... This paper purports to have two photos of it. One is the obviously faked one I referred to earlier. The other is skilfully done but little things like the amount of blurring vary too much. Also, it copies some of the fine details of the fake but also differs slightly here and there as if the touching-up was not perfectly duplicated. The author's write-up reads like one of my what-if backstories. His only reference is dated 1989. Unless I see period sources I will not accept that this was even a design project.
8-9. ábra: A Marton X/V harci repülőgép makettje fotómontázsokon
The caption to Figure 8-9 makes clear that these images are photo-montages based on a scale model of the Marton X/V.
Thanks I understand.... This paper purports to have two photos of it. One is the obviously faked one I referred to earlier. The other is skilfully done but little things like the amount of blurring vary too much. Also, it copies some of the fine details of the fake but also differs slightly here and there as if the touching-up was not perfectly duplicated. The author's write-up reads like one of my what-if backstories. His only reference is dated 1989. Unless I see period sources I will not accept that this was even a design project.
Agreed, the authors provide no proof that this design ever existed. Hegedűs and Ozsváth just seem thrilled to have found a 'local product' to back up their thesis.
That said and despite the over-enthusiast tone of the text, the authors don't really claim to have photographic evidence. The caption to Figure 8-9 makes clear that these images are photo-montages based on a scale model of the Marton X/V.
8-9. ábra: A Marton X/V harci repülőgép makettje fotómontázsokon
Yes, it is a ripoff of a Fokker D-XXIII drawing. Perhaps the biggest giveaway is the identical engine sizes and mounting frames for the Walter Sagitta and DB 605 engines: The DB 605 was both 10 inches (25 cm) longer and 10 inches taller than the Sagitta, there is no way it would fit in either of the machines illustrated.How do you think about this drawing? After war work?
(Figure 5 : X/ V fighter aircraft designed by Dezső Marton and Vilmos Marton)
I see.Yes, it is a ripoff of a Fokker D-XXIII drawing. Perhaps the biggest giveaway is the identical engine sizes and mounting frames for the Walter Sagitta and DB 605 engines: The DB 605 was both 10 inches (25 cm) longer and 10 inches taller than the Sagitta, there is no way it would fit in either of the machines illustrated.How do you think about this drawing? After war work?
(Figure 5 : X/ V fighter aircraft designed by Dezső Marton and Vilmos Marton)
Strangely, an image showing them before and after the retouching was posted here previously but has mysteriously disappeared - either the photo site or somebody on this forum is monkeying around.
So here is another one:
I wasn't suggesting that airframes can't be upgraded. I was pointing out that this project looks like a hybrid of a smaller aircraft with parts of a considerably larger one. A Spitfire with a Griffon is one thing--it looks like a modest-sized airplane upgraded with a bigger engine. This RMI.8 looks more like a Piper Cub with a photoshopped R-2800. It doesn't seem realistic.A basic airframe can take a lot of upgrading, where there is a will to do so. It is worth remembering that the late Griffon-powered Spits developed something like three times the power of the original PV-12 Merlin of the prototype and had several times the fuel capacity, with no increase in span and only the longer engine and rudder to increase their length. The airframe and u/c had been strengthened, so weights and takeoff speeds were a lot higher, but it worked. So that is one of the few criticisms I would not raise against this unconvincing project.
I wasn't suggesting that airframes can't be upgraded. ... This RMI.8 looks more like a Piper Cub with a photoshopped R-2800. It doesn't seem realistic.
Even allowing for the fact that the drawing is a sketch rather than a plan, the proportions feel wrong for a real aircraft. When I combine that with the military and economic position of Hungary at the time and barring better evidence, I have to conclude that this RMI.8 is more likely to be a fantasy than not.
"... Hungary's relative success with the license-built Me 210Ca? Why would a country with a small industrial base and conservative tendencies ... After all, Hungary had already passed over the home-developed, turboprop-powered, RMI.1_X-H in favor of the more conventional, less risky Me210."
I agree that if the flight test were confirmed, we'd have the required additional evidence.Yes, the drawings are all unrealistic in one way or another. The fuselage would have been at least half a metre longer and 25 cm deeper for start, simply to accommodate the bulk of the DB engines. And like the Griffon Spit, the airframe and u/c would have had to be strengthened to cope with the higher weights and speeds.
But if that dubious test flight report turns out to be genuine, who's to say that a licensed manufacturer with its own design office could not have done that? I agree that fantasy is way the most probable explanation.
But one assumes that there must be some basic truth behind the RMI series of designs. Or could Winkler have pulled the whole thing out of the air and fooled his co-authors back in 1992? Every source seems to trace back to him, some under dubious circumstances. Or are there other known sources for the projects of the RMI and László Varga?