Hughes MACH 3 Interceptor

Wow! I'd sure like to find a three-view of that monster. I wonder if it was created in connection with the F-108 competition?
 
Nobody noted similarities in this design configuration and the Douglas Model 26 "Atomic Bomber"?

Ref: American Secret Projects: Bombers, Attack and ASW aircraft (Tony Buttler) page 94.
 
So Hughes MACH 3 atomic powered interceptor?

The layout was clearly designed to keep the crew as far away from the engines as possible!(Radiation shield)
 
That's all well and fine, but with no canards, it would have been interesting to fly, to say the least...
 
MaxLegroom said:
That's all well and fine, but with no canards, it would have been interesting to fly, to say the least...
Click to expand...

Most deltas don't have canards and they seem to manage.
 
sferrin said:
MaxLegroom said:
That's all well and fine, but with no canards, it would have been interesting to fly, to say the least...
Click to expand...

Most deltas don't have canards and they seem to manage.
Click to expand...

Whilst it's quite possible that there's either something VERY heavy in the aft end of the fuselage OR the forward fuselage is quite light but to me it looks as though they would need canards to bring the N/P forward enough that it wouldn't be excessively nose heavy.

Another possiblity is that the canards are missing [for whatever reason] from the first photo in the thread...
 
Could it be that the picture in "The Aeroplane " -first post- is printed upside down..
 
Had similar thoughts, that the picture shows the underside of a model, but
there seems to be a canopy.
 

Attachments

  • canopy..JPG
    canopy..JPG
    24.4 KB · Views: 149
There's a simpler way of telling that it is not upside down. The USAF star on the fuselage is right side up.
 
There's a simpler way of telling that it is not upside down. The USAF star on the fuselage is right side up.
Click to expand...

In that case, then this image is flipped horizontally, since the USAF star is on the starboard wing, unlike the image of the Douglas model, which we know is correct, because we can read the lettering on the stand...

cheers,
Robin.
 
Assuming the model maker put the markings on correctly (national insignia on upper left wing and lower right). The model maker might have got it wrong, but it is possible the image has been flipped for some reason.
 
And there's something protruding from the nozzles, which could be a fin, as on the bomber,
with the model put on its back. But then, of course, the US star actually would have been
applied the wrong way.
 

Attachments

  • tail.JPG
    tail.JPG
    44.6 KB · Views: 132
Jemiba said:
And there's something protruding from the nozzles, which could be a fin, as on the bomber,
with the model put on its back. But then, of course, the US star actually would have been
applied the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Could be a ventral fin.
 
It was just that protruding part behind the engines who made me thinking about Jens ..
 
shedofdread said:
sferrin said:
Most deltas don't have canards and they seem to manage.
Click to expand...

Whilst it's quite possible that there's either something VERY heavy in the aft end of the fuselage OR the forward fuselage is quite light but to me it looks as though they would need canards to bring the N/P forward enough that it wouldn't be excessively nose heavy.
Click to expand...

All that lead shielding next to the reactor, perhaps?

A lot depends on the way the wing is stabilised in pitch. If the rear section has reverse camber then the centre of lift can be surprisingly far forward, as the rear will spend quite a lot of time actually pushing downwards. This also leads to a large wing area, which is consistent with the model. Such a forward position would also help keep down the size of the tail fins needed for directional stability.

Another possibility is that those "duck-head" bulges at the front provide significant lift and a degree of sideways drag reduction in yaw, kind of proto-chines.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom