Well it might but it originally looked like this which was presumably found unsatisfactory.I find it to be one of the ugliest, disproportional, wearing its engineering failure lash up engine layout and the cockpit glasing looks like a wart.
Well it might but it originally looked like this which was presumably found unsatisfactory.I find it to be one of the ugliest, disproportional, wearing its engineering failure lash up engine layout and the cockpit glasing looks like a wart.
Those would have helped on the B-36 that landed about a mile short of the main runway at RAF Boscombe Down in thick fog in 195(?). (Doing this entirely from memory).
Interesting that this pic must have been taken before the red stripe was added to the white bars in the national insignia. January 1947.Talking of tyres, it originally had the largest wheels and tyres fitted to an aircraft before they went to bogies.
View attachment 539741
Similar to the Stirling. . . .and the cockpit glasing looks like a wart.
Always thought it looked better without the jet pods.A massively impressive achievement nonetheless, a transitional machine at the cusp of the jet age. And massively massive too. Definitely in the wrong thread, this is not an ugly aircraft.
The change in the skin makes it look suspiciously like a ‘Cut & Shut’ job. I bet they grew some great tomatoes though.
Spitfire T9
I take your point but the conversions were done so that 3 rd world airforces without fast trainers could convert pilots onto the spit ( which we could sell to them cheap as we had lots) no 2 seaters would probably have meant lots more spits going to kill early.I'm glad I'm not alone on this. A truly horrible thing to do to a Spitfire!
I take your point but the conversions were done so that 3 rd world airforces without fast trainers could convert pilots onto the spit ( which we could sell to them cheap as we had lots) no 2 seaters would probably have meant lots more spits going to kill early.
Also the sleeker 2 seat conversions must have been very sobering for the instructor in the back because the one I sat in had an awful view of what was happening up front. The only aircraft I’ve sat in that was worse was the Fouga Magister.
Coincidentally the Irish operated both types, hats off to their instructors.
I'm glad I'm not alone on this. A truly horrible thing to do to a Spitfire!
Not sure of the model no. of the Piasecki helicopter shown, but in service models were the H-21.
View attachment 538689
I take your point but the conversions were done so that 3 rd world airforces without fast trainers could convert pilots onto the spit ( which we could sell to them cheap as we had lots) no 2 seaters would probably have meant lots more spits going to kill early.
1952Those would have helped on the B-36 that landed about a mile short of the main runway at RAF Boscombe Down in thick fog in 195(?). (Doing this entirely from memory).
As I recall it had flown directly from Carswell AFB, and stooged around the light on top of the spire of Salisbury Cathedral which was above the fog.
It then attempted a landing at Boscombe from the SW end of the main runway, but the pilots were confused by the runway approach lighting, and touched down in the dense fog on farmland, then crossed the main road which runs north from Salisbury to Amesbury where it came to rest. The story goes that when the crew climbed out, one of them said "That's a mighty bumpy runway you got here, pal."
Not a pretty thing, no.... It is however kind of cool though.
The XV-4 owes it's shape to being an experimental VTOL aircraft and I agree it's kind of cool as has been pointed out.