Rare aircraft

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Here is an interesting link
http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
See especially Curtis 24-B and Curtis-Wright XP-55 Ascender. Did Burt Rutan
know about these?

[Jim Logajan]

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
> Here is an interesting link
> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm

Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop seems
IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual, that is.

> See especially Curtis 24-B and Curtis-Wright XP-55 Ascender. Did Burt
> Rutan know about these?

Well ... they weren't amateur built.

[Dan[_12_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
>> Here is an interesting link
>> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
>
> Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop seems
> IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual, that is.

It's a fake, look where the engine nacelles would be. The person who
runs that site was told a couple of months ago in rec.aviation.military
and refuses to update it. The actual aircraft was used to test engines
in the nose, but the picture in question was photo shopped.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Logajan]

Dan > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
>>> Here is an interesting link
>>> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
>>
>> Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop
>> seems IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual,
>> that is.
>
> It's a fake, look where the engine nacelles would be. The person who
> runs that site was told a couple of months ago in
> rec.aviation.military and refuses to update it. The actual aircraft
> was used to test engines in the nose, but the picture in question was
> photo shopped.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Thanks for the heads-up. I googled the N-number on the wing and it appears
to be the same test aircraft as the one labeled "BOEING B-17 TESTBED WITH 5
ENGINES" on that same page. Also appears here:

http://aerofiles.com/boe-b17turbo.jpg

and here, among other places:

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b17registry/b17-4485734-2.html

Any idea if some of the others might be bogus?

[Geyser]

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> Here is an interesting link
> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
> See especially Curtis 24-B and Curtis-Wright XP-55 Ascender. Did Burt Rutan
> know about these?

Boomerang
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/1289166.html?page=1

Blohm & Voss BV 141
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_141

[Dan[_12_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dan > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
>>>> Here is an interesting link
>>>> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
>>> Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop
>>> seems IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual,
>>> that is.
>> It's a fake, look where the engine nacelles would be. The person who
>> runs that site was told a couple of months ago in
>> rec.aviation.military and refuses to update it. The actual aircraft
>> was used to test engines in the nose, but the picture in question was
>> photo shopped.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Thanks for the heads-up. I googled the N-number on the wing and it appears
> to be the same test aircraft as the one labeled "BOEING B-17 TESTBED WITH 5
> ENGINES" on that same page. Also appears here:
>
> http://aerofiles.com/boe-b17turbo.jpg
>
> and here, among other places:
>
> http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b17registry/b17-4485734-2.html
>
> Any idea if some of the others might be bogus?

Take what's on that site with a few grains of salt. Arndt also
believes in secret Nazi disc aircraft, a secret Nazi underground u-boat
base in Antarctica and a host of other wonderful things. Some of his
theories are a hoot.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
> > Here is an interesting link
> > http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
>
> Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop seems
> IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual, that is.

There is some question as to whether the photo was airbrushed, or not.

The same engine appears in other pictures of a B-17 testbed, but they
all have the normal 4 radials on the wings.

> > See especially Curtis 24-B and Curtis-Wright XP-55 Ascender. Did Burt
> > Rutan know about these?
>
> Well ... they weren't amateur built.

And there were even earlier canard experiments dating back at least to
the WW1 period.

[Dan[_12_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
>>> Here is an interesting link
>>> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
>> Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop seems
>> IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual, that is.
>
> There is some question as to whether the photo was airbrushed, or not.
>
>
No question at all. Two things to look for: 1) near where the
nacelles would be there is obvious alteration and 2) the main gear on a
B-17 retract forward into the inboard nacelles right behind the engine
and forward of the leading edge of the wing. Notice how there is no cut
out in the leading edge for the gear and there is no gear showing.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:20:12 -0700, Steve Hix >
wrote:

> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> > "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
> > > Here is an interesting link
> > > http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
> >
> > Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop seems
> > IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual, that is.
>
> There is some question as to whether the photo was airbrushed, or not.

According to one online forum, "That photo is definitely a fake - it's been
photoshopped. The original can be found on p.204 of Bowers' 'Fortress In The
Sky' and shows the aircraft ( Pratt and Whitney's flying test-bed 299Z ) flying
just on the nose-mounted XT-34 turbo-prop with the four standard Wright
Cyclone's feathered. The photo is absolutely identical, right down to the marks
on the ground."

The other question one would have to ask is, "Why make a single-engine B-17?"
Adding the turboprop to the nose of an otherwise-ordinary B-17 is great for
testing that experimental turboprop, but why spend the thousands of
manufacturing and engineering hours required to remove the other four engines?
With thousands of surplus B-17s available for scrap-metal prices, why spend the
time to remove the existing engines, re-skin the wing, re-work the CG, rework
the hydraulics, etc.? It's much more involved that adding that fifth engine to
the nose.

Remember, we're not talking about a Bamboo Bomber, here....we're talking about a
large aircraft that only the government or corporation can afford to modify.
There's certainly no potential profit for the private company, and (with planes
like the B-45 and B-47 entering service) no motive for the government, either.

Ron Wanttaja

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

> Here is an interesting link
> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
> See especially Curtis 24-B and Curtis-Wright XP-55 Ascender. Did Burt Rutan
> know about these?
>
>


Of course he did.
The Wright Flywer was the first one.

And the Granville Boys built one too...
Pretty ugly duck.

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/xplane/ascender.html
(sorry 'bout the language, but it's the only photo /3 view I could find)

MSFS
http://www.fswarbirds.com/index.php?loc=downloads&page=info&FileID=10819

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

[[email protected]]

On Aug 30, 9:24*am, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
> Here is an interesting linkhttp://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
> See especially Curtis 24-B and Curtis-Wright XP-55 Ascender. *Did Burt Rutan
> know about these?

The guys at Curtiss-Wright are still likely have a laugh over naming a
pusher airplane the "Ass-ender".

Rich S.

[[email protected]]

> The guys at Curtiss-Wright are still likely have a laugh over naming a
> pusher airplane the "Ass-ender".

Oops - typo. I meant to say "having a laugh".

Rich S.

[Steve Hix]

In article >, Dan >
wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >
> >> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
> >>> Here is an interesting link
> >>> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
> >> Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop seems
> >> IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual, that is.
> >
> > There is some question as to whether the photo was airbrushed, or not.
> >
> >
> No question at all. Two things to look for: 1) near where the
> nacelles would be there is obvious alteration and 2) the main gear on a
> B-17 retract forward into the inboard nacelles right behind the engine
> and forward of the leading edge of the wing. Notice how there is no cut
> out in the leading edge for the gear and there is no gear showing.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

That's what I get for trying to be subtle.

[Blueskies]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message .. .
> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
>> Here is an interesting link
>> http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/UNITED%20STATES.htm
>
> Impressive set of photos! The B-17 with the single engine turboprop seems
> IMHO to really accentuate the B-17's wings. More so than usual, that is.
>


The shot of the B-17 turboprop without the normal 4 engines is a fake photoshopped image. Too bad because it looks like
the rest of the shots are real....