POWER PLANT: One Junkers Jumo 004C turbo jet, rated at 1,015 kp
PERFORMANCE: 567 mph at 19,700 ft (estimated)
COMMENT: The Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5 was the final design of all Me P.1092 projects. The layout was similar to the Me P.1092/3 and Me P.1092/4 as far as wings, tail compartment, air intake, undercarriage and turbo engine are concerned. Also the calculated performance remained equivalent. Solely the cockpit was moved back above the wings to give more space for armament in the fuselages nose. All the different Me P.1092 projects remained on drawing board. However, the designs influenced later projects such as Messerschmitt Me P.1106 and Me P.1101, respectively.
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5 and Messerschmitt Me 262C-3 Heimatschuetzer III, JV 44
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5 and Messerschmitt Me 262C-3 Heimatschuetzer III, JV 44
POWER PLANT: Junkers Jumo 004C turbojet, rated at 1,015 kp
PERFORMANCE: 567 mph at 19,700 ft (estimated)
COMMENT: The design of the Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4 was very similar to the Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3 except the cockpit that was placed to the forward fuselage. This layout allowed the pilot a much better field of vision. Air intake, wings and tail unit as well as power unit remained unchanged.
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4 and Messerschmitt Me 262C-1 Heimatschuetzer I, JV 44
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4 and Messerschmitt Me 262C-1 Heimatschuetzer I, JV 44
COMMENT: In May 1943, the Messerschmitt Company began work on a series of fighter/Interceptor aircraft under the designation Me P.1092. The first design, the Messerschmitt Me P.1092A had single Junkers Jumo 004C turbojet and the P.1092B had a rocket engine. The wings were basically the outer wing sections from the Messerschmitt Me 262, a butterfly tail and a tricycle landing gear arrangement were planned. In mid 1943, based on that design, a new series of derivatives were on the drawing boards, the Messerschmitt Me P.1092/2, Me P.1092/3, Me P.1092/4, and Me P.1092/5, respectively. All were of conventional design, as far as power unit, wings and tail arrangement as well as landing gear are concerned.
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me 262A-1b, KG 44 and Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5, Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4 and Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4, Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5 and Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3, clockwise from left
Messerschmitt Me P.1092/3, Messerschmitt Me P.1092/4, Messerschmitt Me P.1092/5, Messerschmitt Me 262C-3 Heimatschuetzer III, JV 44, Messerschmitt Me 262C-1a Heimatschuetzer I, JV 44, and Messerschmitt Me 262A-1b, KG 76, clockwise from left
TYPE: Fighter, Dive bomber, Ground attack, and Reconnaissance aircraft. Project.
ACCOMMODATION: Pilot only
POWER PLANT: One BMW 801D engine, rated at 1,700 hp and one BMW 003 turbojet, rated at 800 kp
PERFORMANCE: 423 mph at 13,600 ft (estimated)
COMMENT: The Blohm & Voss Company had a great experience in designing asymmetrical aircraft as the Blohm & Voss Bv 141, Bv P. 176, Bv P.179, Bv P.204, and Bv P.237. In 1944 Blohm & Voss proposed new asymmetrical design to the RLM, which could be used as fighter, destroyer, dive bomber and reconnaissance, respectively. The design featured a mixed propulsion system with a piston engine in the main fuselage/ tail boom and a turbojet under a separated gondola that housed the cockpit. The main advantage of that arrangement was an excellent and unobstructed view for the pilot and the reduction of torque moments along the vertical axis induced by the propeller of single engine aircraft. Several different designs were proposed, the Bv P.194.01-02, the Bv P.194.03-01, and the Bv P.194.00-101, changes regarding mainly in the layout of the turbojet engine. Due to the threatening defeat of Germany the Bv P.194 development was not pursued (Ref.: 16).
Blohm und Voss Bv. P.194.01-02
Blohm und Voss Bv. P.194.01-02
Blohm und Voss Bv. P.194.01-02
Blohm und Voss Bv. P.194.01-02
Blohm und Voss Bv. P.194.01-02
Blohm und Voss Bv. P.194.01-02
Blohm und Voss Bv. P.194.01-02
Blohm und Voss Bv. P.237 and Blohm und Voss Bv. P.194.01-02
TYPE: Long range Bad-weather/Night Fighter. Project.
ACCOMMODATION: Crew of three
POWER PLANT: Two Junkers Jumo 213J, rated at 1,750 hp each
PERFORMANCE: 577 mph (estimated)
COMMENT: The Dornier Do P.252 project dates back to 1943 as replacement of the Do 335 “Pfeil” (Arrow). In January 1945 the design, that based on the Dornier Do P.247/6 project, was submitted for the optimum Luftwaffe night fighter contract specification. Three studies P.252/1, P.252/2, and P.252/3 were made from this design, all were very similar despite little differences in dimensions and wing plan forms (straight, 35 and 22.5 degree, respectively). Two Junkers Jumo 213J , rated at 1750 hp each were located in tandem within the fuselage and coupled to an extension shaft that drove two contra-rotating three bladed propellers that featured a blade sweep of 50 degrees, a novelty at that time. The P.252/2 had a slightly elongated fuselage and room for a crew of three. The wings were swept back at 35 degrees. Although the Dornier Do P.252 promised an excellent performance, equivalent to upcoming turbojet powered aircraft the design was abandoned reluctantly.
POWER PLANT: One Junkers Jumo 213T, rated at 2,000 hp, driving four bladed pusher propeller
PERFORMANCE: 520 mph (estimated)
COMMENT: The excellent performance of the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil (Arrow) proceeded to several Dornier designs of pusher type fighters and fighter bombers. Among these is this Do P.247/6 project from autumn 1944. The swept back wing together with a powerful engine promised an excellent performance and the pusher type propeller offered an excellent visibility and allowed the installation of radar antennas for the adoption as a bad weather/night fighter. This furher development was the Dornier Do P.252 but the project was never realized.
POWER PLANT: Two General Electric J33-GE 5 turbojets, rated at 1,835 kp each
PERFORMANCE: 522 mph at 15,700 ft
COMMENT: The Bell XP-83 was a United States prototype escort fighter designed by Bell Aircraft during World War II. It first flew in 1945. As an early jet fighter, its limitations included a lack of power and it was soon eclipsed by more advanced designs. The early jet fighters consumed fuel at a prodigious rate which severely limited their range and endurance.
In March 1944, the United States Army Air Forces requested Bell to design a fighter with increased endurance and formally awarded a contract for two prototypes on 31 July 1944.Bell had been working on its “Model 40” interceptor design since 1943. It was redesigned as a long-range escort fighter while retaining the general layout of the Bell P-59 Airacomet. The two General Electric-GE-5 turbojet engines were located in each wing root which left the large and bulky fuselage free for fuel tanks and armament. The fuselage was an all-metal semimonocoque capable of carrying 4,350 l of fuel. In addition, two 950 l drop tanks could be carried. The cabin was pressurized and used a small and low bubble style canopy. The armament was to be six 12.7 mm machine guns in the nose.
Early wind tunnel reports had pinpointed directional instability but the “fix” of a larger tail would not be ready in time for flight testing. The first prototype was flown on 25 February 1945, demonstrating that the aicraft was under-powered and unstable. The limited flight testing provided satisfactory flight characteristics although spins were restricted until the larger tail fin was installed. The second prototype did incorporate the extended tail and an aileron boost system. One unique characteristic was the XP-83’s refusal to slow down due to its sleek aerodynamic shape and lack of drag brakes. This meant that test pilots were forced to fly “stabilized approaches” (i.e. very long and flat landing approaches).
The first prototype was used in 1946 as a ramjet test-bed with an engineer’s station located in the fuselage behind the pilot. The second prototype flew on 19 October and was later scrapped in 1947. Apart from range, the XP-83 was inferior to the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star and this led to the cancellation of the XP-83 project in 1947 (Ref.: 24).
POWER PLANT: One Pratt & Whitney R-4360-10, rated at 3,000 hp
PERFORMANCE: 432 mph
COMMENT: The estimated excellent performance of this aircraft, designed for the US Navy, was of great interest for the US Army Air Force, too. So the third (of three) prototype was delivered to the US Army Air Force and tested at Eglin Air Force base. But the advent of new jet fighters led to the cancellation of many wartime piston-engined projects. So consequently, the USAF lost interest in pursuing the project and the prototype was scrapped.
POWER PLANT: One Pratt & Whitney XR-4360-10, rated at 3,000 hp
PERFORMANCE: 432 mph
COMMENT: From the logistical point of view the US Navy was most interested to have only one type of aircraft on board its carriers for all operational tasks. An excellent design for all these duties was the Boeing XF8B, a new class of “five-in-one fighter” (fighter, interceptor, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, or level bomber). Designed around a new designed “power egg”, the Pratt & Whitney XR-4360 with 3,000hp this aircraft embodied a number of innovative features in order to accomplish the various roles. Three prototypes were ordered, but despite its formidable capabilities, with the end of the hostilities in the Pacific area the XF8B-1 was fated to never enter series production.
COMMENT: There is some evidence that in the mid 1940’s the Boeing Company was working on a fighter project , named Project B.360, with an oval shaped wing, well suited for Short Take-Off/Landing (STOL) operations on carrier decks. The forerunner was the Chance Vought V-173 Flying Pancake demonstrator as well as the two prototypes of the Chance Vought XF5U-1. The B.390 differed from the Vought design in powering with one piston engine driving counter-rotating three-bladed propellers at the airplane‘s nose. No further details are known as well as the designation Boeing XF9B Flying Flapjack remains unclear.
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Boeing P. 360 Flying Flapjack
Scale 1:72 aircraft models of World War II
Mit der weiteren Nutzung unserer Webseite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies verwenden um Ihnen die Nutzerfreundlichkeit dieser Webseite zu verbessern. Weitere Informationen zum Datenschutz finden Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.
