A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Knock, knock - Doors



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 9th 12, 09:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 9th 12, 04:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 9th 12, 05:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old June 9th 12, 06:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 9th 12, 06:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 9th 12, 06:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old June 9th 12, 11:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old June 9th 12, 11:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old June 10th 12, 03:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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  
Old June 10th 12, 09:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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, knock - Doors Savageduck[_3_] 35mm Photo Equipment 9 June 10th 12 09:10 PM
Knock down price SumWan Digital SLR Cameras 5 January 30th 12 03:33 PM
Russian knock-offs of Hasselblad tcroyer Other Photographic Equipment 3 June 12th 11 02:49 PM
Question: After-market batteries - dangerous knock-offs??? BD Digital Photography 8 February 13th 06 02:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.