And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I guess it would take off, land, and be stored on a sky hook. Can't see any way to have this on the ground. Landing gear would be 40 feet tall. Vertical landing would ruin the tail gun positions. Nose down kills the propellers. Still, it looks like a nice way to use up spare B-17 and B-29 tail assemblies.
Get rid of the lower rudders and you'd be able to fit B-29 landing gear inside the original B-29 #2 and 3 engine nacelles. Hell, put the original B-29 wing assembly on. More power, more fuel load for distance. Crappy agility for a fighter, and negligible bomb load for a bomber. Perfect...
I guess it would take off, land, and be stored on a sky hook. Can't see any way to have this on the ground. Landing gear would be 40 feet tall. Vertical landing would ruin the tail gun positions. Nose down kills the propellers. Still, it looks like a nice way to use up spare B-17 and B-29 tail assemblies.
ReplyDeleteNot enough wing to provide sufficient lift to support the weight of the whole structure nor space volume for a useful load
ReplyDelete"Not enough wing" ...
DeleteThat's what I was thinking.
When I was 11 I found out a Cox .049 engine will fly with no wings at all.
DeleteEnough wing if going Mach 2............
DeleteIt's a tie fighter from World War Twice.
ReplyDeleteTwin Internal-combustion Engine
Delete~ Doctor Weasel
Looks like it would fly better on its side
ReplyDeleteBailouts look safe though.
ReplyDeleteHella yaw control.
ReplyDeleteGet rid of the lower rudders and you'd be able to fit B-29 landing gear inside the original B-29 #2 and 3 engine nacelles.
DeleteHell, put the original B-29 wing assembly on. More power, more fuel load for distance. Crappy agility for a fighter, and negligible bomb load for a bomber.
Perfect...
Y'all are looking at it wrong. It's in a hard turn in a 90-degree roll.
ReplyDeletewould never fly.
ReplyDeleteWould never take off, either
Delete~ Doctor Weasel
Give it electric motors and it would work underwater….
ReplyDeleteThis looks like an airplane designed by Congress. Specifically by Fettermoron and Evita Guevara-Castro.
ReplyDeleteUmm, landing gear? Minor details
ReplyDeleteTwo tailgunners
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking it's a navy plane and the lower vertical stabilizers fold for landing
ReplyDeleteParts is parts.
ReplyDeleteBet it would turn on a dime!
ReplyDelete