the sexiest aircraft

My feelings toward the Mosquito are such that one time a friend had his artist sister draw me a Christmas card of Santa Claus getting out of a Mosquito.
I tend not to get into "who or what is sexy" debates, as it's all a matter of taste.
Reply to
J. Clarke
Loading thread data ...
No way the F-8 could do Mach 3.1. It was a -very- good dog fighter and the saying was "when you're out of Crusaders you're out of fighters". At least it had a gun unlike the F-4. I don't know what pubs you are refering to but they are wrong 73 Gary
Reply to
Gary
Yea. I'd have to agree with that too!
Reply to
Dave Lyon
Satellites do a good job taking pictures of what they're flying over, but what if that's not what you want a picture of at the time?
Reply to
Dave Lyon
$5.20 at our FBO. We just had to raise the hourly rate on our plane to keep up. Ouch!
Reply to
Bob Chilcoat
I'm pretty sure they mean reciprocating AIRCRAFT engine.
Reply to
Bob Chilcoat
IIRC the FAA required so much extra structure be added to certify the composite airframe that the plane had very little useful load left, and was slower than they hoped because of the extra weight. That killed the market for it. Beach ended up with thirty or so finished but unsalable airplanes. I believe the one that flew chase for Spaceship One is Burt's. It was at Oshkosh this year along with Spaceship One and White Knight. He's not giving it back.
Reply to
Bob Chilcoat
I haven't noticed it mentioned here, but anyone want to loft the Glassaire to "sexiest"?
You can't miss 'em when they're about six miles out for approach!
LLoyd
Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Burt's right up there, I agree, but you've gotta include Kelly Johnson in the same league. Kelly designed the P-38 in the late 30's, and the SR-71 in the 60's. That 's quite a career. Along with Harry Miller (Miller FWD Indy cars, Offenhauser engine), he's one of my engineering heros.
Reply to
Bob Chilcoat
I saw enough of habu at kadena, not enough of the p-38 at Oshkosh. The SR-71 flew at Oshkosh, it was fantastic.
I saw the F-117 tanking on its way to Iraq for Desert Storm. It left Oshkosh early that year. Other commitments ;) The F-117 is NOT sexy.
F4-J's are sexy too. Used to work on them.
Wes S
Reply to
clutch
Martin,
Thanks much for all the links and info. I lurk on ebay watching for books that might cover Kwaj, and have found a few, but they all cover the taking of the island. I'd love to find something that covers the day to day air ops... Thanks for the specific book titles, it's always easier to look for specific books than trying to discern which ones might contain something of interest.
Sadly, there was a fire some years ago in the military's records archives and many records were lost, including my fathers. So I know next to nothing.
Jon
Reply to
Jon Anderson
Could easily be!
I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if the claim had been "leaked" for the benefit of other countries as a bit of "disinformation".
After all, most military fighter planes - during their service life, at least - have "classified" top speeds and/or ceilings that, in the absence of factual data, become the object of speculation, propaganda, and, even, wishful thinking.
While the SR-71 set a few records years ago, I can't help noticing the caveat "at least" that, usually, accompanies ITS top speed and ceiling numbers...
Reply to
RAM^3
Something like the Cessna " Skyhook"
John
Reply to
John
If you have a COSCO building near by - they had the SET of books they are BLUE and are medium grade - lower cost than fancy but are OK - by Morrison. He was assigned to write the history of the Pacific war. Assigned (after he asked) by the President who gave him Multi-star grade power to see hear and write anything.
He was on-board many a ship and in the center of battles. There were several at the same time that got the job.
Martin Martin Eastburn @ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net NRA LOH & Endowment Member NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
J> Martin,
Reply to
Martin H. Eastburn
The B-29 had only two-row engines, the superficially similar B-50 had four-row engines.
Radial engines used an odd number of cylinders in each row (like a 'pancake'), and stacked the rows as needed. One and two row engines were common, and very successful.
Single-row engines would have (usually) 7 or 9 cylinders. They were relatively compact, and had good power to weight ratios. In addition to aircraft, these were widely used as W.W.-II tank engines (in M-4 Shermans, M-3 light tanks, M-18 Hellcats, to name a few).
The two row engines would, similarly, have either 14 or 18 cylinders.
To increase power further, four-row engines were tried with mixed success. IIRC, these had 28 cylinders. These were always a maintenance and reliability problem. They were excessively complex, and the back row of cylinders often tended to overheat.
Still, the four-row engines were used operationally on several aircraft, for several years. Big bombers and high-performance propeller fighters used them.
I don't recall that any of the regular passenger airliners used the four-row engines. Perhaps a few experimental ones did. The 'Connies' and "Stratocruisers' used two-row engines.
The onset of the jet age doomed these four-row engines to a relatively short period of primary service.
Dan Mitchell ============
Reply to
Daniel A. Mitchell
Dan, just remind me where I misdescribed the Wright engines? Tom
Reply to
Tom
NOT really. The 'rows', or 'banks', of a radial engine are flat planes, perpendicular to the shaft, not longitudinal rows parallel to the shaft.
Each row of the engine had (usually) either 7 or 9 cylinders, but only ONE throw on the crankshaft. There was one 'master rod' to which all the other rods connected.
To increase power, you just, in effect, stacked the engines like pancakes, making multi-row engines. In actual practice the multi-row engines were not merely stacked singles, but that that's how they were basically configured.
The Wasp Major referred to here had 28 cylinders total, in four rows, each of seven cylnders; and had a four-throw crankshaft.
All, or at least most, of the multi-row radial engines had the cylinder rows staggered (rotated). On such an engine, for each row, the cylinders have greater front to back thickness (mostly cooling fins) then the crankcase. By staggering the rows, the cylinders of the rear row could nest partially between the cylinders of the row in front of it, and the thinner crankcases could then fit directly together. This made the whole engine shorter and more compact, and also improved the flow of cooling air to the back row of cylinders.
This process was continued on the four-row engines. Thus each row was rotated slightly with respect to the one in front of it. The visual EFFECT was a helical alignment of cylinders, but that's NOT how the engine is actually constructed.
Dan Mitchell ============
Reply to
Daniel A. Mitchell
You didn't, and I didn't imply that, or at least certainly didn't INTEND to do so.
It was the original poster that mis-described the B-29 as having four-row engines. Then somebody brought in the 'Connie' with the implication that they too had four-row engines. They didn't, and you corrected that.
I was just elaborating on the description of the radial engines, and commenting on several previous confused posts on these type engines.
Dan Mitchell ============
Reply to
Daniel A. Mitchell
Perhaps you need to amend the description of radial engines to "usually or predominately, had an odd number of cylinders per row" as there were a number built that had even numbers of cylinders per row.
Tom
Reply to
Tom
Most, but not all of them.
Armstrong Siddeley's last piston engines were the Deerhound and Boarhound, 3x7 air-cooled radials. These had each row in-line not staggered, so as to use an overhead camshaft. This also helped the problem of cooling the rear row of cylinders - air could be ducted between the banks and baffled equally to each row.
The huge Lycoming 7755 (already mentioned) and the Junkers 222 took this further and had separate in-line blocks attached radially to a crankcase. The idea of "rows" now only really applied to the crankshaft, not the blocks or heads at all.
There's also the infamous 30 cylinder 5 crankshaft ersatz tank engine used in some M4 Shermans, made by merging 5 truck engines (block, head and crank) and geraing them together in a common crankcase.
Reply to
Andy Dingley

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.