Florida Airshow

[comiso90]

I was really excited about seeing a Helldiver. I was expecting it to be just a static display but it put on a demonstration with a B-25 and P-51. I was impressed by the Helldivers speed and nimbleness...

Unfortunately, it never landed! after the demonstration it just flew away and I didnt get a chance to see it close up! Very disappointing but I got to see it fly!

 

[comiso90]

The most unfortunate call sign I've seen:

WTF? Perhaps "Syphilis" was already taken?!?

 

[Sweb]

Great pics. Thanks. The nimbleness you remark about is largely because the plane has been stripped of a lot of the weight it originally carried. The heavy radios, weapons and related hardware are not there any more. Visible guns are usually light-weight mock-ups of the originals. Heavy self-sealing fuel tanks are replaced by lighter single wall containers and armor plating is simulated with fiberglass-over-foam cores if simulated at all. There's a PV2 Ventura being restored at the airport I work at and it's a demilitarized shell of the plane it used to be. A few thousand pounds in weapons alone will no longer weigh it down.

 

[evangilder]

I wouldn't be too sure about that, Sweb. The CAF is pretty good at maintaining a good part of the original hardware in most of these aircraft because mocking something up can be as expensive, or more expensive in some cases.

Besides that, taking all kinds of weight out of the aircraft will change the flight characteristics and may affect the CG and other things. MiG-15s and MiG-17s fly with their original gun packs on board, rendered non-fireable. Taking them out drastically changes the CG and makes them very dangerous to fly.

 

[comiso90]

.

 

[evangilder]

Neat stuff, Frank. Good to see you went after all.

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Great shots Comiso. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Sweb]

I wouldn't be too sure about that, Sweb. The CAF is pretty good at maintaining a good part of the original hardware in most of these aircraft because mocking something up can be as expensive, or more expensive in some cases.

Besides that, taking all kinds of weight out of the aircraft will change the flight characteristics and may affect the CG and other things. MiG-15s and MiG-17s fly with their original gun packs on board, rendered non-fireable. Taking them out drastically changes the CG and makes them very dangerous to fly.

Point taken. Most of the off-drawing-board weight in these old birds was either on or near to both sides of the CG though and adding extreme moment arm ballast isn't expensive. In the case of the SB2C with it's rear .050s removed a relatively light piece of lead in the extreme aft moment arm will restore the balance. Remember that most of the drawing board designs were prototyped, built and flown without armament or other heavy battle/comm gear. That was added later. The CG was necessarily tweaked and in some cases such additional weight caused a good airplane to become a blivit (P-39). Removing that gear restored performance and it was a de-militarized P-39 that took the 1946 Thompson Trophy, IIRC.

De-militarized aircraft have to have revisions made to their flight ops manuals as a matter of course anyway. The engines are de-rated and therefore performances are somewhat less than they used to be in their hay-day. CG's are re-established and instruments are re-bugged to show the de-rated power settings. The turbos on the Collings Foundation B-24 and B-17 are inoperative and the waste gates locked to full by-pass. I spoke with one of the crew members and he explained the need to keep their holes filled but otherwise both planes were low fliers (by war contrast) now due to the loss of the turbos. They aren't complete slouches because both airframes have been relieved of a lot of weight. But the fact is no one can maintain the turbos and new ones are not available. Making new turbine wheels and housings requires someone to get FAA PMA certification and for what? The cost of reverse-engineering them to the FAA's or any other national authority's satisfaction isn't worth restoring original performance numbers. Same holds true with the P-38. In the case of the B-25 model with a nose full of .050's and a 37mm cannon, that was originated in the field and the job required tail ballast also added in the field. Taking a plane back to drawing board weight is really no big deal.

 

[Geedee]

Third shot down is a great one !. thanks for posting.

 

[109ROAMING]

Nice shots 8) Thanks for sharing

 

[lesofprimus]

Real glad u went Frank, the pics came out great.... Love the shot of Panchito....

 

[Gnomey]

Nice stuff! Thanks for sharing.

 

[comiso90]

Thanks guys.. I wasnt happy about the displays overall, they sucked. I've been to dozens of Airshows but two things knocked my socks off:

The Viper Team F-16 soloist
The Helldiver- Especially when it flew

This is the first time I saw an aerobatic demonstration by a single F-16. Holy f.uck nuts! Absolutely amazing. Hats off the the pilot and the designers/maintenance personnel of the wonderious machine.

Also, Panchito was an especially nice B-25 specimen.

.

 

[comiso90]

Third shot down is a great one !. thanks for posting.

There is a terrible lag time on my camera between depressing the shoot button and the shutter actually engaging. That, plus the fact the camera was on full zoom, made for a very lucky composition.

I had to make a "deflection shot". I framed the camera where i thought the plane was going to be, not where it was at the time i snapped the shot... I need a better camera!

 

[Thorlifter]

I'm jealous about the Helldiver. I would just love to see that plane, either on the ground or in the air.

 

[comiso90]

The Helldiver was awesome to see although i never liked them much. My dive bomber heart belongs Dauntless.

here's some info on the actual bird:
SB2C Home Page

Damn it sucks that they left early!!!!! AAARRGGHH

.