TIGHAR
Chatterbox => Extraneous exchanges => Topic started by: Dave Lima on March 26, 2015, 08:35:42 PM
-
I know it's not an electra.
-
What's left of a DC-3 / C-47?
-
What's left of a DC-3 / C-47?
Agreed--DC3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3).
Self-published work by Wrightbus (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CX-DC3-VRHDB2.jpg#/media/File:CX-DC3-VRHDB2.jpg). Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) (Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/)).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/CX-DC3-VRHDB2.jpg)
-
No, I don't think so. Its a C-47. Unless I'm badly mistaken: DC-3s did not have the cockpit entry door on the left-hand side.
-
Isn't C-47 a military designation?
-
Yes, it is! The aircraft are basically the same except for minor differences. The crew entry door was one of them. Many of the C-47s were pressed into commercial service following the war. A lot had passenger interiors fitted. I have never heard of that door being removed, though, I suspect some did. I have never seen a C-47 in civilian use that has retained the belly/exernal cargo racks. Quite a few of the civilain DC-3 that existed before the war were commandiered for use by the military for the duration of hostilities. Some, not all, were returned to therir original owners/operators after the war. I don't have a clue if the government paid to have those repainted and reconfigured for civilian use.
-
No, I don't think so. Its a C-47. Unless I'm badly mistaken: DC-3s did not have the cockpit entry door on the left-hand side.
"Flagship Detroit--The Oldest Flying DC-3"-- (http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Flagship-Detroit-The-Oldest-Flying-DC-3-221805-1.html)seems to have a cockpit entry door on the left-hand side:
(http://cdn.avweb.com/media/newspics/325/FLAGSHIP_DETROIT_NOSE.jpg)
-
I was told this tid-bit by an ex C-47 and DC-3 pilot. I could be wrong (as my beloved bride is wont to often remind me!).
Many ex-C-47s have eroneously been identified as DC-3s. The two models were treated identically in commercial service. Almost all photos and reference material found on the carries the identifer of DC-3/C-47.
I have seen cases in other aircraft where some varients of miliatry versions had supposedly civil version features. The reverse is also true. This quite often occurred when models were being transitioned on the assembly line.
-
No, I don't think so. Its a C-47. Unless I'm badly mistaken: DC-3s did not have the cockpit entry door on the left-hand side.
Gee, all the time (as a pre-teen) I helped the ground crew load bags into the forward cargo area behind the cockpit, and helped the stewardess (that's what they were called back then in the 1950s!) clean up the cabin for the next set of passengers, you mean this DC-3 (http://www.edcoatescollection.com/ac3/Airline/Caribair%20DC-3%20N65389.html) was really a C-47? But the pilots all told me it was a DC-3. I was SO gullible!
-
Here's another Douglas (obviously) - can you name the model?
-
Cloudster II. a 2 engine pusher aircraft. taking ideas from the XB45 Mixmaster or 47 which was a 2 engine in the fuselage, 2 coounter-rotating props in the tail. The objective was to reduce drag from engines on the wing. Neither were produced commerdially and the jet aircraft came soon after . Don't know much more about it .
-
Well, I know I didn't make this up. I was at an airshow, possibly Oshkosh. I struck up a conversation with an old pilot that claimed he flew C-47s in the war. We were standing in between a C-47 and a DC-3. He eagerly tried to point out all of the differences. The lack of an external cockpit entry door on the LHS, only a small passenger door aft (not the big double door you could load a jeep through!), the lack of an astro-dome and other details. I did find these photos:
ttps://www.flickr.com/photos/38974417@N00/15155199682]h[url]ttps://www.flickr.com/photos/38974417@N00/15155199682 (http://h[url)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/12272370@N00/15813662189[/url]
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pan-American-Airways/Douglas-DC-3%28C%29/2505902/L/&sid=1fd4f9adff7c75eba7c8ff8cbba356d4 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pan-American-Airways/Douglas-DC-3%28C%29/2505902/L/&sid=1fd4f9adff7c75eba7c8ff8cbba356d4)
This particular aircraft fits his description of a DC-3 all except for the astro-dome. It has the small passenger entry door aft and no cockpit entry door forward. I do not believe that this was the aircraft we were looking at when I was at that airshow. I did some checking and found that this airframe may be somewhat of a kluge.
I will admit that any aircraft that has been in service for 70-odd years is bound to have many repairs and modifications. Some doors could have been removed due to repairs or mods.
I do find it interesting that almost every photo I can find of either a DC-3, or a C-47 carries a description that says C-47 (DC-3) or something very similar. I find that this is true for the aircraft that are obviously C-47s due to the military hardware that is still there (external airdrop cargo racks, glider tow hooks, troop sling seats, etc.).
Douglas built around 10,000 DC-3s, C-47s and variants. Roughly 600 were for pre-war civilian airlines. Depending on who you believe the Russians built somewhere between 4,000 and 20,000. Japan licensed built and/or cloned from something less than 100 to 400 or so. Again, I found several sources that differed wildly. What ever the actual number is the total number produced for the civilian airlines,which were outfitted with the small pax door and not cockpit door was a small number compared to the numbers ordered by the military. It is not surprising that very few of those aircraft still exist.
Having said all that, I could easily be convinced that I had been given bad information! All of the photos that I can find of the DC-1 and DC-2s all have the door. Almost all of the DC-3/C-47 photos have the door. At least I had a good excuse to go digging around history of a cool airplane!
-
Well, I know I didn't make this up. ... I did find these photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38974417@N00/15155199682 (http://h[url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/38974417@N00/15155199682)
That aircraft is a former C-47 that has been heavily restored.
It does not prove your case.
"Former Pan Am DC-3 Becomes Airworthy" (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/former-pan-am-dc-3-becomes-airworthy)
The Historic Flight Foundation, based at Snohomish County Airport (KPAE, also known as Paine Field) in Everett, Washington, has completed the restoration of a DC-3 (http://www.flyingmag.com/videos/all/dc-3-house-tour) with a rich history, a project that took about five years to complete. The airplane is now airworthy for the first time in a decade and has been added to a long list of historic airplanes available for rides for the members of the foundation. The history of the foundation’s DC-3 began in 1944 as a C-47 in Asia. “We think it’s the only C-47 or DC-3 that is airworthy that was flown by the CNAC [China National Aviation Foundation],” said John Sessions, founder of the Historic Flight Foundation. The airplane was also in the hands of Claire Chennault for a short period before returning to its country of birth and receiving an N-number in the late 1940s. The airplane served the Pan Am Airlines for a few years before becoming an executive transport airplane.
Because of the Pan Am heritage, Sessions decided on a 1949 Pan Am paint scheme, which includes “the correct color blue, the 48 stars of the flag and the big number on the wing that they used to have even on airliners,” said Sessions.
In addition to the paint scheme, the complete exterior refurbishment, which was completed by Sealand Aviation in Cambpell River, British Columbia, included restoring the airframe’s skins, overhauling the landing gear, replacing the window glass and reversing a previous Super DC-3 conversion, a transformation that included major modifications such as changing the tailwheel from retractable to fixed, removing the clamshell doors and altering the entire nose section.
Having said all that, I could easily be convinced that I had been given bad information! All of the photos that I can find of the DC-1 and DC-2s all have the door. Almost all of the DC-3/C-47 photos have the door.
That's my impression, too.
At least I had a good excuse to go digging around history of a cool airplane!
Me, too! :)
-
Cloudster II. a 2 engine pusher aircraft. taking ideas from the XB45 Mixmaster or 47 which was a 2 engine in the fuselage, 2 coounter-rotating props in the tail. The objective was to reduce drag from engines on the wing. Neither were produced commerdially and the jet aircraft came soon after . Don't know much more about it .
Excellent! Give the man a kewpie doll!!! ;)
-
Aww, shucks.. Here's a newer one (not a Douglas, is that allowed?) what is the name and nickname?
-
Aww, shucks.. Here's a newer one (not a Douglas, is that allowed?) what is the name and nickname?
General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark)?
-
You got it, Marty! Close enough. Actually its a F-111C version nicknamed "Pig" and used by the Royal Australian Air Force.
-
You got it, Marty! Close enough. Actually its a F-111C version nicknamed "Pig" and used by the Royal Australian Air Force.
Actually, Marty is more than close enough. Your original post (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1664.msg36508.html#msg36508) includes a photo that is used in the Wikipedia article for the F-111. That photo originates from the book Air War over Vietnam, Volume II, published in 1983, and identifies the 3 aircraft shown as "Three U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-111As of the 428th Tactical Fighter Squadron returning from a "Combat Lancer" mission in 1968".
According to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111_Aardvark#F-111C), the RAAF's F-111C aircraft were not accepted into service until 1973.
-
... Marty is more than close enough.
I didn't get it by myself.
I looked at the picture for a long time and tried a few different websites.
Googling "vietnam war fighter jet comparison" turned up something that led me to the Wikipedia article.
I didn't read the whole article--or notice that the picture you used was in it! ???
Thanks for provoking another interesting search! :)
-
Here's my original view of the picture and caption, you're right. Somehow I mis-read as being an F-111C. Sorry I'm out of kewpie dolls!!
-
What is this thing.
-
From a quick google search........................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane
-
From a quick google search........................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_airplane)
YouTube video of an RC model. Looks like it crashed every time. Three different flying fields, suggesting different days, and then what seems to be a whole new model for the fourth flight.
I would imagine that the gyroscopic forces from the rotating mass of the wings would be pretty strong, for good or for ill.
-
Based on the magnus effect, it evidently worked, but must have problems or we'd have seen more by now..
-
Apparently it was not a complete bust. The Cousteau Society has been operating the two rotor ship Alcyone since 1985. I suspect in the case of smaller mono-hull boats the rotor adds to the motion due to gyroscopic effects.
Having spent 40 years in engineering I will observe items become a commercial success or failure for more reasons than working well or not. Case in point Kelly Johnson measured significant improvement in fuel economy using the Cambridge Meter. It never seemed to catch on. Was that because Earhart didn't make it, or because the filters seemed to plug a lot, or because according to an article in a Darwin paper Noonan reported Earhart habitually burned 52 gallons per hour or because it used a leaner burn than Pratt and Whitney recommended? I strongly suspect a glittering endorsement form a successful Earhart could well have made the Cambridge Meter a must have item in all airplanes.
Oh well you give your best dress to someone famous who is going to walk the red carpet and take your chances Robert Irwin arriving in patched khakis will not draw more press coverage than your lack of coverage for the model.
Neff
-
Apparently it was not a complete bust. The Cousteau Society has been operating the two rotor ship Alcyone since 1985. I suspect in the case of smaller mono-hull boats the rotor adds to the motion due to gyroscopic effects.
Having spent 40 years in engineering I will observe items become a commercial success or failure for more reasons than working well or not. Case in point Kelly Johnson measured significant improvement in fuel economy using the Cambridge Meter. It never seemed to catch on. Was that because Earhart didn't make it, or because the filters seemed to plug a lot, or because according to an article in a Darwin paper Noonan reported Earhart habitually burned 52 gallons per hour or because it used a leaner burn than Pratt and Whitney recommended? I strongly suspect a glittering endorsement form a successful Earhart could well have made the Cambridge Meter a must have item in all airplanes.
Oh well you give your best dress to someone famous who is going to walk the red carpet and take your chances Robert Irwin arriving in patched khakis will not draw more press coverage than your lack of coverage for the model.
Neff
The better mousetrap does not always win, for sure. Ask Lockheed (L-1011 comes to mind).
...52 GPH you say...
I wonder how well Noonan really knew of what he spoke, or how clearly he spoke that. It's pretty heavy. But to the point, who knows why not the Cambridge? Your reasons are probably as good as any possibility. I had a Cambridge lift/sink trend monitor in a Schweizer 126 that was pretty cool, but most folks didn't invest in that level of detail.
Odd thing is I never flew the thing myself and suspect had I done so, it would have trended a nice, slow descent for me, as did most smaller ships; preferred the endurance of a Blanik with a big wing as I was about 60 pounds heavier back then. In the smaller ships I was good for speed but not endurance. I mostly measured sink by my wrist watch - or altimeter, depending on conditions... some days being bladder-limited, others being thermal-limited. :P
So, the Cambridge gathered dust as a cool but unnecessary extra, as I look back. I guess I wasn't optimizing my flights any better than Earhart may have been.
52 GPH... ouch.
-
So I wouldn't have to ask a stupid question, I tried looking up a Cambridge meter on the internet and all I could come up with was parking meters in Cambridge! I assume it is some kind of flow meter. In your leisure you could drop a hint to me and about how it would make an airplane more efficient. Im eagerly waiting the outcome of the latest fundraising to see if we can get another week to explore. Ric has been good about keeping us up to date.
-
Here's a more modern example (http://cumulus-soaring.com/lxnav.htm#LXNAV-V3). Mine was quite old at the time (ten years ago) and had an audible tone (common I think) - idea was to 'fly the tone', so to speak. Which I never did as a practical matter, just played with on ground as I never finished the 126 project but sold it to the club. It helps optimize as to speed to fly, etc. and considers lift/drag polar, etc. against lift/sink conditions. Much more important to serious cross country / high performance sailplane folks than to those of us who just like knocking around in the local thermals.
Earhart's Cambridge was of course for fuel management - entirely different instrument. I gathered it used exhaust temps but perhaps had to do with flow in a direct sense. I'm sure more can be learned about that on this site.
-
Earhart's Cambridge Meter allowed her to lean precisely. One setting in the Kelly Johnson Telegrams calls for a setting of .071, otherwise 14:1 Air to fuel ratio. As the aircraft goes up in altitude the mixture tends to go rich. Using the Cambridge meter allowed her to keep a precise setting at any altitude. Certainly better than lean for max power or lean for max -100 rpm. Now it is more common to lean for max and then add some number of degrees to the EGT.
The 52 GPH was a shocker to me. It implies she was running 350 hp per engine at about 160 mph apparently a good deal of the time. Noonan gave the burn in pounds I suppose since he was speaking to Ausie news men and may not have instantly known what that was in Imperial Gallons. I divided by 6 and came up with 52. I will see if I can find the exact quote in context since it's been a while.
Neff
-
Thanks, Neff.
It would be good to know more about what Noonan knew and tried to convey since he made some sort of point of it. 52 GPH would be not only a shocker, but eerily suggestive of fuel exhaustion in about... 21 hours. That's an oddly and nasty little coinkidink to just about when her last call to Itasca was heard, in terms of loose math and not really knowing what the scoop was / whether Noonan gave it right or knew.
Certainly if she followed Johnson's advice she'd of had plenty of margin, one would suppose, but we all know what she did with Hooven's advice too.
And now, to keep myself somewhat close to the subject - what plane is THIS?
-
I dug in my notes and found a quote from Sound of Wings, no page number. A Wire dated Feb 13 , 1937 ,Putnam to De Sibour , London , " Fuel consumption normal cruising speed per hour by weight 310 lb." 310/6=51.6 GPH These notes are yellow so from way back. Context justifying heavy fuel loads over British Territory. Max cruse for the engines would be 64 gph so it is not simply a claim for all it could burn.
Still looking for Darwin news papers.
Neff
-
shweizer 233A glider Air Force used for training??
-
And now, to keep myself somewhat close to the subject - what plane is THIS?
This Wikimedia Commons file (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USAF_Academy_2-33A_N2408W.jpg) has the photo with the caption: "United States Air Force Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Academy) Schweizer 1-26B N2408W used by the cadets for flight training of gliding."
N1320, below, is said to be a Schweizer 1-26B, too. (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N1320)
-
The Air Force told us enlisted types teaching the cadets to fly gliders made better pilots of them. It would appear to give a feel for kinetic vs potential energy.
Neff
-
126B it is!
Delightful little bird.
I found that flying gliders made me a much better pilot. You become far more attuned to energy state and how to manage more effectively.
-
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USAF_Academy_2-33A_N2408W.jpg
I'm just confused??
-
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USAF_Academy_2-33A_N2408W.jpg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USAF_Academy_2-33A_N2408W.jpg)
I'm just confused??
Yes, you are. :)
There is a discrepancy between the FILE name ("2-33A") and the CAPTION.
Although I am a believer, I don't believe everything I read. So I went to see what a Schweizer 2-33 looks like. It is a two-person, high-wing glider. The tail is superficially similar to the 1-26B, and maybe the planform of the wings, but the fuselage and windscreen/canopy are dramatically different because of the wing location.
It took me a while even to accept the CAPTION on the photo as correct because there are many pictures allegedly of the 1-26B that show a rounded tail and a very different canopy than in the photo given us by Jeff. It was only after I found the picture of the white glider with an N-number associated with a 1-26B in the FAA registry that I figured I had the right classification for the photo.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Schweizer2-33C-GRVS.JPG)
-
Great sleuthing Marty!
Wasn't sure anyone would get it down to the "Bravo" model - excellent.
-
I dug in my notes and found a quote from Sound of Wings, no page number. A Wire dated Feb 13 , 1937 ,Putnam to De Sibour , London , " Fuel consumption normal cruising speed per hour by weight 310 lb." 310/6=51.6 GPH These notes are yellow so from way back. Context justifying heavy fuel loads over British Territory. Max cruse for the engines would be 64 gph so it is not simply a claim for all it could burn.
Still looking for Darwin news papers.
Neff
Thanks, Neff. I wouldn't say this is a done deal by any means and realize it may always be anecdotal, but it is interesting. If truly a habit despite all the Kelly Johnson efforts to educate her, 52 GPH would have not been good news to Earhart after about 21 hours and a few minutes.
-
Thankyou Marty and Jeff. I'll not believe Wiki again!
-
Thankyou Marty and Jeff. I'll not believe Wiki again!
I love wikiworld! That's why we have the Ameliapedia. (http://tighar.org/wiki/Ameliapedia) But it does pay to test things before you put much weight on them. :)
-
Excellent lesson on depth of test, good father - and many thanks for your guiding mind in helping to make Ameliapedia what it is for us.
Thanks to TIGHAR for resources like that, and the many cool historic items in the 'library', truly.
And...
What is THIS one -
-
What is THIS one -
First approximation: a Stearman-Hammond Y-1S (Y-150) (http://mysteriousbill.weebly.com/stearman-hammond.html) – from 1937 (!).
"The 'Flivver' was designed by Dean B. Hammond for a 'safe airplane' contest held by the Bureau of Air Commerce in 1934. Hammond won the contest and received a contract for 25 aircraft at $3,190 each. [The original design goal was for an airplane cost of $700]. The first airplane delivered was not acceptable to the Bureau, and Lloyd Stearman was asked to re-engineer the plane to improve performance and general workmanship. Thus was formed the Stearman-Hammond Aircraft Corporation in 1936. The first aircraft was powered by a 125hp engine. The performance was not impressive so it was re-engined with a 150hp. Although designed to be easy to fly, the high price (eventually $7,150) meant only 20 aircraft were sold at the depth of the Depression. Two Y-1S were used for radio controlled development trials by the United States Navy as the JH-1. The Royal Air Force also evaluated a Y-1S in the 1940s."
Smithsonian example (http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19560046000):
(http://ids.si.edu/ids/deliveryService?max=1000&id=http://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/collections/full/19560046000a.JPG)
-
You are the MAN and 'Stearman Hammond' was what I was hoping for, as the more obscure "JH-1" would have been a bit steep.
Excellent.
-
I couldn't resist.....
(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/020/813/i02/weick-w1a.jpg?1345660472)
-
Fred Weick's W-1??
-
Fred Weick's W-1??
...if not a W1A...
Weick was a genius for all kinds of practical innovation from Ag plane concept to safety / ease of handling in light airplanes for the average pilot, etc.
I wouldn't have known of this Weick design or "W1" without the lead, Bob - good find. And good challenge, Friend!
-
Fred Weick ...
Wow! What an interesting character! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Weick)
I didn't recognize his name or the aircraft, but I've heard a lot about Ercoupes from a former restorer/owner/pilot.
-
Sounds like he knew all the the right people!! Sounds like something even I could learn to pilot== if younger..
-
I'm a sucker for interesting aircraft......and Ercoupes!
-
This guy just liked wings, I guess!
-
This guy just liked wings, I guess!
Lots and lots and LOTS of wings! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Frederick_Phillips)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/1907_flying_machine.jpg/1280px-1907_flying_machine.jpg)
-
I've often thought the multi-plane would work. This one seems to be missing a rudder, elevator, ailerons and enough engine to get it to flying speed. But, I see nothing inherently wrong with a series of Venetian blinds for wings. That was near the Wright Brothers profile. It would have been slow, weird and high drag but for some reason it has a certain amount of appeal at lest to me.
Neff
-
Agreed, Neff. Very original at least. I don't think it worked very well, though. Like the article said: the guys designing them didn't aways know what they were doing, but thought if 2 wings worked, many would work better!
-
This time I went straight to the source, or as close as I could get! Look at these beauties. What type of flight would they be best suited for?
-
Feathered flight! ;D
(I'm sorry- I couldn't resist it! I will now go sit in the corner until dinner time.)
-
Wrong answer, Jeff. A little more thought and respect would be good! Without birds we wouldn't be on this forum, do you think??
-
Looks like for birds, nature eventually selected the monoplane approach where one set of wings provide the lift.
Nature did try more of a biplane arrangement for proto-birds with two sets of wings, but it went obsolete:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
For insects, nature did eventually settle on both a single (butterflies) and dual (dragonflies) set of wings as working solutions.
-
Back to the DC-3-- I rode in what I think was one and I remember it was verrrrrry noisy. If Amelia and Fred had to put up with something like that in their Lockheed I can understand if they wanted to get out. They must have been deaf hot, and hungry!
-
Back to the DC-3-- I rode in what I think was one and I remember it was verrrrrry noisy. If Amelia and Fred had to put up with something like that in their Lockheed I can understand if they wanted to get out. They must have been deaf hot, and hungry!
Absolutely.
That was one of the problems with using the headset to "find a null." Their hearing could not have been all that sensitive after 22 hours sitting just a foot or so away from the prop tips.
So sad ...
-
Who can id this aircraft?
Andrew
-
MiG-1
-
MiG-1
What an interesting aircraft!
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-1)
"The I-200 prototypes were used to evaluate a number of proposals. ... The third prototype was generally used for armament trials, experimenting with 82 mm (3.2 in) RS-82 rockets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-82_rocket) among other weapons. For another trial it was equipped with the experimental 23 mm (0.91 in) MP-3 autocannon carried underneath the wings in external pods and redesignated as the IP-201. The 12.7 mm UBS gun was removed for the these tests and the space freed up was used to install an extra fuel tank. Initially the cannon had the low rate of fire of only 300 rounds per minute, but this was soon doubled and the gun was renamed as the MP-6. Installation of the guns was difficult, despite the aircraft's metal outer wing panels, and the wings deformed when the cannon were first mounted. It made its first, and only, flight on 1 December 1940 carrying two MP-6s and two 12.7 mm AP-12.7 machine guns, but a blocked fuel line caused a forced landing before the guns could be fired. But testing on a variety of other aircraft revealed very unsatisfactory performance by the guns and their development was canceled. The designers were arrested on 15 May 1941 and executed on 28 October 1941."
-
upon a quick glance, it looks a lot like a P-51 prototype, doesn't it?
The occupational hazards of being a designer for the soviet system in 1941were pretty extreme.
amck
-
How about this one?
Bit of an ugly duck, huh?
amck
-
How about this one?
Bit of an ugly duck, huh?
"The Grumman XF5F Skyrocket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_XF5F_Skyrocket) was a prototype twin-engined shipboard fighter interceptor. The U. S. Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U._S._Navy) ordered one prototype, model number G-34, from Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_Aircraft_Engineering_Corporation) on 30 June 1938; its designation was XF5F-1. The aircraft had a unique appearance: The forward "nose" of the fuselage did not extend forward of the wing. Provisions were included for two 23 mm (0.91 in) Madsen cannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen_cannon) as armament."
No designers were executed after the design failed to qualify for production. ::)
-
Man, you guys are solving these way too fast.
how about this one?
amck
-
Barling Bomber Triplane! Andrew, you've got to block out the picture info!@!!
-
Oops! Sigh. Oh well
Look at the scale of that thing though, it is huge!
amck
-
Yes. the middle wing and extra wheels look like an after-thought!
-
Look at the scale of that thing though, it is huge!
Three wings--and six (6) engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witteman-Lewis_XNBL-1)! ???
-
Look at the scale of that thing though, it is huge!
Three wings--and six (6) engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witteman-Lewis_XNBL-1)! ???
and both nose wheel and tail dragger!
-
Look at the scale of that thing though, it is huge!
Three wings--and six (6) engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witteman-Lewis_XNBL-1)! ???
and both nose wheel and tail dragger!
O, my--I hadn't noticed that, but that does seem to be an accurate description!