Help name this plane
Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:13 am
One of the guys over on the RC Scale Builder site posted this image of a plane that he has been trying to identify for some time. I thought I'd post it over here and see if any of you very knowledgeable aircraft enthusiasts could identify it.
I was thinking that with the size and shape of the vertical stab and the size and location of the wings if it was some kind of scaled down glider to test the flight charistics of the proposed B-36 bomber.
I was thinking that with the size and shape of the vertical stab and the size and location of the wings if it was some kind of scaled down glider to test the flight charistics of the proposed B-36 bomber.
Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:17 pm
That's a Cornelius XFG-1 Mallard. The 'FG' stood for 'fueling glider' and it was designed to deliver fuel by air. Only two were built.
Do a websearch for 'XFG-1' and you'll find a few more images...
Fade to Black...
Do a websearch for 'XFG-1' and you'll find a few more images...
Fade to Black...
Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:25 pm
Outstanding Blackwolf3945 !!! I've never even seen a picture of this bird or heard of it's mission.
Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:38 am
Wow!!! thanks for the info. I've been searching for days and hadn't come across anything even similar.
Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:42 am
Connery wrote:Wow!!! thanks for the info. I've been searching for days and hadn't come across anything even similar.
Thats Wix for ya.....
Individually we know alot, together we know everything.
Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:59 am
Fueled glider?
Is that like a Molotov Cocktail?
Is that like a Molotov Cocktail?
Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:22 am
BlackWolf3945 wrote:That's a Cornelius XFG-1 Mallard. The 'FG' stood for 'fueling glider' and it was designed to deliver fuel by air. Only two were built.
Do a websearch for 'XFG-1' and you'll find a few more images...
Fade to Black...
So...
with that line of reasoning about the designation FG for "fueled glider"...could one infer that an FG-1D would also carry out the same "fueled glider" mission with this aircraft as well ? If that is the case then what in the heck is the reason for the that big ol' round engine and 12 plus foot prop on the front of it used for ??
Okay...I was kidding here...nice job on the ident for this one.
Paul
Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:06 pm
I would thing that the difference between FGs would come with USN vs. the USAAC naming convention of aircraft. I think this is the first time I’ve seen an overlap with the names like that (or noticed it). Strange.
Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:52 pm
A little clarification... it's fueling glider, not fueled glider.
I don't know a helluvalot about this thing, but from what little I've come across the idea was that the glider was to have been towed behind a transport as a 'flying drop tank' of sorts. The towing aircraft was to feed off of the glider which was then released at the destination to land separately.
If anyone has any corrective or additional info on this thing, I'd like to hear about it...
Fade to Black...
I don't know a helluvalot about this thing, but from what little I've come across the idea was that the glider was to have been towed behind a transport as a 'flying drop tank' of sorts. The towing aircraft was to feed off of the glider which was then released at the destination to land separately.
If anyone has any corrective or additional info on this thing, I'd like to hear about it...
Fade to Black...
Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:31 pm
I'm guessing it was done something like this (in this case a Ar 234)
Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:28 pm
fabulous!! i learned something new today!! never heard of, nor saw anything of this anomaly before!! most definetely developed in the cause of a unique concept. i don't think air classics, wings or airpower magazines covered this rare bird in 30 plus years of publishing. best, tom
Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:34 pm
I think I have a pretty good guess how this glider would have been used. It was intended to be a range extender for certain types of aircraft, most likely bombers. Since engines burn the most fuel on takeoff and climbout, it would have been transferring fuel to the primary aircraft during climb out. It could be released as soon as all of the fuel had been released and it could glide back to the airport of origin. The aircraft probably had an oxygen system for tows to altitudes maybe up to 30,000 ' plus. Imagine say being towed by a B-29 into those fierce headwinds over the Pacific. If the XFG was released at 30,000' feet and had a no wind glide ratio of 20:1 then it could easily glide a distance of about 100 nautical miles. Greater if it had a tailwind helping it back to base.With a 50 knot direct tailwind it could glide for 150 nautical miles. The primary aircraft wouldn't necessarily have to circle the airport, it could start on it's way to it's mission. If runway length were part of the equation then the XFG would allow the Bomber to replace fuel with a more potent bomb load as it could take on fuel after being airborne.
This also might have come into play with say a B-17 which didn't have the range of the B-24. * When towing gliders, the glider creates it's own lift when being towed. Its "cost" is taken from the climb rate (surplus horsepower on takeoff) of the aircraft serving as the towplane.
This also might have come into play with say a B-17 which didn't have the range of the B-24. * When towing gliders, the glider creates it's own lift when being towed. Its "cost" is taken from the climb rate (surplus horsepower on takeoff) of the aircraft serving as the towplane.
?????
Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:50 pm
I'm guessing it was done something like this (in this case a Ar 234)
Holly cr*p!!!
It's that doesn't complete the fire triangle!!!
Fill something made of wood with fuel and put 2 blow torches in front
of it.