Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I guess that would have to be the Tarrant Tabor - I say "the" because only one was built and it crashed on it's first take-off attempt.

John

It is indeed the Tarrant Tabor, built as a prototype heavy bomber in 1919 at Tarrant Rushden in the UK. On it's first take off run the crew made the mistake of opening up the upper engines more than the lower ones and the whole contraption nosed over and was destroyed, If I recall correctly the crew were killed.

12-2.jpg

Over to you John.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wing struts above the wing have to be big - they're in compression rather than tension and have to be beefy enough to not buckle. Wings struts below the wing are in tension and the load-bearing elemen

But can it lay an egg?   I've seen photos of that one before but don't know what it is or where it's based.  Such poor taste in flying objects is more commonly seen in the hot air balloon ge

What a cock up.

Posted Images

According to the Wiki article, they began the takeoff run on the four lower engines (2 pushers, 2 tractors) and then while at high speed, started the 2 upper engines and went to full power with them, forcing a pitchover. Another reason nose wheels are better than tailwheels. Oh, and they had a thousand pounds of lead ballast in the fore end. Whoops.

Will have something posted later...

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting note. The designer of the "Barling Bomber" in the US, Walter H. Barling, had formerley worked at the Royal Aircraft Factory and was also the designer of the Tarrant Tabor. Can't make out from the article if he was English or American, however. Apparently he went where the work was.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats John. :thum: It's funny, the first thought that popped into my head was the space shuttle when I saw the pic and I immediately threw the thought away thinking that was just to easy for an entry and not really an aircraft* persay. I then proceeded to go through pictures of bombers for one and a half hours last night. :fool: Fooled again and another example of why you should always follow your "Gut" instincts.

* See this

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Brett. It was just a first impression thing that suggested itself as soon as I saw it. I couldn't see anything to refute it, so went with it. OK, now I'll try to dredge somethign up.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if you guys have cottoned on to this fact, but when you look at military aircraft, a clue to thir origins can often be found in the undercarriage. American ones are invariably white. Russians are nearly always that weird green! Another clue apart from the colour is the design of the wheels. Most western aircraft look quite elegant, even sporty if you like, But the Russkies seem to take theirs straight off of a tractor assembly line! very agricultural looking. Their U/C designs do seem to be a bit sturdier than Western types.

Another unusual feature of older Russian aircraft is the cockpit, they are nearly all painted in that horrible vivid turquoise colour! No idea why...maybe it matched Mrs Stalins curtains or something! :D

Anyway just a bit of info that has served me well over the years! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I finally came up with something worthy. Since this is an individual effort, not by an aircraft manufacturer, all I need is the country of origin. No word on whether this ever actually flew or not but according to the interview, he intended it to.

GTA11-30-12-01.jpg

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...