• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Marton X/V (RMI-8)

Zizi6785

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
315
Reaction score
143
RMI-8
 

Attachments

  • foto2.jpg
    foto2.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 487
  • rajzokrmi8.jpg
    rajzokrmi8.jpg
    33.5 KB · Views: 418
  • rmi8_wi.jpg
    rmi8_wi.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 348
  • rmi8_wi2.jpg
    rmi8_wi2.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 351

lucamax

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
245
Reaction score
33
Website
www.res-aeronautica.com
Hi friends! Recently I discoverd a strange and unknow, for me, hungarian aircraft of the 1944: the Marton X/V, often indicate as RMI-8. I read that this aeroplane was a twin engine "push and pull" fighter. Unfortunatly I found only a partial draw of the aircraft and only some picture showing a very nice model. Do you know more about this aeroplane?

Thank you for all information!
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
94
See: RMI-8 X/V via the search function ...

Thread by Apophenia.
 

Johnbr

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
758
Reaction score
189
Marton XV-01 <blockquote> In 1943 the Marton XV-01 was developed as a heavy fighter. The twin-boomed tricycle gear design was designed to use two DB 605 engines, one tractor and one pusher. It was to be armed with a 30mm engine-mounted cannon, two heavy machine guns in the cowling, and additional cannons in the wing roots and boom leading edges. This would make for a very heavy hitting aircraft. The aircraft was to have an ejection seat, designed on a twin rail system powered by a spring. In 1944, the fuselage and wing structure were completed, but they were destroyed in an Allied bombing raid in April 1944.
lso known as the RMI-8 X/V
Data:
Length 10,2 m 10.2 m
Span 11,8 m 11.8 m
Speed 580 km/h (berechnet) 580 km / h (calculated)
Engine 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 605 A mit Startleistung 1475 PS 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 605 A with starting power 1475 hp

Armament 1 × 20-mm- or 30-mm-MK in engine crankshaft, Two 12,7-mm-MGs, 20-mm or 30 mm MK, several 12.7-mm machine guns in wings
Photo is a photoshop. </blockquote>
 

Attachments

  • marton RMI-8 X-V.jpg
    marton RMI-8 X-V.jpg
    154.7 KB · Views: 341
  • Marton XV-01.jpg
    Marton XV-01.jpg
    181.7 KB · Views: 288
  • RMI-8 X-V aircraft.jpg
    RMI-8 X-V aircraft.jpg
    162.8 KB · Views: 338

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
This may be a hoax, either in whole or in part, I am not sure.

See the discussion at https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/marton-xv-01.43011/
Note that the people in the photo have apparently been taken from photos of a model diorama posted on the WhatIf forum (but thanks to Photobucket for subsequently withdrawing them from the public gaze) at http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,24457.0/highlight,marton.html

Note also the lack of a nosewheel in the photo, which overall does seem to be a flawed forgery of a plane that was never finished. From what I have seen, the image dates to somewhere in the range 2005-2009.

The question then remains, is the whole thing a fraud or just the photo? Discussions of the plane certainly go back further than the image appears to.

The WhatIf denizens have been assured it is a real project which was never built, at https://www.whatifmodellers.com//index.php/topic,4080.0 where it says:
It is the X/V high altitude research fighter designed by Magyar Kiralyi Repulo Kizerleti Intezet , in short R.K.I Royal Hungarian Research Institute.
"X" stood for research-kizerleti
"V" stood for fighter - vadusz
X/V Hight altitude research fighter.Low-wing monoplane.
2x D.B.605 engines in tandem.
Relatively long span.
Spar: all wood. Wings were near to completion.
The X/V was one of the several R.K.I. projects in 1940.


There is also an entry for it on the Hungarian Wikipedia https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMI–8 where it is referred to as the RMI-8 and a couple of reliable-looking Hungarian-language references date from 2013 and 1992. The only way to know for sure is for a Hungarian-speaker to track down those references and establish their reliability.
 
Last edited:

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
745
Thanks guys.
We can still count on one hand the number of successful push-me-pull-you airplanes: Cessna 337 Skymaster, Adams and perhaps this one if it was completed.

May I pose an aerodynamic dilemma?
Why so few successful twin-boom pushers?
I believe the root of the shortage lies in the wing root/fuselage junction. If the fuselage nacelle tapers too sharply ahead of the trailing edge, they are likely to suffer flow separation, turbulence, drag, etc. Often the rear propeller has to be close to the trailing edge for balance. Push-me-pull-you planes solve the balance problem by mounting the front engine well forward of the wings.
 
Last edited:

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
The Dornier D0.335 Pfeil (Arrow) was a push-pull.

There were quite a few successful twin-boom pushers in the early days.
The Dunne-Huntington triplane was one such. In its original configuration it had twin props, each spinning on one of the booms and chain-driven from a central engine!
During early WWI many types from Farnborough RAF, Airco, Vickers, Farman, Voisin, Breguet and so on were effectively twin-boom, although they physically had four long sticks and a lot of bracing rather than two booms.
And of course there was the Saab J 21.

There are several reasons why the single-engine pusher configuration was not more common:
  • The tractor allows a more compact layout, increasing manoeuvrability and reducing weight.
  • The tractor has better engine cooling due to the ram effect of the free air stream.
  • In a stall, the tractor engine maintains full thrust while the pusher prop is caught in the turbulence making it harder to recover.
But this Marton thing? I do not believe one was ever built. 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.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,703
Reaction score
1,120
... 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
 

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
The caption to Figure 8-9 makes clear that these images are photo-montages based on a scale model of the Marton X/V.

Thank you. I didn't think to translate the captions.
All the more strange though that although these acknowledged fakes are blatant attempts at forging authentic period-looking photographs, the authors should not worry about their likely gross inaccuracy.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,703
Reaction score
1,120
Quite so.

The authors claim their piece to cover "historical-conceptual background for the development of multitasking combat aircraft". I'm not sure that I even understand the point of such a discussion. But their paper's key points would seem to have established in discussing German Me 410s and Hungarian-built Me 210s. Why bother with the Do 335 and Marton X/V?

Acknowledging the scanty 'evidence' for the existence of a Marton X/V design could have just been a footnote. Or, just leave out the X/V altogether and focus on some of the Hungarian designs that we know for certain existed.
 

TorakLt

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
7
Reaction score
12
it is a real plane nearly completed, but destroyed in an air raid at Ferihegy airport in 1944..
It was equipped a special mechanical ejection seat, a spring operated one, because the pilot cannot leave the plane at the normal procedure due the traction propeller.
Any retused fake photos are made by modellers saddly.

The idea was to produce some lightweight and heavyly armed fighter against the usaaf formations .
The RMI Repülő Kisérleti Intézet... Aircraft Experimental Instiutute made a lot of experimental planes and projects or planned planes, as the war escalated....

They built the experimental Jendrassik gas-turbined zerstörer plane as well...

Regards Károly Batiz
 

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
Thank you TorakLT. Do you have any references for that information? I am sure I am not the only one who would like to know its provenance.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
745
The Varga RMI 1 prototype was built as a test-bed for Jendrassik's pioneering CS-1 turboprop. The 2-seater, twin-engined fighter bomber was configured similar to Messerchmitt 110 except with a single vertical fin. CS-1 was the first turboprop engine ever ground run. They hoped to develop a 1,000 horsepower version but burner can problems delayed development.
That project died when the Hungarian Air Force ordered Messerschmitt 210s instead.
The Varga prototype was fitted with Daimler-Benz DB 605 engines and only did a few taxi tests before it was destroyed by Allied bombs during June 1944.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,218
Hi!
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/422908-marton-xv-01-rmi-8-xv-extended/
Specifications: (from: A Magyar Királyi Honvédség fegyverzete [Armament of the Hungarian Royal Army] - Bonhardt, Sárhidai, Winkler; ISBN: 9633271827, 9789633271827.)
Length: 10.2 m, Span: 11.8 m, Height: 3.5 m
Engine: 2 x Daimler-Benz DB 605AM (push-pull configuration, like in the Do 335),
Power output: 2 x 1,475 PS (1,455 hp), and 2 x 1,800 PS (1,775 hp) on the better fuel
Takeoff power output: 2 x 1,635 (1,600 hp) and 2 x 2,000 PS (1,973 hp) on the better fuel
Empty weight: 2,850 kg (Bonhardt & Sárhidai) , Our estimation: 3,350 kg
Loaded weight: 3,800 kg (Bonhardt & Sárhidai) , Our estimation: 4,250 kg
Max. speed: 800 km/h (Bonhardt & Sárhidai), Our estimation: 750 km/h, on 6,000 m, during a horizontal flight
Max. speed limit: ca. 860 km/h
Climb Rate: 18.5 m/s
Optimal climb velocity: ~320 km/h
Turn Time: 21.1 s
Armament:
1 x 30 mm Mk 108 (65 rpg) nose-mounted or 1 x 20 mm MG 151 cannon, nose-mounted (200 tpg) at the frontal engine
2 x 8 mm Gebauer nose-mounted (500 rpg), [1500 rpm]
+ 2 x 20 mm Mk 151/20 (135 rpg) wing-mounted,
or 2 x 30 mm Mk 108 (65 rpg) wing-mounted.(at the wing's 'root' {like in the Dora FW's})
No payload. (It is an interceptor)

Armour: (from Bf G)
60 mm Bulletproof glass in front and rear of cockpit.
10 mm steel around the pilot
4-8 mm steel plates on pilot seat
4 mm around the fuel tank (less weight, and the rear of the fuel tank was defended by the rear engine)
The 400 litre self-sealing fuel tank is behind the pilot seat, (just as in the Bf's), and is enough for 40 min.
From the journal of the Repülö Müszaki Intézet (Aviation Technological Institute)
Very easily controllable, very agile (can even out turn a BF), does not drag in either direction appreciably, rear engine liable to overheat, gear and flaps withstand relatively high speed (340 and 560 km/h); above 740 km/h pitch and roll movement start to narrow down, and tail section became unstable above 10 G. Do not shake either firing or falling . Good performance on low speeds
Inherited problems because of the Fokker tail section: needs minimal jaw correction during high-turns.
Stall below: 210 km/h (180 with landing flaps).
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,218
Hi! My image for Marton X/V (RMI-8) radiator position, if this was the real project.
 

Attachments

  • radiator.jpg
    radiator.jpg
    221.1 KB · Views: 60
  • RMI-8 RADIATOR.jpg
    RMI-8 RADIATOR.jpg
    133.1 KB · Views: 58
Last edited:

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
The more unsubstantiated claims and post-fabricated "evidence" that people post here, the more one must suspect hopelessly naive attempts to perpetrate what is in fact a hoax. I am more convinced than ever that similar fabrications underlie the original 1990s claims.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,218
Sorry I made a mistake. The object that I understand as a outer radiator is a gun pod. I understand this by the the model.
Anyway I can't find radiator except oil cooler in this model.
 

Attachments

  • radiator.jpg
    radiator.jpg
    154.5 KB · Views: 24
  • radiator.jpg
    radiator.jpg
    131.3 KB · Views: 25
  • RMI 8 THREE SIDE VIEW.jpg
    RMI 8 THREE SIDE VIEW.jpg
    196.2 KB · Views: 27
  • Marton-03-1.jpg
    Marton-03-1.jpg
    52.3 KB · Views: 26
  • Marton-08.jpg
    Marton-08.jpg
    52.9 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,218
... 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
Thanks I understand.
 

Attachments

  • capture.JPG
    capture.JPG
    64.9 KB · Views: 40

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,218
How do you think about this drawing? After war work?
(Figure 5 : X/ V fighter aircraft designed by Dezső Marton and Vilmos Marton)
 

Attachments

  • Figure 5 X  V fighter aircraft designed by Dezső Marton and Vilmos Marton.JPG
    Figure 5 X V fighter aircraft designed by Dezső Marton and Vilmos Marton.JPG
    118.5 KB · Views: 45
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,218
And
Figure 7. Model of the Marton X / V fighter aircraft in the museum of the Institute of Military Technology
 

Attachments

  • model.JPG
    model.JPG
    58.4 KB · Views: 53

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
How do you think about this drawing? After war work?
(Figure 5 : X/ V fighter aircraft designed by Dezső Marton and Vilmos Marton)
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.

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:
 

Attachments

  • RMI-8-and-Fokker.jpg
    RMI-8-and-Fokker.jpg
    78.4 KB · Views: 53
Last edited:

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,046
Reaction score
3,854
Photo site side most likely, with the way things have been going in recent years. :(

Though there have been a few posts, and even threads, misplaced after the recent forum software changeover.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,218
How do you think about this drawing? After war work?
(Figure 5 : X/ V fighter aircraft designed by Dezső Marton and Vilmos Marton)
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.

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 see.
Looking at the two drawings side by side, I understand your opinion very well.
How about Figure.7? Guns are located on the wing.
 

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
No idea, no interest; guns are easy to photoshop.

But there may possibly be something in it after all. I have just found, at https://wtinfo.hu/2018/08/17/rmi-8-x-v-xv-01-marton/, a purported flight log entry for it by test pilot Zoltán Zákány. Blame Google for any errors of translation here:

'Easy to control, sensitive to every little input, very agile (even turns like a Bf), doesn't pull in any direction noticeably, the rear engine tends to overheat, the chassis and brake pads have relatively high speeds (340 and 560 km/h ); Above 740 km/h, the deflection of the ailerons and the height rudder is reduced and the tail section becomes unstable above 10 G. It does not vibrate during a dive or gun firing.'
Inherited problems due to the Fokker tail section: a small amount of correction with the side rudder is required when cornering high (slightly upwards), a little nasal difficulty: difficult to pull up at low speeds (below 220 km/h).

The source is credited as one László Varga. Given that this only surfaced after many years of rumour and disinformation, in which the plane was said to have been bombed before completion, it is hard to be categorical about it one way or the other. It does however read rather like a whiffer's imaginings of how it ought to handle.

There is also some mention of the Winkler archive, but nothing to substantiate the 3-view he has offered before.

Another useful thread, dating from 2005, is at http://balaton-modell.gportal.hu/gindex.php?pg=3083346&nid=617623, subtitled "Everyone said you can't make really detailed mock-ups in 1/72. We didn't know that and we did it ...". It credits the model, on which all the fake photos are based, to the user named balaton.

At the end it again has a somewhat minimal and cryptic reference to Winkler; is it a confession that the 3-view too is a forgery? Sadly my Hungarian is not that good, and nor is Google's.
 

sienar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
685
Reaction score
340
I have that Hungarian book wikipedia references; A Magyar Királyi Honvédség fegyverzete

The text on this design is minimal and there are only two drawings included. One is the edited fokker cutaway and another is the three view blackkite posted the other day. The book describes the three view as having been made from photographs.

So hardly anything convincing. Elsewhere the book has photos of very rare aircraft, but for some reason they didn't publish any of this one, yet had enough to make detailed 3-views....

Stranger still is this drawing from the same book;
hungar.png

Which appears identical in style and even similar text to the drawing of the RMI 8 posted by JohnBR. This book describes the drawing I'm posting as coming from the Aerodynamics Institute. JohnBR's image says the Winkler Archive. Why didn't this book use the RMI 8 3 view from this source/archive? Did they just not find it?

Something is off about this.

EDIT: A Magyar 3-view drawing does not line up with the Winkler Archive drawing.

Also the nose of the Winkler RMI 8 looks very similar to the 309 - a case of Hungary using purchased design work on a native aircraft or just a lazy wiffer?
 
Last edited:

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
Nice find, thank you.

As you note, if the Winkler Archive drawing was prepared from photos, where are they? And that drawing has another problem. I have been checking the design of the DB 605, as detailed in The Secret Horsepower Race by our own Calum Douglas. It had a supercharger installed crossways, so when the engine was turned backwards there is no way that its air intake could have stayed the same side, as Winkler's drawing depicts.

The nose and rear fuselage of the RMI 8 drawing/s were probably taken from the Bf 109G, which had the same engine. A little artistic license would also have been needed to accommodate the retractable nosewheel (whose position is noticeably further forward than on the cutaway drawing).

And all linked to a drawing claimed to be authentic, though of a different machine. It all smells very bad. We may never know which information is authentic and which was massaged by Winkler.
 

iverson

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
411
Reaction score
248
While it is hardly evidence, it seems to me that this design does not pass the "if it looks right, it will fly right" test. There are two, very large, powerful engines stuffed into an airframe that seems too small: too small for adequate lift, two small for directional stability, and two small to carry adequate fuel. It looks like what it seems likely to be: DB605s grafted on to an airplane built around a pair of air-cooled Walter Sagitta motors with roughly a quarter of the power, rather like an Fw189 with DB605s.

I also have to wonder what the motivation would have been for another twin-DB605 fighter, given Hungary's relative success with the license-built Me 210Ca? Why would a country with a small industrial base and conservative tendencies try to develop an unproven competitor for a proven airplane that it already had in production and service? Especially when the unproven design competed with existing production for engines that were also required for less expensive, tactically more important single-engined fighters?

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.
 

Attachments

  • me210-003.jpg
    me210-003.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 38
  • cs-1-01.gif
    cs-1-01.gif
    141.1 KB · Views: 53

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
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.
 

iverson

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
411
Reaction score
248
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. 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.

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.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,692
Reaction score
3,218
Hi!
 

Attachments

  • Fokker Marton.jpg
    Fokker Marton.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 48

steelpillow

So many projects, so little time...
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
508
Website
www.steelpillow.com
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.

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?
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,336
Reaction score
745
"... 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."

Hungary "passed" on the RMI.1 X-H because its turboprop engines produced considerably less power than promised ( 400 vs. 1,000 horsepower ). They needed many more thousands of hours to perfect burner cans.
 
Last edited:

iverson

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
411
Reaction score
248
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?
I agree that if the flight test were confirmed, we'd have the required additional evidence.

i see no reason to doubt the other RMI designs at this point. They either exist in photographs or at least look like reasonable designs that might been have possible at the time. Nor do I think Winkler (of whose work and history I know nothing) necessarily acted in bad faith. If I wanted to concoct a fictional fighter aircraft and get it accepted, I could do worse than give it the designation of an obscure, perhaps forgotten, real aircraft. The fact that the Winkler drawings that I have seen for the Varge RMI.3, 6, 7, and 9 are all light, single- or twin Argus-powered, trainer-type airplanes makes me wonder if the RMI.8 wasn't a real light-aircraft project for which no legitimate information survives (the RMI.5 was a design for a light airliner powered by four Argus engines).

The RMI.1 X-H was an actual project for a multipurpose aircraft built around a pair of Jendrassik Cs-1 turboprops designed for 1000 hp each. RMI.2 X-G was an aerodynamic test bed and lead-in trainer powered by what look like a pair of Argus As8 engines. Like most turbine engines, the Cs-1 turboprops had some initial combustion issues that limited output to around 400-hp. Hungarian authorities chose not to pursue development and instead bought a license for the Me210.

Here are photos of the RMI.1 X-H and RMI. 2 X-G along with the Cs-1 turbines, follwed by drawings for the other RMI projects.
 

Attachments

  • fot144.jpg
    fot144.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 23
  • rki_X-G1034200398t.jpg
    rki_X-G1034200398t.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 15
  • foto2.jpg
    foto2.jpg
    40.3 KB · Views: 13
  • foto1.jpg
    foto1.jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 14
  • cs-1-09.JPG
    cs-1-09.JPG
    44.6 KB · Views: 14
  • cs-1-10.JPG
    cs-1-10.JPG
    69.9 KB · Views: 14
  • JendrassikCs-1.jpg
    JendrassikCs-1.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 17
  • cs-1-04.JPG
    cs-1-04.JPG
    44.7 KB · Views: 20
  • rmi3rajzok.jpg
    rmi3rajzok.jpg
    55.5 KB · Views: 24
  • rajz_3D.jpg
    rajz_3D.jpg
    31.6 KB · Views: 23
  • rmi6.jpg
    rmi6.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 24
  • rmi-7rajzok.jpg
    rmi-7rajzok.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 19
  • rmi-9rajzok.jpg
    rmi-9rajzok.jpg
    33.1 KB · Views: 24

Similar threads

Top