PDA

View Full Version : WW II plane buffs?


Pages : 1 [2]

BaaBaa
2nd May 2012, 07:14 AM
I had a book about various secret weapons of WW II ( Panjandrum!) and there was a still from a Luftwaffe training film- a rag containing T-Stoff was exposed to C-Stoff *fumes* and it went up in flames.

I Ratant
2nd May 2012, 08:33 AM
Well, I think several fighters of the era were designed to rely on missiles, since early 50ties doctrine held that to be the right thing, but I'm not sure if others were actually made operative without guns.

The F104 is a typical example of a plane designed to bring a missile within range of the enemy as fast as possible. It was equipped with an excellent 20mm Gatling gun, but with a turning diameter the size of Texas, it was certainly not a dogfighter.

Hans
.
F-102 and F-106 were missile only.

Corsair 115
2nd May 2012, 11:10 AM
TIf you visit Deutche Museum in Munich, you will see some experiments aimed at building guided surface to air missile (made of plywood, btw.) If they had had another year ....:eye-popp


It wouldn't have changed the outcome—though it would have made it more costly for Allied bomber crews. Besides, if the war in Europe had lasted a few months longer than it did historically, there'd have been atomic bombs dropped on Germany rather than conventional bombs.

Sabretooth
2nd May 2012, 12:42 PM
The 50 or so that are on "display" are housed on a remarkably ugly set of steel shelves in our study. My kids (both under 5) are remarkably good about respecting the space, and building/acquiring a proper cabinet is on my to do list.

The rest that are 'retired' are stored in big plastic 90L roller bins with clip-on lids. There are other (likely better) ways of secure storing (like custom hacked to shape polystyrene or foam in individual boxes), but this is efficient, doesn't seem to damage them, and it can fit bigger models in too (like a 1/72 C-130). Plus there's too many of them to be lavish with the more complicated storage methods.

If they travel anywhere for a show they get treated like this:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f341/saylittle/packedmodels.jpg

Appropriate size heavy cardboard box, lined on the bottom with bubble wrap to stop them moving laterally, and foam to hold them in place as a backup, with bubble wrap laid over and the lid closed to keep them safe if they bounce. Stopping them moving in the box is the main thing. These guys are reasonably delicate, but managed an 80 mile each way trip to a recent airshow in the back of someones car with no drama. This box in particular is a Fed-Ex laptop courier, and the foam came with it which was handy.

Love the A4 collection. :)

Huttosaurus
2nd May 2012, 02:37 PM
.
F-102 and F-106 were missile only.

Perhaps compensated by both being able to be equipped with nuclear tipped air to air guided missiles or rockets :D. The F-106 was also modified to carry an M-61 in the weapons bay after entering service.

Other gun-less fighters/interceptors I can think of are the F-89 Scorpion (most of them anyway), the F-86D, both of which relied on unguided rockets. The Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat, and the Tu-28 Fiddler were also exclusively missile armed IIRC.

The RAF's Eurofighter Typhoon F.2's initially entered service with the gun deactivated, to save money and fatigue life. Removing the gun completely would upset the weight distribution, so it was installed, just not supported or used. Apparently it can be quickly reactivated, and there are plans to do so.

Huttosaurus
2nd May 2012, 02:41 PM
Love the A4 collection. :)

Cheers:) They are part of a group depicting the various colour schemes they wore in RNZAF service.

Huttosaurus
2nd May 2012, 02:47 PM
My favourite plane HAS to be the Spitfire and more precisely the MK IX. It is simply the most beautifull fighter ever buildt. The Mustang is more "Buisnesslike" but a better fighter not at least because of it's range.


Agreed. The Mustang looks great from some angles, but the big radiator scoop deepening the fuselage under the belly spoils the lines for me. I prefer the re-engined Mustangs that removed it, like the racing Mustangs or the Enforcer. Most marks of Spitfire though look great from any angle.

AgeGap
2nd May 2012, 04:26 PM
disunrecounterrailing.

Show some love for WWII era flying boats. Short Sunderland/PBY Catalina etc.

Roadtoad
2nd May 2012, 06:32 PM
disunrecounterrailing.

Show some love for WWII era flying boats. Short Sunderland/PBY Catalina etc.

Are you kidding? Look at what you did to one of Rush's masterpieces!

Akhenaten
2nd May 2012, 06:36 PM
disunrecounterrailing.

Show some love for WWII era flying boats. Short Sunderland/PBY Catalina etc.





Too bloody right!


http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/FlyingBoat01.jpg
Short Sandringham (VH-BRC) and Sunderland (VH-BRF) at Lord Howe Island in 1974


The Sandringham is the 'civilianised' version of the Sunderland.

These aircraft operated a daily service to Lord Howe Island from Sydney until the island's airstrip was completed in mid-1974.

VH-BRC is now preserved at the Solent Sky Museum (http://www.spitfireonline.co.uk/), Southampton, United Kingdom.


http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/FlyingBoat02.jpg
Short Sunderland (VH-BRF) in Sydney Harbour in 1973


But wait . . . there's more!


qSZ4gS-wt2U

SUSpilot
2nd May 2012, 07:00 PM
Agreed. The Mustang looks great from some angles, but the big radiator scoop deepening the fuselage under the belly spoils the lines for me. I prefer the re-engined Mustangs that removed it, like the racing Mustangs or the Enforcer. Most marks of Spitfire though look great from any angle.

See, I disagree there. To me, that's what helps define a Mustang.

And, although they had a lot of drag, I think the P-40, especially with the shark mouth, were just cool birds.

Damien Evans
2nd May 2012, 08:51 PM
And the F-14 (particularly in 80's-90's dirty grey lo-vis) just looked mean.

Not quite WWII, but I've always had a soft spot for the other Lightning, the English Electric one with vertically stacked twin turbojets (a bit like an aeronautical nail-studded baseball bat. Brutally fast, slightly crude, but effective in the right hands:)). I like cold war jets that were designed when the little aerodynamic tricks and fixes were still being figured out, resulting in a whole bunch of configurations, and often problems seemed like they were solved just by throwing more thrust at them :)

Nothing looks meaner than an F-111
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/F111%20dumb%20and%20burn%20avalon%202005%20credit% 20RAAF%20blog%20560.jpg

dasmiller
2nd May 2012, 10:22 PM
disunrecounterrailing.

Show some love for WWII era flying boats. Short Sunderland/PBY Catalina etc.

Flying boats should be huge and intimidating. The Sunderland, maybe, but gotta love the IJN H8K 'Emily' and the German B&V 222.

Ove
2nd May 2012, 11:46 PM
disunrecounterrailing.

Show some love for WWII era flying boats. Short Sunderland/PBY Catalina etc.

Ohh but i do. There is something fascinating with people going to war in a small house equipped with a galley, sleeping quarters and a lavatory (The Sunderland) and actually for long periods overseas living in their "boat". I like those huge monsters and i would LOVE to fly in one someday.

Denmark used Catalinas a lot after the war and they did sterling service, mainly around Greenland used as a "do it all" machine. They upheld territorial rights (mainly against overeagerly fishermen), made medevacs, transported goods to isolated stations, supported expeditions etc. In a country like Greenland a flying boat is terribly usefull, and even more back then because the helicopters then had limited range.

And speaking of that, who can but love the "workhorse" of WW2 the DC3/C47/Dakota. Wasn't it Eisenhower who said that 3 factors won WW2: The 6 ton truck, the Jeep and the C47. :)

MRC_Hans
3rd May 2012, 12:01 AM
It wouldn't have changed the outcome—though it would have made it more costly for Allied bomber crews. Besides, if the war in Europe had lasted a few months longer than it did historically, there'd have been atomic bombs dropped on Germany rather than conventional bombs.

I agree it is unlikely that it would have changed the outcome. After all, it is still debated whether the bomber offensive had any great effect at all on the outcome, so ..... *)

I think the psychological barrier against nuking European cities was quite a bit higher than against Japan. But if the D-Day invation had failed, there is no telling what the Allies would have done. - As the Russians could then eventually have overrun all of central Europe, we might have passed directly into WW3. :eye-poppi

Hans

*) In my humble opinion, it had quite an influence. Alone the huge german ressources tied up in defence against the bombing made a difference. The allied channeled an equal amount of ressources into the offensive, but they were far better able to afford it. Somewhere during 1941-1942, WW2 in Europe essentially became a race of ressources (in the Pacific theatre, it was from the start).

MRC_Hans
3rd May 2012, 12:04 AM
*snip* Wasn't it Eisenhower who said that 3 factors won WW2: The 6 ton truck Bazooka, the Jeep and the C47. :)

- Otherwise correct.


Hans ;)

MRC_Hans
3rd May 2012, 12:16 AM
*snip*
Denmark used Catalinas a lot after the war and they did sterling service, mainly around Greenland used as a "do it all" machine. They upheld territorial rights (mainly against overeagerly fishermen), made medevacs, transported goods to isolated stations, supported expeditions etc. In a country like Greenland a flying boat is terribly usefull, and even more back then because the helicopters then had limited range.

And speaking of that, who can but love the "workhorse" of WW2 the DC3/C47/Dakota.*snip* :)

I served in the Danish airforce back in the late sixties. The Cats were simply lovable, although I understand that the trip to/from Greenland was a bit of an ordeal. 10 to 17 hours, depending on the wind, in an unpressurized and largely unheated aircraft, the inside of which was a veritable obstacle course.

The C47 served with the Danish airforce till the 1970ties, the oldest of the airframes being from 1935.

Actually the DC3/C47 holds a number of impressing endurance records:

http://www.dc3history.org/breakingrecords.html

Hans

zooterkin
3rd May 2012, 01:43 AM
VH-BRC is now preserved at the Solent Sky Museum (http://www.spitfireonline.co.uk/), Southampton, United Kingdom.


Oh, I've never heard of that place, thanks for the tip. Looks interesting, and I know my other half's Dad would like to visit (and it's just down the road from him).


Prompted by an earlier post, I checked the dates for Farnborough this year (it's not far from here), but it's the same weekend as TAM so I'll miss it.

I lived not far from Biggin Hill when I was growing up, and used to watch the planes at the air shows there in the 70s.

Alex Cured
3rd May 2012, 06:11 AM
I served in the Danish airforce back in the late sixties. The Cats were simply lovable, although I understand that the trip to/from Greenland was a bit of an ordeal. 10 to 17 hours, depending on the wind, in an unpressurized and largely unheated aircraft, the inside of which was a veritable obstacle course.

The C47 served with the Danish airforce till the 1970ties, the oldest of the airframes being from 1935.

Actually the DC3/C47 holds a number of impressing endurance records:

http://www.dc3history.org/breakingrecords.html

Hans
For me some flying boats have a strange romance about them, and the Catalina certainly qualifies. Pug ugly and ungainly, and yet still "beautiful".

There's a film from the early 70s with Donald Sutherland, Jane Fonda and Peter Boyle that's almost forgotten now but it had a storyline about a bunch of misfits recovering a Catalina from a graveyard, fixing it up and "escaping". Very much of it's time I suppose. "Steelyard Blues"

(Seems to be unavailable from the usual UK sources currently)

Ove
3rd May 2012, 06:21 AM
I served in the Danish airforce back in the late sixties. The Cats were simply lovable, although I understand that the trip to/from Greenland was a bit of an ordeal. 10 to 17 hours, depending on the wind, in an unpressurized and largely unheated aircraft, the inside of which was a veritable obstacle course.

The C47 served with the Danish airforce till the 1970ties, the oldest of the airframes being from 1935.

Actually the DC3/C47 holds a number of impressing endurance records:

http://www.dc3history.org/breakingrecords.html

Hans

There is a wonderfull book about that i found on the library which tells a lot of stories from the Cat's service in the Danish Airforce. I think it's simply called "PBY 5 and 6" or something like that. I dont think it is out in any greater numbers but the library should be able to get it.
One of the stories are about a training flight from Kastrup which is hillarious. The handbrake apparently didn't work properly so they had to pull the wire directly and place a foot somewhere. :)

MG1962
3rd May 2012, 06:23 AM
Cheers:) They are part of a group depicting the various colour schemes they wore in RNZAF service.

Back in 1988 at the Australian Airshow the Kiwis brought a bunch over for acrobatic displays - boy did they fly the pants off those things - exceptionally impressed with their skills that day

Captain_Snort
3rd May 2012, 07:25 AM
Seven pages and nobody has mentioned the Bristol Beaufighter or its slightly less beautiful, but very ingenious compatriot / successor the De Havilland Mosquito.

Alex Cured
3rd May 2012, 07:54 AM
Seven pages and nobody has mentioned the Bristol Beaufighter or its slightly less beautiful, but very ingenious compatriot / successor the De Havilland Mosquito.

The latter has had a few mentions :)

I Ratant
3rd May 2012, 08:12 AM
For me some flying boats have a strange romance about them, and the Catalina certainly qualifies. Pug ugly and ungainly, and yet still "beautiful".

There's a film from the early 70s with Donald Sutherland, Jane Fonda and Peter Boyle that's almost forgotten now but it had a storyline about a bunch of misfits recovering a Catalina from a graveyard, fixing it up and "escaping". Very much of it's time I suppose. "Steelyard Blues"

(Seems to be unavailable from the usual UK sources currently)
.
THIS is a FLYING BOAT!!!! Still working after all these years!! :)
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,24062.msg233906.html#msg233906

SpitfireIX
3rd May 2012, 09:13 AM
My favourite plane HAS to be the Spitfire and more precisely the MK IX. It is simply the most beautifull fighter ever buildt.


+1 (I'm sure no one would ever have guessed. :D)

Specifically, my favorite is the IXb; that was the last variant before they started adding all the extra fuel and equipment that reduced maneuverability. :(

I Ratant
3rd May 2012, 10:40 AM
.
THIS is a FLYING BOAT!!!! Still working after all these years!! :)
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,24062.msg233906.html#msg233906
.
The Mars approaching Lake Elsinore for a scoop....

Eudaemonic Plague
3rd May 2012, 10:41 AM
Agreed. The Mustang looks great from some angles, but the big radiator scoop deepening the fuselage under the belly spoils the lines for me. I prefer the re-engined Mustangs that removed it, like the racing Mustangs or the Enforcer. Most marks of Spitfire though look great from any angle.

Heh...the scoop is a large part of what I find attractive. I'm not sure I'd even recognize one without it.

Noztradamus
3rd May 2012, 11:44 AM
Well, my point is that they could not produce all the 'genial' designs they made. The mainstay of the German fighter arm remained the ME109 almost to the end. Initially an excellent plane, but it was outdated by 1944.

The FW190 was made in considerable numbers as well, but it could not match the onslaught of P47, P51, late marks of Spitfire, and Tempests and Typhoons.*) ... And then the Germans were even mostly spared the Vought Crusaders.

Of course pilots were also a grave problem.

One might say that the Germans learned one basic lesson of war: Ultimately, the side with superior ressources wins.

Not to mention the P38 "gabelswantz teufel", hehe.

Hans

So you are imagining the movie Final Countdown taking place in the 60s and the Atlantic?

AgeGap
3rd May 2012, 01:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II

Did anybody here build Matchbox branded plastic kits. The parts came in two or more colours and put side by side with Airfix or Revell (or even heller) would lose out. The good thing about them was they were available and had a good range of aircraft.

Having a look around Wikipedia I came across the Hugo Junkers page. Not what you would expect.

Captain_Swoop
3rd May 2012, 01:37 PM
Matchbox kits were very good. I had their 1/32 Spitfire. It had a full detailed Merlin engine, Cannons in the wings, radio bay and an option for a PRU Camera in the side. and fully detailed cockpit, this was way back in the 70s before anyone else was doing anything close.

AgeGap
3rd May 2012, 02:20 PM
In the early eighties Matchbox over-emphasized panel lines to such an extent that they were disparagingly referred to as trenches. I still bought and built as many of their kits as I could afford. (Between school and my part time job, helping on a milk-round, I put in more hours per week than I do now.)

I saw a Matchbox kit a few years ago but it was molded in gray only and was not from the same type of mold as I remember from the eighties.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1813247e12c85c26e7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11331)

Sabretooth
3rd May 2012, 02:38 PM
I saw a Matchbox kit a few years ago but it was molded in gray only and was not from the same type of mold as I remember from the eighties.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1813247e12c85c26e7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11331)

I have a couple models of A7's that are Matchbox I bought about 10 years ago. The quality and detail is pretty decent. If I remember, I'll take a couple pictures.

Huttosaurus
3rd May 2012, 02:39 PM
disunrecounterrailing.

Show some love for WWII era flying boats. Short Sunderland/PBY Catalina etc.

Like the mighty Walrus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Walrus

I think that's my favourite type in the class.

Huttosaurus
3rd May 2012, 02:45 PM
In the early eighties Matchbox over-emphasized panel lines to such an extent that they were disparagingly referred to as trenches. I still bought and built as many of their kits as I could afford. (Between school and my part time job, helping on a milk-round, I put in more hours per week than I do now.)

I saw a Matchbox kit a few years ago but it was molded in gray only and was not from the same type of mold as I remember from the eighties.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1813247e12c85c26e7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11331)

Their multi coloured plastic was classic. There are plenty of Matchbox kits still available, in Revell of Germany boxes (including the 1/32 Spitfire F.22/24. After building a heap of them as a kid, I have a soft spot for them now and am building one every now and then to my 'modern' standards of skill and effort. Matchbox kits weren't perfect, but they did some interesting subjects, and were pretty good kits as kits. Basic, but went together well.

BenBurch
3rd May 2012, 02:48 PM
Do they still have that Stuka at the Field Museum in Chicago?

Museum of Science and Industry - yes still there. And U-505 too.

Huttosaurus
3rd May 2012, 02:54 PM
Nothing looks meaner than an F-111
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/F111%20dumb%20and%20burn%20avalon%202005%20credit% 20RAAF%20blog%20560.jpg

Great shot, and something I never got tired of watching:D. At night you could feel the heat. The last time I saw one in 2008 is still in my top five or so displays I have ever seen; like no-one told the pilot he wasn't flying an FA-18, and knowing they wouldn't be around for much longer he wanted to make it memorable. Their time may have passed, but they will be missed :)

Huttosaurus
3rd May 2012, 02:58 PM
Back in 1988 at the Australian Airshow the Kiwis brought a bunch over for acrobatic displays - boy did they fly the pants off those things - exceptionally impressed with their skills that day

Half of our A-4's were ex RAN by that stage so it would have been a bit of deja vu for the machines themselves. One of them has just gone back to the RAN museum permanently, possibly another to follow.

BenBurch
3rd May 2012, 04:41 PM
I think we're the target; http://www.msichicago.org/whats-here/exhibits/transportation-gallery/

sts60
3rd May 2012, 05:55 PM
Just because... a few warbirds, not great image quality. This was in Maryland about ten years ago: an L-19 Bird Dog (I believe), a Connie, and "Memphis Belle", a B-17[G, I believe]. Connies are beautiful, graceful planes.

Yuri Nalyssus
3rd May 2012, 11:27 PM
http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Hangar.jpg

I should have guessed - brilliant!

Yuri

Yuri Nalyssus
3rd May 2012, 11:32 PM
The 50 or so that are on "display" are housed on a remarkably ugly set of steel shelves in our study. My kids (both under 5) are remarkably good about respecting the space, and building/acquiring a proper cabinet is on my to do list.

The rest that are 'retired' are stored in big plastic 90L roller bins with clip-on lids. There are other (likely better) ways of secure storing (like custom hacked to shape polystyrene or foam in individual boxes), but this is efficient, doesn't seem to damage them, and it can fit bigger models in too (like a 1/72 C-130). Plus there's too many of them to be lavish with the more complicated storage methods.

If they travel anywhere for a show they get treated like this:
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f341/saylittle/packedmodels.jpg

Appropriate size heavy cardboard box, lined on the bottom with bubble wrap to stop them moving laterally, and foam to hold them in place as a backup, with bubble wrap laid over and the lid closed to keep them safe if they bounce. Stopping them moving in the box is the main thing. These guys are reasonably delicate, but managed an 80 mile each way trip to a recent airshow in the back of someones car with no drama. This box in particular is a Fed-Ex laptop courier, and the foam came with it which was handy.
Ingenious - very helpful, thanks :D

Yuri

SpitfireIX
4th May 2012, 04:32 AM
Just because... a few warbirds, not great image quality. This was in Maryland about ten years ago: an L-19 Bird Dog (I believe), a Connie, and "Memphis Belle", a B-17[G, I believe]. Connies are beautiful, graceful planes.


Erm, Memphis Belle is an F, hasn't been flyable since shortly after the war, and is currently under restoration at the Air Force Museum.

From the nose art on the truck in the foreground, the aircraft is presumably Sentimental Journey, which I saw with some friends a couple of years ago. I don't have my photos handy at the moment; they're on my laptop, which is on loan to my cousin, and the back-ups are in the side pocket of the case. Here's one I found online.

Jack by the hedge
4th May 2012, 05:18 AM
Seven pages and nobody has mentioned the Bristol Beaufighter or its slightly less beautiful, but very ingenious compatriot / successor the De Havilland Mosquito.

<mops coffee from keyboard> Less beautiful? Eye of the beholder an' all that, but the Mosquito is achingly beautiful.

sts60
4th May 2012, 09:37 AM
Erm, Memphis Belle is an F, hasn't been flyable since shortly after the war, and is currently under restoration at the Air Force Museum.

From the nose art on the truck in the foreground, the aircraft is presumably Sentimental Journey, which I saw with some friends a couple of years ago. I don't have my photos handy at the moment; they're on my laptop, which is on loan to my cousin, and the back-ups are in the side pocket of the case. Here's one I found online.

You can't know that. That image could be faked. That's just what the government tells us, and they all could be conspiring with each other. You don't really believe what you're saying here; all the viewers can see that.

(shakes head violently) Sorry. Too much time arguing with FatFreddy88 on the Apollo hoax thread.


You're quite right. I had thought there was another B-17 that had been nicknamed Memphis Belle for the air show circuit, but that was all wrong. It's indeed Sentimental Journey (which served in the Pacific and as a fire bomber after WW2 (http://www.azcaf.org/pages/sentjourn.html)). I should have remembered; I volunteered at this air show.

By way of apology, here's another image from then, a Corsair (Korean War Hero, IIRC). Pretty fuzzy, but if I find better ones, I'll post some.

Jack by the hedge
4th May 2012, 10:00 AM
...I had thought there was another B-17 that had been nicknamed Memphis Belle for the air show circuit...

There's the last B-17 in Europe, Sally B based at Duxford. I believe it played Memphis Belle in the movie and when I saw it flying two years ago it was painted as Sally B on one side and Memphis Belle on the other.

Noztradamus
4th May 2012, 10:18 AM
Perhaps compensated by both being able to be equipped with nuclear tipped air to air guided missiles or rockets :D. The F-106 was also modified to carry an M-61 in the weapons bay after entering service.

Other gun-less fighters/interceptors I can think of are the F-89 Scorpion (most of them anyway), the F-86D, both of which relied on unguided rockets. The Soviet MiG-25 Foxbat, and the Tu-28 Fiddler were also exclusively missile armed IIRC.

The RAF's Eurofighter Typhoon F.2's initially entered service with the gun deactivated, to save money and fatigue life. Removing the gun completely would upset the weight distribution, so it was installed, just not supported or used. Apparently it can be quickly reactivated, and there are plans to do so.

The BAC Lightning and MiG-21 originally had guns, lost them to put electronics in place, and later regained guns in a new location.

SpitfireIX
4th May 2012, 06:16 PM
You can't know that. That image could be faked. That's just what the government tells us, and they all could be conspiring with each other. You don't really believe what you're saying here; all the viewers can see that.


It's a hologram. Germany's war industries were actually destroyed by directed energy weapons. :rolleyes:

TjW
4th May 2012, 07:13 PM
You can't know that. That image could be faked. That's just what the government tells us, and they all could be conspiring with each other. You don't really believe what you're saying here; all the viewers can see that.

(shakes head violently) Sorry. Too much time arguing with FatFreddy88 on the Apollo hoax thread.


You're quite right. I had thought there was another B-17 that had been nicknamed Memphis Belle for the air show circuit, but that was all wrong. It's indeed Sentimental Journey (which served in the Pacific and as a fire bomber after WW2 (http://www.azcaf.org/pages/sentjourn.html)). I should have remembered; I volunteered at this air show.

By way of apology, here's another image from then, a Corsair (Korean War Hero, IIRC). Pretty fuzzy, but if I find better ones, I'll post some.

As far as names for warbirds goes, my favorite so far is a T-6: Miss Information

sts60
4th May 2012, 08:04 PM
The nose art on the Collins Foundation's B-24 gives an interesting twist to the plane's name (The Dragon and his Tail).

Jarlaxle
4th May 2012, 08:52 PM
Are there any examples other than F-4 of planes designed to carry only missiles and no gun? I know of none, but am mostly only familiar with more recent planes, which were designed sometime after F-4 got its gun(s) added.

I recall the A-6 Intruder and FB-111 Aardvark have no cannon.

Jarlaxle
4th May 2012, 08:56 PM
As far as names for warbirds goes, my favorite so far is a T-6: Miss Information

Naah, I still say that Commander Blackburn (CO of VF-17) had the best one: he called his F4U Corsair Big Hog. :D

There was a Navy PB4Y Liberator nicknamed Thunder Mug. I recall there was a B-17 called Miss Behave.

SpitfireIX
5th May 2012, 01:39 PM
The nose art on the Collins Foundation's B-24 gives an interesting twist to the plane's name (The Dragon and his Tail).


I've also seen that one, several years ago with my father. No idea where my pix are, and in any case they're not digitized. Here's a pic from the web (Warning--NSFW): http://www.stoutguy.com/bomber/images/2003_Bomber_B24_NoseArt.jpg.

Sadly, they've now repainted her as Witchcraft (http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1330/5156394677_6d3df3b31e_z.jpg). :(

BaaBaa
5th May 2012, 04:57 PM
<mops coffee from keyboard> Less beautiful? Eye of the beholder an' all that, but the Mosquito is achingly beautiful.


I like the looks of the Beaufighter, it's all about business, but it's like comparing a truck to a sports car.

Captain_Swoop
6th May 2012, 04:06 PM
Good site on the RAF 'Eagle Sqwuadrons'

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/?page_id=19

Ove
7th May 2012, 06:18 AM
Like the mighty Walrus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Walrus

I think that's my favourite type in the class.

Ohh the "Ugly Duckling". Yes i love that too and it saved a LOT of downed pilots during WW2. Often they loaded up so much that they couldn't take off and then they had to taxi long stretches untill either they met an allied ship(who could take the downed airmen) or they reached harbour. Sounds fantastic but it DID happen. :)

SpitfireIX
7th May 2012, 10:39 AM
Ohh the "Ugly Duckling". Yes i love that too and it saved a LOT of downed pilots during WW2. Often they loaded up so much that they couldn't take off and then they had to taxi long stretches untill either they met an allied ship(who could take the downed airmen) or they reached harbour. Sounds fantastic but it DID happen. :)


It happened in the Pacific at least once, with a Vought OS2U Kingfisher. The pilot and radioman rescued seven downed airmen, and, with their passengers sitting on the wings, taxied to the submarine USS Tang, which took all the aviators aboard and then sank the no-longer-flyable aircraft with her deck guns. See here (http://www.warfish.com/tang/scrap3_t.html).

Captain_Swoop
7th May 2012, 10:58 AM
Walrus was launched by Catapult from Carrier and Cruiser decks as well.

Ove
9th May 2012, 06:05 AM
Walrus was launched by Catapult from Carrier and Cruiser decks as well.

Yes, that was actually it's primary role. Artilery spotting and "Admirals Barge" but it was pressed into an air-sea rescue role too simply because it was available, at the right time.

Noztradamus
9th May 2012, 12:52 PM
Walrus was launched by Catapult from Carrier and Cruiser decks as well.

Cats for Cruisers. But for carriers with 30kts Wind over deck I suspect it could take off unassisted in not much more than its own length.

Ove
14th May 2012, 06:19 AM
It could, and did. :)

Mr Clingford
14th July 2012, 06:48 AM
Well, that was a lovely treat - a Lancaster and Spitfire flying around for the Farnborough Airshow. It's fantastic to actually see them in the air.

Yuri Nalyssus
16th July 2012, 10:22 AM
Well, that was a lovely treat - a Lancaster and Spitfire flying around for the Farnborough Airshow. It's fantastic to actually see them in the air.
Unfortunately at the Yeovilton air day a couple of weeks ago the Lanc and Hurricaine called off for some reason - the Spit was bloomin marvellous though! (As were the vintage jets tho not striclty WWII! tho the Comet nearly made it IIRC)

Also saw the Kittyhawk and the fantastic Sea Fury in flight

Bliss :D

Yuri

The Don
17th July 2012, 12:37 AM
I was in Scarborough over the weekend and a couple of times saw a twin radial piston engined plane flying slow and low over the town and out to sea. I'd guess it was one of Air Atlantique's DC-3/C-47s but I understood that their licence was withdrawn a couple of years ago.

I tried to take a picture but I only had my phone so I just got an indistinct dot in the distance.

Hubert Cumberdale
19th July 2012, 11:44 AM
I built Airfix and similar kits from the age of about 6 through 13.

Recently started a model of HMS Hood but it remain unfinished in the garage.

As an Englishman, I'm going to have to go for the Spitfire as my favourite WWII warbird. I also have an affection for the Bf109 Emil, which is right ugly but somehow so ugly its pleasing.

Never like the Fw190 and though the Mustang is elegant it lacks the art deco grace of the Spitfire.

I also quite like the look of the Hs129, for the same reason as the Bf109. Uggers but in a good way.

Hubert Cumberdale
19th July 2012, 11:46 AM
I like the looks of the Beaufighter, it's all about business, but it's like comparing a truck to a sports car.

Yeah, this is what I mean about the 109 and Hs129 too. They just have that look that says "Hello. I'm here to ruin your life" about them.

Sabretooth
24th July 2012, 01:44 PM
Forgot to mention a month or so ago that one of the last flying B-29’s, “Fifi”, was circling my area before heading to an airshow in Hamilton, Ontario. I tried to get a pic, but my phone doesn’t do zoom very well.

It was a nice treat to see such a graceful plane make its way through the skies.

Also, the weekend of July 14th was the annual Geneseo Airshow in NY was going on while I was camping at the state park nearby. Got to see a number of planes…P-51C & D, a P-47, a few WWI era bi-planes, among others. Made for a relaxing Saturday. :)

SUSpilot
24th July 2012, 08:49 PM
Just to make y'all jealous, I've just finished day 3 at AirVenture (arrived Sunday). Lotsa warbirds, with FiFi being the big WWII airplane...

Yuri Nalyssus
24th July 2012, 11:28 PM
Just to make y'all jealous, I've just finished day 3 at AirVenture (arrived Sunday). Lotsa warbirds, with FiFi being the big WWII airplane...
"FiFi" ? :confused:

Flying Fortress???

Yuri

Akhenaten
25th July 2012, 04:10 AM
"FiFi" ? :confused:

Flying Fortress???

Yuri





B-29 Superfortress.


http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/B29.jpg

SpitfireIX
25th July 2012, 10:33 AM
Forgot to mention a month or so ago that one of the last flying B-29’s, “Fifi”, was circling my area before heading to an airshow in Hamilton, Ontario. I tried to get a pic, but my phone doesn’t do zoom very well.

It was a nice treat to see such a graceful plane make its way through the skies.

Also, the weekend of July 14th was the annual Geneseo Airshow in NY was going on while I was camping at the state park nearby. Got to see a number of planes…P-51C & D, a P-47, a few WWI era bi-planes, among others. Made for a relaxing Saturday. :)


Fifi is the only flying B-29 in the world at the moment. I've seen rumors of another possibly undergoing restoration, but don't know the status.

I saw her about 12 years ago on the ground, but didn't get to see her fly. :(

SpitfireIX
25th July 2012, 10:37 AM
Something funny about these planes; if you get close you'll see that on the nose where kill flags and bomb symbols are located, they have silhouettes of WWII-era movie cameras, next to each is the name of a movie the plane has appeared in. Fifi has appeared in many, for obvious reasons. :)

Polaris
25th July 2012, 10:53 AM
Something funny about these planes; if you get close you'll see that on the nose where kill flags and bomb symbols are located, they have silhouettes of WWII-era movie cameras, next to each is the name of a movie the plane has appeared in. Fifi has appeared in many, for obvious reasons. :)

Probably reprising her role as Enola Gay on more than one occasion.

Yuri Nalyssus
25th July 2012, 02:12 PM
B-29 Superfortress.

Oh, right, thanks - impressive photo of an impressive plane btw :)

Yuri

eta - actually, looking back I should have read the post before the one I queried :o (but then I wouldn't have seen the photo!)

Piscivore
25th July 2012, 04:45 PM
Erm, Memphis Belle is an F, hasn't been flyable since shortly after the war, and is currently under restoration at the Air Force Museum.

From the nose art on the truck in the foreground, the aircraft is presumably Sentimental Journey, which I saw with some friends a couple of years ago. I don't have my photos handy at the moment; they're on my laptop, which is on loan to my cousin, and the back-ups are in the side pocket of the case. Here's one I found online.

She lives in my town. I get to see her flying sometimes driving into work.

http://www.azcaf.org/

BStrong
25th July 2012, 04:57 PM
This is a must watch:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1723870789084

1945 Airshow, captured Nazi aircraft, Me-262's everything under the sun.

I Ratant
26th July 2012, 09:48 AM
Went to one of those in 1946 or 47 at Marshall Field, Fort Riley Ka.
Got to fire a Browning .30 cal machine gun! :)
Touched a P-80!
(30 years later, when told not to touch the first spaceship to land on Earth, I did that also!) :)

Foster Zygote
26th July 2012, 10:03 AM
Fifi is the only flying B-29 in the world at the moment. I've seen rumors of another possibly undergoing restoration, but don't know the status.

I saw her about 12 years ago on the ground, but didn't get to see her fly. :(

I got to go inside Fifi on the ground about eight years ago. I sat in the captains seat for a couple of minutes. It's an interesting view. The pilots have only the basic flight instruments in front of them, but look over your right shoulder at the engineer's station and you see an imposing wall of instrumentation.

MRC_Hans
30th July 2012, 08:08 PM
B-29 Superfortress.



http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/B29.jpg


One of the last piston engined bombers. A very beautiful bird.

Hans

Spindrift
31st July 2012, 05:38 AM
(30 years later, when told not to touch the first spaceship to land on Earth, I did that also!) :)
An X-15?

Akhenaten
31st July 2012, 07:17 AM
One of the last piston engined bombers. A very beautiful bird.

Hans





Even the Soviets admired it so much that they felt compelled to pay tribute to it with their own version.


http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/TupolevTu-4_1.jpg

Tupolev Tu-4




http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/TupolevTu-4_2.jpg


Well, 'tribute' might not be exactly the right word.

:)

Roadtoad
31st July 2012, 11:57 AM
Well, 'tribute' might not be exactly the right word.

:)

But "ripoff" is.

Foster Zygote
31st July 2012, 12:28 PM
An interesting story about the Tu-4:

When Tupolev engineers were ordered to reverse engineer the three interned B-29s, the Stalinist bureaucracy was so crazy, and the fear of upsetting the unpredictable Stalin so great, that they went to great pains to literally produce the exact copies that Stalin had demanded. An erroneous rivet hole drilled by mistake by a Boeing worker was duplicated on all production Tu-4s. Even the Boeing logos on the control yolks were duplicated in order to avoid the torturous bureaucratic process required to make the slightest alteration. Tupolev himself had to ask Stalin for permission to use Soviet markings instead of the Army Air Force star and bar. Despite all this, the Tu-4 was over one and a half tons heavier than the B-29 because the Soviet aircraft industry produced skinning (and corresponding rivets) in metric gauges, rather than the 1/16 used by Boeing. Other changes included the use of Shvetsov engines that were developed from license produced Write 9-cylinders and thus shared some parts with the Write R-3350, and the use of NS-23 cannons.

MRC_Hans
31st July 2012, 06:55 PM
The Soviets also produced a replica C47, but IIRR, it was on a legit licence.

BTW, on Soviet planes, one of the little known workhorses of WW2:

http://www.hans-egebo.dk/Polikarpof.htm

(Maybe I already mentioned this. If so, sorry for the repetition)

Hans

ETA: I did. well ....

TjW
31st July 2012, 06:59 PM
An interesting story about the Tu-4:

When Tupolev engineers were ordered to reverse engineer the three interned B-29s, the Stalinist bureaucracy was so crazy, and the fear of upsetting the unpredictable Stalin so great, that they went to great pains to literally produce the exact copies that Stalin had demanded. An erroneous rivet hole drilled by mistake by a Boeing worker was duplicated on all production Tu-4s. Even the Boeing logos on the control yolks were duplicated in order to avoid the torturous bureaucratic process required to make the slightest alteration. Tupolev himself had to ask Stalin for permission to use Soviet markings instead of the Army Air Force star and bar. Despite all this, the Tu-4 was over one and a half tons heavier than the B-29 because the Soviet aircraft industry produced skinning (and corresponding rivets) in metric gauges, rather than the 1/16 used by Boeing. Other changes included the use of Shvetsov engines that were developed from license produced Write 9-cylinders and thus shared some parts with the Write R-3350, and the use of NS-23 cannons.

I think on the names of the original B-29 engines, you should try to get it Wright.

MRC_Hans
31st July 2012, 07:01 PM
I think on the names of the original B-29 engines, you should try to get it Wright.

So as not to Write it Wrong.

Hans

MRC_Hans
31st July 2012, 07:05 PM
- So, what's Wrong?

- Write is Wrong.

- Then what is Right?

- That´s Wright.

- ...etc....

...... Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hans

Foster Zygote
31st July 2012, 07:53 PM
I think on the names of the original B-29 engines, you should try to get it Wright.

Doh!

Foster Zygote
31st July 2012, 08:06 PM
The Soviets also produced a replica C47, but IIRR, it was on a legit licence.

BTW, on Soviet planes, one of the little known workhorses of WW2:

http://www.hans-egebo.dk/Polikarpof.htm

(Maybe I already mentioned this. If so, sorry for the repetition)

Hans

ETA: I did. well ....

Those saw action with the People's Korean Air Force as well. They often flew "Washing Machine Charlie" night raids against bases in South Korea.

MRC_Hans
31st July 2012, 09:22 PM
Those saw action with the People's Korean Air Force as well. They often flew "Washing Machine Charlie" night raids against bases in South Korea.

Yes. Nato designation "Mule".

There is a story of one example belonging to a Polish (?) vintage flying club. On a solo flight the pilot had a heart attack and died. The plane flew on till it ran out of gas, then landed itself. Due to soft ground it overturned, but was no more damaged than it was later restored to flying condition.

Hans

I Ratant
1st August 2012, 09:15 AM
The Poles also flew the MiG-23... of which was said... wait a bit, and you too can have one land in your garden!
One of theirs did get from Poland to Belgium after the pilot ejected... in itself a noteworthy feat, as the seat tended to kill its users, and bellying the thing in was usual.

Dcdrac
1st August 2012, 09:40 AM
b17s were used as target drones after WW2 in the 50s and 60s weren't they?

Yuri Nalyssus
1st August 2012, 10:58 AM
The Poles also flew the MiG-23... of which was said... wait a bit, and you too can have one land in your garden!
One of theirs did get from Poland to Belgium after the pilot ejected... in itself a noteworthy feat, as the seat tended to kill its users, and bellying the thing in was usual.
Reminds me of the old joke from the 70's:

Q - How does a German get himself a Starfighter
A - He buys a field and waits!

:D

Off topic, non WWII! - 'pologies

Yuri

I Ratant
1st August 2012, 11:03 AM
b17s were used as target drones after WW2 in the 50s and 60s weren't they?
.
Air attack into the '70s also.

Bikewer
1st August 2012, 11:16 AM
Reminds me of the old joke from the 70's:

Q - How does a German get himself a Starfighter
A - He buys a field and waits!

:D

Off topic, non WWII! - 'pologies

Yuri
I was in Germany in the mid-60s, and even then the Germans were merrily screwing the Starfighters into the ground. They were screaming about the hard-to-handle aircraft, and the Americans were chalking it up to hotdog pilots.

MRC_Hans
1st August 2012, 11:34 AM
I was in Germany in the mid-60s, and even then the Germans were merrily screwing the Starfighters into the ground. They were screaming about the hard-to-handle aircraft, and the Americans were chalking it up to hotdog pilots.

It should be noted that the German version of the Starfighter was equipped with various extras, among other things enabling it to carry tactical nuclear weapons, so it did have poorer handling characteristics than the standard version. As the plane is already an aerodynamic abomination, with wings the size of dinner tables, any reduction of the available flight envelope might well have turned it into a widowmaker.

It is a cruelly elegant bird, but when you look at it, you can't help wondering how it can fly at all.


Hans

dasmiller
1st August 2012, 11:54 AM
- So, what's Wrong?

- Write is Wrong.

- Then what is Right?

- That´s Wright.

- ...etc....

...... Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hans


“They had to use whatever they could find to get her flying again. Strange as it may seem, they rebuilt her with four different engines.”

“Different engines?”

“Yep, each nacelle had a different engine. There was a Wright on the first nacelle, Lyc on the second, Sikh on the third—“

“That’s what I want to know, tell me the engines they had on that airplane”

“I’m telling you. Wright’s on first, Lyc’s on second, Sikh’s on third—“

“You know the engines?”

“Yes”

“Well, some engine has to be on the first nacelle, right?

“Yes.”

"Well, then what’s the right engine?"

“Yes”

“I mean the engine on the first nacelle.”

“Wright”

(etc, etc)

:D

Foster Zygote
1st August 2012, 11:55 AM
Yes. Nato designation "Mule".

There is a story of one example belonging to a Polish (?) vintage flying club. On a solo flight the pilot had a heart attack and died. The plane flew on till it ran out of gas, then landed itself. Due to soft ground it overturned, but was no more damaged than it was later restored to flying condition.

Hans

I wonder if it was this one?

I Ratant
1st August 2012, 11:57 AM
“They had to use whatever they could find to get her flying again. Strange as it may seem, they rebuilt her with four different engines.”

“Different engines?”

“Yep, each nacelle had a different engine. There was a Wright on the first nacelle, Lyc on the second, Sikh on the third—“

“That’s what I want to know, tell me the engines they had on that airplane”

“I’m telling you. Wright’s on first, Lyc’s on second, Sikh’s on third—“

“You know the engines?”

“Yes”

“Well, some engine has to be on the first nacelle, right?

“Yes.”

"Well, then what’s the right engine?"

“Yes”

“I mean the engine on the first nacelle.”

“Wright”

(etc, etc)

:D
.
One of the B-17s I've seen had Studebaker Wrights on it!

Akhenaten
1st August 2012, 12:36 PM
http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/FiatG-59.jpg
Fiat G-59


This aircraft belonged to Guido Zuccoli (http://www.aerotec.com.au/guido.html), a resident of my home town of Toowoomba, Queensland and I was fortunate enough to have seen it fly on a number of occasions.

TjW
1st August 2012, 01:57 PM
.
Air attack into the '70s also.

Ah, I see the telltale signs of Phos-Chek.

I Ratant
1st August 2012, 03:42 PM
Which works very well.
Note the plane laying down the Phos-Chek, and the area that -didn't- burn. :)
.
And an emergency dump when a P3 had an engine failure on takeoff at Fox Field.
The pilot waited until he'd cleared the runway before dumping his load, so as to not foul the runway.

Beanbag
1st August 2012, 04:06 PM
I was in Germany in the mid-60s, and even then the Germans were merrily screwing the Starfighters into the ground. They were screaming about the hard-to-handle aircraft, and the Americans were chalking it up to hotdog pilots.
The Spanish air force flew 104's as well, and didn't lose a single one.

The F104 just wasn't a forgiving aircraft. It was literally about a decade or two ahead of its time, a case of Kelly Johnson giving the pilots exactly what they asked for. They have one at the Cavenaugh flight museum, and it amazes me just how tiny it is, compared to most jet aircraft of that and the present era.

A quote I've heard attributed to the F104 by a supposed F104 pilot is, that if you make a single mistake in an F104, it will be the last mistake you make in that plane. If you're lucky, you might get to make another mistake in another plane later.

Beanbag

Yuri Nalyssus
1st August 2012, 10:57 PM
The F104 just wasn't a forgiving aircraft. It was literally about a decade or two ahead of its time
It amazes me, when looking at pictures of them how they were able to stay airborne without fly by wire computer technology. Brave pilots.

Yuri

I Ratant
2nd August 2012, 09:36 AM
Noise.
The noise kept the F-104 in the air.
When the noise stopped, it plummeted.
If that occurred as the plane was passing through 20,000 feet over the end of the runway, it could make the runway in the plummet.
Otherwise, eject, eject, eject.
Belly landing the thing with the ventral fin would be fatal.
The Luftwaffe was flying it outside the envelope the other nations were, which contributed to the appalling loss rate they experienced.
Like the MiG-21, it was an airfield perimeter defense airplane, nothing more.
One of my friends flying F-8s for the Marines said they'd fly over an F-104 base taunting the flyboys... knowing the -104s couldn't get to and land safely after.

Humanzee
5th August 2012, 08:32 PM
Visited the Tillamook OR Air Museum Sunday.
Very cool to get up close to some of these warbirds.
BF-109 and TBM Avenger. Sorry for the poor quality.

Humanzee
5th August 2012, 08:36 PM
A few others. Many looked like they were flight ready.
KI-43 Oscar and F4U Corsair

26201

26202

Humanzee
5th August 2012, 08:42 PM
My favorite the P38 Lightning
26204

and a P51 Mustang
26203

A recommended visit if you are in the area.

Humanzee
5th August 2012, 09:26 PM
And speaking of the B-29...the Mini Guppy.

26205

Noztradamus
6th August 2012, 12:22 AM
I think on the names of the original B-29 engines, you should try to get it Wright.

That wasn't the only egg that Foster Zygote laid

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote
An interesting story about the Tu-4:

Even the Boeing logos on the control yolks were duplicated in order to avoid the torturous bureaucratic process required to make the slightest alteration

BaaBaa
6th August 2012, 01:31 AM
Visited the Tillamook OR Air Museum Sunday.
Very cool to get up close to some of these warbirds.
BF-109 and TBM Avenger. Sorry for the poor quality.

That 109 is a Spanish Buchon, I think

Dcdrac
6th August 2012, 07:35 AM
This is my fave whacked out Ww2 plane of all

Bachem Ba 349 Natter (Viper)

http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/Ba-349.html

Dcdrac
6th August 2012, 07:38 AM
The Spanish air force flew 104's as well, and didn't lose a single one.

The F104 just wasn't a forgiving aircraft. It was literally about a decade or two ahead of its time, a case of Kelly Johnson giving the pilots exactly what they asked for. They have one at the Cavenaugh flight museum, and it amazes me just how tiny it is, compared to most jet aircraft of that and the present era.

A quote I've heard attributed to the F104 by a supposed F104 pilot is, that if you make a single mistake in an F104, it will be the last mistake you make in that plane. If you're lucky, you might get to make another mistake in another plane later.

Beanbag

And there was 1970s record made out of it

Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters

http://www.starfarer.net/captlock.html

Metullus
6th August 2012, 08:20 AM
Saturday a flight of 4 Mustangs flew over the house in line abreast...Our annual airshow is coming to town!

While in college in the 70s I worked a couple of summers at MCAS El Toro in a USMC training squadron QA shop. Amongst the T-28s in the maintenance hanger was a Vought F4U Corsair that was being rebuilt. I got to crawl all over it. I have often wondered whatever happened to that old bird.

Didaktylos
6th August 2012, 08:21 AM
Yes, along with the CASA built Heinkel 111s (also merlin powered) and Ju-52s. IIRC all three types were still on the active inventory of the Spanish Air Force at the time, and loaned to the production company for the duration of filming.

Actually what happened was that the whole fleet was retired by the Ejercito del Aire just as the film went into production and the production company bought them. Apparently, when put together with the Spitfires and Hurricanes, the film production company owned the 35th largest air force in the world. It's all described in Leonard Mosley's book about the making of the film

Hubert Cumberdale
6th August 2012, 08:44 AM
Visited the Tillamook OR Air Museum Sunday.
Very cool to get up close to some of these warbirds.
BF-109 and TBM Avenger. Sorry for the poor quality.

Strange. I thought all 109's used inverted-V engines.

What model is it?

I Ratant
6th August 2012, 09:33 AM
The Spanish -109s use the Rolls Royce Merlin.
The originals had the inverted motors..

Hubert Cumberdale
6th August 2012, 02:12 PM
The Spanish -109s use the Rolls Royce Merlin.
The originals had the inverted motors..

I was going to say "it looks like its got a Merlin" but dismissed it as my own nationalistic bias.

I have to say they look better with the inverted-V engines. They look meaner.

I Ratant
6th August 2012, 03:08 PM
The Merlin lacks the cannon that fires through the center of the prop, that is characteristic of the motors in the Messerschmitts.
And on the Buchon swings a 4-bladed prop.

Humanzee
6th August 2012, 09:03 PM
Excellent, thanks for the correction! My apologies.

(though I am a little annoyed they call it a BF-109 on the website.)

Hubert Cumberdale
6th August 2012, 11:19 PM
The Merlin lacks the cannon that fires through the center of the prop, that is characteristic of the motors in the Messerschmitts.
And on the Buchon swings a 4-bladed prop.

Ahh... but not all of them!

Of the Emil's, only the E-2 had a motorkanone and this was unsuccessful. Only the F series and later characteristically carried a motorkanone.

Alex Cured
7th August 2012, 12:53 AM
This is my fave whacked out Ww2 plane of all

Bachem Ba 349 Natter (Viper)

http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/Ba-349.html

From the wikipedia article on Lothar Sieber, the first (only?) test pilot
It is assumed that during the vertical drop, with the engine firing, Sieber inadvertently also became the first human to break the sound barrier.

and from the main wikipdeia article it suggests that he may have died from the acceleration causing something like a basal skull fracture.

There's an image of a full size diorama at the Sieber page that's rather handsome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothar_Sieber

Ove
7th August 2012, 01:10 AM
Noise.
The noise kept the F-104 in the air.
When the noise stopped, it plummeted.
If that occurred as the plane was passing through 20,000 feet over the end of the runway, it could make the runway in the plummet.
Otherwise, eject, eject, eject.
Belly landing the thing with the ventral fin would be fatal.
The Luftwaffe was flying it outside the envelope the other nations were, which contributed to the appalling loss rate they experienced.
Like the MiG-21, it was an airfield perimeter defense airplane, nothing more.
One of my friends flying F-8s for the Marines said they'd fly over an F-104 base taunting the flyboys... knowing the -104s couldn't get to and land safely after.

The Danish Air Force had in all 51 og them and 12 crashed. I believe that the Starfighter got it's bad reputation very early. I read an article written by Roland Beaumont a British testpilot that were in USA and tried some of the "Century Fighters". According to him the early engine had a nasty habit of "flaming out" and did so espescially when the plane came in for landing. This, coupled with the very unfortunate ejection seat in the first planes named the plane "The Widow Maker". It seemed that some genious had decided that a pilot could not use a normal ejection seat at Mach 2 so the early seats ejected DOWNWARDS. Not reassuring if the plane flames out at the landing approach.

MRC_Hans
7th August 2012, 04:38 AM
Noise.
The noise kept the F-104 in the air.

It was noisy, that's for sure. ;)


When the noise stopped, it plummeted.
If that occurred as the plane was passing through 20,000 feet over the end of the runway, it could make the runway in the plummet.


Actually, at the speed of a rifle-bullet, even plummeting would take it surprisingly far.


Otherwise, eject, eject, eject.
Belly landing the thing with the ventral fin would be fatal.


That and the high landing speed. Not recommended.


Like the MiG-21, it was an airfield perimeter defense airplane, nothing more.


Not exactly. The F104 was built to early post-war doctrine; being much enchanted with tne fancy new guided missiles, some military authorities got the idea that the fighter of the future would be tasked simply with bringing missiles within firing range of the enemy as quickly as possible.

The F104 was ideally suited for this. However, as it was soon to turn out, there was a bit more to aeral combat than just that. The F104 remained a workable zoom and boom fighter for a while, and in the ground attack role, it performed till the size and precision of the available ordenance made it unsuitable.

As airfield perimeter defence, it was not suitable, unless your airfield was the size of Texas (the rumoured turning radius. In reality, it was some 25 miles).

Hans

I Ratant
7th August 2012, 08:55 AM
At high speeds, all turning radii are large, with the largeness depending on the plane.
When we were simulating the SST for the US competition at Lockheed, at Mach 2.7, the acceptable g-loading for the passenger made a turn about 300 miles in diameter.
A 180° turn begun over LA would finish over Vegas.
The push-over from the high-Mach climb to cruise would tend to put the passengers on the ceiling.
Darryl Greenamyer suggested doing a positive-g roll at the transition... of course, the passengers might not care to see the earth move around like that. :)

Dcdrac
7th August 2012, 08:56 AM
Didn't the HE111s used in the Battle of Britain film have merlins in them too?

Corsair 115
7th August 2012, 11:53 AM
TThis, coupled with the very unfortunate ejection seat in the first planes named the plane "The Widow Maker".


The B-26 Marauder earned the same moniker early in its history too, though in the end it was to prove itself a fully capable aircraft.

Foster Zygote
7th August 2012, 12:46 PM
The Merlin lacks the cannon that fires through the center of the prop, that is characteristic of the motors in the Messerschmitts.
And on the Buchon swings a 4-bladed prop.

Although on the models prior to the F series, the center MG FF cannon was virtually always omitted because it was so prone to jamming after a few rounds. The F series (my favorite) finally solved this issue and MG 151 15mm guns were first reliably installed, then upgraded to MG 151 20mm cannons starting with the F-4. The wing mounted MG FFs were then deleted from production examples, although Adolph Galland had a couple of F-4s equipped with custom armament, one with 13mm guns in the cowl replacing the 7.92mm guns, and one with a pair of MG FFs fitted in the wing.

Foster Zygote
7th August 2012, 12:48 PM
Didn't the HE111s used in the Battle of Britain film have merlins in them too?

Yes. In fact several years ago I was on board one (on the ground) that had been the personal transport of Francisco Franco.

Dave Rogers
8th August 2012, 01:18 AM
The B-26 Marauder earned the same moniker early in its history too, though in the end it was to prove itself a fully capable aircraft.

Ah yes, the Flying Prostitute. So named, according to legend, because its wings were so small relative to the rest of the plane that it had no obvious means by which to support itself.

Dave

MRC_Hans
8th August 2012, 05:14 AM
Ah yes, the Flying Prostitute. So named, according to legend, because its wings were so small relative to the rest of the plane that it had no obvious means by which to support itself.

DaveFun story, but it must be of some other plane. The B26 had quite normal wings.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pimaair.org/images/collection/b26/B-26-Martin.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pimaair.org/view.php?pg%3D58&h=248&w=373&sz=35&tbnid=rjAjAJQIlBuMIM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/search%3Fq%3Db%2B26%2Bmartin%2Bmarauder%26tbm%3Dis ch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=b+26+martin+marauder&usg=__ZDGfvb_Y5PZ4ZHRF1t-76V0vFos=&docid=1cXyKBLyn4KrnM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yVciUMiyE9SX0QXrsYCADA&ved=0CGwQ9QEwBg&dur=3901

Hans

Dave Rogers
8th August 2012, 05:21 AM
Fun story, but it must be of some other plane. The B26 had quite normal wings.

Not exactly, no. For its time, it had the highest wing loading of any service aircraft, resulting in an unusually high stalling speed and a lot of crashes in training. The wingspan was eventually increased to make its handling characteristics a little less demanding, but the reputation stuck. The nickname IIRC came from its pilots, who were well aware of the technical issues.

Dave

MRC_Hans
8th August 2012, 05:44 AM
Not exactly, no. For its time, it had the highest wing loading of any service aircraft, resulting in an unusually high stalling speed and a lot of crashes in training. The wingspan was eventually increased to make its handling characteristics a little less demanding, but the reputation stuck. The nickname IIRC came from its pilots, who were well aware of the technical issues.

DaveI can see you are right. The picture I found must be after the modification, then.

If you compare it with a B25, they appear very similar, but the B26 did weigh a couple of ton more.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/empire-state-building/b25_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml&h=380&w=550&sz=31&tbnid=H0Bc1t7CNJuozM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=130&prev=/search%3Fq%3Db%2B25%2Bbomber%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3D u&zoom=1&q=b+25+bomber&usg=__Usl3RWTATmLnfX0ERzY00q7O8q4=&docid=dGte1D4YFRcAsM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cV8iUIbWB42a1AX2lICoDQ&ved=0CHQQ9QEwBA&dur=2964

Hans

I Ratant
8th August 2012, 08:11 AM
Ah yes, the Flying Prostitute. So named, according to legend, because its wings were so small relative to the rest of the plane that it had no obvious means by which to support itself.

Dave
.
"One a day, in Tampa Bay" at the B-26 training school.
In service, the highest survival rate with the fewest losses in combat.

Dcdrac
8th August 2012, 08:34 AM
AVRO Lancaster

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t9gZwNaeGyU/TFGUA6cjrwI/AAAAAAAAAEg/UixZbSXM4Vk/s1600/CanadianLancasterBanking.jpg

Dcdrac
8th August 2012, 08:36 AM
De Havilland Mosquito

http://www.dhmosquito.com/images/Mosquito_B-MkXVI_350.jpg

Dcdrac
8th August 2012, 08:37 AM
Hawker Tempest

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/images12/74.jpg

Dcdrac
8th August 2012, 09:07 AM
And while not a WW2 plane its hard to beat this beauty

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/history.html

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Avro-Vulcan/IMAGES/Avro-Vulcan-Bomber-Title.jpg

sts60
8th August 2012, 01:48 PM
"One a day, in Tampa Bay" at the B-26 training school.
In service, the highest survival rate with the fewest losses in combat.
I'm pretty sure I already recommended Bombs Awry (http://www.amazon.com/Bombs-Awry-Grover-Ted-Tate/dp/0892880937) by Ted Tate, who was a crewman on the B-26 as well as a mechanic, flight engineer, navigator, pilot, you name it, on a wide variety of aircraft from biplanes to the B-58 in a civilian and military career spanning from pre-WWII to Vietnam. You warbird buffs will love it.

Alex Cured
8th August 2012, 01:57 PM
And while not a WW2 plane its hard to beat this beauty

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/history.html

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Avro-Vulcan/IMAGES/Avro-Vulcan-Bomber-Title.jpg
eh? But that's just a patchwork of fields isn't it?

TjW
8th August 2012, 07:04 PM
eh? But that's just a patchwork of fields isn't it?

Rubber fields.

They've been Vulcanized.

SpitfireIX
8th August 2012, 08:13 PM
Live long and prosper.

MRC_Hans
8th August 2012, 11:05 PM
AVRO Lancaster

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t9gZwNaeGyU/TFGUA6cjrwI/AAAAAAAAAEg/UixZbSXM4Vk/s1600/CanadianLancasterBanking.jpg

And surprisingly elegant it was. Cuite dwarfed by modern airliners, but when you stand under it, it seems huge.

Hans

MRC_Hans
8th August 2012, 11:13 PM
And while not a WW2 plane its hard to beat this beauty

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/history.html

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Avro-Vulcan/IMAGES/Avro-Vulcan-Bomber-Title.jpg

Aye, I've seen an operative Vulcan, flying. (Yes, I'm old enough for that)

Awesome. There is one at Hendon, when you walk under it it's like a roof in itself.

There was one visiting my home airbase, must have been around '68, and after it was parked, they wanted to move it a bit, but the apron was slanting just a little, and our biggest tractor couldn't hold it, so the cranked up the Vulcan's engines again and moved it under its own power. - Next day the grass was yellow for a hundred yards behind where the exhaust had scorched it.

Hans

Mr Clingford
8th August 2012, 11:54 PM
Aye, I've seen an operative Vulcan, flying. (Yes, I'm old enough for that)...

Hans
Or been alive in the South Atlantic in 1982!

It was great seeing a Vulcan in the air just last month, especially as the commentator on the practice for the GB Grand Prix mentioned one passing overhead and then half an hour later it flew over me. Wonderful.

Dcdrac
9th August 2012, 05:04 AM
When I was growing up our house was directly under the flight path of the Vulcans when they used to fly over London for the trooping of the colour nad the practice flights they used to do leading up to it, quite a sight 6 Vulcans low level tight formation and that roarrrr

Captain_Swoop
9th August 2012, 05:10 AM
I like the Handley Page Victor myself. It still looks 'Sci-Fi' at the front.

http://plane-crazy.purplecloud.net/Aircraft/Jets/Victor/Victor.htm

MRC_Hans
9th August 2012, 07:24 AM
I like the Handley Page Victor myself. It still looks 'Sci-Fi' at the front.

http://plane-crazy.purplecloud.net/Aircraft/Jets/Victor/Victor.htm

No reason to paint a face on that, it already has one!

Hans

Dcdrac
9th August 2012, 08:21 AM
And lets not forget the Valiant

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/bombers/vickers-valiant-b-mk-1.jpg

Dcdrac
9th August 2012, 09:24 AM
The Hero of the battle of Britain

The Hawker Hurricane

http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/hurricane-6.jpg

Hubert Cumberdale
9th August 2012, 12:42 PM
I like the Handley Page Victor myself. It still looks 'Sci-Fi' at the front.

http://plane-crazy.purplecloud.net/Aircraft/Jets/Victor/Victor.htm

Plus one!

Best looking bomber. Evar.

sackett
9th August 2012, 03:50 PM
because it has no visible means of support." That's been said of several planes over many years. My father worked on Douglas A-20s in San Diego during the Truly Big One, and heard that joke applied to it -- with some reason.

For its era (late 30s) the A-20 was a hot plane, but unfortunately the concept of light attack bomber was basically flawed. Low-altitude bombing/strafing approached the suicidal in a plane as big (and, let's face it, as slow) as the A-20. We've all seen that harrowing series of pictures of an A-20 blowing up and crashing after being hit by flak as it pulled away from an attack on Rabaul.

And yet, it remained in service in the Far East/Pacific until the end of the war, and even (some buff may correct me) in production until mid-1944.

I hope there's still a flyable A-20 somewhere. My father would have liked that.

I Ratant
9th August 2012, 04:32 PM
I rode my motorcycle underneath the wing of Howard Hughes' A-20 when it was being towed up Sierra Highway from Santa Monica Airport many years ago.
I don't know if the Commerative Air Force took it from Fox Field where it sat for many years.
One tragedy I saw was a Mosquito moldering away at Whiteman Airpark in Burbank many years back. Back was broken, and the motors were still installed, pointing at the sky.

Ove
10th August 2012, 12:06 AM
Aye, I've seen an operative Vulcan, flying. (Yes, I'm old enough for that)

Awesome. There is one at Hendon, when you walk under it it's like a roof in itself.

There was one visiting my home airbase, must have been around '68, and after it was parked, they wanted to move it a bit, but the apron was slanting just a little, and our biggest tractor couldn't hold it, so the cranked up the Vulcan's engines again and moved it under its own power. - Next day the grass was yellow for a hundred yards behind where the exhaust had scorched it.

Hans

I remember the Vulcan clearly when we were at airshows at Karup back in the 70's. They used to come in low and slow over the airfield and then when they were over the crowd they would "gun" the engines and climb away. The noize was deafening. :D

MRC_Hans
10th August 2012, 12:19 AM
And lets not forget the Valiant

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/bombers/vickers-valiant-b-mk-1.jpg

Seriously, while it led to some cool aircraft, can anybody tell me how the V-bomber project made sense, apart from supporting the home aero industry?

- Building three different aircraft for the same purpose, in peacetime, seems a little wasteful to me.

Hans

MRC_Hans
10th August 2012, 12:25 AM
because it has no visible means of support." That's been said of several planes over many years. My father worked on Douglas A-20s in San Diego during the Truly Big One, and heard that joke applied to it -- with some reason.

For its era (late 30s) the A-20 was a hot plane, but unfortunately the concept of light attack bomber was basically flawed. Low-altitude bombing/strafing approached the suicidal in a plane as big (and, let's face it, as slow) as the A-20. We've all seen that harrowing series of pictures of an A-20 blowing up and crashing after being hit by flak as it pulled away from an attack on Rabaul.

And yet, it remained in service in the Far East/Pacific until the end of the war, and even (some buff may correct me) in production until mid-1944.

I hope there's still a flyable A-20 somewhere. My father would have liked that.

Only one, it seems. But several are under restoration (which, unfortunately, may mean "in a bad shape, but not entirely given up on") :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A-20_Havoc_operators

Hans

Noztradamus
10th August 2012, 01:56 AM
~~~
For its era (late 30s) the A-20 was a hot plane, but unfortunately the concept of light attack bomber was basically flawed. Low-altitude bombing/strafing approached the suicidal in a plane as big (and, let's face it, as slow) as the A-20.
~~~

Not sure I see that. On the figures for compactness, weight, power, it matches the Beaufighter, and edges out the Ju-88, and the B-25.

Dcdrac
10th August 2012, 04:43 AM
This was used to help sink the Bizmarck

http://website.lineone.net/~remosliema/swordfish1.jpg

They took off from Ark Royal

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h79000/h79167.jpg

Aber
10th August 2012, 05:35 AM
This was used to help sink the Bizmarck


Even better it allowed the Warspite to sink a U-boat

Ove
13th August 2012, 01:55 AM
This was used to help sink the Bizmarck

http://website.lineone.net/~remosliema/swordfish1.jpg

They took off from Ark Royal

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h79000/h79167.jpg

Yep, the faithful old "Stringbag" and there ARE a couple flying still. :) It's replacement, the Albacore was never any major sucess the Swordfish soldiered on for the rest of the war, slow, underpowered yet very robust.

Ove
13th August 2012, 02:03 AM
Seriously, while it led to some cool aircraft, can anybody tell me how the V-bomber project made sense, apart from supporting the home aero industry?

- Building three different aircraft for the same purpose, in peacetime, seems a little wasteful to me.

Hans

The problem was, i think, that nobody really had any idea which role the bomber would play in a future war. The Victor was a quite conventionally concept whereas the Valiant and Vulcan was serious bids in the "nuclear deterrent" role but both were given other roles eventually. The Vulcan as a conventional bomber and it was used in that role during the Falklands conflict and the Valiant was quite sucessful as a tanker.
Onen can say a lot about the Brits but they have allways been quite good in the "make-do-and-mend" department. :)

Dcdrac
13th August 2012, 02:17 AM
And besides which the Vulcan disregarding its deadly intent looks beuatiful as does the Hunter

http://l.rgbimg.com/cache1nGhBb/users/h/hi/hisks/600/mhXZR2a.jpg

Dave Rogers
13th August 2012, 02:28 AM
The problem was, i think, that nobody really had any idea which role the bomber would play in a future war. The Victor was a quite conventionally concept whereas the Valiant and Vulcan was serious bids in the "nuclear deterrent" role but both were given other roles eventually. The Vulcan as a conventional bomber and it was used in that role during the Falklands conflict and the Valiant was quite sucessful as a tanker.

I think you may have mixed up the Victor and the Valiant. It was Victor tankers that supported the Black Buck operations over the Falklands, and the Valiant that was the most conservative of the three designs. The Valiant didn't last long as a tanker, and all Valiants were grounded in 1964 due to structural failures.

Dave

Captain_Swoop
13th August 2012, 02:33 AM
3 different designs were comissioned as no one was sure that they would be any good. Vulcan and Victor were on the cutting edge of design and technology at the time. Valiant was a lot more 'conventional' it was an inusrance policy in case the other two more radical designs didn't pan out.

Dave Rogers
13th August 2012, 02:35 AM
3 different designs were comissioned as no one was sure that they would be any good. Vulcan and Victor were on the cutting edge of design and technology at the time. Valiant was a lot more 'conventional' it was an inusrance policy in case the other two more radical designs didn't pan out.

Ironic, really, that the two speculative designs had long and successful careers, while the more conventional one was the one that turned out to be structurally unsound.

Dave

Captain_Swoop
13th August 2012, 02:35 AM
This was used to help sink the Bizmarck

http://website.lineone.net/~remosliema/swordfish1.jpg

They took off from Ark Royal

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h79000/h79167.jpg

And performed the attack on Taranto. Plus it performed as an Anti Submarine aircraft on the Escort Carriers long after it stopped being a Torpedo Bomber.

Dcdrac
13th August 2012, 05:11 AM
mark 19 Spitfire

http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/other-military-aircraft/supermarine-pr-spitfire-mk-xix.jpg

I Ratant
13th August 2012, 08:42 AM
Heard this French jobber-do growl over yesterday.
Probably the only one on this side of the pond.
Kinda WWII-ish..

Skeptic Guy
13th August 2012, 09:11 AM
My father in law was a tail gunner for a B24 in India working the interdiction and inserting insurgents duties over Burma in 1943. He even has a partial credit for a kill, during which he got a back full of shrapnel from a near-miss from a Japanese 20mm shell. He says ot was a miracle the plane didn't catch fire after getting multiple hits all over the plane.

Fast foreward to 2002(? I could be wrong). While walking through the Avaiation museum in Ottawa we spotted a bunch of photos from the RAF and the Far East Command. Lo and behold, there's a picture of him and his crewmates having tea and biscuits under the tail assemly of their plane! Ed can't remember having the photo done and it looks like none of the others knew their picture was being taken.

When he told the museum staff about the picture and named everyone in the picture, the staff made him a poster size copy and gave him an electronic copy to use as wallpaper on his computer. They also redid the caption on the photo to include everyone's names and rank. The staff couldn't find out who they were using normal channels because none of the plane's markings were in the picture.

If I had the picture I'd post it but I'm at work right now. :mad:

Also at the airport close by in Hamilton Ontario they have a warplane museum with a flying Lancaster. I don't even have to see it to know it's in the air, the sound of 4 Merlins is unmistakeable.

I can't wait until they get more planes flying.

I just found this thread and I love this story. I'm a big WW2 buff and this is the kind of thing that I enjoy hearing about. Could you get that picture and post it?

Last year, while working out of my office near the WTC site, I saw a B-25 Mitchell fly right by my office window. I was so taken aback that I couldn't get my phone out in time to take a picture of it.

I Ratant
13th August 2012, 10:14 AM
B-25 at the height of an office window...
I saw the hole the day after it was made in the Empire State building.

Skeptic Guy
13th August 2012, 02:04 PM
Different decade. Interesting thing is that my brother went to a WW2 airshow that weekend and actually spoke to the pilot who confirmed he was flying down the Hudson River that day.

Beanbag
13th August 2012, 06:18 PM
Fieseler Fi156 Storch (Stork). Probably one of the goofiest-looking planes of WW2, and that's saying something. A remarkable plane in that it is so STOL (short takeoff or landing) you could land the thing in a headwind and actually be going backwards relative to the ground.

The French and Czechs kept building them after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_156

Beanbag

Dcdrac
14th August 2012, 01:48 AM
I have always liked the ME262

The Meteor always looked a convnetioanl airframe with jet Engines attached.

Dcdrac
14th August 2012, 01:50 AM
I am sure there was a RAF plane that looked similar to a USAAF Lightening

Dcdrac
14th August 2012, 01:55 AM
It was the Westland Whirlwind

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=524

Jack by the hedge
14th August 2012, 02:06 AM
I am sure there was a RAF plane that looked similar to a USAAF Lightening

Aspects of the Westland Whirlwind remind me of the P-38 Lightning, but without the distinctive twin boom tail, of course.

Captain_Swoop
14th August 2012, 02:31 AM
Fieseler Fi156 Storch (Stork). Probably one of the goofiest-looking planes of WW2, and that's saying something. A remarkable plane in that it is so STOL (short takeoff or landing) you could land the thing in a headwind and actually be going backwards relative to the ground.

The French and Czechs kept building them after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_156

Beanbag

RAF had the Auster, very similar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auster

which was a copy of the US Taylorcraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-2_Grasshopper

Dcdrac
14th August 2012, 02:36 AM
And of course the Lysander

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/lysander.htm

I Ratant
14th August 2012, 09:23 AM
Fieseler Fi156 Storch (Stork). Probably one of the goofiest-looking planes of WW2, and that's saying something. A remarkable plane in that it is so STOL (short takeoff or landing) you could land the thing in a headwind and actually be going backwards relative to the ground.

The French and Czechs kept building them after the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_156

Beanbag
.
I believe this is a French built... it does well in spot landing competitions here.

Captain_Swoop
14th August 2012, 10:04 AM
And of course the Lysander

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/lysander.htm

Lysander was a whole lot bigger, it had a STOL capability thoug hand it's big fixed undercarriage made it ideal for landing on small unprepared fields to drop of Agents or recover downed pilots etc.

I Ratant
14th August 2012, 11:04 AM
ISTR a restorer at California City says he has the Storch Skorenzy used to rescue Mussolini under restoration.

Ove
15th August 2012, 12:24 AM
.
I believe this is a French built... it does well in spot landing competitions here.

In MAY be a French buildt but it has the original German engine (Argus). Most French Storch's (They were called Criquet) had a radial engine which changed the appearance somewhat. It was apparently a terribly easy plane to fly. Rommel is said to have flown one even though he didn't have any pilot training (i guess he got some "in field" instruction though).

Ove
15th August 2012, 12:28 AM
Lysander was a whole lot bigger, it had a STOL capability thoug hand it's big fixed undercarriage made it ideal for landing on small unprepared fields to drop of Agents or recover downed pilots etc.

I have read a book by a Norwegian pilot who flew on secret "Pick-Up" missions and he says that they had great confidence in the Lysander because it actually "looked like it could fly" with the huge wings. They could be tricky though, if you had to abort a landing and "go around" again. With full flaps, in landing configuration, it would loop, and crash, if the pilot slammed the throttle open. But once mastered it could take off and land in VERY little space.

Ove
17th August 2012, 01:19 AM
I have allways had a weak spot for "things that never happened". One of the unanswered questions could be: "What if RAF had deployed the Westland Whirlwind as a Bomber Destroyer alongside Spits and Hurricanes during the BOB". The Whirlwind was available at the time. It was a very agile plane (though it would have been hard pressed agains a 109) but more specifically it had an awesome armament of 4 20mm cannons in the nose which would have wrecked havoc amongst the German bombers. The Germans later in the war, used the Me110 in a similar role quite sucessfully. One of the problems was that the standard 8 X .303 machineguns used on the fighters was often not hard hitting enough to down the German bombers.

Another thing that never happened is the best fighter ever produced by the Brits, the Martin Baker MB5. It clearly outperformed anything else that flew, the problem was that it arrived too late in the war and it was never put in production. Only one prototype was ever buildt and it was later destroyed. I have heard that some Americans are building a Replika and that it should be about ready to fly, that would be awesome.

Dave Rogers
17th August 2012, 01:30 AM
I have allways had a weak spot for "things that never happened". One of the unanswered questions could be: "What if RAF had deployed the Westland Whirlwind as a Bomber Destroyer alongside Spits and Hurricanes during the BOB".

I think an even more intriguing question is "What if the Whirlwind had been modified to use Merlins instead of Peregrines?" Rolls-Royce were understandably heavily focused on Merlin and Griffon development, so the Peregrine was the poor relation that never really had its reliability problems addressed, and that was the Whirlwind's Achilles heel. Two Merlins would have made it a lot heavier and might well have made its handling less pleasant, but it could conceivably have out-performed the Mosquito and made a stunningly good heavy fighter-bomber.

Dave

Captain_Swoop
17th August 2012, 01:51 AM
In wartime you can't afford to mess about too much. Whirlwind was stopped as other aircraft with less problems were doing the job.

Ove
17th August 2012, 05:58 AM
I think an even more intriguing question is "What if the Whirlwind had been modified to use Merlins instead of Peregrines?" Rolls-Royce were understandably heavily focused on Merlin and Griffon development, so the Peregrine was the poor relation that never really had its reliability problems addressed, and that was the Whirlwind's Achilles heel. Two Merlins would have made it a lot heavier and might well have made its handling less pleasant, but it could conceivably have out-performed the Mosquito and made a stunningly good heavy fighter-bomber.

Dave

Agreed. I have allways seen the Whirly as a missed opportunity. It was hampered by a bad reputation to begin with but it actually did a very good job. Petter who designed it was one of the great designers and he later went on to designe the Canberra, the Lightning and the Gnat. The Perengrine was a development of the hugely sucessful Kestrel and wasn't a bad engine, Rolls Royce just lost interest.

I Ratant
17th August 2012, 09:38 AM
In wartime you can't afford to mess about too much. Whirlwind was stopped as other aircraft with less problems were doing the job.
.
That was an unappreciated "virtue" with the German war industry.
The insanity of the leaders at the top couldn't focus on the stuff that worked, and kept diverting dwindling resources to blue-schemes, wasting men and material on wild-eyed ideas.

Beanbag
19th August 2012, 06:54 AM
Spent part of yesterday at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum. I'd intended to spend the day at the Lewisville Balloon Festival, but after driving out there at 10AM, discovered there were exactly ZERO hot air balloons at present, and it didn't look like any would show up in the next four hours, and based on the size of the field they had marked off for setup, there --MAY-- have been only, what, four or five balloons expected, so I abandoned that video expedition for the Cavanaugh.

Here are some stills lifted from the HD video I shot.
First is the Cold War line-up outside: a Mig 17, a Mig 21, an F104A, and S2F, and some un-named small jet aircraft I haven't been quite able to identify.

Next is a 3/4 profile of the F104A.

Getting back into the theme of the OP is the F4U Corsair with its wings folded.

Then we have the L4 Grasshopper, the military version of the J3 Piper Cub. This was the "real" reason I went, as I needed some reference footage for a novel I'm writing.

And lastly, Fifi -- the only flight-worthy B29 -- is currently in residence. The Cavanaugh is funding the replacement of the engines, and in return the Commemorative Air Force keeps it hangared at Addison.

Beanbag
19th August 2012, 06:57 AM
And lastly, to precede the timescale of the OP, here's a Fokker DVII. This is not an original, but a true-to-original replica.

It was a good day. Need to go back with my still camera and spend some more time.

Beanbag

I Ratant
19th August 2012, 09:23 AM
That's an Iskra TS-11.. From Poland.

Beanbag
19th August 2012, 10:58 AM
That's an Iskra TS-11.. From Poland.
The markings on the airframe were vaguely Slavic-looking. Whatever it is, it's a cute-looking item, small and compact. Looks like you could fly the hell out of it.

Beanbag

MRC_Hans
19th August 2012, 01:23 PM
I have allways had a weak spot for "things that never happened". One of the unanswered questions could be: "What if RAF had deployed the Westland Whirlwind as a Bomber Destroyer alongside Spits and Hurricanes during the BOB". The Whirlwind was available at the time. It was a very agile plane (though it would have been hard pressed agains a 109) but more specifically it had an awesome armament of 4 20mm cannons in the nose which would have wrecked havoc amongst the German bombers. The Germans later in the war, used the Me110 in a similar role quite sucessfully. One of the problems was that the standard 8 X .303 machineguns used on the fighters was often not hard hitting enough to down the German bombers.

The ME110 was used as a night fighter. The Wirlwind did not have the capability to carry the radar sets of the era.

As an escort fighter, the ME110 was lunch to the single-engined fighters, the Germans even had to give them ME109 escort. :rolleyes:

Another thing that never happened is the best fighter ever produced by the Brits, the Martin Baker MB5. It clearly outperformed anything else that flew, the problem was that it arrived too late in the war and it was never put in production. Only one prototype was ever buildt and it was later destroyed. I have heard that some Americans are building a Replika and that it should be about ready to fly, that would be awesome.

Just like the best camerain the world is the one in your hand, the best fighter (or any other weapon) is the one that you can field in sufficient numbers, at the right time.

There are three things of no use to an aviator:

- Altitude above you
- Fuel you cannot burn
- Ammo you cannot fire

You could add: Aircraft that have not been produced.

Hans

The Man
19th August 2012, 02:33 PM
Spent part of yesterday at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum.

I was out in the D/FW area on business earlier this year and stopped in at the CFM on one of my days off. A worthwhile stop for even the mildest airplane buff, check the corners and backs of the hangers and you’ll find some antique cars as well (not to mention a tank and a “duck” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW ))

Corsair 115
20th August 2012, 12:10 AM
The ME110 was used as a night fighter. The Wirlwind did not have the capability to carry the radar sets of the era.

As an escort fighter, the ME110 was lunch to the single-engined fighters, the Germans even had to give them ME109 escort. :rolleyes:


To be fair, we should be looking at single-seat twin-engined fighters—but there weren't many of those during the war. The only (piston-engined) ones that come immediately to mind are the Whirlwind, P-38 Lightning, and F7F Tigercat. Most of the twin-engined fighters during the war were two- or three-seat aircraft.

Ove
20th August 2012, 12:26 AM
The ME110 was used as a night fighter. The Wirlwind did not have the capability to carry the radar sets of the era.

As an escort fighter, the ME110 was lunch to the single-engined fighters, the Germans even had to give them ME109 escort. :rolleyes:




Hans

True but the 110 was also used quite sucessfully as a "bomber destroyer" during the daylight raids later in the war, it had quite a heavy armament. You are right though, it was no match for a Spit or a Mustang and even a Hurricane could quite easily outmaneuver it allthough the 110 was faster.

The ultimate twin engined single seater was too late for ww2 but was a real beauty. The De Havilland Hornet. Shame none survived.

Captain_Swoop
20th August 2012, 02:47 AM
Hornet came along at that same time as the first jets and although good aircraft they were obsolete as soon as they were introduced. They were needed as insurance though, the first jets were a bit of a leap in the dark.

Ove
20th August 2012, 06:22 AM
Hornet came along at that same time as the first jets and although good aircraft they were obsolete as soon as they were introduced. They were needed as insurance though, the first jets were a bit of a leap in the dark.

True but EGAD they were beautifull. :D

I Ratant
20th August 2012, 08:45 AM
To be fair, we should be looking at single-seat twin-engined fighters—but there weren't many of those during the war. The only (piston-engined) ones that come immediately to mind are the Whirlwind, P-38 Lightning, and F7F Tigercat. Most of the twin-engined fighters during the war were two- or three-seat aircraft.
.
F7F working..Flying from Burbank, 1971.

Dcdrac
20th August 2012, 08:51 AM
Not a WW2 plane but one of my favourites

English Electric Lightening

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/jet%20age/39.jpg

At Airshows they would get ot the ned of the runway fire up the afterburners and WHOOOOSSSSHH straight up

Hubert Cumberdale
20th August 2012, 11:37 AM
The ME110 <snip>

Ahem. Bf110.

/pedantry

Alex Cured
20th August 2012, 12:13 PM
True but EGAD they were beautifull. :D

Hmm ... I'm not sure.
http://i50.tinypic.com/v9icp.jpg

The Mosquito had better proportions IMO
http://i46.tinypic.com/o6n0ab.jpg

sts60
20th August 2012, 12:24 PM
F7F working..Flying from Burbank, 1971.
"working" as in getting ready to drop some fire retardant somewhere?

I Ratant
20th August 2012, 12:28 PM
Yeah. CDF stopped using the F7Fs, TBMs, and AJ-1s after a couple of incidents at Burbank where an AJ crashed on takeoff, and another dumped its load over North Hollywood soon after, when an engine failed.
I watched the TBMs flying parallel to the 5 Freeway a few times, and was going faster than they were into a headwind. :)
The PBys would have to do a couple of 360s to get enough altitude to clear the mountains around the San Fernando Valley before they could fly off to any fire.

Ove
21st August 2012, 01:02 AM
Hmm ... I'm not sure.
http://i50.tinypic.com/v9icp.jpg

The Mosquito had better proportions IMO
http://i46.tinypic.com/o6n0ab.jpg

Well, some like the Mother and some prefer the Daughter... :D


(Both are very beautifull IMHO as are most planes using Rolls Royce Merlins).

Dcdrac
22nd August 2012, 09:22 AM
This is in pretty good condition considering it crashed and has been in the desert for nearly 70 years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9258110/World-War-II-RAF-Kittyhawk-fighter-plane-found-in-the-Sahara-Desert-in-Egypt.html

Ove
23rd August 2012, 11:47 PM
This is in pretty good condition considering it crashed and has been in the desert for nearly 70 years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9258110/World-War-II-RAF-Kittyhawk-fighter-plane-found-in-the-Sahara-Desert-in-Egypt.html

There is nothing like a dry desert when it comes to preserving metal :) It will be interesting to see if it will be restored and perhaps fly again.

Akhenaten
3rd September 2012, 12:45 AM
http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/F16_and_Mustang.jpg

MRC_Hans
3rd September 2012, 12:59 AM
Ahem. Bf110.

/pedantry

oop, I stand corrected.

Hans ;)

MRC_Hans
3rd September 2012, 01:06 AM
Hmm ... I'm not sure.
http://i50.tinypic.com/v9icp.jpg

The Mosquito had better proportions IMO
http://i46.tinypic.com/o6n0ab.jpg

The Mosquito is strange, because it posseses both elegance AND the brutal predator beauty *), as very well demonstrated by the angle in the picture you show. Most planes only have one of those things, at best.

The other one looks like a cross between a Westland Wirlwind and a B17. ;)

Hans

*) As somebody mentioned, the "I'm here to seriously ruin your day, and I've got what it takes to do it!" - look. :p

MRC_Hans
3rd September 2012, 01:15 AM
There is nothing like a dry desert when it comes to preserving metal :) It will be interesting to see if it will be restored and perhaps fly again.

I'm always a little ambivalent about this. I love to see vintage planes fly, but ... to make one like this flyable, you have to pretty much replace everything of importance. Museum-wise, I prefer the minimum tampering - build replicas policy.

A Kittyhawk is not that rare a plane, and what makes this one special is the condition under which it has been preserved. In my museum (if I had one ;)) it would be exhibited as untouched as possible, with sand and all. It tells a fantastic story as it is.

But, mileages vary.

Hans

Hubert Cumberdale
6th September 2012, 01:29 PM
Interesting discussion here (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=47909) on aircraft effectiveness against tanks. I don't know enough to judge the arguments. As a taster


You dont have to destroy a tank to render it useless.

A tank on the battlefield is an ephemeral threat.

Take away its supporting infantry. Take away the fuel that moves it and the lubricants that keep its joints supple. Take away the ammunition it expends. Take away its anti-tank screen and supporting artillery. Divorce the tank from the multitude of logisticians, mechanics and engineers who tend to its every need, and you are very soon left with nothing but scrap metal.

Aerial bombing might not have destroyed many tanks directly, but the effect it had on the smorgasbord of entities that made the tank a viable weapon... well that was devastating....

Foster Zygote
6th September 2012, 01:58 PM
Here are some photos from a recent trip to the USS Yorktown CV-10 in Charleston, South Carolina.

It was a wet, warm day. The humidity was appalling. Fortunately, many of the interior sections of the ship open to visitors are air-conditioned.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03111.jpg

Her soul is down in the hanger deck.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03115.jpg

The hanger deck has a nice collection of USN aircraft. The lighting conditions weren't ideal, but they were adequate.

Skyraider.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03118.jpg

F6F.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03122.jpg

F4U-1D
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03123.jpg
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03124.jpg

I've seen a few Avengers up close, but I never cease to be impressed with what a huge beast it is.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03126.jpg

A lovely little F4F-3 painted like Butch O'Hare's plane.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03127.jpg
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03128.jpg

And last, but certainly not least, an SBD.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03130.jpg

Soapy Sam
9th September 2012, 04:09 PM
Aye, I've seen an operative Vulcan, flying. (Yes, I'm old enough for that)

Awesome. There is one at Hendon, when you walk under it it's like a roof in itself.

There was one visiting my home airbase, must have been around '68, and after it was parked, they wanted to move it a bit, but the apron was slanting just a little, and our biggest tractor couldn't hold it, so the cranked up the Vulcan's engines again and moved it under its own power. - Next day the grass was yellow for a hundred yards behind where the exhaust had scorched it.

Hans

Sometime around 1980, I was on a hill near Rannoch in Scotland, when I saw what I initially took to be a landslide. Only after I had been watching for several seconds did my brain put the reality together. I was looking down on a Vulcan doing nap-of-the-earth flying , so I was seeing the camouflaged upper surface moving -it seemed very slowly- over similarly coloured moorland. It was a rather spooky experience.

zooterkin
22nd September 2012, 04:39 AM
Some pics from the RAF museum at Hendon.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8442/8011620362_0df9d68755_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011620362/)
P1040480 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011620362/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8454/8011621632_2d88cbedab_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011621632/)
P1040481 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011621632/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8438/8011625128_95cc09f501_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011625128/)
P1040485 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011625128/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr
Browning (?) from the Spitfire.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/8011620449_0834ed714e_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011620449/)
P1040488 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011620449/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/8011628198_afef37558f_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011628198/)
P1040491 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011628198/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8454/8011631834_46b0a9ec88_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011631834/)
P1040499 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011631834/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8301/8011628313_be8a7a271e_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011628313/)
P1040510 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011628313/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8442/8011636200_88354e66cf_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011636200/)
P1040513 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011636200/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8443/8011637764_db451b44e0_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011637764/)
P1040516 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011637764/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8179/8011640828_7ce887229e_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011640828/)
P1040528 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011640828/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8316/8011643894_95ffc3a08a_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011643894/)
P1040536 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011643894/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/8011645402_6e06a9294d_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011645402/)
P1040539 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011645402/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8038/8011640741_717c399d42_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011640741/)
P1040546 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/43803809@N05/8011640741/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/43803809@N05/), on Flickr
Mystery shot. :) Bonus points for identifying this one.

I'll leave them without captions for now, as most of you know more about them than I do anyway, and you'll have more fun identifying them (and it avoids me the embarrassment of misidentifying them).

Dave Rogers
23rd September 2012, 02:15 AM
Mystery shot. :) Bonus points for identifying this one.

I think I recognise that former houseboat very well. One of the loveliest pieces of restoration work I've ever seen, if I'm right.


Supermarine Southampton?


Dave

zooterkin
23rd September 2012, 02:28 AM
I think I recognise that former houseboat very well. One of the loveliest pieces of restoration work I've ever seen, if I'm right.


Supermarine Southampton?


Dave

Correct. :)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8445/8011648518_238dd055b3_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zooterkin/8011648518/)
P1040548 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zooterkin/8011648518/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/zooterkin/), on Flickr

Duffy Moon
23rd September 2012, 02:46 AM
Super pics, Zooterkin.




(Except number two - they tried to kill my dad and grandparents. Tossers.)

Didaktylos
23rd September 2012, 10:58 AM
Here are some photos from a recent trip to the USS Yorktown CV-10 in Charleston, South Carolina.

It was a wet, warm day. The humidity was appalling. Fortunately, many of the interior sections of the ship open to visitors are air-conditioned.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03111.jpg

Her soul is down in the hanger deck.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03115.jpg

The hanger deck has a nice collection of USN aircraft. The lighting conditions weren't ideal, but they were adequate.

Skyraider.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03118.jpg

F6F.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03122.jpg

F4U-1D
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03123.jpg
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03124.jpg

I've seen a few Avengers up close, but I never cease to be impressed with what a huge beast it is.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03126.jpg

A lovely little F4F-3 painted like Butch O'Hare's plane.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03127.jpg
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03128.jpg

And last, but certainly not least, an SBD.
http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k490/FosterZygote/DSC03130.jpg

I've got a question regarding Yorktown CV-10: what was its original name going to be? I understand that the keel was laid 3 days prior to Pearl Harbor i.e. while the previous Yorktown (CV-5) was still a going concern. So what were they going to call it originally?

zooterkin
23rd September 2012, 11:19 AM
I've got a question regarding Yorktown CV-10: what was its original name going to be? I understand that the keel was laid 3 days prior to Pearl Harbor i.e. while the previous Yorktown (CV-5) was still a going concern. So what were they going to call it originally?

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CV-10)):
Initially to have been named Bon Homme Richard, she was renamed Yorktown while under construction to commemorate USS Yorktown (CV-5), lost at the Battle of Midway in June 1942.

MRC_Hans
23rd September 2012, 12:07 PM
Some pics from the RAF museum at Hendon.

Mystery shot. :) Bonus points for identifying this one.

I'll leave them without captions for now, as most of you know more about them than I do anyway, and you'll have more fun identifying them (and it avoids me the embarrassment of misidentifying them).

Oh, yes Hendon. Must go back one day. I have a lot of shots from there, too, but I don't know why some parts of the place must be so dark.

I also have some good shots from Duxford, but none of them are on this computer.

I don't think the mystery shot is a plane, there are boats there, too.

Hans

MRC_Hans
23rd September 2012, 12:09 PM
Correct. :)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8445/8011648518_238dd055b3_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zooterkin/8011648518/)
P1040548 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zooterkin/8011648518/) by zooterkin (http://www.flickr.com/people/zooterkin/), on Flickr

Oh. Didn't remember that one.:o
Very pretty!

Hans

Captain_Swoop
23rd September 2012, 12:16 PM
A company I used to work for (MR Systems) used to look after the PCs at the RAF Museum (Macs) back in the 90s.

If I ever had a callout I used to spend an hour or two having a poke about :)

Dcdrac
24th September 2012, 07:36 AM
The de Havilland DH 108 “Swallow”.

http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/10606/the-de-havilland-dh-108-swallow

Dcdrac
24th September 2012, 07:39 AM
The de Havilland DH 108 “Swallow”.

http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/10606/the-de-havilland-dh-108-swallow

BenBurch
26th September 2012, 10:04 AM
Taken this weekend at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry;

crescent
26th September 2012, 11:33 AM
http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/F16_and_Mustang.jpg

That wasn"t from the recent air show in St. George, was it? They had a flyby there with a P-51 and a Raptor, and it looks like the same P-51.