Printable View
A view of an Army dog making the rounds with a watch guard.
Location: Honolulu, HI, US
Date taken: 1942
Photographer: Ralph Morse
OK which model B17 ?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...32_large-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...f9_large-1.jpg
I'm going to venture a guess that it's a B-17E.
Bob
An E model. More than likely not guarding the plane as much as the Norden Bomb sight inside it. My dad told me stories about how they treated the Norden Bomb sight in the early years like it was made of solid gold.
And if you look really close, you can see the Norden under its soft cover in the nose. I only guessed an E because there was a period when the Fs looked just like Es.
Bob
observations are supported that this aircraft is Boeing's Famous "E" model.
The photo would need to show more of the tail section... but the date of the photo and the production of "F's" coming late in '42 by the time they were placed in service..... :banghead: "hey isn't this a M-1 yikes::bash::runaway:
"Pickle Barrels" in those days as well!. Flat *** amazing how the R & D guys do under optimum circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
Combat condition results, as I'm sure you know, failed to verify the much vaunted claims on the "Nordan".
:cheers::cheers:
Mike, the "pickle barrel" was pure BS and all associated with the Norden sight soon found this out. They were a much needed improvement over what they had though :lol: I used to have a few photos of a WC Carry All with MPs securing the sight after flight. It looked more like an armored car delivery. Tommy guns out, three or four guards for one sight.
Dad did not "fly" them but he "flew" them whenever a pilot wanted a staff car for a date. Dad said it was like flying in a dream. The only other plane he liked more was the B26. He talked of them often. He said he thought it was the prettiest plane ever built. I asked him about the B25 and he said they flew okay but landed like a tub of sh**!
Dad had an eye injury early in his life that left him blind in his left eye so he was unable to go to pilot's school. His brother did it with a fingernail while playing. Odd but in the late 1990s dad was able to get it fixed and see fine out of both eyes. Modern medicine!
I'm not sure that you are aware, but you might be: The Norden was supplied with a hefty explosive charge and timer built into it. It was the bombardier's responsibility to set the charge to destroy the device before he left a plane going down over enemy territory or one that crashed landed. They took this thing darned seriously.
Bob
You Dad sounds like an interesting fellow! - I lost my medical so I don't fly anymore. 1400+ hrs in Viet Nam (RU-8D's). 1000+ Hrs in various single engine(Private Fixed Wing).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
Re: the 'Norden' - Wind at altitude, does stuff to falling object/flying objects.
I once "backed up" at 3500 ft.in my favorite airplane pictured below. Had an approx. 65 MPH headwind vrs a cruise speed of 85 MPH. For shixx & Giggles I reduced power and "reversed " to the Airstrip I departed from. I "hovered" over the Airport fof about 10 minutes before I got bored and landed. Surface wind was about 15 MPH.
Maybe you can quess the Make & Model of my now sold and much missed airplane.
Mike,
Looks like a Piper Cub in Military Markings.
But I thought the Cub was flown from the rear seat when solo?
Piper L-4?
30 06 Mike - The paint scheme was used during 'Flight Trials/War Games' during late '42' (although I never got around to putting the "Stars" on the Wings & several other Markings!)Quote:
Originally Posted by 30-06_mike
Not a Piper Cub and you are indeed correct that the "CUB" was flown "Solo from the rear seat! Just a clue - This airplane 'Cruised' about 15-20MPH higher than the 'CUB' on the same 65 HP engine but took longer to get off the ground. Landing distance was about the same. :beerchug:
Try again!
Bob - Not an L-4. Note the differences on the "Turtle-Back"- Aft of the rear edge of the Wing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
Mark - It appears I "High-Jacked" your thread. My apology is offered!
Mike Haas
Mike no problem - the whole point of Picture of the Day is to promote discussion - even of aircraftQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike Haas
Mark - Thank You - Another "Clue" then.. The 'Brit's' used an inverted inline 4 Cyl. Engine on this Airplane. (Gypsy 'Minor or perhaps an "Auster" (SP)?? - Memory fails me). IIRC it resulted in an increase in 'Cruise Speed" to about 110 MPH but didn't improve 'Take-Off ' distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Rochester
Mine was all "US GI" with the Continental 65 HP engine.
Thanks again Mark!!
Mmm... Taylorcraft Auster V?
TaylorCraft Yes! - Now give me the US designation for my Airplane. No more clues for now!. :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
Bc-12d ?
Mike, my dad was very interesting to say the least ;) He is long since gone from us. Died at 87 years old. He had a full life that is for sure. My dad was active duty from 1939 to 1946, reserve till 1955. I could sit and listen to his stories for hours. Too bad I don't have that chance anymore :crying:
Mark - Not a BC-12D. The BC-12D and BL-12D) had side by side seating. Mine had tandem seating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Rochester
Two more clues: the rear seat in mine 'swiveled' and had a collaspable Map board.
:cheers:
Bl-65?
Bl-65? Won't let me upper case the B and the L together???
Bill - Sounds like a a keyboard problem. Anyway my airplane was an L2-B. The military version of the Taylorcraft DCO-65 - The military insisted on the covered "turtleback" (L2-A Model) be converted to the full glass enclosure (L2-B Model) as shown in my pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
A subsequent Model the L2-M was later produced with a 'Compression Cowl which increased cruise speed to almost 100 MPH. It also had pilot operated wing spoiler/s installed because the T-Craft was noted for being a "floater" on landing. They were a terrific help in getting into a short strip which the airplane usually couldn't get out of :yikes::
The fusalage on the DCO-65/L-2 was built heavier than the BC/BL-65 series T-Crafts and 'Wartime Shortages' precluded the wings having aluminum ribs and leading wing edges. Wood was therefore used and all the above put the empty weight up to about 1000 lbs. Fully loaded it weighed appox. 1350 lbs, about 300lbs more than the BC/BL series T-Crafts. Needless to say takeoff performance suffered. It was used for Liasion/Artillary Spotting/Scouting and mostly in the ETO.
The L2-B really needed at least an 85HP engine (and flaps:help:) but still a wonderfull airplane if you knew it's limitations.
My Dad bought it NIB (Crate) Army Surplus at Ft Bragg in 1946 for $375.00, put it together down there and flew it home to Maryland. We rebuilt it twice and I sold it in 1988. It was built in 1943 (Serial # L-5004).
Last I heard of it was about 15 years ago and the story was it went into trees trying to get out of a to short strip on a "Hot Day" :crying: with two people aboard. (gotta know the limitations).
My Dad died July a year ago at age 91. :crying: - Maybe our Dad's are shooting the Bull about airplanes as we speak!!
Regards and :cheers:
:p Okay this Garand board has entered an area that I know just enough to be dangerous :super:
The comments about a T-Craft flying 80 mph on a 65 h.p. are true enough with a "cruise pitched prop".
And the comment about flying "backward" in a winds aloft condition is true in a "slow flight configuration".
Though exposed early to a "Cub" in my college days to begin work on my ticket, the L-3 "Aeronca Champ" won my heart over the T-craft hangered at Rankin Field ( 78Y) years ago.
With 50 ft cross country power lines at the North end of Rwy 34 the motto that climb beats speed when one is in need added comfort to my pucker power during take off. ( These little ditties always come in handy when your taking tests :ugh: )
Yes, the T-craft would sail right on by me in straight and level flight, but in time to climb events how I loved every precious inch of altitude on warm calm days the Champ offered over the T-craft.
There were several 7AC's at Rankin... some were modified to the L-3 configuration. It did slow down the Champ a little but the 360 omni vision was great :super:
So:cool: much for the memories of an old grass roots pilot
GUNSMITH IIQuote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith II
Your spot on in that the Piper J-3/L-4 and the Aeronca 7AC/L-3 climbed faster than a T-Craft DCO-65/L-2.
The T-Craft L2 was a "Ground-Hog" on takeoff due to it's weight. The Aeronca L-3 and Piper L-4 were lighter by approx 300 lbs running the same 65 HP engine.
All had the same landing distance with a competant pilot. Good judgement on my part kept me from "rolling my airplane into a ball" on several occasions on takeoff but but I must admit things were 'dicey' a-couple of times.
I've had what I consider to be the somewhat rare pleasure of flying the Taylorcraft J-2 (with "a Tail-Skid") also known as the J-2 with a 40HP Lycoming as well as a very eary Piper J-3 with the "Lenopee" 3 Cylinder Radial Engine and I did that 'Solo' with 'Snow Skie's' 3 TO's & Landings without any issue's. Enormous FUN!!
I've solo'ed 'Stearman's' and 'At-6's' and flown the Stinson V-77 "Gull Wing" with the owner at my side.
As much as I love my Milsurp Rifles, they don't fly!
:cheers:
Sorry. All my experience was in hot rods -L16s and L19s. :madsmile:
Bob
Ah the beauty of horsepower :beerchug:
Yes the L-16 and it's 90 h.p. was a completely different aircraft :move eek:
All those rich kids :cool: could afford the muscle machines :p
I thought the first time I climbed into the front seat of a 90 h.p. craft that the Champ would lift off vertical on a short - soft field T/O. 100 ft T/O's were very common in the bird with a little wind flowing down the C/L.
But I didn't get much of a chance to build any time ($$$$ problems) so it was back to the 65 h.p. and daring feats of skills strong arming the tail with feet tap dancing on the rudder pedals. :clap:
I fould one of my old Champs a couple of years ago. It's been rebuilt and flying in Alaska. Upgraded with Tundra tires and 150 h.p. powerplant. Now that would be awesomefun. :beerchug:
There was a guy in my hometown who owned a Citabria Champ. He weighed about 300 pounds and made a show of having to pinch himself into his plane and run the engine up 'til it screamed to get off the strip. He'd then pull vertical. Then at about 400 feet he'd pump the throttle to make the Lycoming chortle and then chop it and fall off into a hammerhead. The first time you saw it your heart dropped into your sneakers. But he'd recover and make a low pass, giggling to himself. The local drivers would keep quite until his little joke was over and then cuss under their breath. :)
Bob
Yes, those pilots who are current and have the touch for sensing the condition of a aircraft are recognized by their fellow brothers as qualified.
Never having the horsepower to perform such T/O displays as described by Bob, it was my avenue of choice to display what I thought to be above average skills on landings.
Over the wires it was time to perform full slips off each wing and flair exactly over the fence and be stopped on the numbers. :bow:
The benefit was that I didn't have a long taxi back to the run up area....
i.e., I'd cut in front of the other pilots who'd used up all the runway to land. :dancingbanana:
So the :10 minute circuit around the patch got a boost with shorter taxi's and more T/O and L's at the high rate of $10/ hr wet. :rolleyes:
Where oh where have those days gone....:runaway: