at-6 texan

this is an jet engine for Me-163 Comet

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

full flying stabilizer

stang151

That is what I was looking for . Or the all flying stabilizer, was much more effective at trans-sonic and sonic speeds than the traditional tail that the Mig had. The all flying stab. was a very close kept secret in the early days of trans/suppersonic flight. Your up Thunderbolt.

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

Ok, Being I'm building a Spitfire, I'll ask a spitfire question.

What was the name of one of the designers (of the spitfire) that died after seeing only one spitfire fly. Died 6-11-1937 if this helps.
Just in case this was a easy question. What did he die from.

Kelly

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

R. J. Mitchell; died from cancer (colon cancer, I believe) on 11 June, 1937. Thanks; Ernie P.

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

Correct!! your next.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Okay; since this is my third question (and I'm getting on an airplane in a couple of hours), I'll make it an easy one. I'll PM the answer to G-Pete, so things can keep moving along while I'm traveling.

MY QUESTION: What warbird am I talking about when I say "Whenever it was fueled, fuel leaked out all over the place."? Thanks; Ernie P.

PS: G-Pete will announce the winner. Please wait for his input before proceeding. Tnx; EP

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

SR 71
Semper Fi
Joe

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Right you are, Sir. I figured some one would get the answer pretty quickly, but two minutes was a bit faster than I anticipated. Since G-Pete's help wasn't required; you are up, Sir! What is your question? Thanks; Ernie P.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

Ernie
You go again ,I'll do some searching and get back later.
Semper Fi
Joe

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

I love this thread... could I ask for a bit more description when a guy answers... there are so many cool stories here... like the SR71 had a wet wing... the whole wing was the fuel tank.. it leaked on the ground like a sieve during fueling... 40,000 lbs of fuel on the ground... then another 40,000 lbs in the air.... classified range.

Please embellish at bit if you can with the answers.. sorry to step on any toes...

on_your_six

My Feedback: (11)

.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Joe;

Sorry, but I have asked my alloted three questions and have to stand down. And, since I will be traveling for the next three days, no sense in jamming things up here. This is a really great thread, and I'm sure folks will be happy to give you a few hours to think up a good bit of warbird trivia. So, you are still up. Besides; if I asked another question, we might have a different winner; and that would just split the thread again. We can't have ten different people asking questions; right, G-Pete? Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

For what it may be worth, they *had* to build the plane that way. When it flew, the thing grew, due to the high operating temperatures at the speed at which it flew. The SR-71 grew several inches in flight. If things had fit tightly when it was cold, they would have buckled against each other when they expanded. The hatches and such were very loose fitting, for that reason. And, the fuel itself was a heat sink! Speaking of the fuel, it was a special blend which was very hard to ignite. Thus, there was little danger of fire from all the fuel leaking from the plane. All in all, an amazing feat of 1950's engineering.

Did you know the Concorde also grew in flight? They had to make a special carpet for the walkways; one that would stretch and not tear apart. All these little things most people never consider; but which *have to be* considered by the designers. Too bad the Concorde designers ignored the old axiom of not having two engines right next to each other; because if one comes apart, it will take out the adjoining engine as well, due to shrapnel damage. And they paid a dear price for ignoring the old rule. Thanks; Ernie P.

G-Pete

Absolutely correct - uncljoe is up...take your time.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

What is it
Semper Fi
Joe

jeffEE

My Feedback: (5)

DAMN UGLY

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

Few more in its WARPAINT sort of... Have trouble up loading

Launch Pad McQuack

Northrup C-125 Raider...I have seen the one at Wright Pat. As requested a little more info. As I recall this was a post war design that just did not live up to the expectations of the military and only a few were produced.

Thunderbolt47

My Feedback: (8)

Chevy Tri motor!!

stang151

******* child of a Corsair and a JU-87

Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Not quite. There was no such thing as the C-125. It was the YC-125. Formerly known as the N-23 Pioneer.

The one at the USAF Museum is actually a YC-125B.


The picture posted is the N-23 prototype.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

Launch pad Mc Q is right ON the call with Jato/landing photos by calling it a C 125 Raider , per Nothrop Aero history (page 125)
The Raider was built for the AF both as a arctic rescue & assault aircraft. Five out of the order of 23 went air rescue service and were C125 B models (Page 129)
The first photo is the N23 Pioneer a short field take off bird Less than 500 ft and rough field as the landing gear had oversized shock absorbers, quite a few of its sub-assemblies were from the P 61 black widow. Full span flaps and retractable ailerons , Reversible- thrust props allowed landing of under 400 ft.
Mc Quack your up.
Semper Fi
Joe
PS it was one double ugly aircraft

Launch Pad McQuack

Ok will go from one ugly airplane to the next.

1- What is the aircraft pictured.
2- What 3 companies had a hand in the design and production of this aircraft over it's short service life?

For bonus points this is both a hint and a question. What 2 "special" ways were designed into it for deployment onto the battlefield.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

I don't know the aircraft but that appears to be a Grumman 16 ft canoe..
Semper Fi