If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On 2012-06-09 00:21:26 -0700, otter said:
On Jun 7, 9:28*pm, tony cooper wrote: The Duck pulled it off with imagination with his bomb bay door. I was going to let Duck reply, but since he hasn't... I don't think that's a bomb bay door, it's where the wheel goes. Is that a P51 Mustang? Correct. They are the under carriage doors on a P-51D. There are no bomb bay doors on a P-51. Bombs, rockets and droppable fuel tanks (misnamed "bellytanks" because on earlier planes such as the P-40, they were carried on a centerline hardpoint.), were carried on wing hardpoints. As I explained earlier, there are actually four doors under that plane. The two center doors shown in the image, and the two doors attached to the actual landing gear struts. All four of those doors can be seen in this example of a P-51D. http://db.tt/Mccq0Lrq -- Regards, Savageduck |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On 2012-06-09 08:08:54 -0700, otter said:
On Jun 9, 3:26*am, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-06-09 00:21:26 -0700, otter said: On Jun 7, 9:28*pm, tony cooper wrote: The Duck pulled it off with imagination with his bomb bay door. I was going to let Duck reply, but since he hasn't... I don't think that's a bomb bay door, it's where the wheel goes. Is that a P51 Mustang? Correct. They are the under carriage doors on a P-51D. There are no bomb bay doors on a P-51. Bombs, rockets and droppable fuel tanks (misnamed "bellytanks" because on earlier planes such as the P-40, they were carried on a centerline hardpoint.), were carried on wing hardpoints. As I explained earlier, there are actually four doors under that plane. The two center doors shown in the image, and the two doors attached to the actual landing gear struts. All four of those doors can be seen in this example of a P-51D. http://db.tt/Mccq0Lrq Here's some more pictures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfkR0U2VnSs Nice. That should give those not familiar with the P-51 a better idea of what I was trying to show. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On 2012-06-09 12:05 , Savageduck wrote:
The P-39 was the Bell AiraCobra. They last provided some service for the USAAF in combat on Guadalcanal & New Guinea in 1942. A truly nasty aircraft we managed to dump on the Russians via Lend Lease. For some perverse reason they seemed to like them. Most of those we kept were used as target tugs or "Flying Pinball Machines". http://educationviews.org/wp-content...012/04/P39.jpg You're overstating its bad rep. Part of the Guadalcanal problem where the P-39 is concerned was that they were delivered with different oxygen charging equipment than the Navy (Marines) aircraft. So the Marines could not supply oxygen to the P-39's and there was no Army Air Force support to do it either. (The P-39 was designed as a high altitude fighter - w/o O2 that was a bit hard...) It fired IIRC a 20mm canon through the center of the propeller hub - reputedly making it very easy to aim canon fire. Despite the oxygen issue the Army pilots used the P-39 to good effect in ground support of Marines and Army grunts on the 'canal. (They also fought air to air but nearer the island and at low alt). This free'd up the Marine pilots for patrols and air defense. The Russians also used the P-39 (and P-63) in a ground support role. It was not perverse at all. The Russians put them to the best use possible along side their own aircraft. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On 2012-06-09 09:23:01 -0700, Alan Browne
said: On 2012-06-09 12:05 , Savageduck wrote: The P-39 was the Bell AiraCobra. They last provided some service for the USAAF in combat on Guadalcanal & New Guinea in 1942. A truly nasty aircraft we managed to dump on the Russians via Lend Lease. For some perverse reason they seemed to like them. Most of those we kept were used as target tugs or "Flying Pinball Machines". http://educationviews.org/wp-content...012/04/P39.jpg You're overstating its bad rep. Part of the Guadalcanal problem where the P-39 is concerned was that they were delivered with different oxygen charging equipment than the Navy (Marines) aircraft. So the Marines could not supply oxygen to the P-39's and there was no Army Air Force support to do it either. (The P-39 was designed as a high altitude fighter - w/o O2 that was a bit hard...) It fired IIRC a 20mm canon through the center of the propeller hub - reputedly making it very easy to aim canon fire. The P-39 never worked as a high altitude interceptor, not because of a lack of pilot O2, but because of a lack of a turbosupercharger which was added to the P-63 Kingcobra. High altitude performance was abysmal. The center line hub cannon was a 37mm, not a 20mm. The drive shaft ran between the pilot's legs and it had a tendency to snaproll off the ground. That killed quite a few US & Russian flyers. My understanding and prejudice with regard to the P-38, comes from my father's first hand experience. My father flew the P-39 in 1942 and briefly flew a P-63 in 1944. He also flew P-40's, P-47's, & P-51D's but his favorite fighter was the P-38L. He flew in two tours with the 49th Fighter Group, 9th Fighter Squadron, from New Guinea, through Leyte and Okinawa, and was among the first tactical units in Japan before the surrender to fly escort for the Japanese surrender negotiators. Here he is in a P-47D (1943) and P-38L (1944) in New Guinea. http://db.tt/xVMqhUIt http://db.tt/f4P4s6pZ Despite the oxygen issue the Army pilots used the P-39 to good effect in ground support of Marines and Army grunts on the 'canal. (They also fought air to air but nearer the island and at low alt). This free'd up the Marine pilots for patrols and air defense. Fortunately, on Guadalcanal the ground attack role suited the P-39, as they had to do the best they could, along with some very tired F4F Wildcat's, until the 5th AF got P-38's into Henderson Field. The Russians also used the P-39 (and P-63) in a ground support role. It was not perverse at all. The Russians put them to the best use possible along side their own aircraft. It was perverse in that the USAAF never got the P-39 to meet initial expectations, but the Russians certainly wrung the best out of it, but never at altitude. The Russians only got a few of the P-63s. It was the P-63 which ended it's life as the notorious "Flying Pinball Machine" in USAAF hands. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On 2012-06-09 10:23:44 -0700, Savageduck said:
On 2012-06-09 09:23:01 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2012-06-09 12:05 , Savageduck wrote: The P-39 was the Bell AiraCobra. They last provided some service for the USAAF in combat on Guadalcanal & New Guinea in 1942. A truly nasty aircraft we managed to dump on the Russians via Lend Lease. For some perverse reason they seemed to like them. Most of those we kept were used as target tugs or "Flying Pinball Machines". http://educationviews.org/wp-content...012/04/P39.jpg You're overstating its bad rep. Part of the Guadalcanal problem where the P-39 is concerned was that they were delivered with different oxygen charging equipment than the Navy (Marines) aircraft. So the Marines could not supply oxygen to the P-39's and there was no Army Air Force support to do it either. (The P-39 was designed as a high altitude fighter - w/o O2 that was a bit hard...) It fired IIRC a 20mm canon through the center of the propeller hub - reputedly making it very easy to aim canon fire. The P-39 never worked as a high altitude interceptor, not because of a lack of pilot O2, but because of a lack of a turbosupercharger which was added to the P-63 Kingcobra. High altitude performance was abysmal. The center line hub cannon was a 37mm, not a 20mm. The drive shaft ran between the pilot's legs and it had a tendency to snaproll off the ground. That killed quite a few US & Russian flyers. My understanding and prejudice with regard to the P-38, comes from my father's first hand experience. ....er that was "with regard to the P-39." My father flew the P-39 in 1942 and briefly flew a P-63 in 1944. He also flew P-40's, P-47's, & P-51D's but his favorite fighter was the P-38L. He flew in two tours with the 49th Fighter Group, 9th Fighter Squadron, from New Guinea, through Leyte and Okinawa, and was among the first tactical units in Japan before the surrender to fly escort for the Japanese surrender negotiators. Here he is in a P-47D (1943) and P-38L (1944) in New Guinea. http://db.tt/xVMqhUIt http://db.tt/f4P4s6pZ Despite the oxygen issue the Army pilots used the P-39 to good effect in ground support of Marines and Army grunts on the 'canal. (They also fought air to air but nearer the island and at low alt). This free'd up the Marine pilots for patrols and air defense. Fortunately, on Guadalcanal the ground attack role suited the P-39, as they had to do the best they could, along with some very tired F4F Wildcat's, until the 5th AF got P-38's into Henderson Field. The Russians also used the P-39 (and P-63) in a ground support role. It was not perverse at all. The Russians put them to the best use possible along side their own aircraft. It was perverse in that the USAAF never got the P-39 to meet initial expectations, but the Russians certainly wrung the best out of it, but never at altitude. The Russians only got a few of the P-63s. It was the P-63 which ended it's life as the notorious "Flying Pinball Machine" in USAAF hands. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On 2012-06-09 13:23 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-06-09 09:23:01 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2012-06-09 12:05 , Savageduck wrote: The P-39 was the Bell AiraCobra. They last provided some service for the USAAF in combat on Guadalcanal & New Guinea in 1942. A truly nasty aircraft we managed to dump on the Russians via Lend Lease. For some perverse reason they seemed to like them. Most of those we kept were used as target tugs or "Flying Pinball Machines". http://educationviews.org/wp-content...012/04/P39.jpg You're overstating its bad rep. Part of the Guadalcanal problem where the P-39 is concerned was that they were delivered with different oxygen charging equipment than the Navy (Marines) aircraft. So the Marines could not supply oxygen to the P-39's and there was no Army Air Force support to do it either. (The P-39 was designed as a high altitude fighter - w/o O2 that was a bit hard...) It fired IIRC a 20mm canon through the center of the propeller hub - reputedly making it very easy to aim canon fire. The P-39 never worked as a high altitude interceptor, not because of a lack of pilot O2, but because of a lack of a turbosupercharger which was The lack of O2 was certainly an issue on the 'canal and why the Army used it (principally) for ground support. added to the P-63 Kingcobra. High altitude performance was abysmal. The center line hub cannon was a 37mm, not a 20mm. The drive shaft ran 37mm - all the better for ground support. between the pilot's legs and it had a tendency to snaproll off the ground. That killed quite a few US & Russian flyers. My understanding and prejudice with regard to the P-38, comes from my father's first hand experience. You mean the P-39. I had never read an account about a snap roll after take off. And it doesn't make sense, a snap roll requires a high rate of incidence angle change stall and hard rudder. (A 'spin' along the flight axis). I'd say it was a torque roll instead - the wheels in contact with the ground 'hold' the torque but on liftoff the aircraft rolls opposite prop rotation. If the pilot is not anticipating it he might not correct quickly enough. (Also, since on TO with a propped aircraft the rudder is held to the right (for right turning props) on rotation to counter asymmetric thrust when the nose is raised relative to the airflow. This would be counter to the toque roll and not contribute to a "snap roll" - so if the pilot did not anticipate the need for rudder on nose up rotation it would 'add' to the torque roll tendency). Other aircraft (the Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury come to mind) were also very likely to roll on takeoff due to enormous torque unloading from the wheels). My father flew the P-39 in 1942 and briefly flew a P-63 in 1944. He also flew P-40's, P-47's, & P-51D's but his favorite fighter was the P-38L. He flew in two tours with the 49th Fighter Group, 9th Fighter Squadron, from New Guinea, through Leyte and Okinawa, and was among the first tactical units in Japan before the surrender to fly escort for the Japanese surrender negotiators. Here he is in a P-47D (1943) and P-38L (1944) in New Guinea. http://db.tt/xVMqhUIt The 'duck revealed! http://db.tt/f4P4s6pZ Great memento. Despite the oxygen issue the Army pilots used the P-39 to good effect in ground support of Marines and Army grunts on the 'canal. (They also fought air to air but nearer the island and at low alt). This free'd up the Marine pilots for patrols and air defense. Fortunately, on Guadalcanal the ground attack role suited the P-39, as they had to do the best they could, along with some very tired F4F Wildcat's, until the 5th AF got P-38's into Henderson Field. The Russians also used the P-39 (and P-63) in a ground support role. It was not perverse at all. The Russians put them to the best use possible along side their own aircraft. It was perverse in that the USAAF never got the P-39 to meet initial expectations, but the Russians certainly wrung the best out of it, but never at altitude. That's because (and your father would attest to it) that the US Army would tell pilots to use the aircraft for the purpose for which it was bought (note: the Navy were more insane in this sense but the Army was not immune). Russians don't care about why an airplane was designed only about what was needed and what worked. That's a bit snide and cynical wrt the US military at the time - but a large grain of truth is there. The Russians only got a few of the P-63s. It was the P-63 which ended it's life as the notorious "Flying Pinball Machine" in USAAF hands. Interesting. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:08:54 -0700 (PDT), otter
wrote: On Jun 9, 3:26*am, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-06-09 00:21:26 -0700, otter said: On Jun 7, 9:28*pm, tony cooper wrote: The Duck pulled it off with imagination with his bomb bay door. I was going to let Duck reply, but since he hasn't... I don't think that's a bomb bay door, it's where the wheel goes. Is that a P51 Mustang? Correct. They are the under carriage doors on a P-51D. There are no bomb bay doors on a P-51. Bombs, rockets and droppable fuel tanks (misnamed "bellytanks" because on earlier planes such as the P-40, they were carried on a centerline hardpoint.), were carried on wing hardpoints. As I explained earlier, there are actually four doors under that plane. The two center doors shown in the image, and the two doors attached to the actual landing gear struts. All four of those doors can be seen in this example of a P-51D. http://db.tt/Mccq0Lrq Here's some more pictures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfkR0U2VnSs Talking of 'tree top flyers', here is one courtesy of Airliner's Net https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Euro%20Fighter.jpg I like the way the guy in the back seat is hanging on with both hands. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On 2012-06-09 15:00:40 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:08:54 -0700 (PDT), otter wrote: On Jun 9, 3:26*am, Savageduck wrote: On 2012-06-09 00:21:26 -0700, otter said: On Jun 7, 9:28*pm, tony cooper wrote: The Duck pulled it off with imagination with his bomb bay door. I was going to let Duck reply, but since he hasn't... I don't think that's a bomb bay door, it's where the wheel goes. Is that a P51 Mustang? Correct. They are the under carriage doors on a P-51D. There are no bomb bay doors on a P-51. Bombs, rockets and droppable fuel tanks (misnamed "bellytanks" because on earlier planes such as the P-40, they were carried on a centerline hardpoint.), were carried on wing hardpoints. As I explained earlier, there are actually four doors under that plane. The two center doors shown in the image, and the two doors attached to the actual landing gear struts. All four of those doors can be seen in this example of a P-51D. http://db.tt/Mccq0Lrq Here's some more pictures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfkR0U2VnSs Talking of 'tree top flyers', here is one courtesy of Airliner's Net https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Euro%20Fighter.jpg I like the way the guy in the back seat is hanging on with both hands. Regards, Eric Stevens Those guys are in real trouble! They seem to have lost their propeller. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On 2012-06-09 18:00 , Eric Stevens wrote:
Talking of 'tree top flyers', here is one courtesy of Airliner's Net https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Euro%20Fighter.jpg I like the way the guy in the back seat is hanging on with both hands. I'm sure you know that whatever the title (tac officer, radar intercept officer ...) the guy in back is provided with several hand holds for maneuvering lest his hands flail about the cockpit injuring him or hitting buttons that shouldn't be hit. -- "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities." -Samuel Clemens. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Knock, knock - Doors
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:53:33 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: On 2012-06-09 18:00 , Eric Stevens wrote: Talking of 'tree top flyers', here is one courtesy of Airliner's Net https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Euro%20Fighter.jpg I like the way the guy in the back seat is hanging on with both hands. I'm sure you know that whatever the title (tac officer, radar intercept officer ...) the guy in back is provided with several hand holds for maneuvering lest his hands flail about the cockpit injuring him or hitting buttons that shouldn't be hit. Looking at that photograph, I'm not surprised. Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] Knock, knock - Doors | SI Committee | Digital Photography | 54 | June 10th 12 09:10 PM |
Knock down price | SumWan | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | January 30th 12 02:33 PM |
Russian knock-offs of Hasselblad | tcroyer | Other Photographic Equipment | 3 | June 12th 11 02:49 PM |
If all your after is a knock off so you can sport the name, it will not be hard for you to find one. There are many Internet sites and auction sites that claim they are selling the real luxury watches, but are not. First clue will be the price. A | pronews | Digital Photography | 0 | April 21st 08 06:39 PM |
Question: After-market batteries - dangerous knock-offs??? | BD | Digital Photography | 8 | February 13th 06 01:27 AM |