Did not have anything to do with "fire" power. It did have something to do with power, however. The prop used on the F4U was so large that it would hit the ground if the wings were not shaped that way. The landing gear, being attached to the lowest part of the wing, raised the centerline of the fuselage enough for adequate clearance of the propeller. They could have lengthened the landing gear to accomplish the same result. However, the longer the strut, the easier it was to damage in hard/rough landings and take offs. These planes were flown primarily off of make shift runways and aircraft carriers in the south pacific. Inadequate landing gear was not advisable.
Interesting, btw that F-82 is a odd looking plane. I always thought the P-38's were the coolest looking planes, but in reading I saw conflicting opinons on there engineering. On some of the sites they had pilot testamonials to them being the best planes they ever flew, but on some others they described them as a problem plane structurally. So which was it, great plane or great plane as long as they held together? Or am I misinterpreting the whole deal? Terry
Here's some aircraft trivia for you. Without looking it up, where was the main P-38 training base in the United States during WWII? Hint: My dad was stationed there during the war, then spent the rest of his life working for Lockheed...
My hometown, Dayton Ohio, is home to the US Air Force museum. If you ever have business in Dayton or are just passing by you have to check it out. Based on what I'm reading here it would be the ultimate reference stop for you guys. Here's the web address, check it out..... http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/ :idea:
I knew the answer to this but have since forgotten. I remember it being a little used small airport that was converted to an Air National Guard unit. However, where it was escapes me. Somewhere in the western United States, probably California or Nevada.
:idea: Tom is pretty close with his guess. When WWII ended, the Army Air Force base was downgraded to an Air National Guard training base, which the ANG shared with Lockheed Corp, which maintained its main, international air services facility on the same property. As a boy, our house was rocked by several sonic booms every day as the fighter pilots took off directly over our house in old F-80 Shooting Stars (which were subsonic) and F-86 Sabres. A part of the huge former base was turned into a regional airport... After the War in Vietnam, the ANG moved away and the airport was expanded to relieve congestion at LAX. Today it is Ontario International Airport... Next time you go through there, check out the hangers and quonset huts behind the flashy new terminal and the old, small, houses, that used to be GI housing in the surrounding neighborhoods. Nearly everything you see beyond the new airport expansion was built in the 1940's and nearly every P-38 pilot of WWII was trained right there... ..................DD
Tom I would have guessed the P-47 since I wasn't thinking Navy. I saw the Corsair at the Boeing Museum, that is a big airplane for a fighter. Have a story to tell about the P-51. Would have loved to have flown it. Unfortunately was assigned to fly navigation cadets at Selman Field, Monroe, LA. A P-51 was brought in there for some modifications. The officer in charge of checking it out, brought it out to the ramp and anchored the tail to keep it from nosing over when applying full power. He took it for a flight test and immediately returned and landed as an alarm went off. He was unaware apparently that this alarm signaled another aircraft approaching from the rear. Got the thing shut off and went back up.
P-47 was never a favorite plane of mine. It was a work horse, yes. I refer to it as the "timex" of fighter planse. It took a licking and kept on sticking it to the enemy. I just don't like the sluggish flight characteristics of that plane. Other than the planes I mentioned that I am already in process of building, I plan on eventually adding in order: 1) F-82 2) F4U 3) B-17 At the rate I am going, anything after the B-17, I will be too old to build. :?
Wow... <r>This thread got me looking aournd, and I found this beast.<br/> <br/> It must have cost a pretty penny!!<br/> <br/> <IMG src="http://www.stukastudios.se/bilder/alla.jpg"><s></e></IMG><br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> Unfortunately... it is no more. Took a fatal nosedive at some point...</r>
Damn if you flew that thing in the US it'd probably show up on NORAD and cause some jets to be scrambled!
That WAS a fairly well known model in the US as well. It had 8 Wren turbine engines developing 12 lbs of thrust each. Weighing in at over 300 pounds flying weight, verticle performance was limited only in the up direction. :wink:
Jets or turbines have to major disadvantages on most planes: Speed and air flow over control surfaces. Jets normally have a swept back wing configuration (small wing area). Their glide ratio is normally comparable to a brick at much less than 1/2 throttle. Therefore, landings and take offs are usually at a much higher speed than that of prop planes. High speed and close proximity to the ground is not a safe proposition. The second factor is that most jets have the thrust exiting the back of the plane behind the control surfaces. This further inhibits control at slower speeds. Prop planes have the advantage of the thrust passing directly over/around the wing, the rudder, and the elevator which helps generate lift and enhances control in lower speed passes. :wink:
Good lord, those turbines cost $1200-1500 EACH!! That B52 must have had a mortgage. Tom, What scale B17 are you thinking of? BIGGER IS ALWAYS BETTER! I was a WWII fanatic growing up. Had models of almost every plane from the US forces. I always wanted to fly model aircraft, but have a terrible time with orientation. If its flying away I'd be fine, but when it turns... UH OH! Heck I have trouble with RC cars! :roll:
As for the B-17, I agree, the bigger, the better. Large wing area does not equate to striking performance. It does, however, make for a realistic lumbering flight to impress the crowd. I am thinking somewhere around a 1/12th scale which would be one inch per every foot. The actual plane had a 103 ft 9 inch wing span. 1/12 scale would be about 104 inch wing span. At that size, the four engines should be 0.60 on a 2 stroke or 0.90 in a 4 stroke. The 4 stroke will give a much more realistic sound. The radio will need to be 7 channel minimum (throttle, rudder, elevator, ailerons, flaps, bomb bay doors, and bomb release). The flight pack for this configuration will need a minimum of 12 servos. The engines alone will be slightly over $1000. I am estimating this to be about a $2500 plane. A good trainer complete with radio and engine will run between $300 and $500. My WWII fighters will have about $750 invested in each. Now for flying in general. You are correct, orientation is a big issue. Left and right for both rudder and ailerons reverse when the plane turns and is coming to you. It is for this main reason that a simulator is priceless. Also, once you start flying the real thing, you should join a local club. Most have instructors that offer free help to get the plane “3 mistakes high” before they give you control. Most instructors will also have a “Buddy Box”. This device is a second controller that connects to your transmitter. The instructor maintains control of the plane until he pushes and holds a spring loaded switch that allows you to control it. Once he/she sees that you have lost control, he/she releases the switch to take control back from you. If you become proficient with the Realflight G3 Simulator, you will not be embarrassed in front of the instructor. :wink:
...maybe... :roll: Competitions are held for accuracy. Bombing runs are held a minimum of 100 ft down range from any spectators for obvious reasons. AMA bombs come in many forms. My favorite is one that is about the size of a 22 cal long rifle shell. The nose is weighted. When the nose hits, it slides back into the shell forcing baby powder out the back end. It looks pretty cool when about 20 of these come out of a plane and hit the ground.
Another "Wow" bird <r>This one must be impressive when it lumbers overheard!<br/> <br/> <IMG src="http://homepage.eircom.net/~skycam/C-17A_Globemaster_III/webpics/C-17.jpg"><s></e></IMG></r>