Com-Central.net

piney

In appreciation of our new hosts visual proof that wings and treads go together Laughing

Helps If I add the picture

Jeff Lewis

JG300-Ascout

piney wrote:

Helps If I add the picture

Jeff Lewis

There are pics of a B-36 that had tracked gear too that makes the rounds from time-to-time.... Shocked

(also, one of the cool features of this forum is that you can edit your own posts for when ya' forgets something like adding the pics. Couldn't do that "over yonder").

SFC_Jeff_Button

What would be the purpose? If its to stay on top of soft soil better, what would keep the front landing gear from digging in?

JG300-Stoopy · Last edited by JG300-Stoopy on Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

Probably just prototyping the idea on the main gear only.

Moreover, ya'd think a setup like that would impose some serious restrictions on max takeoff/landing speeds. Wonder how much squeek and clank that must have generated at 100MPH!!!

Quite an amazing site to behold though........thanks!

Dontos

SFC_Jeff_Button wrote:

What would be the purpose? If its to stay on top of soft soil better, what would keep the front landing gear from digging in?

NAW,....Its just a wingy-thingy guy trying to play 'tanky-tanky' without getting dirty!! Laughing

(Ducking for cover) Shocked

INCOMING!!!!

Mr. Green

JG300-Stoopy

Well they should have done it to the B-25H then....with the 75MM cannon mounted in the nose of that particular variant, it woulda been even more tanky-tanky!

Neil_Baumgardner

I'm surprised this hasnt come up yet - the most infamous aircraft/tank combination - the Antonov A-40 Krylya Tanka (Tank Wings).

Antonov A-40

Neil

Doug_Kibbey

Neil_Baumgardner wrote:

I'm surprised this hasnt come up yet - the most infamous aircraft/tank combination - the Antonov A-40 Krylya Tanka (Tank Wings).

Antonov A-40

Neil

Animations of that sucker were just on TV last night on "Secret weapons of..."

They mentioned the test pilot made what was called a "rough landing"... they didn't try it again after that. Project cancelled.

Neil_Baumgardner

Even if they fixed the "small" landing issue, there's the question of how they would have escorted these very slow not maneuverable (even less so than a Dakota I'd imagine) behind German lines...

Neil

JG300-Stoopy

What, did they follow through on the whole "winged tank" idear a little too literally and give the pilot just a small viewing slit and/or prism to look out of too? Anybody'd land rough like that....somewhere near the runway maybe.....

Seriously, do I see a turret there?

Doug_Kibbey

Neil_Baumgardner wrote:

Even if they fixed the "small" landing issue, there's the question of how they would have escorted these very slow not maneuverable (even less so than a Dakota I'd imagine) behind German lines...

Neil

Neil,
The show maintained that the most daunting problem was the lack of aircraft of sufficient power to routinely get these suckers aloft. The rapid advance on Berlin made it un-necessary, moreover, which is apparently what they had in mind for it anyway (leap-frogging in).

I hope a certain party doesn't see this, or you might soon see the concept advocated for the M113. Wink

Doug_Kibbey

JG300-Stoopy wrote:

Seriously, do I see a turret there?

Yes, you do! (no tail gunner needed!)

Neil_Baumgardner

JG300-Stoopy wrote:

What, did they follow through on the whole "winged tank" idear a little too literally and give the pilot just a small viewing slit and/or prism to look out of too? Anybody'd land rough like that....somewhere near the runway maybe.....

Seriously, do I see a turret there?

I'm very certain it did have a turret. The wings were more transportation than anything, it wasnt envisioned to fight in the air (the thought is pretty comical).

Started out with how to air transport/drop light tanks. First solution was mounting them on the underside of a bomber. Light tanks were carried in wingpods this way into the 50s...

So the next "logical" progression was to keep the wings & engines but get ride of the "unnecessary" bomber fuselage... Kinda an alternative to putting it in a glider...

Neil

Neil_Baumgardner

Doug_Kibbey wrote:

Neil,
The show maintained that the most daunting problem was the lack of aircraft of sufficient power to routinely get these suckers aloft. The rapid advance on Berlin made it un-necessary, moreover, which is apparently what they had in mind for it anyway (leap-frogging in).

Oh yeah, thats true too...

Neil

JG300-Stoopy

Neil_Baumgardner wrote:

I'm very certain it did have a turret. The wings were more transportation than anything, it wasnt envisioned to fight in the air (the thought is pretty comical).

Okay...(shakes head vigorously back and forth)...I was still looking at it from the landing gear perspective only, thinking it was just another experiment on rough airstrip operations......didn't realize it was a tank and air transport mechanism all rolled into one. Doesn't sound like the best basis for design compromise does it?

Yeah, air-to-air action does sound comical doesn't it? But, what if the idea actually worked out, you never know.....we'd have seen an escalation of flying tank development effort on all sides, with fears of a possible "flying tank gap" and sooner or later the inevitable dog-firefight would have happened and good gravy the falling spent cartridges themselves woulda wreaked havoc on the local potato and turnip crops......horrifying to think of. Yet somehow, kinda cool at the same time, gotta admit.....