Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Other Forgotten (ignored) Warbird's


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#11 [email protected]

[email protected]

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Joined 1 Year, 10 Months and 28 Days
  • 18 topics
  • LocationTyne and Wear, United Kingdom

Posted 07 January 2017 - 08:50 PM

The Aircobra both the P39 and the King Aircobra ,were a forgotten aircraft,however because of the lack of success in the US,and it's Allinson Engine !Wonder what the outcome would have been if they could have fitted the Merlin ,then perhaps opinions would have probably changed,and the Aircobra would have been up there with the likes of the P51 and P47.....
However I was reading somewhere that the Cobras prop shaft was positioned beneath the pilots seating position powering the airscrew at the front,an article in particular pointed out that sometimes the prop was prone to snap,or fracture,and being beneath the pilot,would travel upwards resulting in injury to the pilot ,or even killing the pilot.How true this fact is I'm not sure ,or wether it had an adverse effect on the planes popularity I'm not sure,however if anyone cold enlighten me on this I would be very greatful.
Best regards
Keith...

#12 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,492 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 3 Months and 5 Days
  • 106 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 07 January 2017 - 09:54 PM

However I was reading somewhere that the Cobras prop shaft was positioned beneath the pilots seating position powering the airscrew at the front,an article in particular pointed out that sometimes the prop was prone to snap,or fracture,and being beneath the pilot,would travel upwards resulting in injury to the pilot ,or even killing the pilot.How true this fact is I'm not sure ,or wether it had an adverse effect on the planes popularity I'm not sure,however if anyone cold enlighten me on this I would be very greatful.
Best regards
Keith...

I think any design wich differs from the common got such tell tales attached.
Though It's bigger forces in work is it actual not different form the driveshaft rotating few inches from the ass of any american car driver in the time of the Airacobra, but nobody considered that scenario on the street.
Another thing is that the shaft most possible had a supporting bearing amid between the engine and the propeller - wich would be in close proximity of the pilot - Anyone with access to drawings?

#13 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,494 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 23 Days
  • 113 topics

Posted 07 January 2017 - 09:59 PM

Interesting that you shoudl sy that about the Curtiss P-47. My understanding was that army aircraft were always called by their design originator.

 

ie, B-17s were always Boeing B-17s, not Vega B-17 or Douglas B-17, and the B-29 was always a Boeing B-29, not a Martin B-29.

 

But nay types were redesignated depending on the manufacturer. Such as the Vought F4U becoming the Goodyear FG.

 

In the case of the B-17 in the full designation the manufacturer is given.

Douglas/Long Beach B-17G-40-DL Fortress
Boeing B-17G-110-BO Fortress
Lockheed/Vega B-17G-50-VE Fortress

For the P-51, the Dallas built were P-51K and the Inglewood built were P-51D.

 

Armand, did you forget about the AutoUnion GP car?

 

Myth about the P-39 is that the vibration from the long shaft would cause pilots to go sterile.



#14 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 11 Months and 23 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 08 January 2017 - 12:15 AM

In the case of the B-17 in the full designation the manufacturer is given.

Douglas/Long Beach B-17G-40-DL Fortress
Boeing B-17G-110-BO Fortress
Lockheed/Vega B-17G-50-VE Fortress

For the P-51, the Dallas built were P-51K and the Inglewood built were P-51D.

 

Armand, did you forget about the AutoUnion GP car?

 

Myth about the P-39 is that the vibration from the long shaft would cause pilots to go sterile.

 

Would thet be:

Boeing B-17G-50-VE Fortress for the Vega built B-17?

Boeing B-17G-40-DL Fortress for Douglas?

 

Or they were actually known as 

Lockheed/Vega B-17G-50-VE Fortress

Douglas/Long Beach B-17G-40-DL Fortress



#15 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,494 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 3 Months and 23 Days
  • 113 topics

Posted 08 January 2017 - 02:06 AM

The VE and DL are the code letters for the manufacturer.



#16 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,205 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 222 topics

Posted 08 January 2017 - 02:48 AM

VE = Lockheed Vega, San Diego, Calif.;

DL = Douglas, Long Beach, Calif.



#17 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 11 Years, 11 Months and 23 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 08 January 2017 - 06:24 AM

The VE and DL are the code letters for the manufacturer.

 

Right, so the name of the aircraft was Boeing B-17X-##-MM

 

Where X was the variant number, ## was teh block number and the MM was the manufacturer code.



#18 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,949 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 2 Months and 6 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 08 January 2017 - 10:22 AM

Getting ever more off topic, but this reminds me of the Panzer IV/70.
it was produced by Alkett and Vomag, and this designated either
Panzer IV/70 (A)
Panzer IV/70 (V)

Admittedly this was because they were slightly different, and no other tank had such a designation

#19 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,205 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 7 Months and 23 Days
  • 222 topics

Posted 08 January 2017 - 12:21 PM

Gotta' disagree with that. The Airacobra was a very good pusuit plane at low to medium altitudes, but not one at high altitudes, and Europe was a high-altitude war. We considered it solid for it's assigned task, but the British did't have much of that task to perform. The P-400, which are what the Britisj got, we even worse.

 

Bell Aircraft developed the P-63 Kingcobra as a follow-on, completely at the whim of Larry Bell. It was a damned good airplane that we didn't buy, and it could give a P-51 all it could handle most anytime or at any altitude. It was only marginally slower than the P-51 and climbed and rolled very well. At the time, unfortunately for Bell, we didn't need it as the P-51 was already doing the job and, while the P-63 was good, it wasn't necessarily better, overall. It was about as good, possibly not quite.

 

Why build a new plane that is as good as your existing plane? Your goal is to get a better one, not another plane of the same capabilities at the cost of tooling up and retraining? You would do that ONLY if you could not get enough of the existing plane to fulfill the needs at the time. And we DID get enough P-51s for the job that were retired shortly after the war ended, in large part. Some were retained for our services, but we sold off a lot of them, since we had WAY more than we needed and not even as many pilots available post-war as there were Mustangs in inventory. Time to cut the very-draining cost of operating military aircraft in large-scale quantities once the wars are won!



#20 TheArtOfFlight

TheArtOfFlight

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Joined 3 Months and 28 Days
  • 5 topics
  • LocationUK

Posted 12 January 2017 - 11:46 AM

The Russians by all accounts did like and have some degree of success with the P-39 and P-63. But the British that did have one operational squadron of P-39s early on in the war and got rid of them almost straight away. Obviously not impressed. But i think the car door type layout was not something that pilots felt comfortable with if having to bail out. This method was tried on the Hawker Typhoon Mk1 and was quickly replaced by the conventional teardrop/bubble canopy as the door design was greatly disliked/untrusted by allied airmen. I really dont think the P-39 was a dog. As there are some qualities for having a mid engine layout. I think maybe the Russians just had more trust/faith in the aircraft than anyone else. But then again Russian air combat kills are highly dubious i have found. And i think its rep vastly outweighed its ability. A sound enough design but probably just not quite good enough for the ETO's.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users