Old plane buffs?

[West of the Rockies]

I don't know if anyone has brought up this rather esoteric topic, but do any of you have a fondness for old airplanes?  I've always found the P-61 to be a striking design.  (I still have a Monogram 1:32 scale model of that plane I need to build.)  I also always liked the old racing plane, the Gee Bee.

[Yorkshire pud]

Talking my language matey! 


Love the glass nosed Mosquito, especially the PR versions.. Seafire 47 (based on the Spitfire).. Liked the Harvard (Texan) too.. P51, tear drop canopy. D I think.

[ItsOver]

Love planes, old and new.  I collect some diecast ones.  Here's my latest addition:

[Yorkshire pud]

John Hannah the pilot...Enjoy. 


Spitfire Low Pass

[ItsOver]

Who could not love the Spitfire?  Well, maybe if you were in an Me-109.     At an airshow, years back, when a Spitfire did a demo flight.  There's just nothing in the air that looks and sounds better than a Spitfire. 

[Flaxen Hegemony]

Great topic, WOTR.

WW2 history buff and equal opportunity fanboy.  The roar of a Lancaster's Merlins and the scream of the Jericho trumpet (Ju87) are music to my ears.

[Yorkshire pud]

Who could not love the Spitfire?  Well, maybe if you were in an Me-109.     At an airshow, years back, when a Spitfire did a demo flight.  There's just nothing in the air that looks and sounds better than a Spitfire. 

A Mosquito? Two Merlins.. faster than a Spitfire (at the time, later Spits were faster, but they had Griffins rather than Merlins)..Sadly I don't think there are any Mossies flying, not really a surprise as they were made from Plywood.

[ItsOver]

Here's a cool R/C model of something from the Luftwaffe.  Nice target for a Spitfire. 


[attachimg=1]

[Flaxen Hegemony]

Here's a cool R/C model of something from the Luftwaffe.  Nice target for a Spitfire. 


[attachimg=1]

A Storch, I think.  Recon.  This may have been the plane that Rommel was in when he dropped the message "hurry up" to one of his lagging supply convoys, though that story may be apocryphal.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah Fiesler Storch? I followed a build thread of a German guy building a 1/4 scale version of one..even down to the exquisite detail..metal frames canopy, scale right down to the last nut and bolt..even had a scale pilot and Goering sitting in the back seat. ( I Fly R/C gliders, and mid way through a 1/4 scale Minimoa)

[ItsOver]

Yep, a Fiesler Storch.  For me, it's like an A-10, in the respect that it's so ungainly, it's beautiful. 

[Tinfoil Hat]

I like to build model airplanes, but mine never end out looking like the picture on the box. Here's something that started out as a DeHavilland Mosquito:

[West of the Rockies]

I am going to attempt to attach an image... first time effort, so be prepared for spectacular failure.  It's (hopefully) a P61 Black Widow in flight.

[Sardondi]

WW2 history buff and equal opportunity fanboy.  The roar of a Lancaster's Merlins and the scream of the Jericho trumpet (Ju87) are music to my ears.

A Mosquito? Two Merlins.. faster than a Spitfire (at the time, later Spits were faster, but they had Griffins rather than Merlins)..Sadly I don't think there are any Mossies flying, not really a surprise as they were made from Plywood.

Loved the design concept of the Mossie: one Merlin is fast; 2 would be faster! And make it plywood! Blazingly fast, a wonderfully stable gun platform, and uncharacteristically brilliant armament choices for the Mos: 4 - 20mm to go with the insanely useless .303 cal Brownings.* I've always loved the strafing characteristics of the twin-engine fighters. I love seeing their gun camera work as they just chew up airfields, rr rolling stock, river barges and sea traffic.

Which brings up another issue - I love gun camera film. Unfortunately there are a few buccaneer film companies, particularly one Italian-sounding outfit, which bought up millions of feet of such gun camera film and now charge exorbitant rates for gun camera footage which should be free to the public. YouTube unfortunately contains maybe two dozen variants of the same few films. Anyone know of safe, quick, easy and ready-to-view sources for gun camera film that gets around the bloodsuckers?



*How the hell did the RAF ever shoot down the planes they did up through 1940 - including bombers and even famously tough Ju-88s! - until they added the 20mm to the Hurricanes and Spits? And to think that it was a death struggle to get Hawker to redesign the Hurricane to accept 8 .303s. Smartest thing the Brits ever did was up-gun their fighter armament to include at least 2 20mm. I was always miffed at the arrogance of American combat aircraft? fighter designers who thought .50 cal, even the "aircraft 50s" M3s which ran at a red hot 1200 rpm were sufficient killers to not need the 20mm. Bull. That brings up another question: I know US fighter planes ordinarily used the M3 Browning .50 cal mgs, which did fire the 1200 rounds per minute, up from the usual 600-800 rpm for the M2. Were guns for defensive use in the bombers (either the big B-17 and B-24 or the twin-engine 25 and 26 and so on), whether manned by gunners in the waist, dorsal and belly turrets, tail, nose, etc., or unmanned such as the chin, "cheeks" and various jury-rigged configurations which individual crews put together, limited to the slow-firing M2s? It would seem to make sense to throw as much lead as possible, but I suspect they were forced to use the slow guns. Any comments?

[MV/Liberace!]

oh, i thought you meant old people who are buffs of planes.

[Yorkshire pud]

*How the hell did the RAF ever shoot down the planes they did up through 1940 - including bombers and even famously tough Ju-88s! - until they added the 20mm to the Hurricanes and Spits? And to think that it was a death struggle to get Hawker to redesign the Hurricane to accept 8 .303s. Smartest thing the Brits ever did was up-gun their fighter armament to include at least 2 20mm. I was always miffed at the arrogance of American combat aircraft? fighter designers who thought .50 cal, even the "aircraft 50s" M3s which ran at a red hot 1200 rpm were sufficient killers to not need the 20mm. Bull. That brings up another question: I know US fighter planes ordinarily used the M3 Browning .50 cal mgs, which did fire the 1200 rounds per minute, up from the usual 600-800 rpm for the M2. Were guns for defensive use in the bombers (either the big B-17 and B-24 or the twin-engine 25 and 26 and so on), whether manned by gunners in the waist, dorsal and belly turrets, tail, nose, etc., or unmanned such as the chin, "cheeks" and various jury-rigged configurations which individual crews put together, limited to the slow-firing M2s? It would seem to make sense to throw as much lead as possible, but I suspect they were forced to use the slow guns. Any comments?

I don't know the specifics of why certain guns were/ weren't used regarding 50 cal or 20mm cannon. However I have an acquaintance a military aircraft engineer (He was a big noise with the Harrier jump jet in it's later marks, before the current UK government decided we no longer needed them); and therefore he knows a bit about requirements/ attainability/ expediency/ political interference!/ design/ execution of the final aircraft. . He knows a bit (well, quite a lot!) about aerodynamics, weight limits, and anything that involves the mathematics of it all. All of which may or may not have known quantities; Power source..wing loading...wing design...materials used, etc. The Hurricane was Hawkers first fighter monoplane, but really wasn't that big a leap from the biplanes that Hawker had built in the 30's, such as the Hart, Hind, Fury etc.

It had a fabric covered fuselage, the wing wasn't as efficient as the Spitfire, it was less aerodynamic, and therefore slower despite it having a Merlin up front.. Carrying guns is dead weight; a redesign sounds simple, but if the wing spar is designed from the off to carry a given mass in specific locations, installing a gun with the magazine could make the wing structurally unsafe, and the spar break. You also have to consider the massive recoil, and providing a means to lessen it's effect on the air frame. I think the Mk II had twin cannons, but was mainly a nightfighter I believe. As my acquaintance bemoans; it's incredible how many model aircraft builders think the air frame can hold together with fresh air.

It's one of the reasons why certain marks of aircraft look identical, the difference is frequently hidden. With modern jets, it can be instruments, target acquisition gear, etc. With WW2 stuff it could be an engine update, different undercarriage; in the case of the F46 and 47 Seafire's, one had folding wings, the other didn't.

Of course the constraints of safety of the whole came second to an aircraft's effectiveness as a gun platform in WW2. There are several aircraft that were lethal in the wrong hands, (Mosquito was one) but their fighting effectiveness outweighed the downsides. The bombers (MkIV) and PR versions were unarmed..The constraints of the need to fly at the speeds they did involved minimising drag..it had tiny tail surfaces..An engine out on take off could, if the pilot wasn't switched on and didn't kick the rudder over and kill the remaining engine, result in the aircraft yawing wildly to port, and ground looping. Several crews were killed in such an incident. The problem being airspeed and/or prop wash; if the rudder doesn't get airflow to make it work, kicking the rudder over wouldn't work anyway.

For me the P51D was a truly wonderful aircraft; but it surpassed the first versions because of the Packard built Merlin, that exploited it's airframe to the full.

[Tinfoil Hat]

I believe B-17s and B-24s carried the same .50s that were in P-47 & P-51 fighters. As to the cannon armed Hurricanes, they were relegated to night fighter and fighter/bomber duties partly because the cannons degraded their performance and newer, faster aircraft were becoming available to take over as pure fighters.

[Flaxen Hegemony]

For me the P51D was a truly wonderful aircraft; but it surpassed the first versions because of the Packard built Merlin, that exploited it's airframe to the full.

Had a chance to see a refurbished Packard Merlin up close at the Packard Museum / Proving Grounds here in Michigan.  Beautiful engine.

[Yorkshire pud]

Had a chance to see a refurbished Packard Merlin up close at the Packard Museum / Proving Grounds here in Michigan.  Beautiful engine.

I saw a Merlin at Eden camp, war museum (North Yorkshire, England) and was amazed how small it was. Incredible to think how much power it put out. Worth remembering that it was in some ways ahead of it's time.

[West of the Rockies]

Oh, your mention of the Hawker jump jet, Yorkie, made me fondly recall building a Revell model of said plane back in the late 70's.  It also struck me that I seem to favor "chunky" planes.  The Gee Bee, the P61, the jump jet all feature thick, block fuselages that perhaps more look suited for space travel.  It was a sort of ugly plane, but does anyone remember "The Guppy"?  That spawned "The Pregnant Guppy" and now "The Super Guppy".

[Yorkshire pud]

Oh, your mention of the Hawker jump jet, Yorkie, made me fondly recall building a Revell model of said plane back in the late 70's.  It also struck me that I seem to favor "chunky" planes.  The Gee Bee, the P61, the jump jet all feature thick, block fuselages that perhaps more look suited for space travel.  It was a sort of ugly plane, but does anyone remember "The Guppy"?  That spawned "The Pregnant Guppy" and now "The Super Guppy".

Yeah, wasn't the Guppy based on a Boeing airliner version of the B50? Carried the Saturn V rockets? Or was it not rockets? I  think Airbus have something similar to carry wings for the airliners from Filton in Bristol to Toulouse. The Harrier is an amazing piece of kit, as far as I'm aware it has the most powerful turbine engine ever fitted in an aircraft, the Pegasus.

[Sardondi]

...For me the P51D was a truly wonderful aircraft; but it surpassed the first versions because of the Packard built Merlin, that exploited it's airframe to the full.

Had a chance to see a refurbished Packard Merlin up close at the Packard Museum / Proving Grounds here in Michigan.  Beautiful engine.

I've never been an "engine guy", but I have always thought the Merlin was simply beautiful to look at, with that instantly recognizable profile, even in the huge Lancasters. And to think the British simply handed the Rolls-Royce blueprints over to the Americans and "said, "Here, build some."

As much as I loved the graceful Spits and Mustangs, I also was partial to the Clydesdales of fighter-bombers: the P-47 Thunderbolts and the Hawker Typhoons. Simply massive planes, but among the fastest. I always wished the P-47s  could have swapped out 4 of their 8 .50's for a couple of the 4 20mms the Typhoon carried.

Nobody has a line on free access gun cam films?

[Yorkshire pud]

Nobody has a line on free access gun cam films?

I've put the word out on another forum I'm on..someone on there might know..


http://www.youtube.com/user/Bomberguy/videos


Not exactly what you're looking for so far...but interesting nonetheless..I like the Anson landing .

[Uncle Duke]

Thirty-two years as an aerospace engineer, and published author on military aviation history in the US, UK, OZ, and Indonesia.  Have also done research for some of the world's foremost aviation artists.

If you want to get the scoop on a/c, talk to the guys who flew AGAINST them.  Consider the P-51 in the ETO in WWII.  Lore says the best fighter of the war, right?   Talk to the Luftwaffe pilots who flew agaist them, you get a different opinion.  Their view is the P-51s were dangerous because there were so many of them.  One-on-one, the Fw-190 and Bf/Me-109 pilots were very confident against the Mustang due to the vulnetability of its radiator and coolant system.  Couple rounds in the radiator, the Mustang was immediately out of the fight.  And guess which USAAF fighter pilots occupied German PoW camps in the highest nunbers?  Mustang pilots.

What fighter did these same German fighter pilots fear the most?  The name I heard most often was the P-47 simply because it was almost impossible to shoot down.  Also highly respected was the Yak-3, an aircraft the average American aviation buff has little, if any, knowledge of.  The Mosquito was not so much feared, rather because of its speed, German pilots knew they'd get one shoot at it.

On the other side of the coin, a/c we hear bad things about consistently were far better than history would have us believe.  Plane that got the worst reputation unfairly?  The Brewster Buffalo.

[Sardondi]

Thirty-two years as an aerospace engineer, and published author on military aviation history in the US, UK, OZ, and Indonesia.  Have also done research for some of the world's foremost aviation artists.

If you want to get the scoop on a/c, talk to the guys who flew AGAINST them.  Consider the P-51 in the ETO in WWII.  Lore says the best fighter of the war, right?   Talk to the Luftwaffe pilots who flew agaist them, you get a different opinion.  Their view is the P-51s were dangerous because there were so many of them.  One-on-one, the Fw-190 and Bf/Me-109 pilots were very confident against the Mustang due to the vulnetability of its radiator and coolant system.  Couple rounds in the radiator, the Mustang was immediately out of the fight.  And guess which USAAF fighter pilots occupied German PoW camps in the highest nunbers?  Mustang pilots.

What fighter did these same German fighter pilots fear the most?  The name I heard most often was the P-47 simply because it was almost impossible to shoot down.  Also highly respected was the Yak-3, an aircraft the average American aviation buff has little, if any, knowledge of.  The Mosquito was not so much feared, rather because of its speed, German pilots knew they'd get one shoot at it.

On the other side of the coin, a/c we hear bad things about consistently were far better than history would have us believe.  Plane that got the worst reputation unfairly?  The Brewster Buffalo.

I wonder if the shoot-downs of P-51 pilots might have had more to do with the relative experience of pilots. As you know because of horrendous losses the Luftwaffe policy was essentially fly-'til-you-die. German pilots often expressed amazement at the "softness" of US and to a lesser extent British, policy  about combat flying. US pilots IIRC were required to fly something less than 300 combat hours to complete their tour, after which they finished out enlistment in a non-combat job. Most of the top US aces requested tour extensions or even asked and were given additional complete tours to fly combat sorties.

Consequently the average US pilot, while well trained stateside and often having gotten very familiar with their aircraft (some of them), did not have a great amount of combat experience. Germans on the other hand were either barely-trained novices, or true combat experts who had been flying since 1939 and had several hundred aerial combats under their belts. So even though on paper the P-51D might outclass the Bf-109G, the German pilots "wore" their planes like a second skin, and knew their capabilities so well that they could do things thought impossible by the allied pilots.

But there were indeed an endless supply of P-51s and eager pilots. In that it was much like the Sherman tank, which was execrable at fighting other armored vehicles, but was fast and mechanically reliable, if about as survivable as a molotov cocktail on tracks. But the US had a bottomless supply of Shermans and crews to fight them, so that if the generals (including Patton) could just keep the lid on how Sherman crews were almost guaranteed to be killed or wounded in any kind of even fight with any German armored vehicle carrying a 75mm gun or larger, the war might be won before Congressional inquiries started.

As to the Brewster, I learned long ago not to argue with engineers. I know the Finns liked the Buff, but is there any American pilot of the Brewster which didn't think it was a POS which was outclassed by every Axis fighter other than perhaps some Italian crates?

[Yorkshire pud]

Also highly respected was the Yak-3, an aircraft the average American aviation buff has little, if any, knowledge of.  The Mosquito was not so much feared, rather because of its speed, German pilots knew they'd get one shoot at it.

I forgot about the Yak3. Another beautiful aircraft. The Mosquito was a very good night fighter. I think it was the MkX that had radar fitted, similar to how the Me110 was pressed into service as a night fighter. The Mossie excelled in pretty much all that was asked of it, the raid on the prison at Amiens was an incredible piece of flying. Some f the aircraft that returned had telegraph wires and tree branches trailing from them, they flew that low.. The actual politics of the raid itself are still open to debate and what actually happened has never been revealed in full.

[Tray von Gutenberg]

Nobody has a line on free access gun cam films?

Yes. PM to figure out a way to get them to you. ~2.4GB, 2 hours 15 minutes of video. It's sitting on my hard drive.

[Tinfoil Hat]

The Brewster Buffalo is indeed a much maligned aircraft. Interestingly, Pappy Boyington said he thought earlier versions of the Buffalo were better than the early P-40s. He thought the Buffalo was more maneuverable, at least until they started adding more armor, etc. to it which made it heavier.

[ItsOver]

As to the Brewster, I learned long ago not to argue with engineers. I know the Finns liked the Buff, but is there any American pilot of the Brewster which didn't think it was a POS which was outclassed by every Axis fighter other than perhaps some Italian crates?

I built a model of the Brewster as a kid.  Probably Revell or Monogram.  I still don't know how I survived all the plastic cement fumes.  

[Yorkshire pud]

1/3 scale B25. Twin 400cc Moki radials..How gorgeous does this sound?


1:3 B25 Mitchell RC model plane 2x 400ccm Moki - The official 1st flight 2012 at La Ferte






But if you're using one 400cc Moki...build this.. at about a minute in, this made the hairs on my arms stand up..That sound!





P-47 RAZORBACK Moki 400