zaarin7
Lieutenant
I'm up for Vassal/Skype gameing.
Posts: 150
|
Post by zaarin7 on Jul 17, 2017 16:41:53 GMT -7
My dad was a pilot for awhile ween I was a kid. He learned in a Piper Cub off a grass strip along a local river. I was 5 at the time. As you all know a Cub will take off in a light breeze. Well he was taxiing back and forth with me with him when that breeze came up and off we went. The instructor said from the ground to go around the pattern once and land so he did. That counted as his 'solo' flight. Of course this was 1969 I doubt it would have passed today. The FAA fighter below the Buccaneer is a Scimitar if I remember right. I remember seeing one at the FAA Museum in Yeavolton. And careful what you say about the Phantom II. It's a beauuutiful plane!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 16:49:52 GMT -7
It's a "Sea Vixen". The Brits made some weird looking jets. They appear to have flown well, but were just odd. My favorite Brit jets are the English Electric Lightning, and the Harrier.
And the Phantom II is a gorgeous old plane. Still not as pretty as an F-5 or F-15, but she really has some classic lines, and a roar that will shake you out of your bunk. My favorite configuration was the F-4G "Wild Weasel". You and your dad are lucky guys! I have worked on Piper Cubs, Super Cubs, and Colts, but sadly never flown in one. I would love to take a little trip in a Colt or Pacer. Just a classic old plane. just as simple as can be, and reliable. A pair of the new "Carbon Cubs" flew over me when I was at the Dog Park a few weeks ago. Pretty, but not the same. Anyone know what this little gem is called:
|
|
zaarin7
Lieutenant
I'm up for Vassal/Skype gameing.
Posts: 150
|
Post by zaarin7 on Jul 17, 2017 17:14:37 GMT -7
Your right my bad for working from 53 year old memory lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 18:01:35 GMT -7
Your right my bad for working from 53 year old memory lol. No worries. I thought the Scimitar was a Rolls-Royce engine, but it turns out it was a Supermarine Airplane.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jul 21, 2017 10:14:42 GMT -7
I guess i was lucky when it came to learning to fly, My grandad was a pilot in the Navy and he also taught people to fly on the side, so when i was old enough he took me out to his old Piper Tri-Pacer and put me through the lessons, as well as he payed for me to have the ground school.
so I guess, i was one of the few...who learned to fly..the problem is on my finances right now, i can barley keep the Tri-Pacer in the air. I fly her enough to keep my certifications and to keep her air worthy.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jul 21, 2017 10:21:05 GMT -7
It's a "Sea Vixen". The Brits made some weird looking jets. They appear to have flown well, but were just odd. My favorite Brit jets are the English Electric Lightning, and the Harrier.
And the Phantom II is a gorgeous old plane. Still not as pretty as an F-5 or F-15, but she really has some classic lines, and a roar that will shake you out of your bunk. My favorite configuration was the F-4G "Wild Weasel". You and your dad are lucky guys! I have worked on Piper Cubs, Super Cubs, and Colts, but sadly never flown in one. I would love to take a little trip in a Colt or Pacer. Just a classic old plane. just as simple as can be, and reliable. A pair of the new "Carbon Cubs" flew over me when I was at the Dog Park a few weeks ago. Pretty, but not the same. Anyone know what this little gem is called: The McDonnell F-4 is proof you can make a brick fly. It has the glide ratio of 1:1. meaning at a dead stick she fall 1 foot for every foot forward. That instability did make the "Golden Brick" a good dog fighter for its size, but it still had trouble dealing with the small Mig-21. It's reliance on missiles also made for a problem because the initial models of Sidewinder and Sparrow had problems. But once the problems with missiles were solved and the addition of guns by the Air Force on the F-4E, the Phantom was able to stay comparative into the 1980's. It was a good plane....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 10:58:35 GMT -7
I guess i was lucky when it came to learning to fly, My grandad was a pilot in the Navy and he also taught people to fly on the side, so when i was old enough he took me out to his old Piper Tri-Pacer and put me through the lessons, as well as he payed for me to have the ground school. so I guess, i was one of the few...who learned to fly..the problem is on my finances right now, i can barley keep the Tri-Pacer in the air. I fly her enough to keep my certifications and to keep her air worthy. If you can get it to Atlanta, I'll work on it for you (cheap). A Tri-Pacer annual really only takes an afternoon (IIRC), she's a wonderfully simple and elegant little plane, and those rag-wing pipers are always fun to work on. I have the same issue - no money and no time. Kids, house, dog, all cutting into my finances and flying time. I really miss scooting around in the AA-1A. As soon as you push the throttle forward, the rest of the world vanishes and you're "alive". Not something you can really explain to a ground pounder.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jul 21, 2017 11:46:31 GMT -7
I guess i was lucky when it came to learning to fly, My grandad was a pilot in the Navy and he also taught people to fly on the side, so when i was old enough he took me out to his old Piper Tri-Pacer and put me through the lessons, as well as he payed for me to have the ground school. so I guess, i was one of the few...who learned to fly..the problem is on my finances right now, i can barley keep the Tri-Pacer in the air. I fly her enough to keep my certifications and to keep her air worthy. If you can get it to Atlanta, I'll work on it for you (cheap). A Tri-Pacer annual really only takes an afternoon (IIRC), she's a wonderfully simple and elegant little plane, and those rag-wing pipers are always fun to work on. I have the same issue - no money and no time. Kids, house, dog, all cutting into my finances and flying time. I really miss scooting around in the AA-1A. As soon as you push the throttle forward, the rest of the world vanishes and you're "alive". Not something you can really explain to a ground pounder. Oh, I do so know what you mean....i go to that Tri-Pacer and run through the checklists and put her on the line and advance that throttle and just let the world fall away...that little Piper of mine is one hell of a plane...it has been in the family since the 1950's
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jul 21, 2017 11:50:09 GMT -7
it would be several humps to get from San Bernadino to Atlanta...but it could be fun
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 12:28:59 GMT -7
That might eat up any cost savings I could offer. lol!
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jul 21, 2017 13:30:52 GMT -7
An EXCELLENT fighter from WWI is no match for an OKAY fighter from WWII. The WWI planes could enter a maneuver more quickly than a plane from WWII, because they were 1. flying slower, and 2. weighed a lot less (less inertial to overcome). But once in the maneuver, the more modern plane very quickly regains the advantage. Especially in climbs (where the WWII plane has much more reserve power) and dives (where all those struts and wires slowed them down). This was all pretty well demonstrated in the Spanish Civil War, Germany's invasion of Poland (and even the Soviet Union), and Japan's invasion of China. Biplanes can avoid the inevitable for a while, but they can never go on the offensive against something like a Me-109, Zero, Sptifire, Warhawk, or Wildcat. Think of it like this; the difference between a Camel and a P-51, is about the same as the difference between a P-51 and an ME-262. The only way a guy in a P-51 could shoot down an Me-262 was to be really lucky, or managed to catch the jet on take-off or landing. I used to know a guy who shot down a Soviet MiG with a P-51 over Korea (he said he got lucky)- I listened to everything he ever told me about flying, and flew with him at every opportunity... The Zero was a really cool plane, but was only maneuverable up to a certain speed (about 200 kts ±). It had really big flight controls so it could maneuver very well at "combat speed". It was also really light, so it was nimble and could climb very well. By comparison the US was flying big, cumbersome tanks. The US planes had better guns, armor plate to protect the pilot, self-sealing fuel tanks, and basically a tougher plane. On the other hand the zero was said to "simply vanish" when it took a hit from a P-38's 4 .50 cals + 1 20 mm. Every advantage the Zero had (except for lower speed maneuverability) vanished with the introduction of the Hellcat and Corsair, and even the upgraded Wildcats proved equal to the Zero. There are stories from WWII where Zeroes would empty their guns into an American plane, and the Yank flew back to base and landed safely. The same thing happened over Europe with Me-109's and FW-190's vs P-38's and P-47's. By the end of WWII, we had reached the end of the evolutionary line for piston-and-prop fighters. A turbo-prop may have given a slight advantage, but not much. Once we got jet fighters, we never looked back. At present, an F-22 Raptor can maneuver with a Sopwith Camel - or anything else (even without the stealth, it is an "alpha predator"). Basically the USAF brass sat down, drank some beers and came up with their ultimate dream fighter. Lockheed got back with them and said "We can give you everything on the list, except the laser." (Lockheed now has a BizJet with the airborne laser [ LINK]). But then, maneuverability is not as important as GUNS. The deadliest fighter-killer of WWII was the B-17. Today there are scenarios where F-22's or F-35's act as spotters for B-1's, B-2's or B-52's stuffed to the gills with long range air-to-air missiles. The Fighters select the targets, the bomber launches the missiles, and the other guys fall out of the sky. No, not really true....The Me 262 has speed on it's side but if it comes into a dog fight with the P-51D then it becomes the advantage of the Mustang. The Mustang could easily turn inside the German jet and many of them were brought down that way. What gave the jet the advantage was its ability to extend out of the fight if it got into trouble...pure on the juice and get away from the Mustang and then come back in for more. The main tactic used in aerial combat by the 262 was against allied bomber formations they would make a high speed pass picking a target and then extend out and then come back in for another run. And at speeds the German jets just couldn't turn on a dime...to dogfight they actually had to bring down to speeds similar to the prop planes they were trying to kill...
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 21, 2017 15:44:29 GMT -7
Yep - the 262 was fast - about 100 mph faster than the P-51...in a straight line. The P-51 had the edge in handling by a long shot, as did the Spitfire and even Germany's own prop fighters.
Speed is a valuable defense in air combat, speed can be converted to altitude when you need to and that becomes an advantage in potential energy you can then use to scream down on any bomber or fighter you need to kill.
This has always been an interesting contrast to WWI air combat where the Red Baron always preferred to turn (to be fair, in the most insanely nimble aircraft in history, the Dr.1). Playing old computer games like - coincidentally - Red Baron, I found that faster aircraft could USUALLY win so long as you made sure NOT to try to turn in on a more maneuverable aircraft. Just zoom and boom...
But, I also found that - yep - the Dr.1 is a VERY dangerous aircraft. I found it frustrating to use against Spad XIII's and SE.5a's since they had such a speed advantage but, if you watch what you are doing, it's fairly easy to avoid their fire. Just hard to drop them if you can't in there quick enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 17:35:35 GMT -7
Still love civil planes more. Probably because I work in a factory building war machines. This little beauty is a Culver Cadet, designed by Al Mooney who went on to start his own airplane company. It's a really slick old plane, and I have always thought it was just pretty as can be. Now this: Is a Ford Flivver. Another classy old plane from the late 1920's. Only a couple were built but it sure had some golden-age style to it. The engine is a Air Cooled, Opposed two-cylinder designed by the guys at Ford. If only they had gone with a Chevy engine, it might have worked...
|
|
zaarin7
Lieutenant
I'm up for Vassal/Skype gameing.
Posts: 150
|
Post by zaarin7 on Jul 24, 2017 16:13:44 GMT -7
My dad's airplane was a Tri-Pacer.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jul 24, 2017 16:25:03 GMT -7
My dad's airplane was a Tri-Pacer. I love my old girl, My late wife said she never had to worry about me taking a mistress, because no other woman can compete against that 'damn airplane'
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 24, 2017 18:46:15 GMT -7
Here's a site that I like just to see good photos of some classic - and modern aircraft (along with armor etc...): www.cybermodeler.com/index.shtmlThe site is mainly oriented toward modelers but, there is just sooooo much good info on it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 15:01:46 GMT -7
I spent part of each day this week listening to the ATC feed from Oshkosh. Busy little place with some very cool planes flying around. I heard that the first production Cessna 172 is on display. Cool old bird.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 10:26:39 GMT -7
My ride, when I was in the Army:
|
|
|
Post by jeffwright on Jul 30, 2017 13:32:30 GMT -7
Nice!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 14:30:06 GMT -7
48 foot wingspan, 20 feet of propeller and 1,400 hp per engine. It climbed like a rocket. Cruised at 200 mph, maxed out at 300 mph. Three camera mounts, one airborne radar boom, and anti-missile pod, and a flare chaff dispenser in the belly. In Vietnam they carried .50 cal pods and 2.75 in rocket pods under the wings (one even managed to down a MiG). So quiet that you could not hear it until it was right over head. Landed at 85 mph. Not bad for nine tons of old-school aluminum and wire. Pain in the ass to work on, but I sure do miss it. Really nice article (though I did spot a few errors) [ ARTICLE] [ ARTICLE]
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jul 30, 2017 15:23:51 GMT -7
48 foot wingspan, 20 feet of propeller and 1,400 hp per engine. It climbed like a rocket. Cruised at 200 mph, maxed out at 300 mph. Three camera mounts, one airborne radar boom, and anti-missile pod, and a flare chaff dispenser in the belly. In Vietnam they carried .50 cal pods and 2.75 in rocket pods under the wings (one even managed to down a MiG). So quiet that you could not hear it until it was right over head. Landed at 85 mph. Not bad for nine tons of old-school aluminum and wire. Pain in the ass to work on, but I sure do miss it. Really nice article (though I did spot a few errors) [ ARTICLE] [ ARTICLE] In Vietnam, it was also used as a communications platform and reconnaissance for Spec Ops.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 30, 2017 18:50:47 GMT -7
One of the most versatile aircraft in service at that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2017 18:52:02 GMT -7
Ever wanna fly one of these? I just looks too damned fun.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 31, 2017 18:54:51 GMT -7
I'll stick to the Curtis P6-E Hawk instead...
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jul 31, 2017 21:40:36 GMT -7
The P-6E Hawk was a good fighter, though i think both the Boeing P-12 and P-26 were better buys for the Army Air Corps
|
|