Aircraft Identification V

[kool kitty89]

Yeah I thought the same thing, if you want a P-64 use a T-6, if you want a NA-50 use a Wirraway, though the only (noticible) difference is the rudder its self, the fin and tailplane being the same so it may not be a big deal.

In fact it apears to be a Wirraway's fin as it is somewhat different from the NA-50's rudder, more rounded trailing edge, so if the rudder was obtainable and they already had a T-6 why not? and I'd immagine Wirraway's are not nearly as common as T-6's (particularly in the US).


And that replica's got a Jet's (T-33) landing gear! I thought it might have been a typo, but looking closer those shre look like a Shoting Star's gear.

 

[Graeme]

isn't it more likely to have been modified from a Wirraway in the first place, otherwise it seems a lot of trouble to go to to fit the 'wrong' shape tail?

what do you guys think?

Hi Waynos,

"Gary", who worked on the aircraft, says it started off as a NORTH AMERICAN AT-6 TEXAN. I have no reason to doubt his experience. Accepting this, they wanted it to LOOK like an NA-50 fighter.

Is it possible that detailed plans for the NA-50's tail are no longer in existence?

Is it possible that they used Wirraway/Boomerang tail plans instead, which Australian warbird restorers would be knee-deep in, as they are flying in this country?





It certainly looks more like a Wirraway/Boomerang tail than either the NA-50 or Texan/P-64 tail, but maybe that was their only alternative.

But why they now want to just call it a P-64, is beyond me. It looks more like a hybrid, but the longer nose, elongated canopy and second seat, still smacks of Texan to me.

 

[Waynos]

Yes, I think that is all entirely possible. The guy must surely know what aircraft he started out with.

 

[Waynos]

From the long silence can I assume we are done with that one?

Here's another to have a go at;

 

[David Cohen]

Hmmm. I think its either a DC-12 or some other transport judging by the part in the foreground

 

[Waynos]

Don't know what a DC-17 is, but it is a transport.

 

[David Cohen]

I just checked and I made that up. I was thinking about the DC-3. Its the DC-3 or the C-54

 

[Waynos]

Sorry no, not that. Think post war. Just to be clear, what you see in the photograph is the rear fuselage of the aircraft with its own wing in front of it during assembly, they do belong together if it helps..

 

[David Cohen]

What year are we talking about?

 

[Waynos]

1955, and here is the same scene from a different angle;

 

[Grampa]

The closest one I can find is this
Sud Aviation Caravelle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But I cant be sure if there is gonna be an elevationrudder placed in the middle on the tailfin

 

[Waynos]

No, its not that one, Maybe I should point out that this is the prototype, and it was going to be a military transport.

 

[Graeme]

Time frame is wrong for this, but early Vickers VC10?

 

[comiso90]

Hi cosimo,


Is that Forum I posted above, where you found the photograph?

yep

 

[Waynos]

Ooh, Graeme you are getting very warm, and you are right when you say that the timeframe is wrong for the VC-10, so it must be........?

Does it help if I also say that this prototype never actually got to fly, for purely political reasons?

 

[Graeme]

Waynos! you sly old dog! you're quite the author!...

Would-be 707 rivals, page 1

 

[Waynos]

Hey, well found! I guess you know the answer now then

It was the Vickers V.1000, XD662, photographed at the point of cancellation

 

[Waynos]

I've a confession on this one, I've forgotten what its called or where I got it from! So, over to you while I try to look it up again. Also I'll try to find some WW2 stuff tomorrow that (hopefully) isn't TOO obvious, though that may be a forlorn hope with you guys.

 

[kool kitty89]

Narrow fusalage and high mounted tailplane reminds me of the Whirlwind, but it's probably unrelated.

 

[Grampa]

showed earlier
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/german-aircraft-designs-argentina-1946-1960-a-8348.html