- 5,753
Vickers Valiant it is.Zembla
Guess the aircraft thread!
- Thread starter Duke
- 1,435 comments
- 24,180 views
- who am I kidding?)
)
- 13,827
- Down under
Wooh, mmm, at first glance I'd say a Russian plane (more precisely a LaGG kind of plane), but Russians usually put their guns in the cowl or so, not in the wings anyway. So then, the best known wing-gunned guns are British ones, however, the radiator and propeller seem most unusual for a British plane, so then, maybe, just maybe, it's a late war Macchi I've never heard about...?
I'm probably entirely wrong though
<Z>
I'm probably entirely wrong though
<Z>
- 13,827
- Down under
Not Russian, not a Macchi 
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Thanks for posting one, Mike. I didn't have anything good to go.
This is a toughy - about my first half dozen guesses were wrong. I'm glad I didn't post them.
[edit] OK, I got it, though I had to resort to Googling a little more heavily than I like to. It's a Curtis XF-14.
Here's one I've been saving up:
This is a toughy - about my first half dozen guesses were wrong. I'm glad I didn't post them.
[edit] OK, I got it, though I had to resort to Googling a little more heavily than I like to. It's a Curtis XF-14.
Here's one I've been saving up:
Bell P39 Aeracobra, or P600 Super cobra, or whats the # on the super cobra? Or is it an early experimental version, seems like an experimental version considering there is no nose wheel. The canopy is similar, the wing setup is the same as well...
I'd say an early prototype P39...
<Z>
I'd say an early prototype P39...
<Z>
- 13,827
- Down under
), it turns out to be a relative of one of my least favourite planes ever - the Aircobra.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
You've got a thing for contra-rotating props, don't you? I wish I could find a picture I saw once: a B-17 converted to a single engine in the nose, with C-R props. It was used to test a behemoth 6-8,000 hp engine. They'd fly it up with the 4 regular engines, kill them and feather the props, and then fire up the monster out front.
I'm going with Boeing XFB-8, one of the numerous "all-purpose-attack" fighter/bomber prototypes America developed during the war, despite the fact that they never quite worked out in real life. I'll wait your confirmation, because from this angle I can't quite see if it has the 'Boeing Rudder' or not.
I'm going with Boeing XFB-8, one of the numerous "all-purpose-attack" fighter/bomber prototypes America developed during the war, despite the fact that they never quite worked out in real life. I'll wait your confirmation, because from this angle I can't quite see if it has the 'Boeing Rudder' or not.
- 13,827
- Down under
Close enough - Its a Boeing XF8B-1 👍
I have seen pics of B-17's with a single engine up front in the nose for testing, but never a contra-rotating prop
Excellent work though
. Your turn.
I have seen pics of B-17's with a single engine up front in the nose for testing, but never a contra-rotating prop
Excellent work though
. Your turn.
- 13,827
- Down under
Mike is to Contra props as Duke is to........Props + Jet engines?
Have to hit teh google, as this looks like an experimental aircraft of some description...
Have to hit teh google, as this looks like an experimental aircraft of some description...
- 4,522
- TwinTurboJay
I don;t know that plane, but it looks like Monty Burns is on the stick!
- 5,753
Curtiss XF15C
Curtiss' last fighter design. Not a success - it was one of several composite designs intended to meet the Navy's needs for a jet plane that could operate off the aircraft carriers designed for propellor planes.
Curtiss' last fighter design. Not a success - it was one of several composite designs intended to meet the Navy's needs for a jet plane that could operate off the aircraft carriers designed for propellor planes.
- 5,753
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Good guess, GTJ, but the Gee Bee was a monoplane. In fact, it was pretty much a huge radial engine with just enough wing and control surface area to make it fly and turn.
This is a bit of an odd duck, indeed. I've got a guess or two but I may be way off base. I'm definitely hitting google to do some research this time!
The faired tailwheel is a bit of a clue - particularly as part of the rudder like that. Definitely prewar Russian stock.
[edit] Yup, I thought so - Polikarpov I-207?
This is a bit of an odd duck, indeed. I've got a guess or two but I may be way off base. I'm definitely hitting google to do some research this time!
The faired tailwheel is a bit of a clue - particularly as part of the rudder like that. Definitely prewar Russian stock.
[edit] Yup, I thought so - Polikarpov I-207?
- 5,753
You are too hot! Though (according to my research) it isn't actually a Polikarpov but a Borovkov-Florov I-207/3. Borovkov and Florov being Polikarpov engineers who were given their own design team to develop this. Note the lack of struts between the wings. It must have been a handful to fly, as were most of the "tiny-body, big-engine" planes of this era. Apparently it performed better than many of the contemporary monoplanes but the decision was taken that biplanes were a dead-end and it was dropped.neon_duke
Duke's
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Well, you can almost always tell a Russian aircraft just by looking at it, and form there it was a matter of narrowing the choices. I didn't realize it was not actually a Polikarpov, though.
Here's a good one: a prototype for a wood fighter from the early '40s when aluminum was scarce.
Here's a good one: a prototype for a wood fighter from the early '40s when aluminum was scarce.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Ding ding ding! Zembla's up. And I remembered it from my old copy of Jane's World's Aircraft 1945-46, which pretty much included everything built between about 1936 and 1946. That's how I remember all the oddballs.ZemblaHehe, and I thought I knew something bout flying things
I've never seen it before, but a wooden early WWII plane? Mmmm, going to get my Jane's WWII book
It seems to be a Bell XP77
<Z>
- 13,827
- Down under
