Aircraft Identification V

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
Waynos said:
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?
Click to expand...
Waynos said:
what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yes, I think that is all entirely possible. The guy must surely know what aircraft he started out with.
 
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..
 
No, its not that one, Maybe I should point out that this is the prototype, and it was going to be a military transport.
 
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?
 
Hey, well found! I guess you know the answer now then

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

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Looking for a WWII aircraft prop
Replies
0
Views
2K
Grounded
G
B
a very simple render
Replies
0
Views
4K
blobs
B
Aircraft Identification
Replies
7
Views
3K
Waynos
W
Aircraft Recognition - Fun Quiz, Part 1.
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Airframes
R
Aircraft Silhouettes
Replies
1
Views
7K
Micdrow
Menu
Log in
Register