And now the Live Warbirds!!
- Paolo Tagliaferri, GregP, Kutscha and 3 others like this
Jump to content
Posted by Stony on 27 January 2017 - 07:18 PM
And now the Live Warbirds!!
Posted by Romantic Technofreak on 01 April 2017 - 04:37 AM
Early in 1942, within the Flying Tigers group the rumour went about their Chinese allies had captured a completely intact Mitsubishi Zero fighter. Alarmed by these news, General Chennault requested the Chinese to hand this most modern Japanese fighter over to him for rapid evaluation in the United States, and they agreed. But how to get it to the other continent the fastest way?
Soon before, the Chinese air force had been reinforced with a couple of Vultee P-66 fighters, one of them had been flown over the "hump" by WASP pilot Ms. Ella Fitzgerald Connaughty. General Chennault did not hesitate for long. There was no other way to get the aircraft back to the states but to use British held territory. So he asked Miss Connaughty if she would like to do the task, and she agreed.
As soon as the Zero arrived at the Flying Tigers base, Miss Connaughty made herself familiar with it. It did not take long, and she flew the reverse way back over the hump. The Zero, designed for doing very long distances, had no trouble to cross Burma, India, the Persian Gulf region and into Palestine, then from there to Egypt.
Then, the most difficult part should take place. From now on Axis held or -endagered airspace had to be crossed. Taking off in Egypt, Miss Connaughty went towards RAF Luqa, Malta, where she landed. From there, the Zero had to make it to England without further stop.
Taking off at noon, Miss Connaughty headed towards Sicily, when she suddenly got intercepted by a pattuglia of two Fiat G.50 fighters, flown by Lt. Giorgio Ammorato and Sgt. Giuseppe Tagliatelli.
Before opening fire, the two Italians wanted to find out what strange bird had penetrated their airspace, and neared as close as possible. And they found out - the aircraft was steered by a girl! Miss Connaughty's full curly hair welled from her cap, and her irresistable smile effected reliably also on more than 30 yards of distance. Then she applied full throttle - and off she went. The two aviatori virili left behind could only gape: "Porca miseria! Che una ragazza veloce!"
Miss Connaughty reached RAF Hawkinge at dawn, without any further harassment by Italian, Vichy-French, Swiss or German aircraft. From there, she took the North Atlantic Route, and finally she got to Miami. There, you see her on this picture, which was taken some weeks after her arrival, when she had a holiday (so she wears no uniform) on 1 April 1942.
(picture from Darryl *Mokyme*'s photobucket)
The pattuglia of the two G.50s is this one:
Hope you enjoyed, and read the true story here: http://www.j-aircraf...php?topic=13274
Posted by Paolo Tagliaferri on 21 January 2017 - 01:24 PM
I am working to upgrade the forum so that it will be available as a default over a secure connection (HTTPS)
This is usually visible in your browser bar - For example in Google Chrome you will see a green padlock icon and the "Secure" wording.
What does this mean?
Keeping it simple, it means that when you write and post content on this forum, it will be transmitted in encrypted format over the public internet. This means that, generally speaking, people cannot spy on your content. T
This is probably not very important for the discussions itself (which are public already) - but it is quite important when you type your e-mail address (which you may not want someone to "steal" while the data transits between your computer and this website) or even your passwords.
If you are still confused, have a look at this video. It's a bit old but it explains it quite simply. We never ask credit card information anyway here on warbirdsforum, or sell anything, but it still applies to your personal information such as e-mail and passwords.
Hey! Some pages do not have the green lock? Is it safe?
In most cases, it is very liklely be that the forum users have inserted external resources in posts (such as images) that do NOT support SSL/TLS (i.e. linked via HTTP and not HTTPS). The browser therefore will alert you that some of the content on the page did not come over an encrypted tunnel, so it's generally deemed "unsafe". It's nothing to worry about in most cases.
Remember: at warbirdsforum, we never ask you to disclose publicly personal details, credit cards or other financial data in any case. The only data we store about you is the details you provided voluntarily when you registered to participate to the forum, or that you update on your public profile.
What do I have to do?
NOTHING. Continue to enjoy the forum as before. If you run into issues, please let me know and I will look into it.
Safe browsing everyone!
Posted by Kutscha on 11 January 2017 - 10:14 PM
Like Greg said there have been a few,
airshows at RCAF Rockcliff - Sopwith Snipe and a Spitfire doing a low level pass almost cutting the grass with its prop, Gloden Hawks coming over the bluff one by one (silence then a roar) The Aviation and Space Museum is there now.
grew up about 1.5 mi from the end of the runway at RCAF Uplands so saw all kinds of a/c > Lancaster, Sabres, CF100s, CF104s (seen a CF104 go vertical til out of sight once - heard roar as it was taken off then silence then an almighty roar as the pilot got the engine relit and went AB)
On the interstate in Georgia almost drove off the road when a B-52 came up from behind (never saw it coming) at low level - what a noise as it passed over!!
Posted by GregP on 11 January 2017 - 08:11 AM
My best experience was at Chino, too.
I took flying lessons in 1968, but had to wait untli 1981 to get my license, and life got in the way of flying some 5 - 6 year later. Pan ahead to 2006 and I found myself in So Cal (Irvine) and decided I was close enough to finally go see the Planes of Fame. I went out one Sunday and wandered through the museum and went to my first volunteer meeting some 2 weeks later. Been a volunteer ever since.
I met Dr. Ken Wagoner about 2 years later and became friendly at Flo's Cafe. Later I saw him several times at the musem and started going by his hangar when I chanced across it. He had (and has) a BEAUTIFUL P-51D called Lady Alice. Spotless ... and not a speck of paint out of place. When I walked in and said hi, he immedialtely put me in the pilot's seat and told me not to move any switches as it was primed and ready to fly. I didn't.
Some 2 years later I was in the museum restoration area and he came walking past my workbench on a visit. We had talked casually for a some of that time, and he mentioned he was going on a flight a bit later to practice for his bieniial flight review ... and that I could ride along if I wanted to.
Naturally, I beat him back to his hangar and he took me on a 2-hour P-51 ride that was an absolute blast. He practiced approach and departure stalls, and did some ground reference maneuvers.We flew up around Temecula, then went over to Big Bear for a higher-speed descent to the lake. You can't put the nose of a P-51 down very far without getting somewhat faster! On the way he unstrapped, leaned over one way, and allowed me to lean way forward and take the stick for a bit. It flew EXACTLY like I suspected it would after flying several simulators, and we had a great time going slowly back to Chino over Diamond Bar and the general area. I said slowly, but it was still close to 215 knots!
Now THAT was pretty neat. He is still one of the friendliest and happiest guys I know and will gladly show anyone his beautiful toys (the P-51 isn't the only plane in the hangar). It was a rather high point for me along with getting rides in two different Planes of Fame Musuem aircraft (B-25J and P-40N) over the years of restoration when they were doing maintenance hops or flights to other venues. I didn't get to handle the controls of either of them, but had two more great times flying, that's for sure! Meanwhile, I'm doing aircraft restoration on Saturdays. Mostly sheet metal, some machining, and a bit of painting now and then.
All great fun. And there are NO people around the museum who aren't friendly, good people. It makes for a great place to spend some productive time very weekend, that's for sure.
Posted by Heräkulman Ruhtinas on 29 December 2016 - 09:42 PM
Here is a treat:
Picture of FR-167, the single plane converted to retractable undercarriage.
EDIT: Actually, as this was built in Finland, it was originally built with retractable undercarriage and later, after damage due to a landing mishap, it was converted to fixed undercarriage. Details details
Posted by Romantic Technofreak on 01 December 2016 - 06:28 PM
I would like to share some pictures with you.
#1 (source: Flickr account of *Buidseach*). I especially like this picture. P-36s escorting Fairey Battles:
BTW, are you aware that the P-36 probably is the most colorfully camouflaged aircraft of WWII? Well, one should include pre-war experiments and remote contributors. The USAAF employed an experimental camouflage on the P-36, including even light rosé! So seen (at least suspected) in the 3rd aircraft of
#2 (shown in happyscale-modellbau.blogspot.de, there are other sources too):
These lined-up aircraft also performed formation flights. The first one is easily to be found in
#3 (source sorrily not recorded):
#4 (source: *Mam121061*'s bucket in Photobucket):
A single shot of the leading aircraft is also pictured in
#5 (source: *Kspectre*'s bucket in Photobucket):
The most "eye-catching camouflage", this being a contradiction within itself, was employed in the Vichy French air force, which gained a number of P-36s. They had to paint the engine cowling and rudder in red and yellow stripes, probably to avoid being attacked by one of the warfaring sides.
As there are no good original colour pictures of this, I show you a computer graphic.
#6 (souce: blog for worldofwarplanes.com):
#7 (source: given) shows how this aircraft looks on a contemporary black/white picture:
Let me close with an example from the Imperial Iranian air force, which shows an unique pattern either.
#8 (a model built by the owner of happyscale-modellbau.blogspot.de):
Hope you enjoyed, and regards,
Posted by Romantic Technofreak on 11 October 2016 - 05:14 PM
Once you say it correctly, your toungue will never operate properly again ...
Very well spoken, Greg. More, I fear of getting crazy while trying... and beginning to think in such a language...
OT, and as normally we should leave politics out here, I mean there could be something done for world peace. I don't know how tight the ties between Finland and New Zealand are, but I mean there is always room for an improvement. The following things could be done:
1) Re-open the bar in Äteritsiputeritsipuolilautatsijänkä.
2) Create a bar in Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu.
3) Perform twinning between these two places. Travelings by politicians and normal people, frequenting the bars, and trying to speak the names on a lot of alcohol consumed.
And, the most important thing: do this all on state money, so the bars won't close down again. Our states waste so much money, e.g. on turkeys like the F-35 or the A400M, so they could spend a comparedly little amount for useful things. Ususally I don't drink much alcohol, but I confess, if world peace required it, I would give my liver for it.
Posted by flying kiwi on 22 March 2017 - 06:21 AM
I've always seen cars as nothing more than mundane transport, with motorcycles providing a bit of an emotional thrill. I've owned:
1. A 1965 Triumph 5TA. It was horrible, but I didn't notice at the time.
2. A 1967 Triumph 6T which morphed into a mixture of a 1973 Bonneville and a 1971 Tiger, with some 1968 parts. It was great.
3. A 1973 Triumph Tiger 750, which a "friend" blew up for me.
4. A 1975 Norton 850 Roadster. That was a great bike, one of my favourites.
5. A 1975 Triumph Trident, which I didn't like much. It made the wrong sort of sound.
6. Two 650 Yamaha XJ650s. I can't remember the year. Their virtues were cheapness and shaft drive.
7. A 1980 BMW R80/7. Equal favourite with the Norton.
I'm wanting to get another bike for my looming retirement, mid life crisis or whatever. I might get a new Moto Guzzi V7 or V9. They're reasonably priced and have shaft drive. I don't really want too much power.
My car is a Mazda 3, which goes where I want it to, at the speed I want, and keeps the rain off.
Posted by Paolo Tagliaferri on 22 February 2017 - 03:46 PM
just wanted to share something funny - there was a spam post that was caught in the spam filter - The post was responding to this thread https://www.warbirds...-debacle/page-1
Here is it ... I think some of these spammers do definitely end up writing comical essays!!!
Posted by Armand on 09 February 2017 - 12:58 AM
Posted by GregP on 11 January 2017 - 09:23 PM
I think most people who really like airplanes can vividly remember a time or three they saw a military aircraft make some impressive maneuver or maneuvers. I was driving in Tennessee one day headed south twoard Chattanooga along a ridge when a pair of F-4 Phantoms came over my car inverted maybe 100 feet over the car.
They had come down the valley and climbed up the ridge and were momentarily inverted while pulling back toward level flight. I was startled by the noise and unexpected appearance, but I still vividly recall them coming over inverted and both smoothly rolling back to level flight. They had separated to roll & pull, and rapidly rejoined in leader-wingman formation once back upright. The way they did it, the wingman didn't completely roll upright, but stopped while his canopy was still maybe 35° toward the leader. He then pulled toward the leader, straigntened, and rolled maybe 40° back the other way to stop the approach when in perfect position.
Like you, I can still see it clearly. Good memories!
I'm glad my ex-wife doesn't make that clear of an impression ... it might be vivid, but would also be scarey. I never DID thank her for driving me to drink ...
Posted by Ricky on 11 January 2017 - 08:47 AM
Posted by Romantic Technofreak on 16 December 2016 - 10:51 AM
when Wikipedia continues becoming better, it may be not easy to write a satisfactory GOT topic about an aircraft, because Wikipedia already contains everything one would like to know. But in this case, it turned out that (about an American aircraft!), the German Wikipedia are more extensive than the one in English language. So I decided to translate the German text for you, one more feature you have exclusively as Warbirdsforum user! (I hope not too many germanisms occur...)
The Curtiss XP-55 Ascender
(internal designation CW-24) was an experimental fighter aircraft of the US producer's Curtiss-Wright's Curtiss Airplane Division St. Louis. It was a very unconventional design for a pursuit aircraft, which should meet the demand for the best possible visibility for the pilot while maintaining low air resistance and high firepower. The XP-55 reached the second place in the competition, this being a long distance behind the XP-54. The CW-1 to CW-25 series was only used by the Curtiss-Wright plant in St. Louis between 1930 and the beginning of the Second World War.
Basis for the development of the XP-55 were the requirements of the on 14 or 27 November 1939 published Circular Proposal XC-622 (also called Air Corps Type Specification XC-622). There the following performance values were required: ascent to 6100 m (7000 mph) in 7 minutes, a speed of 680 km/h (425 mph) in 4600 to 6100 m (15,000 to 20,000 ft), the top speed should be 840 km/h (525 mph, his was considered a theoretical limit for propeller aircraft) and at least 1.5 hours of flight. The deployment should be possible from an unprepared 915 m (3000 ft) long runway surrounded by 15 m (50 ft) high obstacles. On February 20, 1940, these requirements have been added by the Request For Data R40-C. To make the ambitious flight performance possible, the US Army Air Corps (USAAC) favored the Pratt & Whitney X-1800, other sources  say, this was the Pratt & Whitney H-3130 delivering 1800 hp, which at later stages of development should be increased to 3000 horsepower. The demands in R40-C differed from the usual requests of the War Department to airframe manufacturers in a way that here it was directly asked to draw up draft outside the previous conventions.
The Air Corps chose five concepts (Bell XP-52/XP-59, Vultee XP-54, Curtiss XP-55 and Northrop XP-56) for the subsequent development, later the XP-67 came added as a sixth pattern. The works were followed up to different development stages, but only three designs led to flying machines [I mean only the XP-52 never flew, RT].
The Curtiss Airplane Division of Curtiss-Wright in St. Louis submitted proposals for an aircraft with three potential engine alternatives. The Army chose to use P-249C with a Continental IV-1430-3 delivering 1600 hp and counter-rotating airscrews. The P-249C had a pusher propellers, swept wings fastened far aft, and end discs attached to the tips of the surfaces as side rudders. The freely movable stabilator at the bow gave the design the look of a canard airplane. However, these are defined by an on the bow fixed rudder fin with elevator contrary to the XP-55 design. Here, the joystick was connected with trimming surfaces at the rear edge of the elevator. These were only activated at the take-off, during the flight the area could turn freely. The foreseen armament, concentrated in the bow, consisted of a 0.30-cal machine gun, two 0.50-cal machine guns and a 37-mm machine gun. The span should be 9.85 m and the length should be 7.78 m.
The contract for the construction and first wind tunnel tests for the XP-55 (Model CW-24) was signed on 22 June 1940. Curtiss ensured the high performance requirements of the XC-622 and R40-C, although until then only paper studies were carried out. The wind tunnel results showed poor flight stability and inadequate control characteristics, particularly when approaching the stall speed. The necessary construction work to remedy these grievances would certainly have influenced the performance, so that the Air Corps delayed the further commissioning of Curtiss.
Experimental aircraft CW 24-B
Then the plant decided to continue the work on its own cost and to create a full-scale flyable proof-of-concept model for generating additional flight data. This model, called 24-B experimental aircraft, was in the last stages of construction, when Curtiss on 28 November 1941was able to conclude a new agreement with the Air Corps for the continuation of the project.
The CW 24-B had a load-bearing fuselage structure made of fabric-covered welded steel tubes. The wing with a span of 11.16 m was carried out in timber construction, the sweep of the t/4-line was 26.5 °. The length was 8.36 m and the flying weight was 1640 kg. Unlike in the original P-249C design, the vertical rudders at the 24-B were attached at about half the span. The outer areas of the surface areas showed a considerable wash-ou to reduce the tendency to stall. The cowled chassis was not retractable. The crew consisted of a pilot and an engineer. However, with a Menasco C6 S-5 Super Buccaneer delivering 275 hp to drive the plane, it was underpowered and only reached 290 to 320 km/h as the maximum speed.
The CW 24-B (USAAC serial no. 42-39347) flew for the first time on 2 December 1941 at the Muroc Army Air Field . In the test flights, the surface area of the front wing was increased by 25% and the vertical rudders were shifted outwards by 1.20 m. As a result, these surfaces were located as end discs on the wing tips and were supported by two low fins above and below the engine cowling. Later, surface extensions were installed outside the end disks to increase the longitudinal stability. By May 1942, 169 flights had been carried out. At the beginning, spinning experiments were not performed because experiments in a vertical wind tunnel with a model of the CW 24-B in 1:16 scale gave results of an uncontrollable flat spinning behaviour. The CW 24-B then was brought to Langley for own wind tunnel tests.
On July 10, 1942, the Army ordered three XP-55 prototypes. Since the originally forseen engine was not available, Curtiss planned to use the Allison V-1710-F16 with 1250 hp, which had been originally intended for the design P-249A. As a result, Curtiss guaranteed the top speed of 670 km/h in 5900 m, a climb of 7.1 min to 6100 m and one hour as the maximum flight time.
After Don Berlin had been responsible for the design work, the following construction work was performed by George Augustus Page Jr. as chief engineer and E. M. "Bud" Flesh as chief designer. The interpretation of the XP-55 was strongly oriented on the CW 24-B. The wings with a sweep of 28 ° on the t/4-line (45 ° at the wing front edge) had ailerons and split flaps. The vertical fins above and below the engine were equipped with air inlets for cooling the engine compartment (top) and a heat exchanger (bottom). The propeller shaft also drove a blower for forced cooling. At the outer load stations two additional tanks with 190 L each could be carried. The 3.05 m diameter three-blade propeller could be blown off by means of compressed air in case of emergency for the pilot's exit in flight.
After an inspection of the dummy finally the 1275 hp delivering Allison V-1710-95 (F23R) without turbochargers and a smaller fuel capacity was chosen. The weight increased by 40% compared to the original concept of 3600 kg. The armament in the final version consisted of four .50 cal-MGs.
The roll-out of the first prototype (USAAF series 42-78845) took place on 26 June 1943. After taxiing tests, the first flight took place on the 13th or 19th of July 1943 (depending on the source) on Scott Field, located near the Curtiss works. The flight test revealed some problems of the XP-55. Thus, for example, very long take-off distances were required, which should be remedied by an enlargement of the elevator. The engine tended to overheat on the ground despite various changes in the air inlets. Inboard of the ailerons boundary layer fences were installed to improve the flow pattern on the wings at high angles of attack. Continued test flights on Lambert Field showed generally good flight characteristics, but on November 15 at stall testing the machine crashed. The behavior of the aircraft during the crash resembled the phenomenon of stable vertical flatspinning, which had already been observed during the model spinning tests in the wind tunnel. The test pilot J. Harvey Gray could leave the plane.
As a direct result of the crash a new series of wind tunnel investigations began, which led as a result to an increase in the span by attaching trailerons, connected to the ailerons. This change was directly adopted in the third machine (42-78847), which was still under construction. The second aircraft (42-78846) flew for the first time on 9 January 1944, followed by the third prototype on 25 April. This one soon continued the interrupted stalling tests, whereby it was found that a stall warning practically did not exist and the machine suddenly fell off and only could be brought under control after a loss of height by more than 1000 m. The subsequently installed pressure sensor, which activated a stick shaker, was one of the first artificial stall warning systems in an aircraft. A simple solution for the high loss of height in the stall could not be found.
The second prototype also received the modifications of the third sample in the autumn of 1944. Although the test pilots described many good features of the second machine, they also complained that many changes had yet to be made until they were ready for production. After the third plane had been transferred to Wright Field in mid-December 1944, it crashed there on May 27, 1945, with a pilot and a civilian killed on the ground [other sources say 4 victims, due to English Wikipedia].
For the army decided to consider the stall characteristics of the Ascender, including the warning system, as unacceptable, in addition to the other unresolved deficiencies, such as the long take-off, excessive weight and cooling problems, at the end of 1944 this led to the discontinuation of any further development. Until then costs of about 3.5 million US dollars had accumulated.
The XP-55 has canard wings and a pusher propeller, which at its time was a very unconventional construction. The engine was behind the cockpit and the rear edge of the wing. This was one of the reasons for their strong sweep. The wings had ailerons and landing flaps, and carried the vertical rudders as well as, which each rose upwards and downwards just before the ends. The elevator, built as a mass-balanced stabilator with equidistant deflecting auxiliary rudders, sat at the front of the bow. The chassis was, for the first time at the company, designed as a tricycle landing gear with single wheels on each strut. Since the originally planned engine Pratt & Whitney X-1800 was not available, the three aircraft received 12-cylinder engines Allison V-1710.
End of German Wikipedia text. The following paper sources are given:
One of the prototypes (#2) survives in the Kalamazoo AirZoo museum.
Now, let's look at some pictures (they can be improved by using XnView, like always):
The CW-24-B (sorry, forgot to store the source), the mechanic's compartment is clearly visible:
The CW-24-B in the Langley windtunnel (from Wikipedia):
Contemporary XP-55 pictures. This one roames around in the net:
Source not stored again. The ground looks being a bit askew:
Busy work. From the website of the German magazine Fliegerrevue:
Then modern pictures from Kalamazoo. Here source given:
Also from skytamer.com:
(to be continued)
Posted by GregP on 07 December 2016 - 05:18 AM
Here is a pic of a complete P-47 Turbo system fully assembled outside of the airframe.
This system was assembled into a P-47 that WestPac restored some years back. It is flying today with a fully-functional turbo system (the only such one as far as I know). The fuselage sheet metal is shown in the background and was completely replaced, as you can imagine from looking at the pic.
Here is an added explanation in addition to Wayne's just above.
Perhaps now you can understand why the P-47 fuselage is so big and deep. Everything below about the bottom skin of the wing is just a sheet metal cover for the exhaust ducting! The exhaust ducts fit inside a Dzus-fitted panel in the lower fuselage and are the bottom set of pipes. The fresh air intake is the center pipe at the bottom and comes up and turns down into the center of the compressor going straight down (see blue arrow at the rear). The intercooler is the radiator in the middle. The compressed air going back to the carburetor is the top set of pipes that passes through the edges of the cickpit and is the reason why the P-47 has a very wide canopy ledge on both sides ... the compressed air goes through there! The compressed air exit from the compressor comes forward from the compressor wheel and has a black rubber boot on it (at the back down low, see red arrow at the rear pinting forward).
The pilot sits right in the middle, just in front of the intercooler (or aftercooler, depending on who you are and how you think). There are two blue arrows and one yellow arrow right in the center where the pilot's seat is located.
The engine exhaust runs through a collector and routes to the turbo waste gate. At lower altitudes, most of the exhaust is routed out the standard exhaust pipe situated down low near the engine firewall in a conventional location. That’s why there are exhaust stains there. As the pilot needs turbo boost, the waste gate slowly closes off the exhaust until, at some point, all of the exhaust is routed to the turbocharger. That’s when there is no more boost left to give.
When the turbo is spinning, the exhaust turns the turbine and exits through the angled slots that spin the turbine-compressor pair. The P-47 then gets very quiet unless you are directly below. The turbo is the exact same as the turbo in the P-38, but the P-38 unit is right side up instead of upside down. It sits near the rear 1/3 of the wing, right at the top of each of the P-38 booms.
The exhaust in the P-38 exits out of the top of the fuselage and is why the P-38 appears to be so quiet on the ground ... the noise goes straight up! If the pilot takes off and does an aerobatic routine, the P-38 gets loud when he rolls so the top of the aircraft faces the crowd.
As an aside, perhaps now it is a bit more clear why the very small P-39 had a tough time being fitted with a turbo system. The P-63 could have handled one as it a much larger aircraft than the P-39.
Hope that helps! - Greg
Posted by Heräkulman Ruhtinas on 10 October 2016 - 08:22 PM
Speaking of place names: https://upload.wikim...-place-name.jpg
And yes, that below is a place in Finland, and that is a bar near it.
Posted by CORSNING on 19 September 2016 - 07:51 PM
One of our members mention an aircraft that I did not include in 2nd Threat: Early 1944
Post # 17. I apologize sir. I have gone to great..eh...some...eh... well a little (very little)
length to find the truth. So while my conscience will not allow me to edit Post #17 I have
decided that since the comparison is going to be so very close it at least warrants posting.
THE BIG DUEL: La-5FN vs. Blackburn Roc.
La-5FN: 373 mph.
The Roc: Oh, I don't know somewhere around a hundred and sixty or seventy. ( This low
speed was built into the Roc intentionally with the idea that everything else in the
air would over shoot it and give the pilot a perfect target.) It was a big disappointment
to find out constantly that while the maneuver proved to be true the pilot had no guns
Full throttle height:
La-5FN: 403 mph./6,000 m.
The Roc: 223 mph./3,050 m. (with a tail wind). I tried to fly this baby up to 6,000 m. but the
altimeter just laughed at me and said 'Hey, cut it out!'
La-5FN; 4,350 fpm.
The Roc: 1,500 fpm. (pilots usually fell asleep from boredom by the time they reached 4,000 ft.)
Time to reach 5,000 m.:
La-5FN; 4.6 minutes.
The Roc: Your kidding, right?
La-5FN: 36,750 ft.
The Roc: 15,200 - 18,000 ft.. ( The discrepancy actually is pilot oriented. This was a plane built
for pilots who were afraid of heights or had a bad case of vertigo.)
Range on internal fuel: (Nobody wanted to fly any longer than they had to in a Roc so no
external stores were ever added).
La-5FN: 360 mls.
The Roc: 610 mls, (No one during war time actually ever went even half that far. Their nerves
were usually shot after 30 minutes thinking about the possibility of being encountered.)
La-5FN: 3.775 lbs./hp.
Roc: 8.933 lbs./hp. (890 hp. from that Bristol Perseus XII could only do so much with 8,000 lbs.)
Wing Loading: (This was actually a very great surprise. Watch closely now.)
La-5FN: 36.89 lbs./sq. ft.
Roc: 25.65 lbs./sq. ft. (That is right, once into the turn the Roc should be able to turn inside the
Note: No such luck. The La-5FN had a very good roll rate approaching that of the Fw-190A.
It took a day and a half for the Roc to roll 45 degrees in either direction.
La-5FN: 2 x 20 mm./200 rpg.
Roc: 4 x 0.303 in./600 rpg. (See there, the Roc had twice as much guns which caused drag and
that is why it wasn't as fast as the Lavochkin. And each gun had three times the ammunition
by the way.)
So, in summation Blackburn's bird wasn't all that far off the mark from being state of the art in
January 1944. It was dam near as fast as that Russkie thing and could have outclimbed
it with a couple of thousand more horse power.
In wrapping things up, I think we should all thank Blackburn......eh.....eh...I don't know. Probably
for something, but not this.
If I see just one...JUST ONE SS $#!+head crawl out of a dumpster anywhere, Germany is getting
the Lend-Lease Roc in force. Don't make me come over there.
I will be watching.
Posted by flying kiwi on 15 September 2016 - 11:14 AM
This is becoming horribly reminiscent of neoconshooter, with his unique facts. All I'm getting from these discussions are strongly stated falsehoods and distastefully stated opinions, with the odd fact thrown in.
Today I read about Mustangs on free sweeps over Germany before 44. This just didn't happen. When I asked about this - no reply so far.
My suspicions were raised when I wrote that one of the VK engines was strange in having exhausts both inside and outside the V. Our friend seemed to take a while to grasp what I was actually saying, giving examples of hot tunnels, Harley V-twins, and Chrysler 6s. None of his examples fitted the criteria. He has not exhibited great reading comprehension. As for telling us about mouths he's filled.................we do not need that.
I won't speculate on why he acts like he does, but it is very tiring. We have had meticulously researched posts in this forum, not least by Edgar. This is not in the same tradition.
Posted by Chino Kid on 01 July 2016 - 02:41 AM
I Know What You Found... Unfortunately not Japanese.
A.jpg 34.12KB 0 downloads
C.jpg 37.21KB 0 downloads
d.jpg 26.83KB 0 downloads
P-3 indexed.jpg 36.63KB 0 downloads
Nacelle.jpg 60.92KB 0 downloads
P-3 upside down.png 66.39KB 1 downloads
You have found the remains of a Lockheed P3A Orion that went into Subic Bay in 1971. Specifically the #1 or 4 Nacelle. No cockpit, no wheels. The wheels were in #2 and 3 nacelles.
See story here...including a picture of the salvaged remains- minus the nacelle you found!
Isn't the interweb wonderful!
From what I see, Subic offers wreckage exploration opportunities to last a lifetime. Best wishes and be careful out there.
Posted by Romantic Technofreak on 14 March 2016 - 06:12 PM
I found this low-quality, but nice picture of Akigusa trainers on the net:
Don't know if the pilot is able to see the what the man with the flag is signalling. But probably it is:
(Slow down, you move too fast...)
And now, Greg, get your ass into gear, put your rivet gun aside and question Mr. Maloney! (Greetings to him, by the way.)
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: Paolo Tagliaferri