What Were the Most Iconic Planes of WWI and WWII?

[DaveC426913]

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.

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

 

[edward]

Hmm An F86 Bi-plane. You may be on to something here Dave.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It reminds me of fruit flys mutated by radiation that come out with two sets of wings.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Or when they play games with the homeo genes and produce legs growing out of the head.

Or when zoobies mutate them by mispluralization.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

That's post WWII.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

 

[berkeman]

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?

 

[Integral]

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!

 

[Astronuc]

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. I have to wonder if the struts would be strong enough, too.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[berkeman]

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=

 

[Cyrus]

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.

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.

 

[berkeman]

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.

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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?

 

[berkeman]

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...

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=hellcat

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, they do fold. Keep searching, though you only have one foot left.

Here's a pic of Mo.

 

[Cyrus]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, those are used for crop dusting.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmm An F86 Bi-plane. You may be on to something here Dave.

I call it the Sopwith F86 Sabre because I'm thinking about pairing it with a Fokker-Mig15 Triplane! (in red)

 

[DaveC426913]

That's post WWII.

Slaps forehead. You know, I just didn't even think when I wrote that. Should've said Korean...

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

Huh. I always wondered that too. I too assumed some aerodynamic thing.

So, is that true for the Stuka too?

 

[ray b]

Stuka had fixed landing gear
and was not a carrier plane

 

[ray b]

bi-planes work at LOW speed
wing tip votex kill speed by interaction

 

[turbo]

Oh yes, those are used for crop dusting.

Actually, this one was:

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

How ugly can a plane get?

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

Wiki:
"Its rugged fixed undercarriage allowed it to land and take-off from improvised airstrips close to the battlefront, giving close support to the advancing German forces."

 

[Astronuc]

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.

I think it to do with the large bomb carried underneath the fuselage.

The Ju 87A was able to carry a single 500 kg bomb but only without the rear gunner and at short ranges.

The Ju 87B might have been able to carry a single 1000 kg bomb but only without rear gunner and at short ranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

IIRC, the bomb was attached to a hinge and cradle underneath the fuselage. The hinge allowed the bomb to clear the propeller in a dive (like the SDB Dauntless).

 

[turbo]

Out of curiosity, I Googled Stuka, and the consensus seems to be that the decision to stick with fixed landing gear was driven by the need for structural integrity. These planes were designed to dive at 80 degree angles and the abrupt pull-up after bomb release demanded very strong wings. Wing strength would have been compromised by the addition of recesses for retractable landing gear, so the wheels were mounted on fixed struts. The reverse-gull-wing design was adopted so that the struts could be as short as practical, which made them less prone to flexure on landing and take-off in rough airstrips. The struts and wheels were skirted to reduce drag in the air, and also to make them less likely to be fouled by vegetation, etc in the rough makeshift airfields that the Stukas were deployed from. Since their landing gear was very simple and rugged, the Stukas could be based very near the front lines and could fly more sorties per day than planes with retractable landing gear that had to use more conventional airstrips. This gave better air-support to the ground troops, more opportunities to destroy bridges and attack convoys, etc, and saved in fuel (very important!). When the cowlings around the wheels were reduced in size (later in production) they were often removed in the field because mud could foul them and prevent the wheels from spinning freely.

 

[MadScientist 1000]

Thinking stragetically about the Ju87B's ability to carry a single bomb, wouldn't it be better to just put multiple, smaller bombs mounted under the undercarriage in rows of 2, which would give the bombs a better chance of hitting the target.

I mean, the same principle is used on the Starscream I missile used on the Thor Anti Aircraft (and also anti naval and ground systems since the Star I can target tanks, and ships (basically an anti everything missile)) Mobile Defense systems (Star I has 3 smaller darts that can track a target using the grid laser projected from the Thor system.)

I used a parenthesis inside a parentheis

 

[Cyrus]

what are you talking about?

 

[edward]

what are you talking about?

LOL here is the only Starscream that I know about.
http://www.tfu.info/2001/Decepticon/StarscreamClear/starscream.htm

The Thor mobile anti aircraft system is real.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/thor.htm

But if the mad scientist can get it to work, more power to him.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thinking stragetically about the Ju87B's ability to carry a single bomb, wouldn't it be better to just put multiple, smaller bombs mounted under the undercarriage in rows of 2, which would give the bombs a better chance of hitting the target.

The whole point of the Stuka and its ability to dive on a target at very steep angles is to make hitting the target a lot more possible. That being the case, they can put a single, bigger bomb on the plane. (which is better payload-wise than several smaller ones).