Aviation MegaThread!!!!

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by Klay

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Militar...solves-mystery

How does that explain the ground crews, who also suffered the same effects while servicing them?

[Rich B]

Originally Posted by Short Shins

The Thunder Mustang captures the lines just right

Yea, but to my eye, the 2 in the foreground don't look quite as good as the Corsair in the background

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by Trixie

How does that explain the ground crews, who also suffered the same effects while servicing them?

I think it's due to the awesome.

The people can't handle it anymore.

[mfp4073]

Originally Posted by Rich B

Yea, but to my eye, the 2 in the foreground don't look quite as good as the Corsair in the background

Agreed.

If you are gong to have a row of mustangs it should look like this:

[Short Shins]

Here you go

[KHJPHOTO]

In 1994 I attended the 50th Anniversay of the Battle of Britain. Below is a film that shows a few of the classic airplanes
of WWII. Sorry about the "pixilation" for it was stored on a disc and had to be "ripped" to post. At any rate, hope you enjoy.
Oh, to see more great photos of aircraft please visit my website: khjphotography.com

Thanks

LINK:

http://youtu.be/jMYkXhC-Gps

[chazbird]

I wonder why the great piston era fighters hold so much more of an attraction than the jet fighters. Arguably from the 50's until the 70's the design and performance of those jets is more interesting than the piston planes, When you look into the aerodynamics and performance considerations of the jets they are really quite remarkable. I suppose the argument could be: 1. Piston fighters were more numerable. 2. They are easier to understand. 3. They fought, close in, with guns and cannons vs point and shoot from distances outside of visual range. 4 The social power of the allied victory using these planes vs the mixed record for fighters since then. 5. The idea that a private pilot could, conceivably, transition to a WWII piston fighter. 7. Jet fighter operating cost are in the .0001 percent club while the WWII planes are merely in the .001 bracket. 8. Better names. (excepting the F101 Voodoo) 9. They are tail wheeled aircraft. 10. They sound better.

[KHJPHOTO]

Romance. Ain't nothin' romantic about a blow torch!

[Lornce]

Don't think it's because piston engined fighters are more cost accessible.

Back in the late '90's the Swiss liquidated their fleet of '60's era single engined, sub-sonic Hawker Hunters. Aircraft museums around the world were gifted many of them, the rest wound up on the used aircraft market, complete with spare engines, parts and etc. for about $60k/piece.

In terms of aviation costs - that's pizza money. Hell, that's cheap if you're into sportscars.

I don't know much about the cost of jet fuel vs. high performance piston engined fuel or burn rates or etc. but I'd be willing to bet a single turbine Hawker Hunter is a heck of a lot cheaper to fly/maintain/run than a P-51 Mustang.

[No False Enthusiasm]

Hawker Hunter's claim to fame...

The Hawker Hunter Tower Bridge incident was an aviation incident that occurred on 5 April 1968[1] when an RAF Hawker Hunter pilot performed unauthorised stunt manoeuvres at Tower Bridge, London, and elsewhere, to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Royal Air Force and as a demonstration against Prime Minister Harold Wilson's government.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_...ridge_incident

NFE

[Hardware02]

Why are the piston engined fighters of the WWII era so...AWESOME? Good question...

Probably a combination of things...

- they're the pinnacle of aviation technology and performance for their time while still being...visceral;
- they straddled two eras - their own piston engined fighter era and the early jet age - they were key steps in the development and evolution of aircraft in general IMO;
- radial piston engines and the big Merlin V-12 engines are just freaking amazing pieces of engineering. Yes, they're out of the realm of the average aircraft owner but they don't seem as unobtainable as any jet aircraft;
- I've been around countless jet fighters spooling up and launching over the years and yes, it's always cool. But it can't compare to any WWII piston engine when it starts. Those big piston engines make torque, not thrust. There's a cadence to them when they start. They breath. They come to life...again, they're visceral;
- the sound; and
- in case you missed it...they're visceral!

[koncha]

I love the F-86. There was a derelict F-86 at a small airport near where I took my first flight in a small aircraft. Here is a picture of it years before when it was at a local park:

[chazbird]

I get the visceral aspect and that's probably "it". I once got a ride in a Sea Fury. Believe me Fury was a very apt name. The piston fighters of the mid to late 40's were probably the epitome of mechanical "modernism". Some of the same argument could be applied to certain styles of architecture, even clothing, of that general era. (Think Chrysler building of the '30's) The high end stuff like that from that era would be so expensive to build these days no one would bother with building or buying it because the price to build exceeds the functionality by many levels.

Those 50's era jets being so cheap to buy is precisely because they are so expensive to operate. They burn at least 3 times the fuel as a piston, so even while Jet-a (the proverbially available fuel) is nominally cheaper than Avgas, many of the those jets may not use Jet-A, or have restrictions when they use it. That's negated in the pistons because to use full boost on a Merlin I think you need 120+ octane, and actually if I remember correctly I think it may be 140 octane. That stuff is not cheap. (whatever version either of them use). The overhaul cost of a jet, compared, for instance, with a Merlin is many times more expensive. Also, the earlier jets, or military fighter jet engines in general, have fairly short service life, certainly compared with a modern commercial jet engine. Aside from my conjecture, I'd be interested in hearing from people who actually could compare these apple to oranges cost structure.

[Trixie]

we should try to enlist someone from The Collings Foundation to join here and share. They have both piston and jet operational military aircraft in use.

[chazbird]

Rough fuel flows:

Hawker Hunter, 17,000 ft*, high cruise 7000 lb hr. Low speed cruise, same altitude 4500 lb hr. (* 17,000 is about as high as ATC will let you fly the aircraft not on a IFR flight plan, IE so you could "play")

North American P51D 8000 ft normal cruise 8,000 ft - 435 lb hr. (at 17,000 ft. it would be about the same since it is super charged)

The P51D seems a little cheaper to operate here....

Engines for the Hunter are no longer made, nor probably supported. You buy these cheap spares and hope there's useful life left on them because besides not being supported, they are really really expensive materials in there. The Merlin isn't "made" any more, but there is a cottage industry where people make most of the parts, as needed, certainly not cheap, but not unobtainable.

The Hunter also has nifty things like de-icing systems and powered controls, fun stuff to keep running. The Hunter still is a very beautiful aircraft....