What Were the Most Iconic Planes of WWI and WWII?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Plane
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers around the most iconic planes of World War I and II, highlighting favorites such as the B-17 Flying Fortress, P-47 Thunderbolt, and F4-U Corsair. Participants delve into the design features of these aircraft, including the Corsair's bent wings, which were engineered to accommodate a powerful engine and allow for carrier landings. The discussion also touches on the Ju 87 Stuka's fixed landing gear, emphasizing its structural integrity for dive bombing. Overall, the conversation showcases a blend of nostalgia and technical insights into aviation history.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of WWII aircraft models such as B-17, P-47, and F4-U Corsair
  • Familiarity with basic aerodynamics and aircraft design principles
  • Knowledge of military aviation history, particularly WWII
  • Awareness of aircraft landing gear configurations and their implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the aerodynamic principles behind the F4-U Corsair's wing design
  • Explore the operational history and impact of the B-17 Flying Fortress in WWII
  • Investigate the engineering challenges faced by the Ju 87 Stuka and its design choices
  • Learn about the evolution of military aircraft design from WWI to WWII
USEFUL FOR

Aviation enthusiasts, historians, model builders, and anyone interested in the technical aspects and historical significance of iconic WWII aircraft.

DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
24,258
Reaction score
8,378
This came to me last night while falling asleep. I just had to see how it looked. Maybe some rainy day, I'll pop by the hobby shop and kit bash it.

LJ061027F86.jpg


And if anyone wants to see http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/vintageaircraft/sabre-picture2.jpg" ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
Hmm An F86 Bi-plane. You may be on to something here Dave.:smile:
 
It reminds me of fruit flys mutated by radiation that come out with two sets of wings.
 
zoobyshoe said:
It reminds me of fruit flys mutated by radiation that come out with two sets of wings.


Or when they play games with the homeo genes and produce legs growing out of the head.
 
selfAdjoint said:
Or when they play games with the homeo genes and produce legs growing out of the head.
Or when zoobies mutate them by mispluralization.
 
DaveC426913 said:
This came to me last night while falling asleep. I just had to see how it looked. Maybe some rainy day, I'll pop by the hobby shop and kit bash it.
Some things just aren't meant to be. :rolleyes: :biggrin:

That's post WWII. :-p
 
Anyway, my favorite WWII plane is the beautiful B-17. Actually, it's my all time favorite plane.

galloway.jpg
 
DaveC426913 said:
This came to me last night while falling asleep. I just had to see how it looked. Maybe some rainy day, I'll pop by the hobby shop and kit bash it.
Nice job on the image! But pilots would have hated it with a passion. Quiz question -- why?
 
berkeman said:
Nice job on the image! But pilots would have hated it with a passion. Quiz question -- why?
For one thing it would have terrible forward visibility.

Let's not even mention drag!
 
  • #10
Integral said:
For one thing it would have terrible forward visibility.

Let's not even mention drag!
I was going to say the same thing. A pilot couldn't see what's coming at 12 o'clock. To much forward visibility would be compromised. :rolleyes: I have to wonder if the struts would be strong enough, too.
 
  • #11
zoobyshoe said:
Anyway, my favorite WWII plane is the beautiful B-17. Actually, it's my all time favorite plane.
The B-29 is my favorite 4 engine craft.

For fighters it's hard to pick a favorite, but it would be the P-47 Thunderbolt or P-38 Lightning, but I also like the Supermarine Spitfire and Vought Corsair, and then there is the DeHaviland Mosquito, which is really cool. I'd be happy to fly any of them. :-p :biggrin:
 
  • #13
berkeman said:
Hey, speaking of airplane quiz questions, does anybody know why the WWII F4-U Corsair had bent wings? I finally found out why, and the answer is pretty interesting. Why do the wing roots bend down, and then back up for the rest of the wing?

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...144&prev=/images?q=corsair&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=


Because to land on an aircraft carrier the struts had to be small to take the forces, and yet allow the propellor arc to clear the flight deck. :rolleyes:

I know a guy who flew F-4U's during the war. His name is "Mo-Chance". Gota pic of him in his plane. Ill post it in a bit.
 
  • #14
cyrusabdollahi said:
Because to land on an aircraft carrier the struts had to be small to take the forces, and yet allow the propellor arc to clear the flight deck. :rolleyes:
Ding ding ding. We have a winnah. BTW, the rest of the explanation that I heard was that the Corsair had an unusually large and powerful engine, and Vaught wanted to use a bigger propeller to take advantage of the extra power. But the landing struts ended up too long for carrier landings as Cyrus says, so that's why they bent the wing roots down.

The whole time I was watching Black Sheep Squadron on TV many years ago, I kept trying to figure out some aerodynamic reason for the bend...never did get it. Until I heard the explanation years later on a documentary show on the Military Channel.
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
This came to me last night while falling asleep. I just had to see how it looked. Maybe some rainy day, I'll pop by the hobby shop and kit bash it.

LJ061027F86.jpg


And if anyone wants to see http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/vintageaircraft/sabre-picture2.jpg" ...


You really did a bang up job fotoshopping there my friend, Fooled me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
berkeman said:
Ding ding ding. We have a winnah. BTW, the rest of the explanation that I heard was that the Corsair had an unusually large and powerful engine, and Vaught wanted to use a bigger propeller to take advantage of the extra power. But the landing struts ended up too long for carrier landings as Cyrus says, so that's why they bent the wing roots down.

The whole time I was watching Black Sheep Squadron on TV many years ago, I kept trying to figure out some aerodynamic reason for the bend...never did get it. Until I heard the explanation years later on a documentary show on the Military Channel.


Here is a question for you buddy, how did they come up with the folding wings on the Hellcat?
 
  • #17
cyrusabdollahi said:
Here is a question for you buddy, how did they come up with the folding wings on the Hellcat?
That's a trick question. They don't fold.

At least I don't see any images of folded wings or Hellcats on carriers for that matter. But I could be wrong of course...:blushing:

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=hellcat
 
  • #18
Yes, they do fold. Keep searching, though you only have one foot left. :wink: :smile:

Here's a pic of Mo.

mo.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #19
http://63.192.133.13/VMF-312/New_MOChance.jpg

Mo in the bottom F4-U (530).


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3759/3flightlo1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
DaveC426913 said:
LJ061027F86.jpg

Oh yes, those are used for crop dusting.
 
  • #21
edward said:
Hmm An F86 Bi-plane. You may be on to something here Dave.:smile:
I call it the Sopwith F86 Sabre because I'm thinking about pairing it with a Fokker-Mig15 Triplane! (in red)
 
  • #22
Astronuc said:
That's post WWII. :-p
Slaps forehead. You know, I just didn't even think when I wrote that. Should've said Korean...
 
  • #23
cyrusabdollahi said:
Because to land on an aircraft carrier the struts had to be small to take the forces, and yet allow the propellor arc to clear the flight deck. :rolleyes:
Huh. I always wondered that too. I too assumed some aerodynamic thing.

So, is that true for the Stuka too?
 
  • #24
Stuka had fixed landing gear
and was not a carrier plane
 
  • #25
bi-planes work at LOW speed
wing tip votex kill speed by interaction
 
  • #27
ray b said:
bi-planes work at LOW speed
wing tip votex kill speed by interaction


True in general, but I remember some speculative constructions from the early 60's that found arrangements where that doen't necessarily happen. I believe I saw one that was claimed to be supersonic. This is when that was a hot topic and the "area rule" was new.
 
  • #28
turbo-1 said:
Actually, this one was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-15_Belphegor

How ugly can a plane get?

I think that's about it!

What is really funny is what I nearly posted instead of the crop dusting "joke": I was going to say that it looks Russian to me. :smile:
 
  • #29
ray b said:
Stuka had fixed landing gear
and was not a carrier plane
That's what I thought too. So why the strange wing configuration? Can't be for the same reason as the Corsair.
 
  • #30
It could be for a similar reason. Low wing position allows shorter landing gear struts which cause less drag and are probably stronger - an advantage when you need to operate out of rough air-strips.
 

Similar threads

COVID Reaction to COVID-19 Vaccine (or what to be prepared for)
  • · Replies 287 ·
10
Replies
287
Views
27K
What Are Your Ideas for a Photo Contest Theme?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
49K
Other Can You Succeed in Astronomy Without Strong Spatial Ability?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
What if Gravity could be controlled?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Graduate What Are S-Particles and How Do They Affect Gravity?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Re-taking a failed semester in collage and dropping the previous recorded one?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Mechanical Engineering (BS) Vs. Pursuing Physics PhD
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
What is the Connection Between Cortisol and Smoking?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
39K
PF Fan Fiction: Mathematicians in Love
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K