Enter keywords or a search phrase below:
Five days now no new question?
MQM107 Five days now no new question?
I was beginning to worry about wether or not this thred was swollowed whole by a black hole, to be lost for good in cyber-space.
In the rules, it says that if the thred remains open for a week, then it's open for anyone to post a question.
(5 buisness days, 5 strait days, or a full 7-day week, I'm not sure)
Red, White, and YOU! group build of 2010
Ask F-8, it's his turn.
I believe it's a week, 7 days, then, the floor is open. Seems fair enough.
osher I believe it's a week, 7 days, then, the floor is open. Seems fair enough.
That sounds good to me.
We all know F-8 cant get on as much as he would probably like, is it worth waiting for a couple more days for him? ive seen some real doozies from him.
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"
Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming
Check out my blog here.
sorry to keep this waiting....AT&T decided to "modernize" their system in our area and we havent had internet since the weekend....
anyways, here we go.
Some time back, I asked about the fighter with the best kill ratio of WWII. It would seem that we all were greatly mistaken. So, lets take another stab at it. One aircraft stands well above the others.....not until the advent of the F-15 Eagle has this aircraft had a competitor in this race. To top it all off, this fighter has something specific in common with the Eagle besides it's combat record. Name the plane, and bonus points if you know the other similarity.
Not to be a pain, and welcome back by the way, Is it a WW2 aircraft?and we're talking kill ratio still, correct?
For some reason I was thinking F-86...
But I'm pretty sure it was the F6F Hellcat.
This is a wild stab in the dark, but is it the P-61? Possibly one or two air to air losses. If so, might the connection be twin engines? I'm probably very wrong.
Best wishes,
Grant
The P-61 it is....
127 confirmed kills over manned aircraft, with an additional 18 kills over V-1 buzz bombs. Not a single one was ever shot down by an enemy aircraft. Youre also close enough on the engines, they are both twin engine planes, but I was looking for the fact that they both flew with Pratt & Whitney engines. Over to you!!
If you say so, but 58 were written off in landing accidents against 127 victories. It was such a big tank of an airplane, really almost a medium bomber, that it often crash landed with heavy damage and was scrapped.
bondoman If you say so, but 58 were written off in landing accidents against 127 victories. It was such a big tank of an airplane, really almost a medium bomber, that it often crash landed with heavy damage and was scrapped.
well, if we were talking about the number of landing accidents, you would have a point. As it stands, and it isnt how I say so but rather how history has said, the P-61 was never shot down by any enemy aircraft. The closest it came was an unsubstantiated story that one was downed by an FW-190....even then, at 127 to 1, that still takes the cake, no?
As for the plane itself, I think it speaks volumes that when the USAAC generals looked into replacing the P-61 with Mosquitos, several 422th NFS pilots threatened to turn in their wings if the P-61 was taken away. The P-61C model was nearly as fast as, or even faster than, nearly every purpose-built fighter in the whole war, world wide, with basically the only real exceptions being the Me-262 and Me-163.
It was also the largest allied fighter, not counting weird stuff like the FB-17.
My Father-in-law took a direct hit from a cannon in the cockpit and still flew the mission with stuck throttles, about 15 minutes more, and returned to base, 4 hour flight.
That just makes it an even more impressive machine....try taking a hit like that in a Mustang....
Indeed. Even more impressive, he survived a crash landing at attack throttle, wheels up and no flaps. Aircraft was a write off. He accounted for one of those 127, an Me-109. Got it with the turret.
Sorry for the delay. I didn't expect to have to pose a question. Here it is and anyone who wishes to add is more than welcome.
It's in a form of a poem. Two became four and the first blessed was two twice twice, but with the most honored and perhaps cursed, the first two equals the third, my precious.
WWW.AIR-CRAFT.NET
yeah so whats the actually question?
Sorry. What is this aircraft and which are the two squadrons hinted at.
Still don't have a clue?
Worked out the first two parts but the third is a little too cryptic....
Seems to me, that by the original rules of the game, this has long since been a dead question. Anyone like to post something we can answer?
Two engines became four. 2 twice is four and twice more could be eight or four four. That was the first unit to use the Lancaster. And Six plus One equals Seven. Their most famous Raid was brave but costly. Last, who made a film where "My Precious" figured prominently and is currently doing something involving involving the latter squadron?
I apologize that it may have been too obtuse.
Bump........
This elegant 2 seat, 4 engined prototype was to be the last product of a rather famous aircraft company. It was to be fitted with 2 engines in its production version, but the production version never happened.
The Curtiss-Wright XF-87.
Indeed, the Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk;
For an aircraft to have a new development renamed, to reflect that's far removed from the original is not uncommon (such as the Lincoln, which was originally called a Lancaster). Sometimes a development is not renamed, even when it should, to get the project allowed as a 'development' not a new one. However, rarer is for a development to be given a new official name by an air ministry, only for it to then be decided that actually it doesn't warrant a new name, the new name annulled, and the aircraft to be simply regarded as the latest incarniation of the original model name.
Name any instance of this (I have one in mind, but, I'm open to suggestions!). Note, the F-20 Tigershark doesn't count, as, whilst the F-5 was developed into something approximating it, it wasn't an official name regression.
Ill take a stab and say the Canberra? Been through more incarnations than i can count on 2 hands and still gets called the Canberra. Even the NASA one with the big turbofans on it.
Not as far as I know. Basically, this aircraft company designed a replacement for this aircraft. This replacement was given an official name. Then, it was decided that rather using this new official name, it was actually just a development of an older aircraft, and was called this, but with an indicator (E, Mk.V, etc) that it was a later development.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.