I wish there was more info...but I find this pretty interesting about the Jumo 210.
Would have been a great picture!!


https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/me-262-and-variants.html

Last edited:
I wish there was more info...but I find this pretty interesting about the Jumo 210.
Would have been a great picture!!
Rolls-Royce pulled a lot of sub aircraft out of the gutter....
Read up on the P-51. wasn't much good with the first Allison engine.
If 3 wings are good, 5 must be even better!
This is the Fokker V8 'quintuplane' of 1917. Designer Reinhold Platz was convinced enough to build this prototype, but owner Anthony Fokker was sceptical. Fokker was correct and Platz was embarrassed, he wouldn't mention it, post war!
The first of nearly 34,000. BF 109 V1. D-IABI:
![]()
Rolls-Royce pulled a lot of sub aircraft out of the gutter....
Read up on the P-51. wasn't much good with the first Allison engine.
The first of nearly 34,000. BF 109 V1. D-IABI:
![]()
Poor thing had a bad case of Stuka Face.
![]()
Not surprising - the 109 V.1 and the JU87 A were both powered by the Junkers Jumo 210
Interesting drawing of the 262 without the jet engines fitted
I wonder what sort of aerodynamic properties the airframe would have had in that configuration & how it would have handled flying on prop alone
Would the handling have been any better than a 109, or worse
Any guesses
Curtiss A-8 Shrike flew few years before Ju-87 yet you can see some resemblance.Both made for the similar role yet only Junkers was adopted.
USAAF opted for twin engine tactical bombers but it wasn't long before every single US made fighter had provisions for good bomb load.
![]()
Those are some wild wheel pants, even on the tail wheel
Or just how long it took to get a tail wheel to replace a tail skid.
(those pants)
Amazing how long it took to develop retracting landing gear, the drag must have been phenomenal.Grizz