Manufacturer: Chance Vought

Model: unknown

Name: Trident

Type: Bomber-torpedo

Date: 1946

Status: Experimental

Country: United States

Service: U.S. Navy

Designation: XBTU-1


Though it is obvious this weird machine was inspired by the real-life, unflown XF5U-1 Skimmer  ("flying pancake") fighter prototype, close comparison will show they in fact have little in common (the XF5U-1 almost looks "normal" by comparison...).

The Trident may look like the unflown F5U prototype at first glance, but it is in fact very different. The body and wings were flipped (front is now rear) and three booms were added at the rear to hold a wide triple tail.

Viewers' comments:
  • Germans wouldn't know what hit them. :D Then again they supposedly had disc aircraft. (ONI-Defense)
  • ;) Oh that poor XF5U!!! Being flipped (it IS a Flapjack after all...right? ;) ) modified and flown backwards with 3 props and 3 tails.....OYE! The strangeness of the physics, aerodynamics, and flight characteristics are just staggering!!! ;) And the designers thought they had it tough with the XF5U and F7U !!! Those I think would have been easy compared to this!! :) (dinobatfan)
  • Wow! The F5U was surprising, and you went even further! (Tophe)
  • Sicking - innit...... (Caravellarella)
  • nice thing to catch ww2 bombers with with iits speed and potent weaponroom (Passo Ola)
  • As much as I super like Vought XBTU-1 Trident, make for cool model.  Have problem with landing gear placement and rotating for takeoff. (finsrin)
  • Technically, the "Flying Flapjack" did fly. On one of its high-speed runs it "hopped" into the air. A loss, as it could have been amazing. Oh, and sorry to be an ass, but while I like the Trident, it defeats the purpose of the Flapjack design. The props were in front as the "pushed" the air under circular wing to aid flight and give the F5U a STOL capability. This is why the USN wanted the airplane -- no catapults or arrestor gear. (David R. Townend)

My comments:

I've read it was never properly completed. Who's right, who's wrong? Anyway, I'm sure you understand that my imaginary aircraft are there for the fun of it and do not claim to have any real-life likelihood, technically or otherwise...