Corsair's are my fav's... but then I've always been a Radial engine whore. They're so awesome.
Corsair's are my fav's... but then I've always been a Radial engine whore. They're so awesome.
Oh and by the way, this will be at Oshkosh: A WB-57F. It sat for 41 in the boneyard before being resurrected.
I always thought these were really cool looking airplanes. The mid engine design is unusual, too.
My main problem with the AirCobra was the propeller shaft spinning between your legs at 2000+rpm's.
Duke wrote: It's *especially* astonishing when you consider that about 25 years separated the two groups of aircraft. That's like going from a Model T to a Ferrari Dino in 25 years of development.
Expanding that outward, it's only ~60 years separation between the wright brothers Flyer (1903) and the sr71. Blows my mind.
Flynlow wrote:Duke wrote: It's *especially* astonishing when you consider that about 25 years separated the two groups of aircraft. That's like going from a Model T to a Ferrari Dino in 25 years of development.Expanding that outward, it's only ~60 years separation between the wright brothers Flyer (1903) and Landing on the moon. Blows my mind.
Fixed that for you.
Bobzilla wrote:Flynlow wrote:Fixed that for you.Duke wrote: It's *especially* astonishing when you consider that about 25 years separated the two groups of aircraft. That's like going from a Model T to a Ferrari Dino in 25 years of development.Expanding that outward, it's only ~60 years separation between the wright brothers Flyer (1903) and Landing on the moon. Blows my mind.
Agreed! I was just limiting myself to WWI vs WWII aircraft, in response to the earlier poster.
Oh, technology evolved so fast post WWII. There was a decent leap forward during the war years due to necessity. From there to Vietnam it was nuts.
Hell.... From my earliest memories (79/80) to today I have a hard time comprehending our technological advancements.
EDIT: When you realize that when the B-17 prototype was first flown, we did not have an operational fighter that was fast enough to intercept it. (1935) From there we developed the P-51 fighter and B-29 amongst other awesome equipment that was just unfathomable 10 years before.
Bobzilla wrote: My main problem with the AirCobra was the propeller shaft spinning between your legs at 2000+rpm's.
You some kind of a chicken? 
I gotta admit, it would have been nice of the designers to put a tunnel over it.
Bobzilla wrote: My main problem with the AirCobra was the propeller shaft spinning between your legs at 2000+rpm's.
Pilots' main problem with it was that it wasn't a very good airplane, especially at altitude.
Bobzilla wrote:Flynlow wrote:Fixed that for you.Duke wrote: It's *especially* astonishing when you consider that about 25 years separated the two groups of aircraft. That's like going from a Model T to a Ferrari Dino in 25 years of development.Expanding that outward, it's only ~60 years separation between the wright brothers Flyer (1903) and the SR71. Blows my mind.
My thoughts don't need fixing 
. I stand by what I said. Because SR71.
Curmudgeon wrote:Bobzilla wrote: My main problem with the AirCobra was the propeller shaft spinning between your legs at 2000+rpm's.You some kind of a chicken?
To quote Edna from The Incredibles, "No Capes!!!"
Flynlow wrote:Duke wrote: It's *especially* astonishing when you consider that about 25 years separated the two groups of aircraft. That's like going from a Model T to a Ferrari Dino in 25 years of development.Expanding that outward, it's only ~60 years separation between the wright brothers Flyer (1903) and the sr71. Blows my mind.
In 1959 we could hardly get a rocket off the launch pad. We stepped on the moon ten years later.
Will wrote:Bobzilla wrote: My main problem with the AirCobra was the propeller shaft spinning between your legs at 2000+rpm's.Pilots' main problem with it was that it wasn't a very good airplane, especially at altitude.
It just needed moar supercharger!
Moar boost will fix anything short of a broken heart.
spitfirebill wrote:Will wrote:It just needed moar supercharger!Bobzilla wrote: My main problem with the AirCobra was the propeller shaft spinning between your legs at 2000+rpm's.Pilots' main problem with it was that it wasn't a very good airplane, especially at altitude.
Pretty much actually. And the original (larger) tail put back on.
In reply to keethrax:
I believe they also had pretty awful spin characteristics thanks to the engine placement. Pilots didn't like the car door, and the 37mm was pretty useless for A2A.
In reply to Will:
IIRC, a bunch were sent to Mother Russia and used very effectively in a ground attack role, but they sure didn't use them as fighters.
Yeah, the Russians loved the P-39. Combat on the Eastern Front tended to take place almost entirely at low level, unlike the West and the Pacific. That minimized the Airacobra's disadvantages.
Go Pro helmet cam of a P-47 flight. Starts getting good around 10 min in.
http://youtu.be/xBVj4I3bHik
Will wrote: Yeah, the Russians loved the P-39. Combat on the Eastern Front tended to take place almost entirely at low level, unlike the West and the Pacific. That minimized the Airacobra's disadvantages.
and that 37mm cannon was great for ground attack (which I believe they used it for almost exclusively int the early years.)
Appleseed wrote: My yearly fix will come next week at Oshkosh.
Going to be there on Monday July 28th. Sadly only for one day.
Will wrote: In reply to keethrax: I believe they also had pretty awful spin characteristics thanks to the engine placement. Pilots didn't like the car door, and the 37mm was pretty useless for A2A.
Most "fighters" designed in the late 30's as the P-39 was, were intended as "interceptors" and not expected to have to fight other fighters. The big gun the P-39 had was intended to shoot down bombers from a distance that the bombers guns could not reach it at. Germany fitted many ME-110's and other planes with large guns, up to 50 MM in size. All to try to shoot down B-17 & B-24's with out having to deal with the 50 Cal tail guns these plane sported. This worked for a while as the P-47 & P-38 were limited in range, even with drop tanks. With the introduction of the Packard built Merlin engine in the P-51D the whole game changed for the worse for the German Air Force! Now our bombers were escorted all the way to the target and back with each US fighter protecting the bombers for part of the trip with the Mustangs taking the deepest part, right over the German airfields.
Bobzilla wrote: When you realize that when the B-17 prototype was first flown, we did not have an operational fighter that was fast enough to intercept it. (1935) From there we developed the P-51 fighter and B-29 amongst other awesome equipment that was just unfathomable 10 years before.
That and the P38 was the first that could easily, and the only US fighter to be built throughout the war. Amazing how only the Pacific guys figured out how to actually use the damn thing.
jimbbski wrote:Will wrote: In reply to keethrax: I believe they also had pretty awful spin characteristics thanks to the engine placement. Pilots didn't like the car door, and the 37mm was pretty useless for A2A.Most "fighters" designed in the late 30's as the P-39 was, were intended as "interceptors" and not expected to have to fight other fighters. The big gun the P-39 had was intended to shoot down bombers from a distance that the bombers guns could not reach it at.
Yup. Of course, the Japanese got around that problem by flying their bombers at altitudes the P-39 couldn't reach.
Of course, my favorite useless Bell fighter was the YFM-1 Airacuda, which looks as if it was designed by the same guy that designed GI Joe vehicles.
"Hey Frank, don't you think that thing needs some more gunners in big plexi bubbles in questionable locations?
You'll need to log in to post.
