Mig-15 left out in the snow, this is just wrong!

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: ElFenix
F4U > all

Yep, it sure is...

I went to Oshkosh last summer and was amazed to watch the climb rate of the F4U vs. the P-51. The P-51 climbed out at a reasonably impressive rate, then the F-4U took off after it and caught up to it while climbing three times as fast.

The P-51 is a nice airplane with a nice engine on the front. The F4U is a big ass engine with a plane stuck to the back of it.

Hopper

Know why the F4U has that kink in the wing?
The engine is huge, so it needs a huge prop.
Huge prop means tha nose has to be very high for it to clear the deck.
High nose means long landing gear.
Long landing gear is a bad idea on a carrier based aircraft.
So they put that kink in the wing to get the attachment point of the gear lower, so they could have shorter (stronger) gear, but still have the prop clearance.

Don't know if it's true, but that's the story I've heard.
And those old radial engines are amazing!

That was a big debate back then ... radial vs. linear engines. The problem with radial engines is the big draggy frontal area, but they scale better (just add another bank!). Linear engines like the Allison (or Merlin) V12 in the Mustangs and Spitfires are nice & slim, but in addition to the scaling problem, they have some serious cooling issues.

 

[duke]

Where's the snow?

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ergeorge


That was a big debate back then ... radial vs. linear engines. The problem with radial engines is the big draggy frontal area, but they scale better (just add another bank!). Linear engines like the Allison (or Merlin) V12 in the Mustangs and Spitfires are nice & slim, but in addition to the scaling problem, they have some serious cooling issues.

Not too mention a radial could get a few cylinders blown off and be flown home. One lucky bullet could take out a p-51 if it happened to disrupt the water cooling system. I would have flown either one though .

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: ergeorge


That was a big debate back then ... radial vs. linear engines. The problem with radial engines is the big draggy frontal area, but they scale better (just add another bank!). Linear engines like the Allison (or Merlin) V12 in the Mustangs and Spitfires are nice & slim, but in addition to the scaling problem, they have some serious cooling issues.

Not too mention a radial could get a few cylinders blown off and be flown home. One lucky bullet could take out a p-51 if it happened to disrupt the water cooling system. I would have flown either one though .

a p47 limping home alone over europe caught the eye of a messerschmitt, who took a couple passes at the p47, failed to bring it down, waggled its wings and flew away.

 

[sharkeeper]

Bah, who cares? It's just an airplane! It won't melt.

It's in inanimate object. It has neither sense nor feelings!



Cheers!

 

[Pastfinder]

I'd love to take that F-104 for a spin. Those things rock!!! Actually, there is an outfit selling MiGs in the US, Moscow Aircraft Sales Hey, if you have a couple $million lying around (hint: Anand) then why not buy one of these bad boys. Sure does beat the Nissan 350Z in terms of top speed

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: ergeorge


That was a big debate back then ... radial vs. linear engines. The problem with radial engines is the big draggy frontal area, but they scale better (just add another bank!). Linear engines like the Allison (or Merlin) V12 in the Mustangs and Spitfires are nice & slim, but in addition to the scaling problem, they have some serious cooling issues.

Not too mention a radial could get a few cylinders blown off and be flown home. One lucky bullet could take out a p-51 if it happened to disrupt the water cooling system. I would have flown either one though .

Yup, overall, I think the radials were tougher/more robust. And a big part of that was the far simpler cooling (air-cooled).

How about this monster: Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major

4360 CUI, 3500 HP

There's a senior project for Aeroguy ... revisit radial engines in modern aircraft.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: X-Man
In Russia, the MiG is left inside . . .

Damn, that was good. Congratulations! You have scored my coveted QOTW Award!!! <--hands bottle of champagne with big red bow on it to X-Man.

 

[Damage]

F-105's were very cool.. too bad the Wild Weasel SAM attacker had such bad losses.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Czar
Grasshopper, first time you see snow?

 

[ROTC1983]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Mig-15 in the snow

This is just wrong...

What a mean thing to do to such a nice airplane. Granted, the guy who owns this has more money than sense, but still, why?

EDIT: This is what the airport looks like right now. No flying today, how dreary...

Addison Airport

Hopper

FYI, this Mig-15 is privatly owned and is in flying condition. It is kept at the flight museum at Addison Airport.

They left this F-105 Thunderchief also sitting outside. :|

F-105

Heck, they can give them to me and I will take good care of them I don't know where I would park them though

 

[FenrisUlf]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: ergeorge


That was a big debate back then ... radial vs. linear engines. The problem with radial engines is the big draggy frontal area, but they scale better (just add another bank!). Linear engines like the Allison (or Merlin) V12 in the Mustangs and Spitfires are nice & slim, but in addition to the scaling problem, they have some serious cooling issues.

Not too mention a radial could get a few cylinders blown off and be flown home. One lucky bullet could take out a p-51 if it happened to disrupt the water cooling system. I would have flown either one though .

a p47 limping home alone over europe caught the eye of a messerschmitt, who took a couple passes at the p47, failed to bring it down, waggled its wings and flew away.

That's why the P-51 went from the low level attack role to the long range escort role - ground fire could easily damage its underbelly radiator. The P-47 was switched from escort (it didn't have the range of the P-51, partially due to its less aerodynamic design) to ground attack where it did it's job superbly. I talked to the pilot who flew that P-47 at a Gathering of Eagles conference (held once a year at Maxwell AFB for old fighter pilots). It was a FW-190 and Messerschmitt 109, both low on ammo, but they emptied their guns into him. He just cranked the seat down (so he didn't get hit in the back of the head) and flew on. When they were out of ammo, they flew up next to him, waggled wings, and flew off. The whole time he had been cussing up a storm. When he got back to base, his commander got on his case because he had inadvertently been holding down the radio transmit button the whole time. They scrapped the plane - almost nothing worth salvaging but the pilot.
The F4U pretty much matched the mentality of the Marine pilots who flew them. One story is of a F4U pilot chasing a Japanese reconnaisance aircraft. The recon bird kept flying higher and higher to get away. Both a/c were at the edge of the performance envelope when the Corsiar finally caught it - but his guns had frozen from the extreme cold. So he inched up to the back of the plane and chopped up the tail control surfaces with his prop. The Japanese plane went down and he was credited with a kill. I've got a picture somewhere of the plane afterward - about a foot of the prop is missing from all four blades.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: FenrisUlf

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: ergeorge


That was a big debate back then ... radial vs. linear engines. The problem with radial engines is the big draggy frontal area, but they scale better (just add another bank!). Linear engines like the Allison (or Merlin) V12 in the Mustangs and Spitfires are nice & slim, but in addition to the scaling problem, they have some serious cooling issues.

Not too mention a radial could get a few cylinders blown off and be flown home. One lucky bullet could take out a p-51 if it happened to disrupt the water cooling system. I would have flown either one though .

a p47 limping home alone over europe caught the eye of a messerschmitt, who took a couple passes at the p47, failed to bring it down, waggled its wings and flew away.

That's why the P-51 went from the low level attack role to the long range escort role - <snip>.

The Mustang's primary role was always escort. Byt he time the brits started flying them in 1942, it was clear that unescorted strategic bombing wasn't going to work, and no existing fighter had the required range.

 

[SuperTool]

One of the requirements that Soviet Airforce put on MiG and other aircraft designers was the ability to operate from very rugged airfields and adverse conditions. That was in case their airfields were overrun or destroyed by bombing.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Yield
yeah whats the big deal with a little bit of snow... i can only see snowflakes, there is like no buildup of snow even on the plane..

Look closer around the cockpit, there is a little bit there.

Looks like the canopy is covered with something, and snow is on top of that cover. So it's looking good. I think the plane is in excellent shape for something that has been flying for 50 years.

 

[psianime]

Nice planes. I wonder how much one of those would go on ebay...

-psianime

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: psianime
Nice planes. I wonder how much one of those would go on ebay...

-psianime

There was a MiG on e-bay IIRC.