What is your favorite aircraft of all time?

[/|\]

In terms of what "Symbol" said about which was better to fly or fight in, this is very subjective and relates more to the individual pilot and how they liked to fly. For example Bill Dunn, the first American ace of the war, who flew both the Spit and Mustang in combat always said he'd choose the Spit anytime but obviously another American Goodson, preferred the Mustang.

A matter of horses for courses really.

You can call me 'Broad Arrow'. Or John. Or Fat Boring Old Fa... Oh, look! Something shiny!

Yes, what I posted was the opinion of one pilot who owned both. I've never flown either, so I don't have an opinion. But were I to be walking along the beach and find an old Middle-Eastern lamp that could do with a bit of polishing, I'd take the Spitfire just because it's a prettier machine than the Mustang.

 

[Smithy]

You can call me 'Broad Arrow'. Or John. Or Fat Boring Old Fa... Oh, look! Something shiny!

Yes, what I posted was the opinion of one pilot who owned both. I've never flown either, so I don't have an opinion. But were I to be walking along the beach and find an old Middle-Eastern lamp that could do with a bit of polishing, I'd take the Spitfire just because it's a prettier machine than the Mustang.

John,

That's much easier than the symbol thing. My laptop is Norwegian and I couldn't find one of the stroke whatsits.

If Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates or somebody else with bags of cash rang me up and said, "Tell you what Smithy old chum, I'll shout you any plane you want, my treat", I'd be the same, a Spitfire and a mark I or II at that. Being the Battle of Britain nut that I am it would have to be. And because one of my relatives flew them, it really couldn't be anything else.

 

[/|\]

Oh, don't get into Marks! I too, like the Battle of Britain era. So I'd opt for a Mk II. I'd replace the Coffman starter though. But how about a Mk V? A bit of paint, and it looks like a BoB version, but with improvements. Maybe I should wish for a one of those? Only then there's the Mk IX that came out in 1942. Performance was greatly improved. Also, I like the later camouflage colours. If I could only have one, shouldn't I opt for a Mk IX?

There's a company in California that's developing a kit for a full-size Mk IX. Only it's made of wood. If I had bags of cash, I think I'd try to obtain the original blueprints and make a 'real' Spitfire. That is, a rivet-for-rivet replica instead of something that looks like a Spitfire but is structurally completely different. But then, I've heard that the Hurricane is not as complex a machine to build. It has the BoB heritage behind it, I've heard it's a more forgiving aircraft, and there are fewer of them. Hm... Maybe I could just find the plans for the rudder. That wouldn't be too expensive or difficult. And I already have an artificial horizon...

But since no one is likely to give me bags of money, and genie-containing lamps seem to be in short supply, I could get one of these for the price of a new car:

 

[Smithy]

John,

From what I have read and those I have spoken to, the ones which always seem to be the most highly thought of in terms of pure flying were the II and the IX. The II was apparently beautifully balanced and an absolute joy. A friend of my father who flew Spits throughout the war told me that for him it was the IX, he loved it. He flew XIVs after that and said they were a bit of a brute and in his mind with a Griffon not really a true Spit anymore.

Not that it's bloody likely but as I said if some silly sod wants to throw a large amount of legal tender at me, then only a I or II would do. Beggars can't be choosers eh?

 

[/|\]

Beggars can't be choosers eh?

I'll put it out right here, in public: I will gratefully accept any donation of any airworthy aircraft. I'll be happy to have it!

 

[/|\]

Say, if any of you who like the P-51 Mustang are interested, this one's price has been reduced!

Or you can get a PBY-5A Catalina for about a quarter of the price.

Though the Spitfire is my favourite airplane, I'd very much like an A-4 Skyhawk.

 

[scottyrocks]

We got all the way to page 18 without seeing an Apache helicopter. Pompidou grabbed it before I could pop it in here. Good choice! I think the first time I saw one, or something close to it, was in a mediocre movie with Roy Scheider called Blue Thunder.

I also love the Harriers because of their vertical take-off capability.

 

[cco23i]

I hope you get a ride or two in it, they are a great plane! I remember one air show down in Albuquerque, we were starting the number two engine, my side, and the little Civil Air Patrol girl started to franticly give us the cut engine signal. Apparently she had never watched a big radial engine fire up, thought we were on fire! Tons more stories, most fun, a few dry mouth moments, like no brakes and heading for the parked Blue Angels.

Oh yes, one of my good friends owns it and is restoring it so I definitly see a ride in the future!!

Scott

 

[Stearmen]

Horses For Courses

If you want real horses for courses, try the Spitfire vs Corsair. The spitfire is dainty, no parts fit from one plane to the next, and the Merlin is the best sounding fighter engine, and most temperamental! The corsair is a real mass produced plane, the R-2800 will go an easy 1000 hours between overhaul, around 3 or more Merlin overhauls, "yes I worked on both" and it's built like an anvil. There were cases where Navy planes had midairs with Japanese aircraft, and the American pilot didn't even know until he landed, the Japanese pilots of course new, as they went down in a ball of flames! The last piston engine fighter vs fighter was Corsair 1 Mustang 0. Still, if any one gave me the money to buy and support a Spitfire!

 

[/|\]

There were cases where Navy planes had midairs with Japanese aircraft, and the American pilot didn't even know until he landed, the Japanese pilots of course new, as they went down in a ball of flames!

If I recall correctly, Corsairs shot down 2,139 aircraft... and sawed one down with its prop. (By comparison, the F6F Hellcat downed something like 12,000 enemy aircraft.)

Robert R. Klingman 'sawed' down a 'Nick' in his Corsair.

On May 10, 1945, two VMF-312 pilots flew one of the most interesting interceptions of the war. 1st Lt. Robert R. Klingman and Captain Kenneth L. Reusser teamed to destroy a Nick (a twin engine Kawasaki fighter) The two pilots spotted the enemy and immediately fired most of their ammunition to lighten the F4Us. (this was in order to climb to 38,000ft, the 'Nick's' altitude).

Diving from above, with Captain Reusser leading, they maneuvered into position on the tail of the 'Nick'. Capt. Reusser fired the remainder of his .50 caliber rounds, damaging a wing and one engine. Lt. Klingman then moved in for the kill. His guns were frozen, but the 'Nick' was losing airspeed and the propeller of Klingman's Corsair chewed into the tail of the Japanese plane almost severing the rudder.

Klingman made a second pass severing the rudder off completely and damaging the right stabilizer. A third pass severed the stabilizer and the 'Nick' went down. Although Klingman's Corsair was badly damaged, he managed to land safely at Kadena. Two days after this amazing victory, Bob Klingman was forced to bail out of his Corsair when it developed hydraulic problems. He ditched safely and was picked up by a destroyer a short time later.

Klingman showing the damage to his Corsair.

 

[Diamondback]

Y'know, the C-130 is really starting to grow on me of late... the smallest real "Trash Hauler" with both a Roll-On/Off rear ramp and enough room in the hold for both a 1-car garage and a small apartment. About as practical as it gets... no rental-car expenses when traveling, plus all you need is utility hookups at the airstrip and you can basically take your home with you in addition to your car. Try THAT with a C-47...

@Berlin: If you and your guy ever head over to the States, I can refer you to a book that's nothing but details on over 900 aircraft-related museums--and if you get to Seattle and I'm still here, you two have a tour guide's services if you want them.

 

[/|\]

Ah, the C-130 apartment! I've never flown in one, but I got to play around in one at Mojave Airport back in the '80s. (Back then, you could go out and walk around looking at the planes, and there happened to be a friendly ANG crew there.) I had the same thought as you. Only, we were told they burn 5,000/pph on take-off so moving expenses were a wee bit high.

 

[HepKitty]

I also love the Harriers because of their vertical take-off capability.

Check out this F35 taking off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm7_PPE-8nk

here is another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBt-aQ1vObM&NR=1

 

[Diamondback]

But when you add up vehicle relocation, selling one house and buying another, the moving van or U-Haul... anyone have numbers on a G550 or Lear?

 

[cco23i]

Check out this F35 taking off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm7_PPE-8nk

here is another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBt-aQ1vObM&NR=1

That is a SWEET airframe! After working on F-111's almost ANY airframe is SWEET!

Scott

 

[HepKitty]

That is a SWEET airframe! After working on F-111's almost ANY airframe is SWEET!

Scott

lol Now I can't talk about that much detail but it's a pretty sweet plane. F-22s are my still favorite though. What I want to know is why the F-35 can do a vertical but then they show it coming straight back down. What is the point if they can't fly away from there? I understand it kinda lacks in speed, one of the critical things for fixed wing flight, so why bother? Maybe that's still just a Star Wars cartoon thing. Or the blonde is trying to think again?

On a related note, what is the name of that adjustable twin (I think twin, haven't seen it in a while) prop that the Marines used, that could do a vertical take-off then slowly gain airspeed as the props rotated forward to normal fixed wing position? Unsafe thing that it is, it's a neat idea though

 

[/|\]

HepKitty,

Making a jet hover burns a lot of fuel. VTOL jets can do VTOL, but it's more efficient to give them a running start on take-off.

The twin-rotor USMC aircraft you're thinking of is the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey.

 

[Diamondback]

As a general rule, direct vertical-lift is pretty much an airshow-only stunt unless you either have no payload aboard (which makes no military sense, unless you're surreptitiously lifting a high-value VIP) or have a tanker almost right overhead, due to fuel burn.

I have a design that theoretically could do vertical with useful payload and some range, the catch was I had to go to a hybrid jet/nuclear power system... (8 thrust-vectoring 125K#-thrust jets aft, two nuclear-driven electric lift fans in the forward wing--the beast also would require a 500' clear radius and lift with a "Restricting" gross weight of one million pounds, "Optimal" gross for normal ops being twice that.) Some SketchUp renderings were posted earlier in the thread, if you really want some Nightmare Fuel...

 

[HepKitty]

lol DB that does sound like a monstrosity. Awesome!

 

[HepKitty]

Thanks for the info gentlemen. One other silly question: since when does the US military get too concerned about fuel burn? lol