If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
What is/was it, or what was it called, and where can information be found about it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger that. I've only seen it mentioned a couple of times. Saw a picture of it once. The deal was, someone looked at how much it cost to deliver a paratrooper and said they could come up with an AIRPLANE that could do better than that... and they did. But it's roll-out came after D-Day and there was a lot of pressure to kill the program, but three examples with different aft sections survived the war... and were then crushed & smelted. It was just a simple little one-seater that could be shipped disassembled. Bubble canopy. Fixed trike gear. I could ran on mogas and could deliver 300 pounds anywhere within 200 miles (calm air assumed). 'Rudder' pedals were tied to the nose-wheel !! It came in three ddifferent models. One had a V-tail the others were conventional but the differences had to do with something else -- range, load or armament. No gauges to speak of. The 'pathfinder' was meant to be a series of Piper Cubs and the thing was meant to land virtually anywhere with 'one flip or less' Meaning a nose-over was acceptable (and the only thing the pilots were trained for). The official story is that it was never flown except by pilots but the 'real' story is that at least three "Army sergeants" meaning they weren't recruits, with no prior aviation experience managed to fly them using only the instruction manual for their 'flight training.' And every time I mention it I get a ration of **** so to hell with them. I'll bet you dollars to donuts Leeon Davis knew what I was talking about :-) And if that sounds kooky, it doesn't even BEGIN to come close to some of the wacky ideas that were proposed AND tested, such as using pigeons as 'emergency navigators,' affixing a one-ounce THERMITE charge to a BAT and a bunch of other equally strange stuff. My dad happened to know quite a bit about this program because he helped fabricate an A-40 engine mount for one of the three after it suffered a prop-strike. -Bob |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
wrote in message ... What is/was it, or what was it called, and where can information be found about it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger that. I've only seen it mentioned a couple of times. Saw a picture of it once. The deal was, someone looked at how much it cost to deliver a paratrooper and said they could come up with an AIRPLANE that could do better than that... and they did. Interesting. I don't doubt the existence of something like that, for an instant. If all you had to do was steer it down the runway, and then sorta land it, with a flip being considered acceptable, that would make it easy for a non aviator to steer around in the air. The mental picture I keep getting, is a whole flock of them buzzing away towards an objective, at night, (for stealth like many paratrooper landings of the time did) and how many would crash into another. I wonder if they put bumpers on them? g -- Jim in NC |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:18:05 -0800 (PST), Monk
wrote: I don't know. I thought of this conecpt, flying prone, before about twenty plus years ago while in High school. Then I came across this bird. Flying prone is one thing, though I don't see the attraction... it's been done more than once (not counting all the hang gliders), but the Wee Bee is so marginal that flying prone is the only option. -Dana -- ......they want you to send your money to the Lord, but they give you their address..... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
I understood it was flown at the Burbank airport. I believe they were
stored across the street. (That's the only area that matches the description of 'mock-up'.) Back then, the whole area was under the camouflage that covered most of the plants during WWII and it wasn't uncommon to see traffic stopped whilst a P-38 was towed across the road for one thing or another. As for skunk works. As projects go, this one was a couple of guys working in shed at one of the shops where they Lockheed cranked out 'shapes,' stringers and the like. It was NOT an aircraft assembly plant but a 'plant' that made parts for the other plants. There were several buildings there, as I recall, some of which used to be assembly plants but were turned into office and shop space as the war progressed. I seem to remember long lines of people... maybe it was a cafeteria or something like that :-) -Bob |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
Sorry for the top post, but I couldn't decide what the trim...
Seeing Fred Weick's name mentioned, I think I can make a fair guess about the concept: oodles of dihedral, ailerons and rudder both controlled with the yoke, widely spaced main undercarriage with a generous travel, and plenty of weight on the nose wheel. I will bet there was plenty of visual similarity to the subsequent Ercoupe as well. Peter wrote in message ... Any plans out there for this build? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Yea Godz! Get serious! You had to be a Super Pilot just to get that sonofabitch off the ground and a Super-Super pilot to get it back down again, Whereas, that thing from... forgetful now... up in the top end of the Other Valley... LOCKHEED fer crysakes. That thing from Lockheed actually Worked! Oh my how it did. Three young draftees, Zero flight time, NEVER been in an aeroplane, all three taking that big step forward when you said it's liable to kill you but if it don't it could win the war for us -- and all three of them silly-assed kids taking the Big Step. And it Worked! Start going slow to learn how to keep it straight and it kept going and went right up into the air and after their first landing you couldn't KEEP those kids from flying it, it was so easy to do and so much fun. And of course, they took them away and parked them over behind the mock-ups in the locked hanger where they were the only things made out of metal... Seriously... mock-ups were all WOOD and the only guy who knew they were there was the Boss Carpenter and the Major in charge of the program. But we'd already landed and everyone's Dire Predictions had proved false and so they did what bureaucracies always do -- THEY CRUSHED THEM. Wouldn't even let us salvage the engines, which were Lycoming O-145's on two of them and a Continental A-40 on the other. Crushed them. Fred Weick actually cried when he heard. Because the thing would NOT spin and as it neared the ground, at anything less than terminal velocity, it would very politely flatten out and if you remembered to reduce the power, it would sit itself down on its tricycle landing gear and probably blow a tire, because you were probably doingabout ninety. American brains... and American politics. You could put 300 pounds in that little sucker and it flew just fine. No parachutes of course, just One soldier (volunteered) and the biggest problem was getting them to Come Back!! because once they learned how to turn, they'd stay up there until the fuel warning buzzer went off. THEN they would come back, sometimes downwind, and put it down literally ANYWHERE.... taxiways, SIDEWALK (for crysakes! Why? Because he thought he could [and did] and all the 'real' runways were busy, he said, as part of his apology.) Air-Mobile. 1944. And IT REALLY WORKED. Ask John Thrope about it. And some of the other REAL engineers. Tough, TOUGH little bird up there on the north end of the runway, borrowing hangar space from Lockheed, flying on weekends because it was classified 'SECRET'. But once you were past the MP's you could do any damn thing you wanted and there was nobody to stop you because General on down, if they didn't have a 'yellow pass' "I'm afraid I can't allow that, sir." Because the MP's never knew when it was a drill or for real, and they turned away some of the highest of the high. And here we are today, SIXTY-FIVE years later and they're still treating it like a big f**king SECRET. -R.S.Hoover |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
The mental picture I keep getting, is a whole flock of them buzzing away towards an objective, at night, (for stealth like many paratrooper landings of the time did) and how many would crash into another. *I wonder if they put bumpers on them? g ----------------------------------------------------- I donno Jim. Maybe the one with the different tail came with a built- in parachute. The Thing was, despite all the hype about paratroops, while the POTENTIAL was there, given Crete (for the other side) D-day and 'Market Garden,' on the basis of cost vs effectivess most 'airborne' troops ended up perform normal infantry roles, which raised the question: Should we train ALL infantry to jump from airplanes? Or, do we even need the capability? Because based on... Market Time? Market Garden? (Can't remember ****) Someone in the British Parliament said we could have saved everyone a lot of time, trouble and MONEY if they'd simply landed their gliders inside the POW camps, because that's were x-percent of the troops ended up anyway. And American congressmen weren't far behind, pointing out how many THOUSANDS of C-47's we had assigned to give someone a ride they never took, and when they DID take the ride (Sicily, Normandy) they often ended up at the wrong place anyway. If you broke it down into numbers of airplanes and the amount of training, its seems we could have gotten the same bang for our buck by simply stuffing volunteers into a little mass-produced airplane, wishing them well and crossing your fingers. -Bob |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
wrote V: The Thing was, despite all the hype about paratroops, while the POTENTIAL was there, given Crete (for the other side) D-day and 'Market Garden,' on the basis of cost vs effectivess most 'airborne' troops ended up perform normal infantry roles, which raised the question: Should we train ALL infantry to jump from airplanes? Jim: Usually, you think of paratroopers as an advance wing of the attack, or to put men over the top of resistance, or unless there was no way to get troops in, otherwise. V: If you broke it down into numbers of airplanes and the amount of training, its seems we could have gotten the same bang for our buck by simply stuffing volunteers into a little mass-produced airplane, wishing them well and crossing your fingers. Jim: Interesting concept, at the very least. I think there are times that such a use could have been made, but the stealth of such a landing would be pretty minimal, I would suppose. -- Jim in NC |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
On Dec 28, 6:23*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
Jim: *Interesting concept, at the very least. *I think there are times that such a use could have been made, but the stealth of such a landing would be pretty minimal, I would suppose. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger that. What was the 'stick' for a DC-3? I read somewhere that the push for the C-46 -- even the name 'Commando' -- was driven by the fact you needed a whole damn air force of DC-3's to put a credible number of troops on the ground AND in the correct positions. C-46, the stick was about twice that of a C-47... but at about 4x the cost, thanks to tooling amortization of the latter by pre-war civilian demand. So when they DID get the required amount of lift... it was stolen! The C-46 went to air-supply the China theater because the DC-3 couldn't make it over the Hump with a credible cargo on-board. The DC-3 was just what the air lines wanted; cheap to build, economical to operate, and with a load capacity that was a close match for the markets & routes of that era. But turn it into a weapon of war and you find you needed so damn many of them that ANY idea of a 'stealthy' insertion was little more than a bad joke. Indeed, good pre-event intel virtually pin-pointed the drop zone... as it did for D- Day... if the German CinC hadn't been a total Fruit Loop, consulting his astrologer fer crysakkes! -Bob |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Wee Bee
Monk wrote:
On Dec 28, 8:59 am, Dana M. Hague wrote: On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:52:51 -0800 (PST), Monk wrote: On Dec 25, 1:54 pm, Monk wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-TE7MOuo7c Monk Any plans out there for this build? Why would you want to? I don't know. I thought of this conecpt, flying prone, before about twenty plus years ago while in High school. Then I came across this bird. Monk There was a young aviator who looked to have a promising career in aviation ahead of him that had the same idea. His incarnation of the WeeBee had a bigger engine and had him strapped to the bottom of the fuselage rather than the top. There was a web site that detailed his vision and its fortune, but I can't find it at the moment. A friend of his hosted it as I recall (BlueSkyGirl?) Charles |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|