WW II plane buffs?

I Ratant said:
That's an Iskra TS-11.. From Poland.
Click to expand...
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
 
Ove said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Beanbag said:
Spent part of yesterday at the Cavanaugh Flight Museum.
Click to expand...

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”)
 
MRC_Hans said:
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:
Click to expand...


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.
 
MRC_Hans said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 

Attachments

  • horn20.jpg
    horn20.jpg
    44.7 KB · Views: 9
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.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

True but EGAD they were beautifull. :D
 
Corsair 115 said:
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.
Click to expand...
.
F7F working..Flying from Burbank, 1971.
 

Attachments

  • F7F-cdf62-01aap.jpg
    F7F-cdf62-01aap.jpg
    51.9 KB · Views: 4
  • F7F-cdf64-02.jpg
    F7F-cdf64-02.jpg
    82.5 KB · Views: 1
  • F7F-cdf62-03aap.jpg
    F7F-cdf62-03aap.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 1
Ove said:
True but EGAD they were beautifull. :D
Click to expand...

Hmm ... I'm not sure.
v9icp.jpg


The Mosquito had better proportions IMO
o6n0ab.jpg
 
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.
 
Alex Cured said:
Hmm ... I'm not sure.
[qimg]http://i50.tinypic.com/v9icp.jpg[/qimg]

The Mosquito had better proportions IMO
[qimg]http://i46.tinypic.com/o6n0ab.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

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


(Both are very beautifull IMHO as are most planes using Rolls Royce Merlins).
 
Alex Cured said:
Hmm ... I'm not sure.
http://i50.tinypic.com/v9icp.jpg

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

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
 
Ove said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom