# Most Beautiful Aircraft of WW2?



## gomwolf (Sep 12, 2014)

Beautiful means, not about performance, only about looking good. Please choice only one aircraft you think beautiful.

I vote to Bf109. I think it has sharpe shape and beautility.8)8)


Vote finished!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 12, 2014)

I would have to vote for the Me-262, just beautiful and graceful looking at the same time.


----------



## Siddley (Sep 12, 2014)

Mitsubishi Ki 46


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 12, 2014)

I'll second Me 262.


----------



## Bad-Karma (Sep 12, 2014)

Always been fond of the P40

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 12, 2014)

This is a personal opinion question and no wrong answer. The Spitfires wing makes it commonly regarded as the most beautiful aircraft of WWII. The Corsair's inverted gull wing always does a little something for me. Some may like the 12 .50's on a B-17. IMO, these are mine.

#1 - Corsair
#2 - P-38
#3 - P-40
#4 - Fw-190
#5 - Me-262

plus many others........


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2014)

Several fighters and bombers catch my eye, but for me, the He280 was a good looking machine.

Elliptical wing, streamlined fuselage all with a hint of 1930's styling. Just an all around good looking aircraft.


----------



## norab (Sep 12, 2014)

Mosquito

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Augsburg Eagle (Sep 12, 2014)

Difficult question, but I also advocate the Me 262.
It´s just beautiful.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 12, 2014)

Fiat G.55.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Sep 12, 2014)

Again? Well, my choice is known I guess:

Fokker G-1 Mercury


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 12, 2014)

We all know Terry will vote for the Wildcat, so we will just submit his vote now!


----------



## stan reid (Sep 12, 2014)

I'll say:

Inline>P-51
Radial>Fw-190
Pure thrust>Me-163


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2014)

Bf 109

Case closed...


----------



## Bad-Karma (Sep 12, 2014)

Thorlifter said:


> This is a personal opinion question and no wrong answer. The Spitfires wing makes it commonly regarded as the most beautiful aircraft of WWII. The Corsair's inverted gull wing always does a little something for me. Some may like the 12 .50's on a B-17. IMO, these are mine.
> 
> #1 - Corsair
> #2 - P-38
> ...



With a signature like that p40 should be number 1!


----------



## herman1rg (Sep 12, 2014)

de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Sep 12, 2014)

Either a malcolm hood Mk.XIV Spitfire with UNclipped wings (or a PR.XIX), or a Bf109K. Special mention to the Ki-61


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 12, 2014)

Mosquito with Ki-46 and Breda Ba.88 close second and third (amazing that the Breda can be good at SOMETHING!)


----------



## Wurger (Sep 12, 2014)

Spitfire and Dewoitine D.520.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 12, 2014)

Lockheed Constellation.

Why limit to combat aircraft?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Sep 12, 2014)

My choices are the following.
#1: AT-6
#2:FW190
#3-51
#4:B-17
#5:B-29
#6:MOSQUITO
#7:ZERO
If I didn't stop my list would never end since there were so many to choose from.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Coors9 (Sep 12, 2014)

I"m a sucker for the p-40B. Close second is the birdcaged Corsairs and Stangs.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Sep 12, 2014)

Predictable I know, but it's got to be a Spitfire PR.X in PRU blue. Nothing beats a Merlin Spitfire with a full wing.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 12, 2014)

Brewster Buffalo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 12, 2014)

Please choose only one aircraft or make the list and choose your favorite.

Until now~.

Bf109 2
Me262 3
Ki-46 1
P-40 2
F4U 1
He260 1
Mosquito 2
G.55 1
G-1 1
Spitfire 2
Constellation 1
AT-6 1
Buffalo 1

plural answer was invailded. It will be totalized on 20 september.


----------



## kettbo (Sep 12, 2014)

any Bf109G in the light gray overall! Hohen Staffel or Night Fighter, especially one with the refined cowl



off topic but years back my pops had rcvd a 8.5x11 pic of an F-4 Phantom II in overall gloss white. SLICK LOOKING!


----------



## CommanderBounds (Sep 12, 2014)

Definitely Bf109 for me! Preferably a E-3 or E-4 with a yellow nose.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 12, 2014)

gomwolf said:


> Until now~.
> 
> Bf109 2
> Me262 3
> ...


Be sure to catch that typographical error, that should read: *He280*


----------



## Elmas (Sep 13, 2014)

If you had to choose the most beautiful car in the world, what do you say?







of course.

Re 2005 was built 20 miles far from Maranello.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Sep 13, 2014)

Me-163.


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 13, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Be sure to catch that typographical error, that should read: *He280*



Thanks for advice~!


----------



## redcoat (Sep 13, 2014)

Spitfire IX


----------



## glennasher (Sep 13, 2014)

51D, or Spitfire IX, with an honorable mention to the P-40Q (yes, I know it wasn't a production aircraft, but it sure was pretty).


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 13, 2014)

*F4U*


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 13, 2014)

glennasher said:


> 51D, or Spitfire IX, with an honorable mention to the P-40Q (yes, I know it wasn't a production aircraft, but it sure was pretty).



Please Choose one and best aircraft.


and until now~

Bf109 4
Me262 3
Ki-46 1
P-40 2
F4U 2
He280 1
Mosquito 2
G.55 1
G-1 1
Spitfire 3
Constellation 1
AT-6 1
Buffalo 1
Me163 1

Plural Answers were invalided.


----------



## at6 (Sep 13, 2014)

gomwolf said:


> Please Choose one and best aircraft.
> 
> 
> and until now~
> ...


 My final vote is for as my user name implies, AT-6.


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 13, 2014)

at6 said:


> My final vote is for as my user name implies, AT-6.



You wrote the your favorite, so it was reflected. Thank you.


----------



## Juha (Sep 13, 2014)

Very difficult question, almost impossible to pick up only one
So, single engine ones:
Spit VIII with standard wingtips and large rudder with high altitude fighter camo (grey with PRU blue underside)
Bf 109G-10, RLM 76 overall
Mitsubishi A6M3 Model 22 Zero


Multi-engined:
Mitsubishi Ki-46-II
Grumman F7F-3 Tigercat
Martin B-26B Marauder
Focke-Wulf Fw 200A
Gloster Meteor Mk III white camo

Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 14, 2014)

Lockheed Constellation

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 14, 2014)

Ki 61-II. I just like the lines.

-Ivan.


----------



## Juha (Sep 14, 2014)

fastmongrel said:


> Lockheed Constellation



Damm, how could I forget Connie?

Juha

PS And Yak-3 with 2 greys topsides.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 14, 2014)

Seriously? Not 1 person called me on picking the Brewster Buffalo as the most beautiful plane of WW2? I figured I would get pummeled for that, but not a single "You gotta be kidding me!!". Come on guys…

In real life, I would pick the Corsair first, Spitfire 2nd


----------



## Marcel (Sep 14, 2014)

pinsog said:


> Seriously? Not 1 person called me on picking the Brewster Buffalo as the most beautiful plane of WW2? I figured I would get pummeled for that, but not a single "You gotta be kidding me!!". Come on guys…
> 
> In real life, I would pick the Corsair first, Spitfire 2nd


Well, anyone would like a beerbarrel I guess 

I just figured you had a mind of your own instead of picking the obvious. Corsairs and Spits are so boring

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 14, 2014)

I know that Terry vote for the Wildcat..


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2014)

Lucky13 said:


> I know that Terry vote for the Wildcat..


Or twice for the Martlett


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Sep 14, 2014)

Spitfire as the most beautiful to both eye and ear (never tasted one but it probably tastes as good as it looks). It certainly feels beautiful to the touch (so smooth, so round, so fully packed) so it satisfies three of my five senses. Most aircraft smell great to me. It's hard to differentiate.

Favorite A/C is something else again. 

1. F4F-3
2. P-40B
3. PBY Cat

Kudos to Pinsog for proving beauty is in the eye of the beholder…. I'll bet he was nice to all the girls and not just the pretty ones at any dance he attended.

Also, no need to wait for John to vote, Readie will definitely go with the Spit. Chalk up another one for Mr. Mitchell's baby.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 14, 2014)

Radial:

F8F Bearcat, Hawker SeaFury, P-47N Thunderbolt (natural metal finish), F2G-1 Corsair
Inline:

P-51D/K/H Mustang (natural metal finish), Spitfire XIV (w/bubble canopy), Fw-190D13, P-40BC (natural metal)

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## imalko (Sep 14, 2014)

For me it was always Bf 109, especially F and early G series.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 14, 2014)

pinsog said:


> Seriously? Not 1 person called me on picking the Brewster Buffalo as the most beautiful plane of WW2? I figured I would get pummeled for that, but not a single "You gotta be kidding me!!". Come on guys…
> 
> In real life, I would pick the Corsair first, Spitfire 2nd




There is no accounting for taste. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, thinks the Amiot 143 is the most beautiful aircraft of all time.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 14, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> There is no accounting for taste. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, thinks the Amiot 143 is the most beautiful aircraft of all time.



No offense the everyone, but I kinda thought that when people started naming off the ME109….

Since BIFF15 sounded off, I guess I'll reevaluate my list: 1. Bearcat 2. Corsair 3. P47N 4. Spitfire

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2014)

pinsog said:


> No offense the everyone, but I kinda thought that when people started naming off the ME109….
> 
> Since BIFF15 sounded off, I guess I'll reevaluate my list: 1. Bearcat 2. Corsair 3. P47N 4. Spitfire


lol...too late, you can only vote for one and your vote for the Buffalo is forever!


----------



## wuzak (Sep 14, 2014)

pinsog said:


> No offense the everyone, but I kinda thought that when people started naming off the ME109….



I agree.

I think the prettiest is the Spitfire - either the XII, XIV, XIX or VIII.

I also think the bomber/PR versions of the Mosquito are quite attractive, the fighter/NFs/FBs not so much.

I wouldn't call the Fw 190A attractive - but very purposeful and tough looking.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 14, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> lol...too late, you can only vote for one and your vote for the Buffalo is forever!



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(still prettier than a 109…)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 14, 2014)




----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 15, 2014)

Pinsog,

It's kinda like picking an ugly girl as a prom date to make a statement and ending up married to her a couple years later.

My sympathies. Hope the kids won't end up quite as Ugly....

- Ivan.


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 15, 2014)

Please do not vote twice and plural answer. It makes me confuse. And... there is few people vote than I thought....

until now...

Bf109 - 5
Me262 - 3
Ki-61 - 2
P-40 - 2
F4U - 2
He280 - 1
Mosquito - 2
G.55 - 1
Fokker G-1 - 1
Spitfire - 4
Constellation - 2
AT-6 - 1
Buffalo - 1
Re.2005 - 1
Me163 - 1
F4F - 1

Plural answers were invalided.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 15, 2014)

Few people are voting because only a few can narrow it down to ONE aircraft.

I've got a opinion too, but why should I vote just to have you invalidate my vote.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 15, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> There is no accounting for taste. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, thinks the Amiot 143 is the most beautiful aircraft of all time.



Only the designer


----------



## jdeere720 (Sep 15, 2014)

I had the pleasure of ogling the 190D-13 at Champlin's museum for many years. As much as I love the Corsair, the lines of the D-model 190 make it look like it's going 400mph just sitting there.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 15, 2014)

Ok...if I can only have one then it's got to be the Mossie. At least as beautiful as the Spitfire (sorry Readie) but with twice the Merlins. Can't beat it!!!


----------



## Elmas (Sep 15, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Only the designer



In Naples there's a proverb that says that even a beetle is beautiful to his mother's eyes.
But in the case of the Amiot 143, not even to the designer, I suppose......


----------



## Donivanp (Sep 15, 2014)

I vote for the P-61B Black Widow


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 15, 2014)

The Amiot 143, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles 1st and thankfully last joint aircraft design


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 15, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> Few people are voting because only a few can narrow it down to ONE aircraft.
> 
> I've got a opinion too, but why should I vote just to have you invalidate my vote.



This viot for what kinds of aircraft design is most popular, so singular answer is needed. And if you show me your favorite, I will not invalidate your opinion, even you make your list. Please do not feel the burden.


----------



## Waynos (Sep 15, 2014)

Petlyakov PE2


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 15, 2014)

I'm torn between the A6M5 Zero, and the Spitfire MkVII. I'd say a earlier Mk of Spitfire, but I can't stomach that tailwheel sticking out in the breeze.

I guess I'll vote Spitfire MkVII.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 15, 2014)

double post


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 16, 2014)

until now...

Bf109 - 5
Me262 - 3
Ki-61 - 2
P-40 - 2
F4U - 2
He280 - 1
Mosquito - 2
G.55 - 1
Fokker G-1 - 1
Spitfire - 6
Constellation - 2
AT-6 - 1
Buffalo - 1
Re.2005 - 1
Me163 - 1
F4F - 1
Fw190D - 1
P-61 - 1
Pe-2 - 1


Plural answers were invalided.


----------



## herman1rg (Sep 16, 2014)

gomwolf said:


> until now...
> 
> Bf109 - 5
> Me262 - 3
> ...



Fairly sure it's 3 now for the Mosquito


----------



## stona (Sep 16, 2014)

Tough, but if I have to pick one it would be the Spitfire. If I had to pick one Mark it would be the lightest and most agile, the Mk I. I can live with the tail wheel and as a bonus I don't have cannon and associated bulges on the wings 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Token (Sep 16, 2014)

F7F-3 Tigercat (no radome, dark blue paint), although I must admit I am torn between that and an early P-38 or the P-61.

T!


----------



## MSlechta (Sep 16, 2014)

P-51, any model.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 18, 2014)

Spitfire and BF109 on top already? You're sheep, the lot of you

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geisel_der_Lufte (Sep 18, 2014)

I would have to say Ta 152, with the Me 262 a close second.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 18, 2014)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when it comes to beautiful lines I vote for the DC3 Dakota!


----------



## glennasher (Sep 19, 2014)

Since my previous post was invalid, I'll go with the P-51D, then.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 19, 2014)

Do-26


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 20, 2014)

herman1rg said:


> Fairly sure it's 3 now for the Mosquito



I recounted but, there is 2...


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 20, 2014)

This is Final Result!

No.1 = Spitfire 7 [Kiwibiggles, redcoat, oldcrowcv63, Wuzak, buffnut453, tyrodtom, stona]
No.2 = Bf109 5 [gomwolf, DerAdlerlstGelandet, kettbo, CommanderBounds, imalko]
No.3 = Me262 3 [vikingBerserker, soulezoo, Augsburg Eagle]

and others were...

P-40 2 [Bad-Karma, Coors9]
F4U 2 [Thorlifer, gjs238]
Mosquito 2 [Norab, herman1rg]
Constellation 2 [swampyankee, fastmongrel]
P-51 2 [MSlechta, Glennasher]
Ki-46 1 [Siddley]
He280 1 [GrauGeist]
G.55 1 [tomo pauk]
Fokker G-1 1 [Marcel]
AT-6 1 [at6]
Re.2005 1 [Elmas]
Me163 1 [I'Omnivore Sobriquet]
Ki-61 1 [ Ivan1GFP]
F8F 1 [pinsog]
Fw109D 1 [jdeere720]
P-61 1 [Donivanp]
Pe-2 1 [Waynos]
F7F 1 [Token]
Ta152 1 [Geisel_der_Lufte]
DC3 1 [Kryten]
Do-26 1 [Rufus123]


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 21, 2014)

I must be the only one that thinks the Do-26 is a hot looking boat...er, I mean plane.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 21, 2014)

Okay, I will really narrow down my list and put the P-51 at the top!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 22, 2014)

Rufus123 said:


> I must be the only one that thinks the Do-26 is a hot looking boat...er, I mean plane.



No I also think Dornier flying boats were beautiful.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Sep 22, 2014)

gomwolf said:


> This is Final Result!
> 
> No.1 = Spitfire 7 [Kiwibiggles, redcoat, oldcrowcv63, Wuzak, buffnut453, tyrodtom, stona]
> No.2 = Bf109 5 [gomwolf, DerAdlerlstGelandet, kettbo, CommanderBounds, imalko]
> ...



I call foul on two counts! Pinsog voted for the F2A and you should always leave with the girl you brung to the dance… I admired his independent spirit (and obvious sense of humor) but now I see he is revealed as a two-timer  ) Also, F7F bearcat are barely real aircraft in ww 2. I think we should start again…  

Also, Readie never got a chance to vote to put the Spit out of reach… Of course, he may have just become unhinged trying to decide between the Spit and the Mossy.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 22, 2014)

In my defence, I seem to recall voting for the Mossie first - I made suitable, although probably unacceptable, apologies to Readie. That would put the Mossie on 3 and the Spit on 6.

Still can't comprehend how some people think the Me109 is more attractive than a Mossie...must be the beer goggles.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2014)

Rufus123 said:


> I must be the only one that thinks the Do-26 is a hot looking boat...er, I mean plane.



I love the Dornier's but I much prefer the Do 24. Most beautiful seaplane ever built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wape (Sep 23, 2014)

I have to go with the Messerschmitt Bf 109 (F,G,K)

The Gustav and Kurfürst models are the best. Friedrichs are okay, but I like the beefier look of the DB 605 machines. I feel that logically I should hold the K-4 over the Gustavs, since it's the most aerodynamically pleasing model (for the same reason some part of me would like to answer the question with a Griffon-engined late model Spit), but I have a special place in my heart for "die Beule" Gustavs. Those bumps show to me that the aircraft was meant for business and they give it a somewhat menacing look. I guess my ideal Bf 109 is a Gustav with the MG 131 bumps, enlarged wheel well bumps (either the smaller or the bigger squarish ones, doesn't really matter), Erla Haube and a tall tail.


----------



## SamPZLP.7 (Sep 26, 2014)

F4U-1 Corsair, of I had to choose.


----------



## GregP (Sep 28, 2014)

I think the most beautiful flying boat ever built was the Latecoere 631 ... but would vote for the Re.2005 in WWII as the most asthetic fighter with the Zero being my emotional favorite.

Still, the top vote-getters above are all beautiful aircraft. I could never vote for the Mossie as number one, though. Too many good looking singles in front of it. I am not a fan of the wing leading edges inboard of the engines. Had the wings continued their elegant lines all the way to the fuselage, then maybe it was the best looking. THey didn't and it isn't, but each to his own. All the vote getters are pretty decent-looking.


----------



## Elmas (Sep 29, 2014)

I don’t want to appear too much chauvinistic but, speaking about seaplane beauties

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 20, 2018)

I'd pick the Hellcat as most beautiful but I want to keep my impartial reputation intact here! 

I have always thought of the early mark Spitfires and the P-51D Mustang as being the most aesthetically appealing aircraft of all time. They both just look right to me and with them it wasn't all eye appeal, they delivered exactly what one would expect from them!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I'd pick the Hellcat as most beautiful but I want to keep my impartial reputation intact here!
> 
> QUOTE]
> The Wildcat was an ironing board in collision with a beer barrel perched on a milking stool , the Hellcat was just the technical advance of a diving board impacting with an oil barrel perched on a bed end.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (Apr 20, 2018)

I think most of us agree that it has to the incomparable Fairey Barracuda:

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 20, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> I think most of us agree that it has to the incomparable Fairey Barracuda:
> 
> View attachment 490575



Simply gorgeous!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> Simply gorgeous!


He was just being a flirt showing the Barracuda in its best light, I made a model of it years ago, it seemed to have anther aircrafts landing gear and canopy.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 20, 2018)

Beech Model 17


----------



## eagledad (Apr 20, 2018)

Gentlemen

The most beautiful fighter of WW2?

Oh Hedy Lamarr is a beautiful gal,
And Madeline Carroll is, too;
But you find if you query, a different theory
Amongst any bomber crew,
For the loveliest thing of which one could sing
(This side of the Heavenly Gates)
Is no blonde or brunette of the Hollywood set,
But an escort of P-38’s…..

Sure we’re braver than hell; on the ground all is swell—
In the air it’s a different story.
We sweat out our track through the fighters and flak;
We’re willing to split up the glory.
Well, they wouldn’t reject us, so Heaven protect us
And until all this shooting abates,
Give us courage to fight’em- and one other small item-
An escort of P-38s.

(Written in Stars and Stripes 1943, by a B-17 gunner in North Africa and presented in P-38 Lightning at War by Joe Christy and Jeff Ethell 1978)
I will go with the bomber crews and my late uncle, a ball turret gunner on a 483rd BG B-17, who flew Aug 1944 to Nov 1944 out of Italy, and take the P-38, not only for her looks, but also for what she did..
Eagledad

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

In fairness to Darren a plane doesn't have to be airborne to make an impression, in the air the Hellcat is much like many others but the pics of them ready for take off made a real impression on me, to be in the middle of that must have been an experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Apr 20, 2018)

RCAFson said:


> I think most of us agree that it has to the incomparable Fairey Barracuda:
> 
> View attachment 490575


You've cheated by showing an angle that hides the extraordinarily ugly flap arrangement.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> You've cheated by showing an angle that hides the extraordinarily ugly flap arrangement.


The Barracuda only got its reputation as an all time beauty by trick photography.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 20, 2018)

The true beauty of the Barracuda was in the indigenous approach to aerodynamics that it took.

Rather than muck about with a pointed entry and smooth airflow over wings and fuselage it was simply going to frighten the air into getting out of it's way.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 20, 2018)

pbehn said:


> In fairness to Darren a plane doesn't have to be airborne to make an impression, in the air the Hellcat is much like many others but the pics of them ready for take off made a real impression on me, to be in the middle of that must have been an experience.
> View attachment 490581



That photo is undeniably one of my favorites! Just a few days ago I had the distinct honor and pleasure of having lunch with a former Hellcat pilot who during the war was assigned to VF-81. He was present during the first attacks on Tokyo since the Doolittle raids of 1942. I was awestruck by what he told me. He still recalls all those intense launches from the deck of the USS Wasp like they just happened yesterday. Never boisterous or cocky, he's a true gentleman who feels that he was just doing his "job". Being married 65 years, he says that his greatest achievement in life is the family he and his wife began all those years ago and even at 95 he's still very active in the community. God bless him. 

His name is Ray Owen by the way....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Apr 20, 2018)

The most beautiful plane I ever saw was The OS2U coming to pick me up.”

F6F pilot off Truk Atoll, Feb 44.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 21, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> I'd pick the Hellcat as most beautiful but I want to keep my impartial reputation intact here!
> 
> I have always thought of the early mark Spitfires and the P-51D Mustang as being the most aesthetically appealing aircraft of all time. They both just look right to me and with them it wasn't all eye appeal, they delivered exactly what one would expect from them!



I know what I said about my reputation but after seeing this today I humbly change my vote to the Hellcat!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 22, 2018)

_" if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P_-_38_."
I don't know who said that, but I agreed wholeheartedly once I read that years ago.

The one and only. 
P-38.
No debates, no discussions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2018)

Dimlee said:


> _" if Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P_-_38_."
> I don't know who said that, but I agreed wholeheartedly once I read that years ago.
> 
> The one and only.
> ...


The two booms and the pilot don't seem to be going in the same direction

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Apr 22, 2018)

The B-17G is my choice. It has beautiful lines and brought me home safely!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> The B-17G is my choice. It has beautiful lines and brought me home safely!


The B 17 was a beauty before it had to have guns and turrets fixed here and there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Apr 22, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The B 17 was a beauty before it had to have guns and turrets fixed here and there.
> View attachment 490752


Thanks for sharing the great picture.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 22, 2018)

billrunnels said:


> Thanks for sharing the great picture.


I just found it on the "net" since it carries RAF markings I presume it is a B-17C (happy to be corrected), In a more pleasant world it looks like a very nice airliner.


----------



## billrunnels (Apr 22, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I just found it on the "net" since it carries RAF markings I presume it is a B-17C (happy to be corrected), In a more pleasant world it looks like a very nice airliner.


I don't know the history of the B-17 but was impressed with those flying in WWII.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Apr 23, 2018)

I present the Polikarpov I-153 and I-16.







I've always had a liking for these two fighters, don't know why. That whole period in the early months of the war and the short period beforehand brought up some interesting designs.


----------



## Dimlee (Apr 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> The two booms and the pilot don't seem to be going in the same direction


Directions of Jesus are beyond of our understanding.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Auburnfan216 (Apr 23, 2018)

How about the lines on this bird?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wlewisiii (Apr 23, 2018)

Beautiful?
5) F15 Reporter
4) C-54
3) Y1B-17
2) P-40
1) P-12

With an honorable mention to the Beech 17.


----------



## Ascent (Apr 23, 2018)

Auburnfan216 said:


> How about the lines on this bird?
> View attachment 490787



That's something only a mother could love.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Auburnfan216 (Apr 23, 2018)

Ascent said:


> That's something only a mother could love.


Come on, everyone loves a Roc


----------



## GregP (Apr 23, 2018)

Here's a pretty one, albeit not quite exactly famous ... Republic XP-12 Rainbow ...






and another one, not very famous either ... Hughes XF-11 ...






Maybe not numerous, but surely pleasing lines.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## JJWilson (Apr 23, 2018)

The F7F Tigercat is above and beyond the most beautiful plane in my opinion, and it sounds beautiful with those two Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radials

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## va155sf (Apr 26, 2018)

Ahhh .... too difficult for me to answer. Soooo many wonderful planes!


----------



## manuel (Apr 26, 2018)

Macchi C202


----------



## pbehn (Apr 26, 2018)

JJWilson said:


> The F7F Tigercat is above and beyond the most beautiful plane in my opinion, and it sounds beautiful with those two Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radials


Did they try making it out of wood?


----------



## CAVU Mark (Apr 27, 2018)

For me... the Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Small and to the point. Rounded lines, great canopy and a radial.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dave Woods (Apr 27, 2018)

Thorlifter said:


> This is a personal opinion question and no wrong answer. The Spitfires wing makes it commonly regarded as the most beautiful aircraft of WWII. The Corsair's inverted gull wing always does a little something for me. Some may like the 12 .50's on a B-17. IMO, these are mine.
> 
> #1 - Corsair
> #2 - P-38
> ...


That's a great list

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikemike (Apr 27, 2018)

I would like to mention an aircraft that everyone here overlooked, especially those that voted for the Mosquito - the De Havilland D.H. 103 Hornet. None left, unfortunately, but you've got to love a plane that could keep up with a Spitfire with only one engine running and that could be looped with both engines off. And just look at it!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2018)

mikemike said:


> I would like to mention an aircraft that everyone here overlooked, especially those that voted for the Mosquito - the De Havilland D.H. 103 Hornet. None left, unfortunately, but you've got to love a plane that could keep up with a Spitfire with only one engine running and that could be looped with both engines off. And just look at it!


Sadly it wasn't operational in WW2


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...nuthin wrong with a T-6...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...or a C-47...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...how about the PBY...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...even my little avatar has a certain _beauty_ to it...


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...has anyone mentioned the Hawker Sea Fury?...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...any fan of the FW-190 may also like Sweden's "wooden wonder" the FFVS J22...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikemike (Apr 27, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Sadly it wasn't operational in WW2



Neither was the Tigercat. And, really, RADIAL engines are beautiful? Efficient, yes, but certainly rarely elegant (the Republic F-12 was a great try, however).


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...when I was a kid, I thought the Swedish J21 was the coolest plane I'd ever seen...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2018)

mikemike said:


> Neither was the Tigercat.


The Tigercat was not a WW2 aircraft and it wasn't even made of wood, why are we even discussing non wooden aircraft?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JJWilson (Apr 27, 2018)

mikemike said:


> Neither was the Tigercat.


The Tigercat was introduced to the Navy in 1944 actually, and while it never saw combat, it was technically in WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...I always thought the P-36 had lovely lines, as well...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikemike (Apr 27, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...when I was a kid, I thought the Swedish J21 was the coolest plane I'd ever seen...
> 
> View attachment 491305


 ... and it had a German engine, to boot.

Now if only someone had bought and stored all those Swedish DB605s when the Flygwapen threw them on the scrap heap....


----------



## Elvis (Apr 27, 2018)

...lots of very beautiful planes to choose from, but when its all said and done, does it really get any sexier than a Polikarpov PO-2?...






...look at that sexy beast. I'm gettin' hot just lookin' at it...ok, actually I think I just like the sound of a 5-cylinder radial engine.  


_]View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blnn0ZyqGQ4[/media]_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 27, 2018)

mikemike said:


> And, really, RADIAL engines are beautiful? Efficient, yes, but certainly rarely elegant



Hi mikemike,
Your comment is well taken but I believe JJWilson was talking about the sound they made. Radial engines (and their associated cowlings) have a business-like quality to them, lacking the overall grace of a finally streamlined Merlin or Allison. But one can still admit that those beautifully-shaped engine nacelles of the Tigercat were as close to elegance as any radial engine ever achieved....


----------



## taly01 (Apr 27, 2018)

Spitfire Mk.Ia , here is the recently done complete restoration of P9374, lost over Dunkirk to a Do17 gunner of all things!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (Apr 27, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Spitfire Mk.Ia , here is the recently done complete restoration of P9374, lost over Dunkirk to a Do17 gunner of all things!
> 
> View attachment 491334
> 
> ...



All I can say is WOW!!!


----------



## wuzak (Apr 28, 2018)

I do like the IAR 80





Romanian IAR 80 by Stewart Callan, on Flickr

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Apr 28, 2018)

But my favourites are the Spitfire XII and XIV




Supermarine Spitfire Mk IV/XII, DP845. The was the first Griffon-powered Spitfire that was flown by Jeffrey Quill in 1942. by SDASM Archives, on Flickr




Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIVe, RB140. The first Spitfire Mark XIVe, RB140, on a test flight after undergoing Griffon Engine modifications (&#x27;GEMS&#x27 at the De Havilland factory, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, following operational evaluation with No. 616 Squadron by SDASM Archives, on Flickr

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## skydog308 (May 3, 2018)

What a Dauntless task!

As much as I hate to say it - Nakajima Ki-43-IIb Hayabusa


----------



## Raven1 (May 3, 2018)

I've been a long time lurker on this wonderful site and just recently joined. This particular thread prompted me to submit my first post. 

My pick would have to be without any doubt the FW-190 D as seen below from the Smithsonian.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## airb (May 3, 2018)

Hello, this is my first post on this great forum.
I go for the Merlin and Griffon powered Spitfires, they are elegant from every angle,
Spits are flying art, for my opinion.

Cheers,

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildr1 (May 3, 2018)

1. P-51D
2. FW-190A-8
3. TA-154


----------



## FSG43 (May 3, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Several fighters and bombers catch my eye, but for me, the He280 was a good looking machine.
> 
> Elliptical wing, streamlined fuselage all with a hint of 1930's styling. Just an all around good looking aircraft.





gomwolf said:


> Beautiful means, not about performance, only about looking good. Please choice only one aircraft you think beautiful.
> 
> I vote to Bf109. I think it has sharpe shape and beautility.8)8)
> 
> ...




Just one? Can't, just can't... I'll chose the Grumman F6F Hellcat series and Bell P-39/63 series for Allied; the Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien and Macchi c.202 Folgore for the Axis airplanes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ross Sharp (May 3, 2018)

norab said:


> Mosquito


Correct."There can be only one"

Director, Engineering & Airframe Compliance
The People's Mosquito Ltd

(just look at the photographs in the slideshow on our site - www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk) !


----------



## Tieleader (May 3, 2018)

Hands down the Fw-190D-9/D-13 series. If I had to describe this bird in one word it would be "SEXY" !
Of course I might be biased since I have parts from both...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (May 3, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> .......Of course I might be biased since I have parts from both...



You've peaked my interest. What sort of parts?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 4, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> Hands down the Fw-190D-9/D-13 series. If I had to describe this bird in one word it would be "SEXY" !
> Of course I might be biased since I have parts from both...


I have a gunsight from a Ju88's MG81 and that doesn't bias me at all

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (May 4, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> You've peaked my interest. What sort of parts?


Prop pitch motor,piston valve,electrical junction box, retractable foot step, couple of fuselage skin pieces (10/JG54,early '44), various small engine and landing gear parts,tail wheel strut with rim and tire.Three assorted Ta-152 parts. Some are from crash sites, some NOS. The best pieces I have are the original 20mm ammo access panels and main gear wheel rim from the Smithsonian/Dayton Museum D-9 (and D-13) from when in was first in Atlanta.Also a few parts off the D-13. After the Champlin restoration obviously...
Sorry, these are the last photos I have, not quite up to date. Sooooo cannot wait for the Collings Foundation to finish their flying example.
Anyways, not to get off topic...
DORAS RULE!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DarrenW (May 5, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> Prop pitch motor,piston valve,electrical junction box, retractable foot step, couple of fuselage skin pieces (10/JG54,early '44), various small engine and landing gear parts,tail wheel strut with rim and tire.Three assorted Ta-152 parts. Some are from crash sites, some NOS. The best pieces I have are the original 20mm ammo access panels and main gear wheel rim from the Smithsonian/Dayton Museum D-9 (and D-13) from when in was first in Atlanta.Also a few parts off the D-13. After the Champlin restoration obviously...
> Sorry, these are the last photos I have, not quite up to date. Sooooo cannot wait for the Collings Foundation to finish their flying example.
> Anyways, not to get off topic...
> DORAS RULE!



That's a very nice collection you have there. You must have connections to these museums, no?


----------



## Tieleader (May 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> That's a very nice collection you have there. You must have connections to these museums, no?


No, just lucky enough to know a couple of well known private collectors. BTW it's suppose to read early Oct '44 on the 10/JG54 part. One of the first Doras shot down. Meat puppet fingers can't always type right...


----------



## Tieleader (May 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> That's a very nice collection you have there. You must have connections to these museums, no?


You have any gizmos (A-10 parts perhaps)? I'd be curious as to what other people in their cases. Maybe a good idea for new thread?


----------



## DarrenW (May 6, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> You have any gizmos (A-10 parts perhaps)? I'd be curious as to what other people in their cases. Maybe a good idea for new thread?



No A-10 parts unfortunately, the only aircraft part I own is a rather small ADI water tank gauge which was mounted in the cockpit of the Hellcat. I don't have a lot of disposable cash for these sorts of things you know. 

But I do agree about starting a new thread on the subject. It would be nice to see what other members of the forum have collected over the years....


----------



## Tieleader (May 6, 2018)

DarrenW said:


> No A-10 parts unfortunately, the only aircraft part I own is a rather small ADI water tank gauge which was mounted in the cockpit of the Hellcat. I don't have a lot of disposable cash for these sorts of things you know.
> 
> But I do agree about starting a new thread on the subject. It would be nice to see what other members of the forum have collected over the years....


All to familiar with the $ limitation. Really had to budget to get to this point. I'll post a new thread on the subject and see what we get for answers. Look for you there!


----------



## GrauGeist (May 6, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> ... Maybe a good idea for new thread?


There's several threads on the forum with member's collections.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (May 6, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> There's several threads on the forum with member's collections.


Thanks for the heads up. I'll check them out!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (May 10, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...how about the PBY...
> 
> View attachment 491298


I'm betting that many a downed flyer, bobbing in the Pacific Ocean, would agree with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## grampi (May 11, 2018)

How anyone could choose anything over the P-51 is beyond me...the Mustang could be the most beautiful plane ever!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (May 11, 2018)

grampi said:


> How anyone could choose anything over the P-51 is beyond me...the Mustang could be the most beautiful plane ever!



Maybe... but it's overrated.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (May 11, 2018)

grampi said:


> How anyone could choose anything over the P-51 is beyond me...the Mustang could be the most beautiful plane ever!


Like anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2018)

For me it has always been the Bf 109.

Honorable mentions go to the Dornier Do 24 and the Lockheed Constellation.


----------



## wuzak (May 11, 2018)

grampi said:


> How anyone could choose anything over the P-51 is beyond me...the Mustang could be the most beautiful plane ever!



It's got a beer gut!


----------



## swampyankee (May 11, 2018)

wuzak said:


> It's got a beer gut!



No, that's a "dad bod."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ktank (May 13, 2018)

Served in WW2: Mosquito, Ki46, Spitfire PRXIX.

Early post-war military aircraft whose design started in WW2: Republic XF-12 Rainbow and Convair B-46.


----------



## Elvis (May 24, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (May 24, 2018)

The Maurader...that thing had _speed_ written all over it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 28, 2018)

gomwolf said:


> Beautiful means, not about performance, only about looking good. Please choice only one aircraft you think beautiful.
> 
> I vote to Bf109. I think it has sharpe shape and beautility.8)8)
> 
> ...


Resp:
deHav Mosquito has nice lines. It also is sort of a sleeper as it is overshadowed by other aircraft.


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jun 28, 2018)

Without doubt the Supermarine Spitfire. The only aircraft to have its very own ethos. Not to mention even when sitting on the ground it looked like it was doing 400mph. Whenever i hear Spitfire pilots accounts of this aircraft who used words like "a joy to fly" "The most viceless aircraft i have ever flown" "It was a real lady, beautiful!". "A glamour puss one minute and a wicked fighter the next" And my own personal favourite. "It's like having wings on your back, the aircraft always made me feel safe, like it was my own beautiful guardian angel" WW2 Produced some great looking warbirds. And while i admit the Spitfire might not have been the best aircraft of WW2, it certainly was the best looking. Imo.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 28, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> Without doubt the Supermarine Spitfire. The only aircraft to have its very own ethos. Not to mention even when sitting on the ground it looked like it was doing 400mph. Whenever i hear Spitfire pilots accounts of this aircraft who used words like "a joy to fly" "The most viceless aircraft i have ever flown" "It was a real lady, beautiful!". "A glamour puss one minute and a wicked fighter the next" And my own personal favourite. "It's like having wings on your back, the aircraft always made me feel safe, like it was my own beautiful guardian angel" WW2 Produced some great looking warbirds. And while i admit the Spitfire might not have been the best aircraft of WW2, it certainly was the best looking. Imo.


True. I had to watch 'Dunkirk' at least 5 times just to soak in the moment. Also, a Spitfire did land on the beach during the evacuation, only the pilot failed to destroy it. The Germans sent it back to Germany, repaired it and used it in mock air fights against their fighters. Not a good thing.
I know the US 4th FG loved it. However, even modified it couldn't keep pace with other fighters, mainly due to its limited range.


----------



## GregP (Jun 28, 2018)

The He.100 has always been a pretty airplane to me.






Even if you add a radiator hanging down ...






Looks better than the Bf 109 and performed better, too. But the Luftwaffe high command hated Ernst Heinkel much as Secretary of the Air Force Symington hated Jack Northrop for not merging with Consolidated Aircraft. As a result, they cancelled the flying wing (B-49) and broke up the tooling. Heinkel didn't fare much better with the RLM, at least with his innovative designs such as the He.100 and the He.280, which COULD have been flying YEARS before the Me 262.

Not saying it was better than the Me 262. Am saying it could have been in service in such a timeframe as to have caused the Allies some real problems.


----------



## Tieleader (Jun 28, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> I know the US 4th FG loved it.


True. The 4th vets I talked to REALLY didn't want to transition to the 47. They all said to almost a man (at least the ones I talked to) that the Spits were their favorite mount of all the types they flew. One interesting tidbit I heard from them was that Spits couldn't stay on the ground idling to long without overheating. Never saw that anywhere in the books.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 28, 2018)

That was a known 'problem', often published, with the Mk1 to MkV Spit, as the port undercart leg was directly in front o the (then smaller) oil cooler.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Jun 28, 2018)

Airframes said:


> That was a known 'problem', often published, with the Mk1 to MkV Spit, as the port undercart leg was directly in front o the (then smaller) oil cooler.


Cool! I learned something new today!


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 28, 2018)

GregP said:


> The He.100 has always been a pretty airplane to me.
> 
> View attachment 499824
> 
> ...



The B-49 also had stability issues, especially pitch damping, that were likely insoluble with the technology of the time. Not to say mutual dislike wasn’t involved....


----------



## Elvis (Jun 28, 2018)

I think its hard to deny the French were all about _elegant, flowing lines_….

…_Dewoitine D520_…

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 28, 2018)

One more I never posted about.
Another French plane that actually had some success with the Finns..._The Morane-Saulnier MS.406_…







It's kind of a chubby little thing, but I've always had a fondness for this one, especially after I read about the mods the Finns did to it, to make it a better performer.
It got sexier, in my eyes.



Elvis


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 28, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> True. The 4th vets I talked to REALLY didn't want to transition to the 47. They all said to almost a man (at least the ones I talked to) that the Spits were their favorite mount of all the types they flew. One interesting tidbit I heard from them was that Spits couldn't stay on the ground idling to long without overheating. Never saw that anywhere in the books.


Resp: 
I finally got to see a Spitfire at the Houston Air Show in 2016. It had D-Day stripes on its wings. I hadn't seen one in over ten yrs. However, I was away a lot. Did get to see a ME 262 at the last two shows, which caught me off guard. Saw 'Glacier Girl' a P-38F; the first drop tank capable model to come off the production line. They didn't fly it, except on arrival and to go home. I sure would like to see some Hurricanes. Been @ 20 yrs since I saw one fly.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 28, 2018)

Elvis said:


> I think its hard to deny the French were all about _elegant, flowing lines_….
> 
> …_Dewoitine D520_…
> View attachment 499830




But then there were their bombers, some of which would gag a maggot.






https://wwiiafterwwii.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/farmanf223.jpg?w=809

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> deHav Mosquito has nice lines. It also is sort of a sleeper as it is overshadowed by other aircraft.


I am not in possession of an extensive library, as a bystander can you clarify where the Mosquito was over shadowed as a Fighter bomber, night fighter, long range recon. photo and met. recon aircraft and maritime strike aircraft?


----------



## Tieleader (Jun 28, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Did get to see a ME 262 at the last two shows, which caught me off guard


Nice! Was it Collings Foundation bird? I saw their Mk9 Spitfire and a surprise Mk1 Spitfire at a local appearance not to long ago. Also their P-40, A-36,P-51TD, F4U , B-17G,B-24 and some others I can't immediately remember. It was quite the line up!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jun 29, 2018)

When I first saw a Spitfire in the real world (as opposed to in a museum), on an airfield ready to fly, what struck me about it was how small the fuselage is. The side view we are used to seeing just doesn't convey quite how petite that fuselage is behind the cockpit, and how small the empennage is, and how big the wing and engine are.

Compared to the P-51s, F4Us, P-40s etc that were there (we are blessed for warbirds in NZ), it looked to be all engine and wing. It really is so very much smaller than all of its contemporaries. I would love to see one next to a Bf 109, again on an airfield rather than in a museum, as I suspect that that is the other from that time where there was simply the biggest engine available with the smallest airframe imaginable wrapped around it..


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 29, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I finally got to see a Spitfire at the Houston Air Show in 2016. It had D-Day stripes on its wings. I hadn't seen one in over ten yrs. However, I was away a lot. Did get to see a ME 262 at the last two shows, which caught me off guard. Saw 'Glacier Girl' a P-38F; the first drop tank capable model to come off the production line. They didn't fly it, except on arrival and to go home. I sure would like to see some Hurricanes. Been @ 20 yrs since I saw one fly.


Resp:
The only American pilot that flew Spitfires that didn't seem to mind changing over to the P-47 was Gabby Gabreski. And from his kill record the change likely gave him more opportunity due to the increase in range over the Spitfire. So there are many types of 'beauty' besides aircraft lines.


----------



## Tieleader (Jun 29, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> The side view we are used to seeing just doesn't convey quite how petite that fuselage is behind the cockpit, and how small the empennage is, and how big the wing and engine are.


I saw an interview with a former Spitfire pilot who sat in a Bf 109E ( I think it was the E-7 @the IWM) and even HE commented on how small the cockpit was. His head was even with the the canopy top and he couldn't turn his head to look over his shoulder to look behind. No thats tight!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 29, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> Nice! Was it Collings Foundation bird? I saw their Mk9 Spitfire and a surprise Mk1 Spitfire at a local appearance not to long ago. Also their P-40, A-36,P-51TD, F4U , B-17G,B-24 and some others I can't immediately remember. It was quite the line up!
> View attachment 499926
> View attachment 499927
> View attachment 499928
> View attachment 499929


Resp:
I believe it was a Collins Foundation Spitfire MkIX. I did look it up to send them a thank you note. I am 6 ft 1in and having sat in a P-51D, thought the cockpit small. One needs to remember, Luftwaffe pilots were only airborne a short time (@ 2.5 hrs) while most Americans were flying at least twice that time. Many times ground crew had to help USAAF pilots out of the aero plane due to fatigue.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 29, 2018)

Most elegant radial of the entire war:

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 29, 2018)

Most elegant inline of the entire war: A TIE:













Spitfire Mk.IX
AND THEN THE

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortfinals (Jun 29, 2018)

I'm with norab, herman1rg and buffnut453

For me, even setting aside its incredible versatility and effect on the outcome of WW2, there can be only one.....the de Havilland Mosquito

Still, that was easy for me to say!

(Ross Sharp, Director, Engineering & Airframe Compliance, The People's Mosquito - www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 29, 2018)

Sabre engined Hawker Fury

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 29, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> View attachment 500044


I always preferred the aesthetics of the razor backed versions to the later one's. 
Nice pic!


----------



## Elvis (Jun 29, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Most elegant radial of the entire war:



Wow, that's pretty.
Interesting how the Japanese, the Germans and the Swedes all kind of thought along similar lines...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 29, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Most elegant inline of the entire war: A TIE:
> View attachment 500039
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
Mustangs - Allison engined, Top to bottom:
1. F-6B, redesignated from P-51A and used as Photo-Recon. Note camera lens on port side rear window.
Most if not all F-6B Mustangs retained the P-51A black stenciling on L fuselage just forward of canopy.
2. Mustang MkII, one of 50 P-51As given to British as replacement for the Mustang MkIs held back by USAAF after Pearl Harbor, which became P-51-1, with all green upper and light grey under surfaces, most of which were outfitted w cameras and redesignated as F-6A.
3. P-51A, painted int the marking of the 1st Air Commando Group of the CBI theater.


----------



## Tieleader (Jun 29, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I believe it was a Collins Foundation Spitfire MkIX. I did look it up to send them a thank you note. I am 6 ft 1in and having sat in a P-51D, thought the cockpit small. One needs to remember, Luftwaffe pilots were only airborne a short time (@ 2.5 hrs) while most Americans were flying at least twice that time. Many times ground crew had to help USAAF pilots out of the aero plane due to fatigue.


Ah, yes, but remember 2.5 hrs with lots of talented pilots with high tech A/C with big guns trying to kill you. Kind of ups the stress levels a wee bit..


----------



## Elvis (Jun 29, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> I sure would like to see some Hurricanes. Been @ 20 yrs since I saw one fly.


Here ya go!



...good engine sound, too. =)


Elvis

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 30, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> True. The 4th vets I talked to REALLY didn't want to transition to the 47. They all said to almost a man (at least the ones I talked to) that the Spits were their favorite mount of all the types they flew. One interesting tidbit I heard from them was that Spits couldn't stay on the ground idling to long without overheating. Never saw that anywhere in the books.



It was mentioned in the movie "The Battle of Britain", when Michael Caine wanted to get airborne because his Spitfire was about to overheat.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jun 30, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> Ah, yes, but remember 2.5 hrs with lots of talented pilots with high tech A/C with big guns trying to kill you. Kind of ups the stress levels a wee bit..


Resp:
Yes, but try that w an additional 3 hrs of flight time. Everyone likes to think they had it rough, but I think the long range guy pushed it to the limits. Certainly weren't home for tea time. 
Question for you RAF experts; did any Spitifres use the Packard Merlin engines? It was my understanding that Packard agreed to build the engine for the British. Please clarify.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2018)

The Packard V-1650 series was used in the Spitfire Mk.XVI

It was also used in the Mosquito B.VII, Lancaster B.III (and I believe the B.X) and the Hurricane Mk.X


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 30, 2018)

... it made sense for Canadian built merlin-powered AC used Packards

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 30, 2018)

The most purposeful, brutish radial of the entire war:
















If you have to come off the deck of an aircraft carrier:











My personal favorite just gets honorable mention because it did not participate
in the war, but came damn close.















Now that baby could have taken care of business in the Pacific.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 30, 2018)

I am out of time tonight. ASAP I will put in my favorite beauty of an inline
purpose built / brutish inline.


----------



## Tieleader (Jun 30, 2018)

mikemike said:


> I would like to mention an aircraft that everyone here overlooked, especially those that voted for the Mosquito - the De Havilland D.H. 103 Hornet. None left, unfortunately, but you've got to love a plane that could keep up with a Spitfire with only one engine running and that could be looped with both engines off. And just look at it!


Looks like the runt of a litter from a mama Mossie cat!


----------



## Tieleader (Jun 30, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> but I think the long range guy pushed it to the limits


True. The VLRE guys in 51s to Japan had a miserable time at 10+ hours plus the weather, fighters,fuel, navigation. No wonder they got twice the mission credit time!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...any fan of the FW-190 may also like Sweden's "wooden wonder" the FFVS J22...


It looks more like a Seversky than a Focke-Wulf, to be honest.

And interesting story leading up to the inception of the J22 - Sweden was looking to modernize it's fighters and it's purchase from the U.S. was suspended. Japan offered Sweden the A6M but the Swedes thought the transfer of the aircraft from Japan to Sweden would be impractical, so the J22 was born.

So by chance, the A6M almost ended up in European skies.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 30, 2018)

For sure! I think their most advanced fighter at the time was an export version of the P-35.
I'd have to look it up again, but I think there was talk of the Swedes getting the P-43, as well, just before the US shut down the supply line.
Somewhere there's a pic of a J-22 and an FW-190 sitting next to each other at an airfield and they're almost identical....can't seem to find that pic anymore.


Elvis


----------



## wuzak (Jun 30, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Packard V-1650 series was used in the Spitfire Mk.XVI



Indeed, the Merlin 266, which was the Merlin 66 built by Packard and the same as the Packard V-1650-7, except for details, such as the propeller shaft.




GrauGeist said:


> It was also used in the Mosquito B.VII, Lancaster B.III (and I believe the B.X) and the Hurricane Mk.X



The Mosquito B.XX, B.25 and FB.26 (Canadian production) and FB.40 (Australian production).

Used in Lancaster Mk I and Mk III, and the Mk X (Canadian Mk III).

The Canadian Hurricanes also got the Packard Merlin - the X, XI and XII.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 1, 2018)

For beauty, I vote for the Spitfire, or the B-29 (yes). The B-29 in flight is a thing of beauty.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2018)

Elvis said:


> For sure! I think their most advanced fighter at the time was an export version of the P-35.
> I'd have to look it up again, but I think there was talk of the Swedes getting the P-43, as well, just before the US shut down the supply line.
> Somewhere there's a pic of a J-22 and an FW-190 sitting next to each other at an airfield and they're almost identical....can't seem to find that pic anymore.
> 
> ...


Is this the photo you're thinking of?






They do look close to one another, maybe enough to be mistaken for each other at a distance, but I still feel that the J22's lines follow closer to the Seversky SEV-2 (P-35) or even Vultee's P-66. Sweden did take delivery of 60 Severskys in 1940, before the U.S. stopped exporting, so it comes as no surprise that there would be some similarities!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jul 1, 2018)




----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2018)

Tieleader said:


> True. The VLRE guys in 51s to Japan had a miserable time at 10+ hours plus the weather, fighters,fuel, navigation. No wonder they got twice the mission credit time!


Poor darlings, the Spit PR missions were just as long if not longer and they were on their own

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 1, 2018)

Glider said:


> Poor darlings, the Spit PR missions were just as long if not longer and they were on their own



if you havent seen this video:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie3SrjLlcUY_

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 1, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Is this the photo you're thinking of?
> 
> View attachment 500213
> 
> ...



Did the J22 have self sealing fuel tanks and armor?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2018)

pinehilljoe said:


> Did the J22 have self sealing fuel tanks and armor?


It appears that the J22 was never equipped with either feature.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 1, 2018)

The J22 was made (partially) of wood. I don't believe any armour was attached.

Grau Geist, thanks. That is one of the pics (I believe there's another from behind, as well).
I don't know. I don't see much here that suggests the J22, aside from the basic overall general shape and the fact that both use a radial engine.
If anything, the P-35 reminds me of either the F2A-1...











...or the CAC Boomerang...


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 1, 2018)

Most beautiful, the P-47. What can I say, I like big Jugs.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 1, 2018)

pgeno71 said:


> Most beautiful, the P-47. What can I say, I like big Jugs.


Do you prefer the earlier razorback or the later bubble canopy?


----------



## Tieleader (Jul 1, 2018)

Glider said:


> Poor darlings, the Spit PR missions were just as long if not longer and they were on their own


Well I guess its true about the old quote.."No matter how bad you think you have it there's always someone worse off!"


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 1, 2018)

The most purposeful and iconic inlines of the war comes pretty
much down to a dead even tie. They were both completely
unmatched in there perspective realms. I give you the icons:
Spitfire Mk.XIV














And then there is the one that took this kind of performance to the enemy:
P-51D/K

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 1, 2018)

I seem to prefer Razorbacks to bubble tops....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2018)

Never saw that shot of a P-43 before. Nice find.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 2, 2018)

There is the racy looks of the MiG-3

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 2, 2018)

I always thought the racy looks of the MC.205V were pretty cool too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 2, 2018)

The La-7 was also a very good looking bird.










FlightlinerC




KeyPublishingForums.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 2, 2018)

GregP said:


> Never saw that shot of a P-43 before. Nice find.


Thanks. Should've linked the page I found that on, cuz I can't find it now.
It is from a Life magazine article.

Elvis


----------



## CORSNING (Jul 2, 2018)

Greg,
How are you doing man? The close of Warbirdsforum was a great loss.
P-40 flying with a P-43:
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Warbirds Resource Group - Error
or you can go to Google and type in P-40 and P-43 flying like I did.


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2018)

Post #223 MiG-3 is flying on a Joe Yancey Allison V-1710. They seem to have a hard time closing up the gear doors. It might be corrected by now.

Pretty airplane, isn't it? So are the La-5 / 7 / 9 / 11.

Always loved the Macchi 202 and 205, Fiat G-55/6, and Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario. Great-looking birds, along with the SAI Super 7 and 403.

Super 7:

Aviation Photo #1038583: SAI Ambrosini S-7 Super - Italy - Air Force

403 Dardo:






Pretty birds, one and all.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2018)

My favourite version of the P51 Mustang is the P51-B/MkIII with Malcolm Hood and tail fillet. My Father was an Instrument Artificer and his 1st operational squadron flew the MkIII he loved the Mustang.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 3, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> My favourite version of the P51 Mustang is the P51-B/MkIII with Malcolm Hood and tail fillet. My Father was an Instrument Artificer and his 1st operational squadron flew the MkIII he loved the Mustang.
> View attachment 500367


Resp:
Mine as well. I have a print of Sqd Ldr Horbacewski's MkIII on the wall of my work room. I hope to get Maj Howard's P-51B print as well. I also think the F-6B w Malcolm hood looks good. As an aside, the British made the request for a similar sliding hood for the F4U-1A, which made it easier on the 'neck' in searching the sky.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Mine as well. I have a print of Sqd Ldr Horbacewski's MkIII on the wall of my work room. I hope to get Maj Howard's P-51B print as well. I also think the F-6B w Malcolm hood looks good. As an aside, the British made the request for a similar sliding hood for the F4U-1A, which made it easier on the 'neck' in searching the sky.



I understood the Mustang and Corsair were refitted with bubble hoods by the British R Malcolm & Co company for the RAF and FAA did they become factory fitted at a later date.


----------



## grampi (Jul 3, 2018)

The Spitfire was a pretty bird in the air, but its narrow undercarriage made it look spindly on the ground. Same with the ME-109...if they had had the wide spread gear like the P-47 or P-51, they would've looked much better on the ground...


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 3, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I understood the Mustang and Corsair were refitted with bubble hoods by the British R Malcolm & Co company for the RAF and FAA did they become factory fitted at a later date.[/QUOTE
> REsp:
> I do not know how many the Malcolm Co actually provided, as I've read that with all the canopies required . . . they had to have some help. As for the F4U Corsairs, they were made and fitted in the U.S.. It is likely that the USAAF may have retro fitted more of their Mustangs with the Malcolm hood than those furnished to the RAF. I have seen no documentation of an Allison engined RAF Mustang was ever fitted (except for testing) with the sliding hood, while the USAAF retro fitted their F-6B (still looking for F-6A so fitted), P-51B/C and F-6Cs.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 3, 2018)

Resp:
If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea. The Seafire almost always suffered with damaged landing gear upon its return to the carrier. I just finished reading about British carrier ops in the Pacific in 1945. The American Corsair and Hellcat saved them, as Seafires could not fly but one mission. Tthe damaged sustained just from a routine landing, put them out of service for several days. What also alarmed me, is that Seafire pilots were not qualified to fly other types, so remained shipboard as Corsairs/Hellcats continued the fight. You certainly didn't hear about flight fatigue from Seafire pilots. The Fleet Air Armed learned the hard lessons fast in the Pacific. The Atlantic fleet was rarely at sea more than a wk, so often had R&R in their home country. The Pacific was a different animal.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 3, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea. The Seafire almost always suffered with damaged landing gear upon its return to the carrier. I just finished reading about British carrier ops in the Pacific in 1945. The American Corsair and Hellcat saved them, as Seafires could not fly but one mission. Tthe damaged sustained just from a routine landing, put them out of service for several days. What also alarmed me, is that Seafire pilots were not qualified to fly other types, so remained shipboard as Corsairs/Hellcats continued the fight. You certainly didn't hear about flight fatigue from Seafire pilots. The Fleet Air Armed learned the hard lessons fast in the Pacific. The Atlantic fleet was rarely at sea more than a wk, so often had R&R in their home country. The Pacific was a different animal.




Was it common practice to have military aviators cross-trained to fly different types _in combat_, while deployed?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 3, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Was it common practice to have military aviators cross-trained to fly different types _in combat_, while deployed?


Probably not, but it was a pure waste inre to Seafire pilots. The Corsair guys were flying repeated missions with little time in between. They got the brunt of combat. Just think if the carrier fighter compliment had only been Seafires; who would been available for bomber escort on Island targets? The Japanese were fierce adversaries.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea. The Seafire almost always suffered with damaged landing gear upon its return to the carrier. *I just finished reading about British carrier ops in the Pacific in 1945. * The American Corsair and Hellcat saved them, as Seafires could not fly but one mission. Tthe damaged sustained just from a routine landing, put them out of service for several days. What also alarmed me, is that Seafire pilots were not qualified to fly other types, so remained shipboard as Corsairs/Hellcats continued the fight. You certainly didn't hear about flight fatigue from Seafire pilots. The Fleet Air Armed learned the hard lessons fast in the Pacific. The Atlantic fleet was rarely at sea more than a wk, so often had R&R in their home country. The Pacific was a different animal.



re The *bolded* section. Exactly which books or articles did you read because I have also read about the British Pacific Fleet and Seafires flew hundreds if not thousands of CAP sorties. The most Seafires ever carried was iirc HMS Implacable which had 2 squadrons if as you claim they could only do 1 landing that would mean Implacables 330 Seafire sorties over 5 days would need 300 plus Seafires when she only carried at maximum 48.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 3, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> re The *bolded* section. Exactly which books or articles did you read because I have also read about the British Pacific Fleet and Seafires flew hundreds if not thousands of CAP sorties. The most Seafires ever carried was iirc HMS Implacable which had 2 squadrons if as you claim they could only do 1 landing that would mean Implacables 330 Seafire sorties over 5 days would need 300 plus Seafires when she only carried at maximum 48.


Resp:
'The Kamikaze Hunters,' by Will Iredale, 2017, page 104; "More Seafires would be written off in deck landing accidents than against enemy fire, with the main culprit being an undercarriage that would crumple in rough put-downs. Indeed the Seafire gained such a reputation for accidents, it was given its very own verse in the pilot's unofficial song." TheA25 was a form filled out when his plane was damaged.
"When the batsman gives 'Lower' I Always go higher,
I drift to starboard and prang my Seafire,
The boys in the goofers all think I'm green,
But I get my commission from Supermarine,
Cracking show, I'm alive, but I still had to render my A25."


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> The Kamikaze Hunters,' by Will Iredale, 2017, page 104;



Never read the book so cant comment on it but the numbers you give go against official RN records.



Navalwarrior said:


> More Seafires would be written off in deck landing accidents than against enemy fire



That statement holds true of all and I mean all naval aeroplanes even todays F18s and F35s



Navalwarrior said:


> the main culprit being an undercarriage that would crumple in rough put-downs.



Not true or even close to true. Most Seafire landing accidents were caused by the inherent float of the Seafire as it flew at its landing speed most Seafires missed the wires and ended up in the crash barrier with intact undercarriage you can see this if you
google images of Seafire accidents the typical pose after a prang is the plane on its nose with U/C notably not bent.



Navalwarrior said:


> Probably not, but it was a pure waste inre to Seafire pilots. The Corsair guys were flying repeated missions with little time in between. They got the brunt of combat. Just think if the carrier fighter compliment had only been Seafires; who would been available for bomber escort on Island targets? The Japanese were fierce adversaries.



Corsairs usually flew TARCAP (TARgetCombatAirPatrol) whilst Avengers Hellcats and Fireflies attacked with bombs and rockets but the Corsairs also flew RAMROD missions strafing targets of opportunity. They would only fly Fleet Defence missions when the TaskForce Radar reported bogeys.

It would be very rare for a Corsair pilot to fly more than 2 sorties per day. CAP Seafire pilots regularly flew 3 or even 4 sorties per day as usually at least 12 CAP planes (a high flight, a medium and a low flight of 4 planes per flight) would be aloft at all times when within range of the enemy. 

The high CAP flight was often of Corsairs as the high altitude versions of the Seafire were in short supply but these were not the Corsairs used on Strikes and Ramrods they had no racks for ordnance or fuel.

Seafires had their faults only an idiot would claim otherwise but the 1945 MkIII was a totally different bird to the first Seafires converted from 2nd hand RAF planes taken from Maintenance Units.

I would reccomend anyone to read the following linked articles.
Task Force 57: The British Pacific Fleet
Task Force 57: Iceberg I
Task Force 57: Iceberg Oolong
Task Force 57: Iceberg I Redux
Task Force 57: Iceberg II

edited to add links


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2018)

Sorry to everyone for diverting the thread if we are talking Naval birds I would go for Grummans Ironclad she might not be the most elegant bird but she was arguably the best Naval aeroplane of WWII





https://www.cafsocal.com/our-aircrafts/our-aircraft-and-history/gruman-f6f-hellcat/


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 3, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Never read the book so cant comment on it but the numbers you give go against official RN records.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
I don't think the author made up the details of his book. He gives names and quotes. As for Seafires vs Corsairs/Hellcats, etc . . . flying AIR CAP just didn't compare to the combat that the Fleet Air Arm engaged in while flying Corsairs and TBMs. I was impressed with the Fleet's Admiral in that he sought out and carried out very hazardous missions. He could have sat back and played a smaller, but he didn't. He had to persist as Adm King was trying to deny or contain Britain's part in the Pacific. However, Churchill knew the sacrifices Americans played in saving England, so he fought long and hard within his government to carry on to the end. You might be interested in what aircraft the pilots of the FAA preferred. It might surprise you. I know this thread is about aircraft, but they never would have left the ground w/o a pilot.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> I don't think the author made up the details of his book.



I didnt say he made up anything just that Royal Navy records disagree with him. Someone more knowledgeable than I would need to study the figures. Parsifal is the man for that he studied the BPF when he was at Naval College iirc.



Navalwarrior said:


> flying AIR CAP just didn't compare to the combat that the Fleet Air Arm engaged in while flying Corsairs and TBMs



I am sure it didnt compare because it was different. I wouldnt be dimissive of any pilots job especially when trying to defend the Fleet against Kamikaze which was no cakewalk, when Fleet AA gunners were likely to shoot at anything with wings.



Navalwarrior said:


> You might be interested in what aircraft the pilots of the FAA preferred.



Pilots generally prefer the planes they flew because most would only ever fly one type in combat. The majority of Corsair pilots would have no idea about flying a Seafire and vice versa, only long serving Squadron and Flight commanders would be able to compare different types and they would most likely have started in Sea Hurricanes, Martlets or Fulmars before going to the US to convert to Corsairs.

Dont dismiss any flying because generally the waggling your wings in the air bit is easy peasy stuff, its when you have the wheels down that pilots usually die.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 3, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Sorry to everyone for diverting the thread if we are talking Naval birds I would go for Grummans Ironclad she might not be the most elegant bird but she was arguably the best Naval aeroplane of WWII
> 
> View attachment 500396
> 
> https://www.cafsocal.com/our-aircrafts/our-aircraft-and-history/gruman-f6f-hellcat/


That and the FM-2 were both a coupe of great lookin' planes...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2018)

The Wildcat was my first ever large scale model 1:32 if memory is right. Though it was actually an 804 Squadron Martlet HMS Audacity when painted and decalled.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 3, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I don't think the author made up the details of his book. He gives names and quotes. As for Seafires vs Corsairs/Hellcats, etc . . . flying AIR CAP just didn't compare to the combat that the Fleet Air Arm engaged in while flying Corsairs and TBMs. I was impressed with the Fleet's Admiral in that he sought out and carried out very hazardous missions. He could have sat back and played a smaller, but he didn't. He had to persist as Adm King was trying to deny or contain Britain's part in the Pacific. However, Churchill knew the sacrifices Americans played in saving England, so he fought long and hard within his government to carry on to the end. You might be interested in what aircraft the pilots of the FAA preferred. It might surprise you. I know this thread is about aircraft, but they never would have left the ground w/o a pilot.





fastmongrel said:


> I didnt say he made up anything just that Royal Navy records disagree with him. Someone more knowledgeable than I would need to study the figures. Parsifal is the man for that he studied the BPF when he was at Naval College iirc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Resp:
Well said.


----------



## pgeno71 (Jul 4, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Do you prefer the earlier razorback or the later bubble canopy?



I prefer the razorback.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Donivanp (Jul 4, 2018)

P-51D/K any bubble top Mustang. Hands down no questions.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 4, 2018)

I'm pretty sure I'm going to pick a Spitfire PR variant


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2018)

_If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea. _

Until 1945, yes, after 1945 with the introduction of the mkIII, not true, and with the immediate post war Spitfire MkXV definitely untrue


_The Seafire almost always suffered with damaged landing gear upon its return to the carrier. I just finished reading about British carrier ops in the Pacific in 1945. The American Corsair and Hellcat saved them, as Seafires could not fly but one mission. _

Sorry, but this is utter bollocks. Seafires in 1945 enjoyed the best record of the three types in terms of deck accident rates. They most definitely were not “one shots” as you are suggesting. They had a high accident rate on a per day basis, but on a permission basis, were the lowest accident rates of the three aircraft in the BPF


_Tthe damaged sustained just from a routine landing, put them out of service for several days. What also alarmed me, is that Seafire pilots were not qualified to fly other types, so remained shipboard as Corsairs/Hellcats continued the fight. You certainly didn't hear about flight fatigue from Seafire pilots. _


Again, what a load of bollocks this is. Sefires were on average flying 8 sorties to one for the two US types. That was mostly because they were the mainstay of the BPFs defensive CAP arrangements, and had a short endurance when being used with throttles fully open 


_The Fleet Air Armed learned the hard lessons fast in the Pacific. The Atlantic fleet was rarely at sea more than a wk, so often had R&R in their home country. The Pacific was a different animal._

Oh lord, this is just utter rubbish

Task Force 57: The British Pacific Fleet
British Pacific Fleet - Admiralty War Diary 1945
http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Hobbs_THE_BRITISH_PACIFIC_FLEET_IN_1945.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 4, 2018)

parsifal said:


> _If you read enough about the Fleet Air Arm, the carrier version of the Spitfire, the Seafire, your will see how poor their record was at sea. _
> 
> Until 1945, yes, after 1945 with the introduction of the mkIII, not true, and with the immediate post war Spitfire MkXV definitely untrue
> 
> ...


Resp:
Between pgs 178 and 179 of book 'The Kamikaze Hunters,' by Will Iredale, there are color plates of photos; #20 is of a Seafire with collapsed forward landing gear on the deck of a carrier. The caption below the photo reads: 20. Although it was a wonderful fighter to fly, the Seafire was too fragile for the rough and tumble of carrier life. It's success as a kamikaze Hunter was marred by its high accident rate and limited range.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 4, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Snip



Someone on this forum possibly yourself posted a set of figures about the BPF Carrier sorties, do you have the figures. I thought I had the info but cant find it.


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jul 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Between pgs 178 and 179 of book 'The Kamikaze Hunters,' by Will Iredale, there are color plates of photos; #20 is of a Seafire with collapsed forward landing gear on the deck of a carrier. The caption below the photo reads: 20. Although it was a wonderful fighter to fly, the Seafire was too fragile for the rough and tumble of carrier life. It's success as a kamikaze Hunter was marred by its high accident rate and limited range.


So to summarize, everyone knows that the Spitfire was fragile, and here's a photo caption that proves it. Does that mean that I can use a photo of a burning Hellcat on deck as proof that Hellcat's were prone to bursting into flame on landing?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 4, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> Greg,
> How are you doing man? The close of Warbirdsforum was a great loss.
> P-40 flying with a P-43:
> www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Warbirds Resource Group - Error
> or you can go to Google and type in P-40 and P-43 flying like I did.


 LOL! 
I bet I Googled every combination EXCEPT that one!
Too funny. Thanks for locating that for us Corsning.

U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site


----------



## Elvis (Jul 4, 2018)

...another vote for the P-40. This one is a "B" and the last flying example from the Pearl Harbour attack...







Curtiss P-40B Warhawk - The Fighter Collection

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 4, 2018)

...another shot of the above plane. Reminds me of the back page photo of the first Air Progress magazine I ever saw.
Although that was a shot of a Hawker Sea Fury (I think), the positioning and the light are similar...







...in case you're curious and have the issues, it was the issue that heralded the return of Jet racing at the Reno air races(I think the cover was a couple of F-86's)…..spring or summer of '74...I think.
Sorry if I'm wrong. It's been a while since I've owned that one.


Elvis


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 4, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> So to summarize, everyone knows that the Spitfire was fragile, and here's a photo caption that proves it. Does that mean that I can use a photo of a burning Hellcat on deck as proof that Hellcat's were prone to bursting into flame on landing?


Resp:
You have challenged me. All I am doing is citing what the book stated that was written in 2017 from an author who interviewed and wrote what he was related about Royal Naval carrier activities in the Pacific during WWII. He likely used personal accounts rather than an official account from any official (does not mean he is incorrect). I claim no special ability other that I can read!! I am a big fan of 1903 Springfield sporters. However, not everyone shares my sentiment. I do not attack them because of their view of rifles is different than mine. You can believe what you want to believe.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 4, 2018)

pgeno71 said:


> I prefer the razorback.


Right on. Me too. =)


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> You have challenged me. All I am doing is citing what the book stated that was written in 2017 from an author who interviewed and wrote what he was related about Royal Naval carrier activities in the Pacific during WWII. He likely used personal accounts rather than an official account from any official (does not mean he is incorrect). I claim no special ability other that I can read!! I am a big fan of 1903 Springfield sporters. However, not everyone shares my sentiment. I do not attack them because of their view of rifles is different than mine. You can believe what you want to believe.


Page 267:
Despite there was good results hunting down kamikazes in the air, the small fuel tanks of the Seafires meant they couldn't carry out strikes over the islands and had to land every two hrs to refuel, and 25 had been lost or damaged beyond repair . . .
. . . with Indomitable soon to leave the front line taking its Hellcats w it and a second Seafire carrier, Inplacable, due to join the fleet later in the year, there was no question of the Seafire squ being disbanded. Nevertheless, their poor performance and lack of spare pilots and planes meant extra pressure on those flying American aircraft. The Corsair and Hellcat pilots had been flying up to 8 hrs a day, alternating between patrols over the fleet & attacking island targets. Flew an average of 45 hrs - twice of Seafire pilots.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 4, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> So to summarize, everyone knows that the Spitfire was fragile, and here's a photo caption that proves it. Does that mean that I can use a photo of a burning Hellcat on deck as proof that Hellcat's were prone to bursting into flame on landing?



They also snapped in half, what a piece of junk 





Next up proof that Bears go to the toilet in the woods

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 4, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> They also snapped in half, what a piece of junk
> View attachment 500553
> 
> 
> Next up proof that Bears go to the toilet in the woods


But the wheels stayed on.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 4, 2018)

pbehn said:


> But the wheels stayed on.


Resp:
It is now. Likely had to fly CAP since there were no Seafires


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jul 4, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> It is now. Likely had to fly CAP since there were no Seafires


And you've got a photo caption which proves it.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 4, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> And you've got a photo caption which proves it.


Resp:
You might care to look at: armoredcarriers.com, Seafires, Part 3. Operational history


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2018)

Seafires were never ideal for carrier operations, but their reputation was tarnished in 1943 and that mud stuck for the rest of their careers. In Salerno, operating in still air conditions aboard escort carriers that lacked the speed and deck space needed for an admittedly difficult type to operate from carrier decks at the best of times, the operational record was not very good. of the 140 seafires fielded over Salerno, in a matter of days, something like 109 were lost in accidents. the crews operating the type and maintaining the type had a hard time of it and the losses showed. The aircrews were unused to the seafire, and the type had a tendency to float down onto the deck with those large wings. The short decks and these airfoil characteristics meant that pilots tended to come in too fast and too high, cut the engine and drop onto the deck . The un-strengthened LG would more often than not fail under the stresses that treatment generated.

US Hellcats and corsairs were never asked to operate under those conditions . an Essex class had something like 60% more deck handling area than even an illustrious class and a sea speed of about 30knots tp the Pretoria Castles CVE speed of 15 knots. Essex class were more stable as a seagoing platform and the air turbulence from the superstructure on the larger fleet carriers was less. 

Despite the poor start in 1943, the RN persisted with the seafire, a new mark, the LF mkIII was developed, which was the first purpose built Seafire mark, with strengthened LG, double wing folding and blown engine for low altitude operations . its cannon armament and high rate of climb made it the ideal point defence a/c and in 1945 it flew the lions share of CAP operations with the 88a/c of the four sqns deployed aboard the two fleet carriers embarked clocking up thousands of sorties between them for the total loss of just 47 of their number, 8 in the air and the remainder to deck landing accidents . That is a far better record than either of the two American types. Since 1943, the RN had worked hard to develop new operating techniques. Seafires were no longer forced to operate from CVEs, they were no longer being operated in still air conditions, and the additional deck landing space meant that they were no longer forced to 'drop" onto the deck , in 1945 it was now the standard procedure to glide into the landing attitude. this dramatically reduced the LG failure rates.

The Seafire wing aboard the BPF in March, April and May 1945 were the mainstay of the airborne defences over TF 57, and bore the brunt of kamikaze attacks delivered in that period. Some 37 Japanese a/c were destroyed. more than 600 kamikaze attacks were thwarted in that period, with the seafires often flying as many as 8 sorties per day in these operations. the pace of operations was frenetic, to say the least, but the seafires performed very reliably during these operations. The bugs that had hounded the type earlier were no longer evident, but this has not stopped an over eager, mostly pro-American and well orchestrated propaganda campaign continuing to this day in the popular press. for the record, incidentally, the aircrew that flew with BPF TFW were almost worshipful in their praise of the types performance in this period .

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Someone on this forum possibly yourself posted a set of figures about the BPF Carrier sorties, do you have the figures. I thought I had the info but cant find it.


I think it was me, but I cant find the online source. B*gger!!!!! Will keep looking.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 4, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Seafires were never ideal for carrier operations, but their reputation was tarnished in 1943 and that mud stuck for the rest of their careers. In Salerno, operating in still air conditions aboard escort carriers that lacked the speed and deck space needed for an admittedly difficult type to operate from carrier decks at the best of times, the operational record was not very good. of the 140 seafires fielded over Salerno, in a matter of days, something like 109 were lost in accidents. the crews operating the type and maintaining the type had a hard time of it and the losses showed. The aircrews were unused to the seafire, and the type had a tendency to float down onto the deck with those large wings. The short decks and these airfoil characteristics meant that pilots tended to come in too fast and too high, cut the engine and drop onto the deck . The un-strengthened LG would more often than not fail under the stresses that treatment generated.
> 
> US Hellcats and corsairs were never asked to operate under those conditions . an Essex class had something like 60% more deck handling area than even an illustrious class and a sea speed of about 30knots tp the Pretoria Castles CVE speed of 15 knots. Essex class were more stable as a seagoing platform and the air turbulence from the superstructure on the larger fleet carriers was less.
> 
> ...


Resp:
Thanks. My view was taken from statements via Fleet Air Arm personnel, as quoted by author Iredale. It didn't appear that the pilots of 1945 were tainted by 1943 MTO, but I could be wrong.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2018)

Seafires were limited by their mission capability. The Hellcats and corsairs operating with the BPF had longer range, and could carry a more useful offensive warload compared to the Mk III. They were touted as more robust by some.

Because they could do more things, they were closer to the multi role fighter, which was always a primary issue on RN carriers, with their limited CAGs. but in the pure fleet defence fighter, the Seafire was the superior a/c for the job. And didn't suffer any worse from non combat attrition to either of the American fighters, when placed in the same operational environment.


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 5, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> They also snapped in half, what a piece of junk
> View attachment 500553
> 
> 
> Next up proof that Bears go to the toilet in the woods


'Tis but a flesh wound! Rub some dirt on it and get it back up in the air! (in best John Cleese voice)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Smokey Stover (Jul 5, 2018)

It was the Seafires narrow undercarriage (same as the Spitfire) that made landings very difficult. And without having the stats in front of me idk the Seafire was any worse at carrier operations than ac such as the Hellcat, Corsair, divebombers etc....
Yes the fuel was a major problem, but once the landing issue was suitable ironed out (as best it could be) things got a lot safer for pilots and crewman on the flight deck. Things like a slow curved approach that was adopted by English pilots flying the F4U's helped to reduce accidents and casualties. But as a naval fighter, the Spit was a little out of its natural element. And despite one or two mods, the Seafire was basically a Spitfire with a hook!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## namvet68 (Jul 5, 2018)

I think the American P38 and the Italian RE2005 top the list.


----------



## Colin Wynn (Jul 5, 2018)

1 Spitfire
2 Corsair
3 Mosquito
4 P-51
5 Typhoon
6. Beufighter
7 fw190


----------



## Elvis (Jul 5, 2018)

If you need a lot of it and you need it fast, nothing better to deliver it than the.....








...and EIGHT .50's trumps EVERYONE!...





Douglas A-26, B-26 Invader A-26A Counter Invader - RC Groups

...except the P47...






Republic P-47 Thunderbolt - The Seven Ton Milk Jug, WW2 Fighter Plane

...


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jul 5, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...and EIGHT .50's trumps EVERYONE!...


...except just about anything packing four 20s. Chuck in another four 50s as well, in the Beaufighter, and I think you can consider yourself well and truly trumped.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 5, 2018)

HaHa! Yeah, I guess you're right, but that pic was just _sooo bad @zz_. Had to post it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 5, 2018)

Smokey Stover said:


> It was the Seafires narrow undercarriage (same as the Spitfire) that made landings very difficult. And without having the stats in front of me idk the Seafire was any worse at carrier operations than ac such as the Hellcat, Corsair, divebombers etc....
> Yes the fuel was a major problem, but once the landing issue was suitable ironed out (as best it could be) things got a lot safer for pilots and crewman on the flight deck. Things like a slow curved approach that was adopted by English pilots flying the F4U's helped to reduce accidents and casualties. But as a naval fighter, the Spit was a little out of its natural element. And despite one or two mods, the Seafire was basically a Spitfire with a hook!


Resp: 
Mention was made about the removal/discontinuance of Seafires in 1945, but I believe the FAA had nothing to replace it with. Carrier operations require a 'direct hit' on the deck, to control and confine the plane's movement. There is no extra room to allow an aircraft to land much off the point of aim . . . to catch the arrester wire! In a sense, it is a controlled crash. If you recall, the US Navy had to make several adjustments to its landing gear to reduce the Corsair's bounce. As a result the Corsair first went to land based units of the US Marine Corps, as well as at least one island hopping Naval unit. In 1991, I got to fly an A-6 Intruder simulator (hadn't flown a plane since the mid-80s [no pilot's license], but remembered basic flying skills from the age of 15) where I took off from a Naval Air Station. After about 20 min and doing a few barrel roles, I decided it was time to Land. I asked the operator what flap setting and landing speed was required. End result, I picked a point on the runway and with rudder correction (held fast) . . . touched down hard, and stopped. Operator said that I hit a little hard, but would have done no damage to the A-6. It was designed for hard hits.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2018)

Maybe on US Essex class carriers Spitfires didn't need tail hooks!

https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/No_Tailhook_Spitfire.pdf


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2018)

But a Spitfire was basically ALWAYS about out of fuel, even before they started the engine!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> ...except just about anything packing four 20s. Chuck in another four 50s as well, in the Beaufighter, and I think you can consider yourself well and truly trumped.


...and the P-61 with it's upper turret locked forward (four 20mm + four .50 MGs) OR the B-25 gunships with up to fourteen .50 Mgs OR the B-26 gunships with up to sixteen .50 MGs...


----------



## parsifal (Jul 6, 2018)

Seafire production models;

Supermarine Seafire: Variants

Seafire operational History

Supermarine Seafire: Operational History


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 6, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Maybe on US Essex class carriers Spitfires didn't need tail hooks!
> 
> https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/No_Tailhook_Spitfire.pdf


Resp:
Outstanding flying skills!


----------



## David Fred (Jul 6, 2018)

Thorlifter said:


> This is a personal opinion question and no wrong answer. The Spitfires wing makes it commonly regarded as the most beautiful aircraft of WWII. The Corsair's inverted gull wing always does a little something for me. Some may like the 12 .50's on a B-17. IMO, these are mine.
> 
> #1 - Corsair
> #2 - P-38
> ...



F4U Corsair, it’s Look was special and my Dad USMC 4th division, Roi-Namur, Saipan, Titian, Iwo Jima, spoke about the Corsair with love, as it was flown by Marine Pilots is CAS, and got low enough to fire straight into pill box slits. So I guess I love the Corsair, because my Dad loved it, because it was flown by Marine aviators, on the deck.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## newst (Jul 6, 2018)

There were many beautiful aircraft flown in WWII, and many ugly ones also. My favorite for looks alone is the Avia 534 V4 biplane.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 6, 2018)

David Fred said:


> F4U Corsair, it’s Look was special and my Dad USMC 4th division, Roi-Namur, Saipan, Titian, Iwo Jima, spoke about the Corsair with love, as it was flown by Marine Pilots is CAS, and got low enough to fire straight into pill box slits. So I guess I love the Corsair, because my Dad loved it, because it was flown by Marine aviators, on the deck.





David Fred said:


> F4U Corsair, it’s Look was special and my Dad USMC 4th division, Roi-Namur, Saipan, Titian, Iwo Jima, spoke about the Corsair with love, as it was flown by Marine Pilots is CAS, and got low enough to fire straight into pill box slits. So I guess I love the Corsair, because my Dad loved it, because it was flown by Marine aviators, on the deck.


Resp:
Corsair- An older friend (father of my high school friend) who is 96 today, flew Wildcats as a Marine aviator in 1943 as CAP over the Fleet; returned stateside as an instructor of F4U-1, F4U-1A, and F3A-1 (flew 5 days a wk, except for weather) for 12 mos; returning to the Pacific where he shot down two Kamikazes in 1945 flying F4U-1D and FG-1Ds. He returned to Korea at the beginning of the conflict where he flew F4U-4 in the ground support role. His log book his hughe! He never had to abort a mission due to mechanical issues, to include the F3A-1 made by Brewster, although it was during training only.
P-40/Kitty Hawk- Austrailan Clive Caldwell scored 22 kills flying the P-40; many against skilled ME-109 pilots. The fact that he was a skilled marksman and had an ability to lead his target, didn't hurt. He out flew two 109s against his single Kitty Hawk . . . Getting both.
P-51B- Flown by James Howard, early 1944 while escorting long range B-17s . . . took on all comers, shooting down at least 4 Luftwaffe attacking aircraft. Continued to dive directly at attacking aircraft . . . while out of ammo. He did this 20+minute flying solo, as the rest of the FG departed the bombers . . . Awarded the MoH for his actions. There were plenty of witnesses, as bomber crews gave detailed after action reports about 'a one man air force!'
Spitfire MkVa- flown by leg less RAF pilot Douglas Bader. Ace of Aces.
Note: P-38 pilot McGuire killed himself when he throttled back, in an attempt to make a deflection shot at a Japanese fighter that cut across in front of his plane. He forgot that he still had to large drop tanks, still attached! Not ten minutes earlier, he told the pilots of three other P-38s in his flight . . . Not to drop tanks if jumped, as they needed them to search for Japanese planes. His plane stalled and rolled over, and he nosed in to the ground! His aircraft received no enemy fire! It was an unauthorized mission. He was trying to beat Bong.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Note: P-38 pilot McGuire killed himself when he throttled back, in an attempt to make a deflection shot at a Japanese fighter that cut across in front of his plane. He forgot that he still had to large drop tanks, still attached! Not ten minutes earlier, he told the pilots of three other P-38s in his flight . . . Not to drop tanks if jumped, as they needed them to search for Japanese planes. His plane stalled and rolled over, and he nosed in to the ground! His aircraft received no enemy fire! It was an unauthorized mission. He was trying to beat Bong.


If you're referring to Maj. McGuire of 431st FS/475th FG, they were conducting a series of authorized voluntary fighter sweeps and bomber escort missions in the Los Negros Island vicinity between December '44 and January '45.
His death (7 January 1945) was the result of him coming to the aid of one of his pilots who was being mauled by a number of Japanese fighters - it was this action that awarded him the Medal of Honor posthumously.

In 1947, they discovered the wreckage of his P-38L "Eileen Anne" (44-24845) on northern Negros island and recovered his remains.

And for the record, the Japanese fighters that were attacking McGuire's fellow pilot (and eventually forced McGuire down) were a KI-43-III and a KI-84A, piloted by seasoned combat veterans who also happened to be pilot instructors: W/O Sugimoto and Sergeant Fukuda.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 6, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> If you're referring to Maj. McGuire of, they were conducting a series of authorized voluntary fighter sweeps and bomber escort missions in the Los Negros Island vicinity between December '44 and January '45.
> His death (7 January 1945) was the result of him coming to the aid of one of his pilots who was being mauled by a number of Japanese fighters - it was this action that awarded him the Medal of Honor posthumously.
> 
> In 1947, they discovered the wreckage of his P-38L "Eileen Anne" (44-24845) on northern Negros island and recovered his remains.
> ...


Resp:
You are quoting the 'official' version. Two of the P-38s were lagging behind, due to one aircraft running rough. McGuire's P-38 still had the drop tanks attached/with the wreckage. The area Commander was furious. He was a national hero, so they wrote a different report to support the MoH award.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2018)

Resp. Resp.
I am relaying the investigative report from years later, which included the afore-mentioned Japanese pilot's account.

Please, though, provide me with your reference, it seems to be an interesting read.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 6, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Resp. Resp.
> I am relaying the investigative report from years later, which included the afore-mentioned Japanese pilot's account.
> 
> Please, though, provide me with your reference, it seems to be an interesting read.


Resp:
It may take a few days. I read the account in one of the aviation magazines a few years ago. I think I still have it as it was an unusual story; one that you would remember. I want to say that one of the pilots of the four P-38s furnished the info.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2018)

I assume that article also has Sergeant Fukuda's account included?

Sergeant Fukuda (flying the KI-84A) also shot down McGuire's #3 man that day, Maj. Rittmayer, who crashed southwest of the Japanese held Carolina Airfield.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 6, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> It may take a few days. I read the account in one of the aviation magazines a few years ago. I think I still have it as it was an unusual story; one that you would remember. I want to say that one of the pilots of the four P-38s furnished the info.



What I remember:
There were no scheduled missions for several days. Bond had returned to the US. McGuire knew he was only two kills behind Bond, and that time was running out (not much air resistance). So McGuire talked an experience pilot into flying as his wingman. He had ground personnel fit two drop tanks to four P-38s. Two other pilots were needed, so he got two relatively new pilots to fly the two remaining aircraft. It seems that he may have selected the novices to justify the flight as a training mission, if questioned. Regardless, his mission was unauthorized.
At some point in the flight, one of the P-38s flown by a rookie developed an engine problem. So much so that he had trouble keeping up with McGuire and his wingman. Picture two P-38s about a mile behind the other two.
At some point, McGuire tells the other pilots in his flight . . . "Do not drop tanks if jumped. We will need the fuel for additional engagements!" (Retaining drop tanks in air-to-air combat is against standard operating procedure).
My recollection is that McGuire suddenly saw a lone Japanese fighter at 2 o'clock that was about to pass in front of him. It was so sudden, that McGuire throttled back and banked slightly left . . . for a deflection shot, one he had done many times. However, with the two additional drop tanks, he lost his lift . . and his P-38 shuddered, then rolled over on its left . . . dropping straight down!
In an instant, McGuire was gone. 
At some point, a second Japanese fighter was sighted. (Apparently they were not traveling together). One of the Japanese pilots managed to crash land, where he was hacked to death by local natives. The other lived to tell his side of the battle, only to find out years later that the P-38 that crashed was flown by Ace Maj McGuire. McGuire's wingman engaged the enemy aircraft. Obviously, this story had to be related by one of the three remaining pilots of the flight.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 6, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> I assume that article also has Sergeant Fukuda's account included?
> 
> Sergeant Fukuda (flying the KI-84A) also shot down McGuire's #3 man that day, Maj. Rittmayer, who crashed southwest of the Japanese held Carolina Airfield.


Resp:
I do not recall the details about the Japanese pilots, but seem to remember that the two Japanese fighters were different; a Frank or a George was one???


----------



## Milosh (Jul 6, 2018)

Jim Oxley
16th July 2007, 22:52
The best analysis of Tom McGuire's death IMHO is contained in John Stanaway's brilliant book "Possum, Clover and Hades".

McGuire was leading a four-plane patrol on the morning of 7 January, 1945; consisting of Capt. Ed Weaver as No.2, Maj. Jack Rittmayer as No.3 and Doug Thropp as No.4. All were very experienced combat pilots except Thropp, who was relatively new.

The following is and extract from the book:

"McGuire eased the flight down when they reached Negros and broke out beklow the clouds at 1,700ft. The Americans were about ten miles north of Fabrica aerodrome and bodly began circling the base at exactly 0700 hrs.

Five minutes later McGuire set course at about 1,400ft for the airstrips on western Negros, despairing of finding Japanese over Fabrica. Within a short time Weaver sighted what he took to be a Zeke 52 climbing directly below about 500ft and ahead about a thousand yards.

What Weaver identified as a MitsubishiA6M5 Zero was actually an Ki-43 Oscar flown by W/O Akira Sugimoto of the 54th Sentai. he had been flying in search of an American supply convoy headed for Mindoro or Lingayen Gulf. The weather had been impossible and Sugimoto headed back after a long and frustrating flight.

Weaver had called the enemy fighter and McGuire made a diving turn to the left to trap it; Sugimoto was already directly beneath the P-38 flight. The Oscar pilot may have been tired after the long search mission, but he was sharp enough to turn left himself, and get on the tial of Lt. Thropp, who was now the number htree after being ordered to switch positions with Major Rittmayer.

Thropp skidded his Lightning to avoid the fire coming from Sugimoto's two 12.7mm guns. It was inconceivable to Thropp that the Japanese pilotcould miss but he did. Rittmayer put his P-38 on the verge of a stall to draw enough lead to discourage this pugnacious Japanese. That he managed to do, temporarily. Sugimoto simply tightened the turn on his extremely maneuverable fighter and got a bead on Weaver.

With all he could do to avoid the attack, Weaver called McGuire and tightened his own turn until he was inside and a little below his leader. Sugimoto stuck like glue in his light olive-green Ki-43 with it's graceful yellow-orange tail insignia and confounded the entire flight of battle-tested Americans. A call ffrom McGuire ordered the flight to keep it's drop tanks even as the Oscar was out-turning the P-38's. The tanks were nearly full and further hampered the flexibility of the American fighters. Within a moment that inflexibility would produce catastrophe.

Weaver saw McGuire "increase his turn tremendously" to get his sights on the Oscar. The last thing Weaver observed of his leader was when McGiure's P-38 "snap-rolled to the left and slipped in an inverted position with the nose down about 30 degree. Becuase of the attitude of my plane, I then lost sight of him momentarily. A second later I saw the explosion and fire of his crash."

Sugimoto either saw his opportunity to escape or was driven off by Doug Thropp who had come around in the circle sufficiently to fire a three second burst at the Oscar. The Japanese fighter raced off to the north where it amde a forced landing, probably from damage received by Rittmayer or Thropp, and Sugimoto was soon caught and shot to death by a group of Filipino partisans.

Meanwhile, Sergent Mizonori Fukuda of the Ki-84 Frank equipped 71st Sentai was landing at Manapla strip on Negros when he noticed Sugimoto's plight to the north. He raced to the aid of his comrade in the Oscar and arrived just about the time McGuire crashed and Sugimoto escaped into the clouds to the north.

While the three P-38's were still in disarray, Fukuda dived from the clouds to the left and got onto Rittmayer's tail in the middle position. All the remaining P-38's had now dropped their tanks and Weaver, in the trail position, fired a burst at the Ki-84 just as Fukuda fired a killing burst at Rittmayer. A moment later another explosion was seen on the ground less than two miles from Pinanamaan Town. Fukuda also put a cannon shell into Thropp's right tail boom and left engine manifold. Weaver had done some damage to the Frank which made it back to Manalpa and crashlanded with twenty three bullet holes from Weavers guns, and was a complete write-off."
jeanba

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 6, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Jim Oxley
> 16th July 2007, 22:52
> The best analysis of Tom McGuire's death IMHO is contained in John Stanaway's brilliant book "Possum, Clover and Hades".
> 
> ...


Resp:
It seems like there are many similarities in the various accounts. The low altitude, extra weight of two drop tanks, and a quick reaction (muscle memory) of reducing power for a deflection shot . . . ended McGuire's life when his P-38 nosed over to the left, then dropped straight down. All with no enemy fire. It was a reaction that he had done many times; only with a lighter P-38 and at higher altitudes. 
It has been related that McGuire made fun of Lindbergh when he visited his unit; making Lindbergh drive him around in his jeep. Indicating to others that he was old and past his time as an aviator. Arrogance? Who knows.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I do not recall the details about the Japanese pilots, but seem to remember that the two Japanese fighters were different; a Frank or a George was one???


I mentioned earlier that W/O Sugimoto was flying the KI-43-III and Sergeant Fukuda was flying the KI-84A

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## calic (Jul 12, 2018)

My favorites as far as most beautiful planes of WWII are
#1 B-25 "Mitchell"
#2 F4U Corsair
#3 P-61 "Black Widow"
#4 B-17 "Flying Fortress"


----------



## GregP (Jul 12, 2018)

Funny, I have seen McGuire described as the worst CO ever and as the best CO ever by different pilots from the same unit. 

Wodner which McGuire was the real one?


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 12, 2018)

GregP said:


> Funny, I have seen McGuire described as the worst CO ever and as the best CO ever by different pilots from the same unit.
> 
> Wodner which McGuire was the real one?


Resp:
Sometimes it benefits the situation to border on arrogance. If McGuire did what was claimed to Lingbergh, then it was shameful. It he did it to impress upon those who needed emphasis to get the desired result, then it was necessary. Leadership, being in command isn't a fun activity . . . you are responsible for all under you.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 12, 2018)

For just straight up most beautiful plane I would have to say the spitfire. For just plane looking cool( kind of a subset of beauty) I'd have to say its a tie between the bf 109g and the p40f. At least to me.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 13, 2018)

Pretty sure that I read that Fukuda claimed in an interview after the war that he shot down McGuire in that engagement, I could be wrong.

Pretty dumb of Mcguire to be taunting the Japanese over their own bases under 2000' altitude. Hard for me to believe that a 38 victory ace would stall and crash by himself. The long published story just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Jul 13, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Pretty sure that I read that Fukuda claimed in an interview after the war that he shot down McGuire in that engagement, I could be wrong.
> 
> Pretty dumb of Mcguire to be taunting the Japanese over their own bases under 2000' altitude. Hard for me to believe that a 38 victory ace would stall and crash by himself. The long published story just doesn't make sense to me.


Resp:
Understand. But if you read the various accounts, it appears that that is what happened. I believe that he just 'reacted' as he had done many times. However, he did drop down over their bases to taunt them (low altitude) ; and he still had two fairly full drop tanks, neither of these two actions were done by him (or anyone experienced) in conjunction with each other before. His throttling back was a reaction (habit) that with these two variables caused his demise. I am not saying it is fact, only that what I read several yrs ago in an Aviation mag and, it specifically stated it was 'an unauthorized mission.' I gave up persuading people years ago, as it is a waste of time, as I believe people generally believe what they want. Just human nature, I guess.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 13, 2018)

Well, I'll try to put a list together, there are so many beautiful planes in that (or any) era.

1. P-51 - Prefer the B/C with tail fillet, not sure I like the _looks_ of the Malcolm Hood but understand it's usefulness.
2. P-39 - If looks could kill...
3. Macchi 202/205 - Italian Style, man they can make tractors look sexy.
4. Spitfire - Mark IX and later, once you get to the bubble top I think they're absolutely stunning.
5. Kawasaki Ki-61 - They don't come much sleeker.
6. Bf-109 - What's not to like, about as sleek and compact as they come (any marque).
7. Lockheed Constellation - Quite possibly the best looking four engine airliner/transport ever designed.
8. Mig 3 - Just as good looking as the Macchi and the Ki-61, how'd those Russkie's do it?
9. B-17 - Not only Iconic but looks great, even better to me than its big brother the B-29.
10. The IMMORTAL Buffalo - Need I say more?

Honorable Mention:
B-29
Republic XF-12 Rainbow - Only experimental which is why I didn't include it.
Boeing 314 Clipper
Kawanishi H8K


----------



## Csch605 (Jun 11, 2020)

gomwolf said:


> Beautiful means, not about performance, only about looking good. Please choice only one aircraft you think beautiful.
> 
> I vote to Bf109. I think it has sharpe shape and beautility.8)8)
> 
> ...


They had awesome paint jobs. Tough looking canopy and head the silhouette is terrifying


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 11, 2020)

Probably too late, but my vote would be for the Republic xF-12 Rainbow

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Jun 25, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Probably too late, but my vote would be for the Republic xF-12 Rainbow


Thanks for that. That's a new one to me. 
http://www.impdb.org/index.php?title=Forgotten_Aircraft:_The_Republic_XF-12_Rainbow

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Csch605 (Jun 25, 2020)

ClayO said:


> Thanks for that. That's a new one to me.
> http://www.impdb.org/index.php?title=Forgotten_Aircraft:_The_Republic_XF-12_Rainbow
> View attachment 586187


Looks like a 4 engine H-111, nice lines


----------



## Elvis (Jun 25, 2020)

I'm sure I'll get some flak for this (maybe not), but I always thought my sig had a certain _elegance_ to it....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 25, 2020)

Sweet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 26, 2020)

Thank you.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 26, 2020)

I'm a bit of a sucker for the P-38, especially this one...




P-38 static-2




DSC_0559

Then again, can't go wrong with a Griffon engined Spitfire for sheer menace...




Spitfire static-8

Throw in a Castoldi fighter...




C.205

And a Fiat for good measure...




G.55

Add a dab of bent-wing bastardry...




Corsair -1

And a touch of Superfortress-ness (although the Chinese have done something hideous to its engine cowls)




DSC_1127

Plus a bit of British quirkiness.




1207 RAFM Cosford Defiant

And a spot of German ingenuity...




Me 262




Science Museum Komet

And some Japanese fastidiousness...




Ki-46 1

And some devillish French charm...




Europe 07

So much to choose from...

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

Great pictures but what’s the story behind that B-29? Could it be a Tupelov?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 26, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Great pictures but what’s the story behind that B-29? Could it be a Tupelov?



Indeed it is. Tupolev Tu-4. The Chinese received a few for carrying out bombing raids on Taiwan - Mao wanted to nuke the island but Khruschev wouldn't give him any nuclear weapons, so the Chinese developed their own. The turboprops were AI-20 engines built under licence in China for Antonov An-12 transports. This is one of only three surviving complete Tu-4s. Here are the second and third, this one is in the same museum near Beijing as the one above and the third at Monino, near Moscow.




DSC_0548 




Tupolev Tu-4 B-4 Bull 001

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

What was the time frame for the Chairman’s wanting to use the bomb on Taiwan? Was it before or after General MacArthur’s desire to use nukes on the PLA in Korea? Is this thread drift?


----------



## PFVA63 (Jun 26, 2020)

Hi,
I don't think I posted this one yet (but I apologize if I have). Anyway, I've been kind of intrigued by the French SNCASE SE 100

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 26, 2020)

KiwiBiggles said:


> So to summarize, everyone knows that the Spitfire was fragile,


Seafire wasn’t so bad. If handled properly the Seafire could land well enough. 

Not all Seafire landings are prangs


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 26, 2020)

Elvis said:


> I'm sure I'll get some flak for this (maybe not), but I always thought my sig had a certain _elegance_ to it....
> 
> View attachment 586198
> 
> View attachment 586199


Would you be offended if we strapped a few bazookas onto it?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 26, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Would you be offended if we strapped a few bazookas onto it?


THE MIGHTY 'HOPPER FLIES AGAIN!!!!
TIGER TANKS BEWARE!!!!
TALLYYYYYYYYYYYYYY HOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!






...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

PFVA63 said:


> Hi,
> I don't think I posted this one yet (but I apologize if I have). Anyway, I've been kind of intrigued by the French SNCASE SE 100
> 
> View attachment 586325


I’m drawn to this picture. It looks like a Lockheed Electra running away with its tail between its legs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 27, 2020)

Elvis said:


> THE MIGHTY 'HOPPER FLIES AGAIN!!!!


Nice! The US Army had their own aircraft carriers. Sort of like the IJ Army’s _Yamashio Maru _class CVE and the _Akitsu Maru _assault ship. Did any of these LSTs fly Pipers with Bazookas? That would be the US Army providing its own CAS.

The saga of the seasick US Army Piper Cubs on the Navy’s smallest aircraft carriers.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

Great link, Admiral! I never knew the IJA had aircraft carriers.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 27, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Great link, Admiral! I never knew the IJA had aircraft carriers.


I know, pretty cool.

Imagine the 15 knot _Yamashio Maru_ and its eight Kokusai Ki-76 each armed with a single .303 mg in the rear seat vs. the 12 knot LST-906 and its six Piper Cubs, presumably someone hanging out the door with M3 grease gun. Not suggesting a what if scenario for discussion, just being silly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

I’ve heard that seltzer bottles sound like dropping bombs when tossed from a Piper Cub.


----------



## Elvis (Jun 27, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Nice! The US Army had their own aircraft carriers. Sort of like the IJ Army’s _Yamashio Maru _class CVE and the _Akitsu Maru _assault ship. *Did any of these LSTs fly Pipers with Bazookas?* That would be the US Army providing its own CAS.
> 
> The saga of the seasick US Army Piper Cubs on the Navy’s smallest aircraft carriers.
> 
> View attachment 586371


I think your picture answers your question. Looks like an entire battalion, to me!  (  )

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 27, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I’ve heard that seltzer bottles sound like dropping bombs when tossed from a Piper Cub.


I believe a case was considered the standard bomb load, when flying interdiction missions. (  )

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

Got that bit of info from the movie Cast a Giant Shadow.

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 27, 2020)

Good that the German's didnt think of the idea and use a Storch
The saga of the seasick US Army Piper Cubs on the Navy’s smallest aircraft carriers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 27, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Good that the German's didnt think of the idea and use a Storch
> The saga of the seasick US Army Piper Cubs on the Navy’s smallest aircraft carriers.


You don’t see many parasol wings on carrier aircraft. Just the French that I can think of, plus the Piper and Stella above.







The first single seat monoplane carrier fighter with folding wings.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> Good that the German's didnt think of the idea and use a Storch
> The saga of the seasick US Army Piper Cubs on the Navy’s smallest aircraft carriers.


The Abwher dropped the ball on that one.


----------



## PFVA63 (Jun 27, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I’m drawn to this picture. It looks like a Lockheed Electra running away with its tail between its legs.



Hi,
I think you summed it up well. It's body reminds me a bit of the cave/spider crickets I see around my house in Virginia.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soaringtractor (Jul 2, 2020)

gomwolf said:


> Beautiful means, not about performance, only about looking good. Please choice only one aircraft you think beautiful.
> 
> I vote to Bf109. I think it has sharpe shape and beautility.8)8)
> 
> ...


Its gotta be the P51 D/K Mustang !!!!


----------



## WATU (Jul 2, 2020)

Catalina


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2020)

WATU said:


> Catalina



The Cat is a beautiful aircraft, but the Dornier Do 24 is much sexier...


----------



## WATU (Jul 2, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Cat is a beautiful aircraft, but the Dornier Do 24 is much sexier...


Eye of the beholder.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MarkD69 (Jul 2, 2020)

Hands down Supermarine Spitfire. All planes being aerodynamic but the lines and curves of this masterpiece takes the cake. If I did top 5
Spitfire
P-40
FW-190
P-38
Hawker Hurricane


----------



## Escuadrilla Azul (Jul 2, 2020)

And what about Hawker Tempest V?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## flyr956 (Jul 2, 2020)

Corsair/Constellation


----------



## jmcalli2 (Jul 2, 2020)

gomwolf said:


> Beautiful means, not about performance, only about looking good. Please choice only one aircraft you think beautiful.
> 
> I vote to Bf109. I think it has sharpe shape and beautility.8)8)
> 
> ...


My vote goes to the Lockheed C-69.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jul 3, 2020)

Escuadrilla Azul said:


> And what about Hawker Tempest V?
> View attachment 586867
> View attachment 586868


To my mind more brutal than beautiful.


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 3, 2020)

gomwolf said:


> Beautiful means, not about performance, only about looking good. Please choice only one aircraft you think beautiful.
> 
> I vote to Bf109. I think it has sharpe shape and beautility.8)8)
> 
> ...


What? The lumpy 109? Surely not! Try comparing it to the ultra-smooth Hawker Tempest V. All the beauty of the Spitfire's elliptical wing with the added handsome profile and slippery shape. I say "Pfft" at your 109!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Cat is a beautiful aircraft, but the Dornier Do 24 is much sexier...



And the Dornier Do 26 was even sexier (IMO)






Dornier Do 26 - Wikipedia


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2020)

wuzak said:


> And the Dornier Do 26 was even sexier (IMO)
> 
> View attachment 586897
> 
> ...



It was a beautiful aircraft too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> What? The lumpy 109? Surely not! Try comparing it to the ultra-smooth Hawker Tempest V. All the beauty of the Spitfire's elliptical wing with the added handsome profile and slippery shape. I say "Pfft" at your 109!



I agree with him on 109. It was a very beautiful aircraft that looked mean and like it was meant for war. The Tempest looked like an unwanted stepchild...pfft.


----------



## rednev (Jul 3, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with him on 109. It was a very beautiful aircraft that looked mean and like it was meant for war. The Tempest looked like an unwanted stepchild...pfft.


Cinderella was an unwanted stepchild.........and look how that turned out

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 3, 2020)

wuzak said:


> And the Dornier Do 26 was even sexier (IMO)
> 
> View attachment 586897
> 
> ...


Sorry, the Boeing 314 blows both Dorniers out of the water. 
I’ve been scrolling through this entire thread. I couldn’t choose one. I don’t think only one could be chosen. Someone posts a picture of an airplane and I think “Yes, that’s it!” Then another pic gets posted and then “Wow, never saw that one before (Republic XF-12 Rainbow)”. I’m going with Swampyankee’s (2014) and jmcalli2’s pick. 
The Constellation.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 3, 2020)

BTW The most beautiful airplane ever built was the the B model B-17, the “Art Decco” bomber. Any other choice is merely the incoherent ravings of someone suffering from the after effects of a bacon overdose. 
Not sure if the B-17B counts as I don’t know when it was retired.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 3, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> BTW The most beautiful airplane ever built was the the B model B-17, the “Art Decco” bomber. Any other choice is merely the incoherent ravings of someone suffering from the after effects of a bacon overdose.
> Not sure if the B-17B counts as I don’t know when it was retired.


Not enough junk in da trunk.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 3, 2020)

P-39 Expert said:


> Not enough junk in da trunk.


Touché!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jul 3, 2020)

I always considered the Typhoon and Tempests to be brutish, not beautiful. The Spitty does qualify on the "pretty" scale, near the top, but I'm still a fan of the 51Ds (not the K's, though, the canopy of the K's look odd to me).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 3, 2020)

I've also appreciated the nice clean lines of the FFVS J-22....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 3, 2020)

Don't like that landing gear. :}

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 3, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> BTW The most beautiful airplane ever built was the the B model B-17, the “Art Decco” bomber. Any other choice is merely the incoherent ravings of someone suffering from the after effects of a bacon overdose.
> Not sure if the B-17B counts as I don’t know when it was retired.



Funny, I always thought the first Hurricane looked art decco. Mr. Camm would probably roll in his grave if he heard that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Jul 3, 2020)

The Douglas Dolphin


----------



## gomwolf (Jul 3, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> What? The lumpy 109? Surely not! Try comparing it to the ultra-smooth Hawker Tempest V. All the beauty of the Spitfire's elliptical wing with the added handsome profile and slippery shape. I say "Pfft" at your 109!








Okay...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Big Jake (Jul 3, 2020)

Ki-84


----------



## wuzak (Jul 4, 2020)

glennasher said:


> but I'm still a fan of the 51Ds (not the K's, though, the canopy of the K's look odd to me).



Is not the P-51K the same as the P-51D, except for where it was built and the brand of the propeller?


----------



## glennasher (Jul 4, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Is not the P-51K the same as the P-51D, except for where it was built and the brand of the propeller?



AND, the canopy is a fuzz taller, it has a different profile, subtle, but different. The Ks were built in Dallas TX, not Inglewood, and were usually the "export" model, shipped off to all the Allies using them, like South Africa, Australia, New Zealand?, Great Britain, etc. 
That canopy stands out whenever I look at them, it just jumps up and assaults my eyes. That canopy is preferred for the Cavalier and TF-51s, though, as it has more headroom, but it sure is hard on my eyes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 4, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Cat is a beautiful aircraft, but the Dornier Do 24 is much sexier...



You always fall for the German ladies


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> You always fall for the German ladies



I do have a weak spot.


----------



## rob23 (Jul 4, 2020)

Elvis said:


> I've also appreciated the nice clean lines of the FFVS J-22....
> 
> View attachment 586983
> 
> View attachment 586984


This looks like a Hellcat-Zero hybrid to me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2020)

gomwolf said:


> View attachment 586996
> 
> View attachment 586997
> 
> ...


The more I look at this post the more I see a family resemblance.


----------



## Airframes (Jul 5, 2020)

There were many _attractive_ WW2 aircraft, some brutish, some "workmanlike", but there was only one truly _*beautiful *_aircraft ...... but apparently it was fragile, short-ranged, under armed, with weak undercart etc, so maybe it doesn't count ............ cough !

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 5, 2020)

It really is a beautiful airplane.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 5, 2020)

Airframes said:


> There were many _attractive_ WW2 aircraft, some brutish, some "workmanlike", but there was only one truly _*beautiful *_aircraft ...... but apparently it was fragile, short-ranged, under armed, with weak undercart etc, so maybe it doesn't count ............ cough !
> 
> 
> View attachment 587214


----------



## rob23 (Jul 5, 2020)

Airframes said:


> There were many _attractive_ WW2 aircraft, some brutish, some "workmanlike", but there was only one truly _*beautiful *_aircraft ...... but apparently it was fragile, short-ranged, under armed, with weak undercart etc, so maybe it doesn't count ............ cough !
> 
> 
> View attachment 587214


And according to the movie Dunkirk, it was one of the most efficient gliders in history!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikemike (Jul 5, 2020)

My vote still goes to the De Havilland DH.103 Hornet, the RAF version (F.1/F3). Unfortunately, none are left, because they were stored/operated in a way that let the wood airframe rot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 5, 2020)

Airframes said:


> There were many _attractive_ WW2 aircraft, some brutish, some "workmanlike", but there was only one truly _*beautiful *_aircraft ...... but apparently it was fragile, short-ranged, under armed, with weak undercart etc, so maybe it doesn't count ............ cough !
> 
> 
> View attachment 587214


Well Terry, the reason for that, is the roundels.

Now if the Spitfire were sporting black crosses, it would have been much faster and sturdier. And it would have had a die-hard fan base, too! 





_(Image source: interwebs)_

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jul 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Well Terry, the reason for that, is the roundels.
> 
> Now if the Spitfire were sporting black crosses, it would have been much faster and sturdier. And it would have had a die-hard fan base, too!
> 
> ...


Ah the greatest Spitfire ever built !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## RagTag (Jul 7, 2020)

Lots of picks here with great personalities. I’m partial to A model Marauders with great big spinners and a tight cowl, but she needs to go on a bit of a diet. Can’t deny the Brit Merlin sisters, but I have to give the nod to the sleek figure of the Westland Whirlwind.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hairog (Jul 12, 2020)

Marge of course.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jul 13, 2020)

there is no accounting for taste, but the more I think about it, IMHO, the simple beauty and casual elegance of the Spitfire puts it at #1 on my list.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 14, 2020)

pinehilljoe said:


> there is no accounting for taste, but the more I think about it, IMHO, the simple beauty and casual elegance of the Spitfire puts it at #1 on my list.


Agreed. Not that there aren't some less attractive mods and variants...
















To my eye I never took to liking the bubble canopy, clipped wing, pointy tail variants as much, especially once the long nose necessitated by the Griffon was added. Still nice.... but this is not as nice....






...as this...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## xylstra (Jul 15, 2020)

gomwolf said:


> Beautiful means, not about performance, only about looking good. Please choice only one aircraft you think beautiful.
> 
> I vote to Bf109. I think it has sharpe shape and beautility.8)8)
> 
> ...


No Contest: KYUSHU 'Shinden' !!


----------



## spicmart (Jul 28, 2020)

Sleekest fuselage of all WW2 fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 29, 2020)

spicmart said:


> Sleekest fuselage of all WW2 fighters.


As Peter Gunn said “if looks could kill “.


----------



## GregP (Jul 29, 2020)

Looks DID kill in Soviet hands. They used the P-39 very effectively.

How about a beautiful flying boat, the Latecoere 631. First flight in 1942:






To me, it is the best-looking of the flying boats, especially when airborne and the tip floats were retracted:






No the absolutely prettiest aircraft, but likely the prettiest flying boat built.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Jul 29, 2020)

I still believe that the AT-6 is the most beautiful aircraft of World War II.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 30, 2020)

Every so often the Sky Typers over fly my home on their way to the Long Island beaches. They have about 5 T-6/SNJ’s. Hearing the sweet sound of those radial engines harmonizing is a real treat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## N33 (Jul 30, 2020)

I've been lurking for years, but I finally have a legitimate reason to register because I found this thread - a rare thread in which I can offer an opinion that might contribute something unique with regard to the topic at hand. I mean, man, I thought I had learned quite a bit about WW2 aircraft, since mystifying my grandparents in the late 1960's by selecting William Green books in the Marshall Field Department Store book section when I visited Chicago and they gifted one book of my choice to me on each visit. It wasn't until several years ago that my bubble was burst, when I found this forum and discovered how little I really knew. You've all taught me a lot, even though you did not know I was reading your posts. I still have and re-read those William Green books, though.

Getting down to the topic at hand, I cast my vote for an aircraft that nobody else has voted for in this thread (I think): 

The Bell P-59

Runner's up: P-38 and P-80

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 30, 2020)

N33 said:


> I've been lurking for years, but I finally have a legitimate reason to register because I found this thread - a rare thread in which I can offer an opinion that might contribute something unique with regard to the topic at hand. I mean, man, I thought I had learned quite a bit about WW2 aircraft, since mystifying my grandparents in the late 1960's by selecting William Green books in the Marshall Field Department Store book section when I visited Chicago and they gifted one book of my choice to me on each visit. It wasn't until several years ago that my bubble was burst, when I found this forum and discovered how little I really knew. You've all taught me a lot, even though you did not know I was reading your posts. I still have and re-read those William Green books, though.
> 
> Getting down to the topic at hand, I cast my vote for an aircraft that nobody else has voted for in this thread (I think):
> 
> ...


I’m with you my friend. I used to think I knew about aviation. Nope.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 31, 2020)

Hey N33,

If you're ever out on the west coast, come to Chino and the Planes of Fame. We are restoring a Bell YP-59A, SN 42-108777, to flight status.

We have most of the restoration done and the GE I-16 engines (some call them J-31 engines, but that designation was some time after our airplane flew) are installed. You might enjoy an up-close-and-personal look at it. The Navy throws everything away, but the Marines keep everything since their budget is smaller. We got our engines for the Marines and they were overhauled in the late 1990s. Ran great.

Here it is at an airshow in 2007:






Looks a lot better now, but I don't happen to have a handy pic just now.

Cheers.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## N33 (Jul 31, 2020)

GregP: I had no idea that particular aircraft existed! And I'm really happy to hear it is being restored to flight-worthy status. I don't know how you can come up with the funds to do that kind of restoration, but I would love to see that beautiful bird aloft....

I've never been to the museum in Chino, but I have long wanted to visit. I hope to do that someday. Thanks for the great photo - it does my heart good to see that a YP-59A still exists, and will at some point be airborne.


----------



## GregP (Jul 31, 2020)

They started on the YP-59A in 1992 and it has been more or less ready for the A&P guys for about a year, but they have been working on other warbirds. I started on the Airacomet in 2006, and we have added firewalls, added fire bottles for each engine, and have gutted the cockpit in prep for instrument panel and other final goodies. Meanwhile we fabricated a new windscreen and frame for it, a completely new canopy frame system with emergency releases from a Tigercat, have revamped the aileron system , made new trailing edges, reskinned the wings, and a host of other restoration / improvement items. In the last few years, they have completed a Yokosuka D4Y3, Tigercat, a Canadair Sabre Mk.VI, a complete down-to-bare-aluminum overhaul of our A6M5 Model 52 Zero (except for the Sakae 21 engine and Sumitomo prop), finished a complete restoration of an F8F Bearcat, and we have done 90% of the work to get our Ha.1112 Buchon back in the air, including overhaul of the Merlin 228 engine.

When I say "they" above. I mean Steve Hinton's Fighter Rebuilders. Plane of Fame volunteers did most of the work on the Hispano Ha.1112 and the YP-59A, but the rest was Fighter Rebuilders ... and the Fighter guys have also helped with the YP-59A and the Buchon when things were beyond our restoration skills. Great bunch of guys who really don't get enough recognition when it comes down to it, but they are wizards with Aluminum and other raw material needed in quantity on a WWII aircraft.

Here's a pic of our windscreen frame:






There are a LOT of new pieces in there along with some older, original pieces. You can see one piece we replaced sitting in front of the new one, at the front. It's the one with all the patches and holes in it. The gray piece at the top of the frame (remember it is upside down) was whittled out of a solid piece of 7075 aluminum on an old Bridgeport mill by me and Bob Velker. All the silver rivets are new, and it now has new glass / plexi, and is ready for re-installation anytime ... well ... post-COVID anyway. You can see the fake cannons at the top of the pic, ready for paint.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Aug 2, 2020)

glennasher said:


> AND, the canopy is a fuzz taller, it has a different profile, subtle, but different. The Ks were built in Dallas TX, not Inglewood, and were usually the "export" model, shipped off to all the Allies using them, like South Africa, Australia, New Zealand?, Great Britain, etc.
> That canopy stands out whenever I look at them, it just jumps up and assaults my eyes. That canopy is preferred for the Cavalier and TF-51s, though, as it has more headroom, but it sure is hard on my eyes.


I know that some of that some of the early production from Dallas utilized the Aeroproducts propeller as opposed to the Hamilton Standard, thus the P-51K designation. Later this was changed to block numbers so airplanes manufactured in Inglewood and Dallas were all P-51D's. Other than the propeller and/or location of manufacture I thought the P-51D and the P-51K were identical. I know the P-51H and the P-82's had different canopies than the P-51D, but I have never heard that the P-51K's were different. As for the TF-51 that was a different unit altogether. Can you elaborate on the different canopy on the K model?


----------



## glennasher (Aug 2, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> I know that some of that some of the early production from Dallas utilized the Aeroproducts propeller as opposed to the Hamilton Standard, thus the P-51K designation. Later this was changed to block numbers so airplanes manufactured in Inglewood and Dallas were all P-51D's. Other than the propeller and/or location of manufacture I thought the P-51D and the P-51K were identical. I know the P-51H and the P-82's had different canopies than the P-51D, but I have never heard that the P-51K's were different. As for the TF-51 that was a different unit altogether. Can you elaborate on the different canopy on the K model?




Just look at good photos of the D's and K's side by side, it will jump out at you. I've read where it added 1 to 1.5 inches of headroom for the pilot, it's slightly more bulbous than the D's canopy. If you really look closely, you'll see it.


----------



## N33 (Aug 2, 2020)

GregP: it's really interesting and humbling to see all of the detailed work and time it takes to restore an aircraft like the YP-59A in your photos. I would be thrilled to help with the work on such a restoration, if only I had skills that might be useful. Thanks for showing us those photos.


----------



## GregP (Aug 2, 2020)

Hi N33,

Thanks for the kind words. I didn't know much about restoration when I started 16 years ago, and I now wish I had started volunteering 40 years sooner at a museum where they fly their airplanes. My intent was to acquire the skills necessary to build an airplane for myself. When I got there, I managed to get laid off 2 weeks before I was going to order a kit for a Van's RV-7, and still haven't yet ordered the kit. But I wish I had had the metal skills when I was playing with muscle cars back in the day. If so, my 1967 Plymouth GTX Hemi 4-speed would have looked a bit different. My 2019 Ford Mustang GT doesn't need any sheet metal work to look good, being "new."

Still, I'm not one of the "aluminum geniuses" that work at Fighter Rebuilders." Those guys really are wizards. The only thing that makes me wonder a bit is the fact that I'm basically a retired electrical engineer, and nobody has asked me to wire anything up for them in an airplane. If I had managed to build my kitplane, the wiring would have been first-class. All's well that ends well, I suppose.

I have a LOT of pics, but the museum has asked me not to post most of them that show the inside of any of their aircraft. The pic of the windscreen meets that criteria ... sort of ... it's a part outside of the airplane and it is not in finished state. Wish I could post other restoration pics, but I also pretty much have to follow their wishes since I am working on what is basically a private airplane when I'm doing any restoration. I suppose I don't HAVE to, but that would be breaking my word. There are only a very few pics of parts outside the airplane that would likely be OK to show.

One of the aircraft I work on restoring (or WAS) is an old North American O-47. Here is a pic of the starboard wing root stub leading edge I was working on in the not too distant past.







The ribs are original, but the skin and the stringers across the skin are all new. You can see some patches on the closer rib and I have circled some holes that someone has oversized when they did some work on it earlier. I had to cut off the edge around them and fabricate a patch and drill new holes of the correct size. If you put a rivet through a hole it doesn't fit in, you lost a LOT of strength since the rivet will then easily shear in turbulence. A rivet is strong only because it is rigid in the structure. If it starts to move, the structure is WAY heavier and will shear it right off. If it is captured and doesn't move, it is a very strong, hardened piece of metal. This piece is now complete and installed.

The next pic shows the starboard wing stub of the O-47 where the piece above fits. We put new skin on the upper wing stub, too. My partner John Petersen and I also made the vertical stiffeners that are on the wing rib showing behind the landing gear cutout. Those were fun to make on a hydraulic vertical press in Fighter Rebuilders. We riveted and bolted around the landing gear cutout, too, and had to fabricate and install the leading edge junction showing at the front of the wing. You can see a new leading edge skin on the fin. Lots of work to do here ...






Technically, I suppose I should not post this, but this will be all. My estimate is that this airplane is some 10 years away from flying again. That assumes someone is actually working on it, and I haven't in a couple of years after I lost my riveting partner. The O-47 is to the point where a LOT of rivets have to be done with someone setting the rivet and someone inside the structure bucking the rivet. After I lost my partner, everyone else to date was new to riveting and nobody "stuck" on the project ... and I had to drill out most of the rivets we set due to "new guy on a rivet gun mistakes." I determined not to work on the airplane again until I had someone who could rivet correctly the first time and would stay on the project. He or she hasn't made an appearance as yet.

Here's an O-47 in flight.






This is a very desirable warbird for any flying museum. Most fighters are single-seat. Many have a jump seat installed and can take two people. The O-47 is unique in that you can seat three in the cockpit and maybe 2 - 3 below in the observer seats ... note the windows under the wing. Also, it only has an R-1820 in it, but can cruise up near 200 mph, so you can take 3 - 5 helpers along with the pilot for the ride to the airshow, cruise with the fighters, and there are ... people to HELP you out during the airshow! That's rare!

O-47s did yeoman work in WWII flying U-boat patrol along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Caribbean coast. Many of the U-boats found off our coast in WWII were found by O-47s. The USAAF found that pigeons were better at finding things at sea from an airplane than people were. They'd train pigeons by dropping a corn kernel every time the pigeon pecked a button when it saw something in the water. There's more to it than that, but you get the idea. Then, they'd put 6 - 8 pigeons in the window on each side and 1 - 2 guys taking care of them. Pigeons have great eyes and didn't miss much! Who'd have thought?

Now, guys like FlyboyJ and other people who work on aircraft and get paid for it might have some pics they can share ... maybe not. Maybe we should start a thread on pics of working on warbirds?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Aug 2, 2020)

glennasher said:


> Just look at good photos of the D's and K's side by side, it will jump out at you. I've read where it added 1 to 1.5 inches of headroom for the pilot, it's slightly more bulbous than the D's canopy. If you really look closely, you'll see it.



This is a parts catalog for the P-51D/P-51K/Mustang IV downloaded from another thread on this forum. On Page 5 of the PDF(Introduction Page of the original catalog), it states; 

"The P-5lD model and the P-5IK model differ only in the Propeller Installation, P-5ID airplanes being equipped with the Hamilton Standard Propeller and P-5lK airplanes being equipped with the Aeroproducts Propeller."

On Page 41 of the PDF (Section 2, Page 35 of the original catalog) it shows 2 part numbers for the canopy, but one supersedes the other, and both apply to all models covered by the catalog. Neither is specific to either the P-51D or the P-51K.

So unless there were manufacturing differences from suppliers, which seems unlikely given that this is an important aerodynamic shape, there appears to be no difference in the canopies from model to model. Are the pictures you are comparing of wartime models? Because it is possible that private owners swapped their stock canopies for the P-51H canopies which I believe were interchangeable, and were more bulbous as you describe.

Regards,

Kim

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 2, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> This is a parts catalog for the P-51D/P-51K/Mustang IV downloaded from another thread on this forum. On Page 5 of the PDF(Introduction Page of the original catalog), it states;
> 
> "The P-5lD model and the P-5IK model differ only in the Propeller Installation, P-5ID airplanes being equipped with the Hamilton Standard Propeller and P-5lK airplanes being equipped with the Aeroproducts Propeller."
> 
> ...



Gents,

IIRC Drgondog covered canopies previously. There were several different versions, one had noticeably more headroom than others. They were irrespective of location of manufacture.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Aug 2, 2020)

Dash119 said:


> This is a parts catalog for the P-51D/P-51K/Mustang IV downloaded from another thread on this forum. On Page 5 of the PDF(Introduction Page of the original catalog), it states;
> 
> "The P-5lD model and the P-5IK model differ only in the Propeller Installation, P-5ID airplanes being equipped with the Hamilton Standard Propeller and P-5lK airplanes being equipped with the Aeroproducts Propeller."
> 
> ...


Yes, the photos I looked at were wartime photos. Look again at a D model's canopy, then look CLOSELY at a K Model's canopy, the bulge is there and extends all the way to the rear of the canopy. I don't know what to say if you can't see it looking at wartime photos, it's like a pimple on a pretty girl's nose.


----------



## Mad Dog (Aug 2, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with him on 109. It was a very beautiful aircraft that looked mean and like it was meant for war. The Tempest looked like an unwanted stepchild...pfft.



I respectfully suggest you are mistaken, sir!





Either Sabre version or Centaurus:





Now compare to Old Lumpy-Bumpy-Nose-Girder-Canopy, even without the gunpods:





I suppose the Bf109F-4 was a bit handsomer, but not as much as the Tempest.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2020)

Mad Dog said:


> I respectfully suggest you are mistaken, sir!
> View attachment 590673
> 
> 
> ...



Nope, I stand by my comments. Although, the more I look at the Tempest, the more it looks like an open mouth breather with that intake. 

All Joking aside, I do think the Tempest looks nice. I prefer the looks of the 109 though.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2020)

Bf109 hands-down versus the Typhoon/Tempest.

Even the P-47 had better lines over the Tiffy.


----------



## PAT303 (Aug 3, 2020)

GregP said:


> Hey N33,
> 
> If you're ever out on the west coast, come to Chino and the Planes of Fame. We are restoring a Bell YP-59A, SN 42-108777, to flight status.
> 
> ...



To me it looks like one of those grandma's with G size boobs that never wears a bra.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## at6 (Aug 3, 2020)

That may be true but it was America's first jet aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Aug 3, 2020)

Hey Pat303,

Funny you should say it that way ...






Looks like at least ONE person in 1943 saw it the same way! Sweet 16, indeed! The engines were GE I-16s (1,600 pounds of thrust) that later had the designation changed to J-31 when the U.S.A. adopted a standard system for designating jet engines.

Here's the nose art I proposed for our bird:







Perhaps not the most original ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Aug 3, 2020)

And the baseball cap patch:






In hindsight, maybe without the light blue background ... and a different font.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## N33 (Aug 4, 2020)

The O-47 wouldn't win a "most beautiful" contest, but apparently it was a very successful aircraft in carrying out its mission. That information about using pigeons is really amazing - I had no idea. I would like to write a book on the use of non-human animals during WW2 in various weapons systems. I'd cover the ill-fated Project X-Ray, among others.

We can make fun of the P-59's appearance, but in reality it was a good streamlining idea to bury the jets and intakes in the fuselage.


----------



## contrails16 (Aug 4, 2020)

I have to say that I think the A6M Zero series of planes are my favorite. Simple, yet elegant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2020)

N33 said:


> We can make fun of the P-59's appearance, but in reality it was a good streamlining idea to bury the jets and intakes in the fuselage


Agreed - and if compared to other nations' first jet aircraft: Germany's Heinkel He178, Italy's Campini N.1 and Britain's Gloster E.28/39, the P-59A is the best looking of the bunch.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 4, 2020)

N33 said:


> We can make fun of the P-59's appearance, but in reality it was a good streamlining idea to bury the jets and intakes in the fuselage.



It may have been a good idea, but the execution wasn't that great. From what I understand, the engine installation for the P-59 was particularly draggy.


----------



## at6 (Aug 5, 2020)

wuzak said:


> It may have been a good idea, but the execution wasn't that great. From what I understand, the engine installation for the P-59 was particularly draggy.


Please remember what company designed it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2020)

Bell Aircraft had good designs.


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2020)

About the P-59 Airacomet, let's give Bell their due.

1) When they asked Bell to design it, they didn't give Bell an engine. They gave them a big block of wood that was sort of the correct shape and said, "It won't be any bigger than that. Use two of them."
2) They didn't give them much information at all, including the thrust it would make, so Bell added a LOT of wing area. It's almost a sailplane.
3) They didn't tell Bell how much fuel it used. An F-86D in loiter mode at 30,000 feet will use about 170 U.S. gallons per hour. Average cruise is around 300 gph. The YP-59A, on the other hand, used earlier I-16 engines and would use 570 U.S. gallons per hour on takeoff! Internal fuel was 280 gallons, so you weren't going to fly very long!
4) They didn't tell Bell how much air it used, so the intakes are oversize and draggy. Too much air goes in, the engine uses what it needs, and the rest mulls around in the intake and then comes back out, creating a lot of drag. By the time Bell actually got engines and figured that out, the airframe was completed, and there wasn't any money for redesign.

They built 3 XP-59, 13 YP-59A, 20 P-59A, and 30 P-59B for a grand total of only 66 airplanes. They weren't very good, but the DID serve to teach our WWII pilots how to fly jet aircraft. That came back to benefit us in spades in Korea. When the WWII / Korean War era pilots finally retired, we lost our expertise and didn't get it back until Top Gun / Red Flag were created to restore the expertise to aerial hunters.

The YP-59A at the Planes of Fame is SN 42-108777. We have had the pleasure of having two or three pilots who actually flew our tail number give talks at the museum. Their stories are very entertaining and offer glimpses into early jet operations that are almost shocking. Seems like a good subject for a new post.

Oh, and the Zero is my favorite WWII fighter, too.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## contrails16 (Aug 5, 2020)

GregP said:


> About the P-59 AIracomet, let's give Bell their due.
> 
> 1) When they asked Bell to design it, they didn't give Bell and engine. They gave them a big block of wood that was sort of the correct shape and said, "It won't be any bigger than that. Use two of them."
> 2) They didn't give them much information at all, including the thrust it would make, so Bell added a LOT of wing area. It's almost a sailplane.
> ...


Zero for Life 😎


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2020)

Duplicate post


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2020)

Love the Zero. When the designer, Jiro Horikoshi, designed next airplane (the J2M Raiden), he had more power and it HAS armor and self-sealing tanks. But, it wasn't until the J2M-3 that he got as much as 1,800 hp.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 5, 2020)

GregP said:


> About the P-59 AIracomet, let's give Bell their due.
> 
> 1) When they asked Bell to design it, they didn't give Bell an engine. They gave them a big block of wood that was sort of the correct shape and said, "It won't be any bigger than that. Use two of them."
> 2) They didn't give them much information at all, including the thrust it would make, so Bell added a LOT of wing area. It's almost a sailplane.
> ...


Wow. That really explains a lot. I thought the US could have had a better looking first attempt. Now I know why. “Here, take this log and build secret weapon”.


----------



## N33 (Aug 5, 2020)

That's really interesting info about the P-59 that I didn't know. I still think it's a good-looking design, though, overall. 

I agree that the Zero is an aerodynamically beautiful design, overall, but I can't get over the bulbous canopy. Of course, that bulbous canopy provided very good vision to the rear.


----------



## GregP (Aug 5, 2020)

Hi N33,

Most of that comes from a book I have on the XP-59A entitled "Flame Powered, the Bell XP-59A Airacomet and the General Electric I-A Engine," by David M. Carpenter. A LOT of very interesting data about the first jet in the U.S.A. . You might look it up online (try "flame powered carpenter") and find a copy in very good condition for very little money. I did and found one that looks brand new ... only because I was working on restoring one for about 9 years, and am STILL going to work on it post-COVID, if any help is needed to proceed.

I have a LOT of work into it, but am FAR from the only one who can say that. The list of volunteers who contributed to it is long, and some are no longer with us. All of us surviving YP-59A workers are looking forward to seeing air under the tires under its own power!

Here's our airplane in flight, back in the 1940s:







The text on the nose says, "Bell Aircraft Corp." When we finish this YP-59A, it will likely be painted very close to this color scheme with the later light blue underside color added, though that is up to the museum as the owner of the aircraft. They generally are sticklers for authenticity on our flying warbirds.

If you get anywhere around Chino, CA, U.S.A., stop by the Planes of Fame and see it!

Here's another of our flying, one-off airplanes:






It is a Seversky 2PA or AT-12, and it flies occasionally at our airshows. Basically, it is a 2-seat Seversky P-35 that was built as a fighter trainer with two MG in the nose for shooting at airborne, towed targets. A smooth-running Pratt R-1830 Twin Wasp pulls it along. If you park it side-by-side with our Republic P-47G razorback, you can really see the family resemblance. The deep fuselage of the P-47 is there ONLY to plumb the turbocharger input and output. All the belly below the wing is either hot exhaust to the turbocharger, the turbo itself, the intercooler, or pressurized fresh air back to the carb. If it were not for the turbo, the cowling would be round and the belly would be almost flat with the bottom of the wing like the AT-12.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nowotny262 (Aug 6, 2020)

Fiat G55 Centaur
ME-262


----------



## Dash119 (Aug 7, 2020)

glennasher said:


> Yes, the photos I looked at were wartime photos. Look again at a D model's canopy, then look CLOSELY at a K Model's canopy, the bulge is there and extends all the way to the rear of the canopy. I don't know what to say if you can't see it looking at wartime photos, it's like a pimple on a pretty girl's nose.


I had never heard of different canopy profiles on the P-51D/K, but having done more research there were indeed multiple profiles.

On that point I stand corrected.

However, my research to this point shows up to five different profiles... The different profiles were not limited to specific models or production locations. That is to say that there may have been 'D' models from Inglewood which have the same canopy profile as a 'K' model from Dallas.

Kim


----------



## pgf_666 (Aug 14, 2020)

Just for looks, the Germans have the first few spots:
1: Horton/Gotha 229 Flying Wing (my official vote)
2: Me 163 B or C (if preproduction prototypes are allowed)
3: Me-262-A

Then come my people, the Italians:
MC-205,202
Fiat G-55
DB powered Regianes, etc.

The Swedish J-21 R

Tie:
'Tang
Spit (In each case, all models)

With an honourable mention to the Tempest II--no fuggly chin scoop....

My mother, who lived through the Battle of Britain, would have said, the Hurricane; she always thought that without it, she'd have wound up in some Nazi baby farm....


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 14, 2020)

GregP said:


> Love the Zero. When the designer, Jiro Horikoshi, designed next airplane (the J2M Raiden)


Not nearly as pretty though. While both men had other designs under their bests, Horikoshi, like Mitchell and his Spitfire was famous for essentially a single aircraft series. Had the latter survived another ten years, it would have been something to have them both in conversation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

