Most iconic planes of World War I and World War II

[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.