|
Post by jetmex on Feb 8, 2007 11:16:39 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by trimtab on Feb 8, 2007 14:47:34 GMT -7
Quick guess (on my way out the door)
First one is a Sikorsky Blackhawk Helo (I'll come back on that one)
Second one is an early C-47 (seats are made for seat parachutes)
Third is a DC-4 (or C-54)
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Feb 8, 2007 17:07:11 GMT -7
Good guesses! But:
1. Nope
2. Sort of.....but no. ;D
3. Nope.
|
|
|
Post by trimtab on Feb 9, 2007 8:00:15 GMT -7
Well then, the second one is a DC-2. There are brow windows barely visible in the photograph and I don't recall seeing them in a two. The panel is slightly more complex than a Ford Model T. The view outside was not considered very important in a design back then when skys were uncrowded and VFR was the norm.
Hard to tell if the throttle quadrant has prop controls. Would fit in well with a Santa Fe Railroad engineer's perch.
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Feb 9, 2007 12:53:52 GMT -7
Sorry, it's not a DC-2.
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Feb 9, 2007 23:56:47 GMT -7
But it's almost a DC-2 isn't it? ;D
And it looks nothing like the Filipino knife it was named after, does it?
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Feb 10, 2007 0:20:25 GMT -7
And the last one is a really big fish.
(At least I always thought it looked like a big fish.)
The friend who married myself and my second wife was a chaplain in the Air Guard back in the early fifties. He had to bale out of one of these along with half the members of his guard unit who were on their way to summer camp when an engine caught fire and fell off.
No big deal except for the fact that he had gotten comfortable for the trip by removing his shoes and couldn't find them when it came time to jump. Try parachuting barefoot sometime, you will learn a great deal.
There is one of these airplanes still painted all over the side of Mt. Rainier here. They find pieces of it occasionally when the snow thaws a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Feb 10, 2007 0:23:13 GMT -7
BTW: The first photo looks an awful lot like a Boeing Vertol CH 46 cockpit.
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Feb 10, 2007 12:10:28 GMT -7
That's probably because it IS a CH-46 cockpit...... ;D You're right, #2 looks absolutely nothing like a Filipino knife. #3 does kinda look like a big fish, though...
|
|
|
Post by RonMiller on Feb 11, 2007 12:01:40 GMT -7
I'll take a stab at the last pic... the big feeesh one.. could it be a,,,,,,, Marlin?
I thought about saying it was a Tuna, but, while you cant tuna fish, you can tuna piano. I dont remember hearing about too many trout planes, but I've heard a few say this one is "crappy" or that one is "crappy". Then there is a plane I think is referred to as a "guppy" it seems like. And man, I wouldn't think I'd wanna fly in a "flounder" plane either. (Man asking his friend).. "Hey Charlie, lets go jump in the ole Carp and take her for a ride around the patch".
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Feb 12, 2007 1:33:24 GMT -7
LOOKS like a fish, not named after a fish.
|
|
|
Post by RetNavySuppo on Feb 12, 2007 2:34:30 GMT -7
Is #2 a Douglas B-18 Bolo, a military adaptation of the DC-2 commercial aircraft?
A "bolo" is a very sharp Filipino machete.
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Feb 13, 2007 6:54:03 GMT -7
And Bob gets #2 -- it is a B-18. Two down, one to go......can anyone identify the fish?
|
|
|
Post by RonMiller on Feb 13, 2007 9:57:44 GMT -7
Probably not what you are looking for but it looks like a fish nevertheless ;D www.adn.com/front/story/7038924p-6942571c.htmlA brief blurb on the plane.. lol. Alaska Airlines takes flying fish to a whole new level $500,000 grant from federal funding pays for custom paint job on company's passenger jet By WESLEY LOY Anchorage Daily News Published: October 2, 2005 Last Modified: October 3, 2005 at 01:20 AM So, you landed a big king salmon this summer? It can't compare to the colossal king Alaska Airlines plans to land this morning in Anchorage. The Seattle-based carrier has painted nearly the full length of a Boeing 737-400 passenger jet as a wild Alaska king, or chinook, salmon. The airline has dubbed its flying fish the "Salmon-Thirty-Salmon."
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Feb 13, 2007 23:53:58 GMT -7
The original prototype of the one in the last frame had twin fins and rudders.
Is that a good clue?
I really doubt it because you'd have to first know which airplane it was before you could even look up what the prototype designation was or even what it looked like. ;D
It used two large U.S. radials (engines, not tires) to get around and was used by several of the services up into the fifties. There were reportedly several ex-USMC examples still wearing their WWII stars and bars at the Davis Monthan boneyard up through the early seventies. Story was that the paperwork had been lost on them and no one knew what to do with them. Probably an apocryphal story but I did see photos of them once.
The manufacturer of this aircraft was not previously known as a producer of large transports, having made its bones on rather large numbers of considerably smaller aircraft.
Oh, and it was the major initial type used by a famous freight airline which was absorbed by another several years ago.
Now THAT is a clue.
|
|
|
Post by RetNavySuppo on Feb 14, 2007 1:16:10 GMT -7
Okay, I'll bite at Galvin's bait (pun intended).
Is #3 a Budd RB-1 Conestoga? They were the first aircraft used by the "Flying Tigers" freight line. The "Flying Tigers" merged with FedEx in August, 1989 under the FedEx name.
|
|
|
Post by Galvin on Feb 14, 2007 8:33:24 GMT -7
Now THAT was a misleading clue. My apologies.
I should have taken my own often given advice and checked my facts prior to making such a strong assertion. So much for my relying on the recollections of personal friends, in this case a Tigers pilot, for historical info. Turns out that this airplane was not the first type used by Tigers, more like the fourth. First ones were the Budds and some C-47s. This type isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Tigers either but I can attest that Tigers used a lot of them, as did Slick their next door competitor on Clybourne Ave at the Burbank airport. Some of the Tigers airplanes were in passenger config.
I can remember numerous times seeing these aircraft flying down the instrument approach path to (at that time) runway 7 at Burbank when I was in my early teens and extremely interested in anything passing overhead. We lived two blocks north of the final approach course into BUR and the huge poles of the old low freq. Adcock range loop antennas were just across the creek from our back yard.
AM radio reception at home always had the dah dit dit dit-dit dit dah- dit dah dit of the nav station's BUR identifier audible at ten second intervals superimposed on whatever program happened to be playing. For obvious reasons they were the first Morse code letters I ever learned.
OK, Tigers DID indeed fly them but they were not the first type they flew. My bad.
I seem to recall a Budd Conestoga wreck being visble for years in a river bed over in the San Garbiel valley east of Pasadena also.
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Feb 14, 2007 12:35:12 GMT -7
Nope, not a Conestoga. I'll let this one linger a bit before I throw out any more clues.....
|
|
|
Post by RetNavySuppo on Feb 14, 2007 15:37:08 GMT -7
Okay, let's try this again.
How about #3 being a Curtiss-Wright C-46 Commando, nicknamed the "Whale"?
|
|
|
Post by jetmex on Feb 14, 2007 16:10:44 GMT -7
Awww, Dave, you gave 'em too many clues!! ;D
Bob, it is a C-46. Good job!
Does anyone want more?
|
|