PDA

View Full Version : Military Aircraft



BBwarrior
02 Feb 08,, 19:54
Here are a few pics of my favorite military aircraft. Several are restored old warbirds from WWII. Comments?

BBwarrior
02 Feb 08,, 19:59
I really enjoy the P-47's!

Foremost
24 Feb 08,, 19:22
Great 'planes!, as a kid I saw Messershmidt 109's in dogfights with Spitfires & Hurricanes in WWII & a Heinkel III flew so low over me I could see the front gunner in the nose, how about that!
After the war I lived near a USAF airbase & I had to catch a double-decker bus to school, Liberators took off across the road the bus was on, & it seemed to me that they were going to touch the top of the bus, & the noise :eek:, you couldn't hear yourself speak!!
When I was holidaying with my late wife in Wiltshire in the 80's, [I'm English] near where we stayed Tankbusters [A10's]were based & they used to buzz the area, what a racket from those giant turbofan 100 engines, woweeeee!!

BBwarrior
25 Feb 08,, 00:43
Wow! I can only imagine what it was like to have witnessed Dogfight between the Luftwaffe and Royal Air Force. Amazing. My grandfather remembers P-47's saving their butts during the Battle of the Bulge. A German battlegroup was massing for an attack near his position. Fortunately, the weather had cleared by then and the Thunderbolts and Typhoons came in, strafing the enemy with rocket and .50cal fire.

Here are a few more pics to enjoy. Cheers from Alaska!:P

BadKharma
25 Feb 08,, 03:48
Nice Kittyhawk, I always liked the lines of that aircraft.

The Chap
23 Jun 08,, 02:32
The twin; the Lightning, I think, is very rare. The NASM resored one a while back. Splendid kite. Don't forget it's British (AKA Hornet):P

For some reason I love the Thunderbolt, and have done so since a child. Truly great bit of kit:)

Stitch
23 Jun 08,, 06:50
Don't forget it's British (AKA Hornet):P

British? Where did you get that? The Lightning was designed & built by the Lockheed Aircraft Company of Burbank, California in the late '30's/early '40's, and saw service in every theater of the War. We sent a few of them "over the pond" in '40 to be trialed by the RAF but, unfortunately, the British Gov't ordered them sans turbo-superchargers and counter-rotating props, which pretty much negated half of the Lightning's best attributes.

The Chap
23 Jun 08,, 07:50
Aside from the fact the the UK invented everything ever ever, I pretty certain that the Hornet, albeit in very limeted numbers, and then only in South East Asia at the very end of the war is the 'plane in Question.

However I'm always ammused to be proven wrong. It's the novelty, you see?:biggrin:

glyn
23 Jun 08,, 10:44
Aside from the fact the the UK invented everything ever ever, I pretty certain that the Hornet, albeit in very limeted numbers, and then only in South East Asia at the very end of the war is the 'plane in Question.

However I'm always ammused to be proven wrong. It's the novelty, you see?:biggrin:

Well this should be bloody hilarious for you as Stitch is entirely right. :))

The Chap
23 Jun 08,, 11:06
I'm happy to conceed. I know Glyns blood pressure rushes up simply due to my slovenly approach to spelling :)) but I am truly unaware of this long range escort being in the air over Europe in '40.

That's as may be.:) I would like to know what the twin boom v.high speed prop. was. Two super-charged RRs ?:)

It could well be that I have finally lost the plot

BadKharma
24 Jun 08,, 03:10
Well this should be bloody hilarious for you as Stitch is entirely right. :))
Yes he is I am flabbergasted why the English would want the aircraft without the superchargers.
The fastest of the Lightnings was the P-38J with a top speed of 420 mph.

glyn
24 Jun 08,, 11:00
Yes he is I am flabbergasted why the English would want the aircraft without the superchargers.
The fastest of the Lightnings was the P-38J with a top speed of 420 mph.

'Military maximum speed (5 minute limit) achievable was 414 mph at best height of 30,000 feet according to Flight Manual. One of aviations mysteries that de-rated examples were ordered. The ones Britain got (and rapidly returned) were dogs.

glyn
24 Jun 08,, 11:04
I'm happy to conceed. I know Glyns blood pressure rushes up simply due to my slovenly approach to spelling :)) but I am truly unaware of this long range escort being in the air over Europe in '40.

That's as may be.:) I would like to know what the twin boom v.high speed prop. was. Two super-charged RRs ?:)

No, dear heart. Rolls Royce engines were not fitted to the P-38 series. They had to make do with American iron. :))

It could well be that I have finally lost the plot

I'm not sure that I was ever given the plot to begin with.:confused:

GAU-8
24 Jun 08,, 21:26
One of aviations mysteries that de-rated examples were ordered. The ones Britain got (and rapidly returned) were dogs.

Here's a little light on that mystery my friends:


Chronologically, Lightning Mark I for the RAF was the second model produced. In France, as early as the spring of 1939, the Comite du Materiel and the Etat Major had been taking a look at the P-38 as a possible substitute for the Breguet 700, Potez 671, and Sud-Est S.E.100 twin-engine fighters then under development. In Apr 1940, the Anglo-French Purchasing Committee ordered 667 P-38s. The two versions were the Model 322-61-03 (322-F) for France and 322-61-04 (322-B) for Britain.

Both British and French delegations insisted the fighters be equipped with Allison s without turbo-superchargers and with strictly right-hand rotation because they wanted the engines interchangeable with those of the Curtiss H.81A Tomahawk that had been ordered by both Britain and France in large numbers. In addition the Committee wanted to optimize the aircraft for medium-altitude combat, as was currently the dominant mode of aerial warfare in Europe, rather than the high-altitude role for which the P-38 had been designed. The Anglo-French delegation was also aware of the problems currently being experienced by the USAAC in the delivery of turbo-superchargers and did not want to run the risk of costly, time-consuming delays, since they wanted all planes delivered in less than a year. It turned out that decision was particularly unfortunate.

British and French Model 322s were to be powered by Allison V-1710-C15s rated at 1010hp at 14,000' and with both engines rotating in the right-handed sense. The French version was to have metric-calibrated instruments, French-built radios and French-supplied armament, and were to have throttles that operated in the "French fashion"—reverse from British/American throttles.
When France fell in June1940, the entire contract was taken up by Britain. By July 1941 the RAF recognized there would be a need for high-altitude capabilities, and the original contract was amended to deliver 143 Lightning Is [AE978/999, AF100/220] with the V-1710-15 non-turbo-supercharged engines, and the remaining 524 as Lightning IIs [AF221/AF744] with turbo-supercharged V-1710-F5L/-F5R engines (Model 322-60-04). Because of its non-turbo, right-handed Allisons, RAF's Lightning I was christened the "Castrated P-38" by the factory. It turned out that the nickname was apt. The first three Lightnings arrived in the UK by sea transport in March 1942. [AF105] was sent to Cunliffe-Owen at Southampton for examination and experiments. [AF106] was sent to Boscombe Down for flight evaluation. [AF107] went to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough for experiments and evaluation.

Performance of the hybrid was quite poor and RAF refused further deliveries after testing only three examples. The remaining 140 Lightning Is were taken up by the US Army and designated P-322—P for pursuit and 322 for the Lockheed model. They were sent to a Dallas modification center where most were converted as trainers and for various experimental roles. They retained their original British s/ns while in AAF service, and 20 retained their V-1710-C15 engines (AAF designation: V-1710-33). The rest of the P-322s were fitted with V-1710-27/-29s but were not given turbo-supercharged. As operational trainers they had no cannon and only two each .30 and .50 machine guns.

Only one Lightning II [AF221] was completed and it, too, was taken up (along with its British s/n) by the AAF as P-38F-13-10, but in AAF markings, and was used by Lockheed to test of smoke-laying canisters on racks between the booms and nacelle, plus air-dropping of two torpedoes from the same racks. Other British-ordered aircraft were 28 completed as P-38F-13, 121 as P-38F-15, 174 as P-38G-13, and 200 as P-38G-15.

glyn
24 Jun 08,, 22:23
Thank you GAU for the information. :) I just knew there had to be an explanation, and time was of the essence back then. I was unaware that another reason was to ease the inventory loading and utilise the same mill as was installed in the Tomahawk.

sappersgt
24 Jun 08,, 23:00
Reading this thread a thought popped into my mind. Were the Merlin engines in Spitfires and Hurricanes interchangeable? If so, how practical would it be? Any other aircraft and engines have interchangeability come to mind? Could be quite a bonus for ground crews I would think.

GAU-8
25 Jun 08,, 06:30
Reading this thread a thought popped into my mind. Were the Merlin engines in Spitfires and Hurricanes interchangeable? If so, how practical would it be? Any other aircraft and engines have interchangeability come to mind? Could be quite a bonus for ground crews I would think.

What an excellent question. One would think so.
If Glyn doesn't pop in with the answer soon, I'll do my best to dig it up.
PM Glyn to rattle his cage on this. He can find this in his flight manuals.

Wouldn't you think the Merlin would have a standard mount? And since both aircraft had the same engine, would they not have the same motor mounts to receive the Merlin? And what about the Mustang, the Mosquito and the Lancaster bomber? They all had Merlins.

I'd like to know about the prop as well. I know the Spitfire went through some teething pains with her prop. Did they settle in on one prop for both Spitfire and Hurricane after a while?

Let's hear it Glyn.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1438/1153836276_0c94f30e2b.jpg?v=0
http://www.bbmf.co.uk/images/fanspics0714.jpg

glyn
25 Jun 08,, 19:33
Reading this thread a thought popped into my mind. Were the Merlin engines in Spitfires and Hurricanes interchangeable? If so, how practical would it be? Any other aircraft and engines have interchangeability come to mind? Could be quite a bonus for ground crews I would think.

Both the Hurricane Mk I and the Spitfire Mk I used the 1,013 hp Merlin II or III. Engines were pulled from airframes fairly regularly for certain servicing or repair and to have mods applied, and I don't think it was necessary or even possible to ensure that they went back into the same airframe. Theoretically a Merlin II or II should be able to be moved from one type to the other. However the Mk II Hurricane was fitted with a 1,280 hp Merlin XX and that was not fitted to any Spitfire as far as I can see. Spitfire Merlins went up to 1,720 hp.(Griffon powered Spits went to 2,050 hp).
There were many Marks of Merlin, fitted in a wide range of aircraft. Some were specific to aircraft types, others were possibly interchangeable. I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough about engines to give you a definitive answer. :redface:

glyn
25 Jun 08,, 19:46
[QUOTE=GAU-8;509528]

I'd like to know about the prop as well. I know the Spitfire went through some teething pains with her prop. Did they settle in on one prop for both Spitfire and Hurricane after a while?

The Hurricane entered service with a 2 bladed airscrew which gave a maximum climb of 2,420 fpm and a maximum speed at 18,500 feet of 320mph. This was later improved by the substitution of a De Havilland 2 position 3 blader, and finally De Havilland or Rotol constant speed jobbies which could achieve 340mph.
The Spitfire also started out the same as the Hurricane, but then went to 4 bladed props, then 5 blades and finally to 6 blades ( 2 contra rotating 3 bladers). Phew!:)

GAU-8
25 Jun 08,, 20:07
Glyn to the rescue again.
Thanks and well done.
Great info.
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w262/gator_momma/Applause.gif

BadKharma
25 Jun 08,, 21:56
That is very enlightening and now the reasons for the English choice on the P-38 is clearer. Thank you for that info.

glyn
25 Jun 08,, 22:58
That is very enlightening and now the reasons for the English choice on the P-38 is clearer. Thank you for that info.

Good for you BadKharma. :)
However I've managed to confuse myself! :redface:
The Allison engine would surely be the same in whatever airframe it was fitted. Where the P-38 differed was I think in having turbo supercharging units made by another vendor - (General Electric ) As far as I can see they were merely attached to the main exhaust pipe. Perhaps the RAF were right in a way as Lightnings were needed as soon as possible whereas the first production P-38 (P-38LO) didn't reach the US Air Corps until mid-1941 and the run was only for 29 aircraft. There was just 1 A model. The Bs and Cs were not built and the D (36 built) was only considered suitable as a combat trainer. The E was the first major production run with 210 produced and although it had improvements on earlier models it was not deemed combat ready and remained stateside. The first combat ready model was the P-38F but it would have proved much too late for the RAFs needs. Even then the Allison engines were no longer the same versions as those used in the Tomahawk. All very confusing even now, and almost certainly much more so then! :confused:

BadKharma
26 Jun 08,, 01:46
Your welcome Glyn, however now you have muddied the waters again. How much difference was there between the early and later Allison engines? I know the AVG initially had P-40B models which the British nicknamed the Tomahawk. However they eventually received newer models and the mechanics still cannibalized wrecked fighters to keep as many in the air as possible.
I also have a question on the F4U hope it is alright to ask it here but I'll include a picture also to be safe ;)
http://aviation-models.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/98024.jpg
In Blackburn's book The Jolly Rogers he states that VF-17 was slated to be the first F4U unit to be based on a carrier and shipped off on a carrier for Pearl. Upon arrival however they were told they had to either switch to F6F Hellcats or accept assignment as land based. The reason given is that the navy would have too much trouble with logistics supplying a carrier based F4U squadron. I can understand the logistic equation but I wonder if some "political" decision was not also behind the decision as Grumman made both the Wildcat and Hellcat and the F4U was produced by Chance Vought. I have had discussions else were about this and was told the F6F was a superior fighter. I find that interesting since the F4U served on carriers into the Korean War and the F8F the Hellcats replacement did not.

RustyBattleship
26 Jun 08,, 03:57
There may well have been some political influence (as what forced Northrop to scrap his flying wings because more pockets got lined from factories that built the standard winged tube such as B-50's and B-36's).

However, it may also have been a storage problem. The Corsairs were bigger than the Hellcats and you couldn't stow as many below on the hangar deck as you could the Grummans. Though our overhead clearances on the hangar decks were high enough for the folded wings of the Corsair, F4Us on British ships had to have 8-inches clipped off the wing tips.

After WW II, we didn't think we would need the massive amounts of Carrier based aircraft (even during the Korean War). So Corsairs were the propeller driven fighters issued to carriers along with jet propelled fighters. Hellcats were downgraded to "smart bombs" being remotely controlled to dive into military targets such as railway tunnels, bridges, etc. They were the first TV guided pilotless aircraft and no longer issued as manned fighters.

So, I suspect, along with you, that the Corsair was the better plane than the Hellcat, but a tad too big to stow enough on a ship and not enough Congressmen in Chance-Vought's pocket.

Parihaka
26 Jun 08,, 04:37
They were also buggers to land at the best of times with the cockpit being so far aft. It wasn't until the Brits developed the curved approach so the pilots could see the LSO at all times that they were used for American carrier operations from late 1944.

bugs
26 Jun 08,, 04:44
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWpqqnCcXI4&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FWpqqnCcXI4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BadKharma
26 Jun 08,, 05:10
Rusty I did not think about the storage space very interesting point. Although like I said VF-17 shipped out on Bunker Hill and went through it's shakedown cruise operating on board. Parihaka you are correct it was not the easiest aircraft to land because of the long nose however VF-17 was fully carrier qualified with the main problem being tire blow outs from excessive bounce which Vought representatives quickly fixed retro fitting stiffer oleos.

glyn
26 Jun 08,, 14:34
They were also buggers to land at the best of times with the cockpit being so far aft. It wasn't until the Brits developed the curved approach so the pilots could see the LSO at all times that they were used for American carrier operations from late 1944.

The loony Brits were the first to operate Corsairs from carriers. As the carriers were smaller than the American jobbies, and the Brits (as mentioned) cropped the wings increasing the wing loading and thus raising the stalling speed, they were rather demanding to fly. They also had the early production F4Us with the birdcage canopy. Who says the British lack a sense of humour? :confused:

Ammo08
24 Sep 08,, 22:42
The F-111 Aardvark....

Kommunist
12 Mar 09,, 20:35
Had some nice pics, but couldn't find a more suitable thread to post em.... so here they are

Kommunist
12 Mar 09,, 20:36
More coming up later:)

gunnut
12 Mar 09,, 20:57
I like the clean lines of a Mitsubishi A6M "Zero." Very elegant, simple, and streamlined. Unfortunately it was not competitive against the later model of Allied planes that were much more heavily armed and armored.

Kommunist
12 Mar 09,, 21:47
2nd Batch

Kommunist
28 Mar 09,, 18:06
Here's an awesome shot..............

Robin Bingo
03 May 09,, 06:42
here are some pictures of my favourite aircraft the B-1 Lancer..wish i could get to fly them..:(

BBwarrior
04 May 09,, 03:35
Them Bones are awesome bombers. I wonder how long they will stay in active service?

Gun Grape
06 May 09,, 02:12
4 bird flyby at the Tyndall air show March 29th. Lousy weather both days were pretty much rained out.

Idon't get to see P-51s every day. Unlike the other birds

BadKharma
06 May 09,, 04:27
I like that Phantom, nice line up you captured.

Stitch
06 May 09,, 06:39
Them Bones are awesome bombers. I wonder how long they will stay in active service?

Not long enough . . . .

I think they should stop spending all that money on the B-52, a 30 to 40-year old airframe and, instead, spend it on upgrading and maintining the Bone; we've only got so many B-2's, and there aren't any replacements on the horizon.

BadKharma
06 May 09,, 17:19
Not long enough . . . .

I think they should stop spending all that money on the B-52, a 30 to 40-year old airframe and, instead, spend it on upgrading and maintining the Bone; we've only got so many B-2's, and there aren't any replacements on the horizon.

The B-52 serves a much wider role and considering how long it has been in service it's cost is relatively cheap. The B-2 on the other hand while elegant was designed for a specific role (someone from the AF correct me if I am wrong). Although I like the lines of the bone I think it will be repalced by a new design one that has stealth and possibly supercruise.