Contra-rotating props were a high tech thing and used on several designs in the need for speed search to get the most out of what props could produce before jet engines made them redundant.
WWII War Birds - pics and video
- Thread starter Sharps '63
- Start date
Contra-rotating props were a high tech thing and used on several designs in the need for speed search to get the most out of what props could produce before jet engines made them redundant.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
A little out of the timespan the thread's dedicated to, but as the Gannet is, hands down, the ugliest flying object ever (and yes, that includes bits of poo flung by monkeys at the zoo) we really should have a pic of it here:
Looks like something drawn by a 4 year old who'd been told about airplanes but hadn't ever actually seen one.
Here's some compensatory eye bleach:
Looks like something drawn by a 4 year old who'd been told about airplanes but hadn't ever actually seen one.
Here's some compensatory eye bleach:
A little out of the timespan the thread's dedicated to, but as the Gannet is, hands down, the ugliest flying object ever (and yes, that includes bits of poo flung by monkeys at the zoo) we really should have a pic of it here:
Looks like something drawn by a 4 year old who'd been told about airplanes but hadn't ever actually seen one.
Reminds me of my mother in law.
A little out of the timespan the thread's dedicated to, but as the Gannet is, hands down, the ugliest flying object ever (and yes, that includes bits of poo flung by monkeys at the zoo) we really should have a pic of it here:
Looks like something drawn by a 4 year old who'd been told about airplanes but hadn't ever actually seen one.
Here's some compensatory eye bleach:
seems to me a better name than Gannet would have been "Puffin" ... I wonder if Gannet pilots wore a mask to disguise themselves when they flew it?
That Botha looks like a Beaufort that was put together without any instruction book.
Dark Alley Dan. if you are going to put up pictures of the Botha, I had better get the eye bleach ready before you start posting pis of an Albemarle or a Hampden.
That Ki100, turned out to be surprisingly good onsiderring its' slap together nature and late war desperation.
"So honourable fellows, we have three hundred airframes of Ki61 and a factory for airframes , but inline engine factory has been bombed. What we do?"
I have always been partial to the Typhoon.
Dark Alley Dan. if you are going to put up pictures of the Botha, I had better get the eye bleach ready before you start posting pis of an Albemarle or a Hampden.
That Ki100, turned out to be surprisingly good onsiderring its' slap together nature and late war desperation.
"So honourable fellows, we have three hundred airframes of Ki61 and a factory for airframes , but inline engine factory has been bombed. What we do?"
I have always been partial to the Typhoon.
The Ki100 looks rather like a FW190 (radial version).
The Gannet actually impresses me. It was probably designed to get a heavy load of fuel and radar off the ground and then have a long anti-sub patrol time. Two engines for take off and then one engine for loitering. Thanks for posting. never seen one before. But yes, it is fugly.
A little out of the timespan the thread's dedicated to, but as the Gannet is, hands down, the ugliest flying object ever (and yes, that includes bits of poo flung by monkeys at the zoo) we really should have a pic of it here:
Looks like something drawn by a 4 year old who'd been told about airplanes but hadn't ever actually seen one.
Here's some compensatory eye bleach:
Thank you for the visual. I've been poking around one of those machines for a week now fascinated by its function and existence. Sorry if it got misled
The Brits have definitely designed some awful looking aircraft over the years. RAF Duxford has both an American and British aircraft museum and going from one to the other is quite a contrast. The American planes are sleek and streamlined while most of the Brit ones have bumps and humps all over the fuselage. Looks like the Americans started with the engine first and built an airframe to suit while the Brits built the airframe first and tried to cram the engine inside. One Brit aircraft has the cockpit well off to one side of the centerline making it look like an afterthought.
Gotta give them credit for the Spitfire and the Hurricane though, they sure got those ones right.....
Gotta give them credit for the Spitfire and the Hurricane though, they sure got those ones right.....
For those in Greater Vancouver area, the Collings Foundation is bringing a B-17 and a B-24 to the Fabulous Flying Heritage Collection in Everett WA this weekend.
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/event/everett-wa/
http://flyingheritage.com/
I am going on either Fri or Sunday.
http://www.collingsfoundation.org/event/everett-wa/
http://flyingheritage.com/
I am going on either Fri or Sunday.
You must be thinking of the DeHavilland Sea Vixen.
Those Ki 100s gave an incredible account for themselves against both B29s and against raids by navy Hellcats and Corsairs.
I wonder why the Uk never tried out standard radials in any fighters. Too busy putting the hercules in their heavy bombers?
I always wondered why the UK never tried fitting a Bristol Hercules into a fighter air frame?
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
Aesthetically, the Italians did pretty well. These are very pretty aircraft, at least to my eye:
Aside from its unfortunate underbite, the Piaggio P.108 is an Italianate B17 with Continental style:
[youtube]mukocf8aVKE[/youtube]
None of this is surprising when one considers that Bugatti himself gave us the 100P Air Racer: http://bugatti100p.com/
Aside from its unfortunate underbite, the Piaggio P.108 is an Italianate B17 with Continental style:
[youtube]mukocf8aVKE[/youtube]
None of this is surprising when one considers that Bugatti himself gave us the 100P Air Racer: http://bugatti100p.com/
Last edited:
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
More from Saipan:
Ki-46 type III "Dinah"
"The Japanese Army used this aircraft for the same type of missions (which were not authorized) over present-day Malaysia during the months before the Pacific War. Later, it was used for high altitude reconnaissance over Burma, Indochina, Thailand, and the Indian Ocean. The Ki-46 was regarded by the British RAF in Burma as a difficult aircraft to counter, only occasionally intercepting them successfully. On September 25 1944, Flying Officer Wittridge shot down a Ki-46, using a personally modified Spitfire Mk. 8. Wittridge had removed two machine guns and the seat armour, and also polished the wing leading edges to gain extra speed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obi...5357560/Flight-Lieutenant-Witt-Wittridge.html
"The Japanese Army used this aircraft for the same type of missions (which were not authorized) over present-day Malaysia during the months before the Pacific War. Later, it was used for high altitude reconnaissance over Burma, Indochina, Thailand, and the Indian Ocean. The Ki-46 was regarded by the British RAF in Burma as a difficult aircraft to counter, only occasionally intercepting them successfully. On September 25 1944, Flying Officer Wittridge shot down a Ki-46, using a personally modified Spitfire Mk. 8. Wittridge had removed two machine guns and the seat armour, and also polished the wing leading edges to gain extra speed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obi...5357560/Flight-Lieutenant-Witt-Wittridge.html
Last edited:
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
That is a VERY pretty airplane:
Sleek as hell. Quite the opposite of the big, brawling Yank aircraft.
Sleek as hell. Quite the opposite of the big, brawling Yank aircraft.
- Location
- chilliwack BC.
Dinahs are pretty cool eh? able to outrun all but a modified Mk8 Spit. Not too shabby.
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
The Japanese relied on lightness and speed. The Yanks, on brute force and technology:
