the engine.

To turn theory to reality, Dekker formed a company, Syndicaat Dekker Octrooien (Dekker Patents Syndicate), and acquired a Fokker C.I trainer aircraft around 28 March 1936. The C.I was a late World War I era biplane reconnaissance aircraft powered by a 185 hp BMW IIIa engine. As the aircraft’s design aged, transport and trainer versions were built. Dekker’s C.I was registered PH-APL on 15 April 1937.

Fokker Dekker CI taxi

Registered PH-APL, Dekker’s heavily modified Fokker C.I bears little resemblance to a standard C.I; the wings and tail are about all the aircraft have in common. Note how the fuselage shape tapers the diameter of the large propeller hub back to the tail. With its contra-rotating rotary propellers spinning, the aircraft is shown before taxi tests at Ypenburg airfield.

To accommodate the rotary propellers, Dekker’s aircraft was so heavily modified that it was nearly unrecognizable as a C.I. The aircraft retained the BMW engine but had the contra-rotating rotary propellers mounted to its front. The fuselage of the aircraft was modified and tapered from the very large propeller hub back to the tail. The fuselage was metal-covered immediately behind the propellers, but the rest of the fuselage was covered with fabric.

The rotary propellers differed from those illustrated in the patents in that six blades made up the front set of rotors, and seven blades made up the rear set. Construction of the individual blades was similar to that of a wing. The blades were made of a shaped aluminum sleeve fitted around three spars. The spars passed into and were connected to the hub. The roots of the blades were also attached to the hub. The hub was formed of an aluminum frame and covered with aluminum sheeting. Video indicates that the rear set of blades had roughly a 66% speed reduction compared to the front set—which matches what was stated in the patent.

Fokker Dekker CI captured Germans

Two views of Dekker’s C.I after it was captured by German forces. The right image clearly shows six blades on the front rotor and seven blades on the rear rotor.

The aircraft’s completion date is unknown, but Dekker’s C.I underwent taxi tests at Ypenburg airfield, near The Hauge, Netherlands. The aircraft reportedly made a few hops into the air, but no true flight was achieved. It is not clear if there was an issue with the rotary propellers (such as insufficient thrust or excessive vibrations) or if the project simply ran out of time. Dekker’s C.I was moved to Waalhaven Airport, where it was captured by German forces on 18 May 1940, eight days after the Germans started their invasion of the Netherlands at the start of World War II. Reportedly, the aircraft was taken to Johannisthal airfield near Berlin, Germany for testing. Some sources state the aircraft crashed on its first test flight and that its remains were later destroyed as Russian troops advanced late in the war. However, exactly what happened to Dekker’s C.I and its rotary propellers is not known.

Below is video uploaded to YouTube of the Fokker Dekker C.I undergoing taxi tests. Note the stroboscopic effect of the rotors turning at different speeds. Adriaan Dekker is shown at the end of the video. It is interesting to contemplate how much weight the rotary propellers added to the nose of the aircraft. Unfortunately, the date of the tests is not known.


Sources:
“Screw Propeller, Turbine Rotor, and Like Device” US patent 2,068,792 by Adriaan Jan Dekker (granted 26 January 1937)
“Rotary Propeller and the Like Device” US patent 2,186,064 by Adriaan Jan Dekker (granted 9 January 1940)
http://www.hdekker.info/DIVERSEN/Vragenrubriek.html
http://www.hdekker.info/registermap/TWEEDE.htm#PH-APL
http://www.fokker-aircraft.com/database/fokker-c-type/fokker-c.html
http://www.airhistory.org.uk/gy/reg_PH-.html
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?132130-Question
Power from Wind: A History of Windmill Technology by Richard L. Hills (1996)