P-51's in movie "Empire of the Sun"

[zxcv]

I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs. Would
this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing themselves
up?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

zxcv wrote:
> I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
> P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
> flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs. Would
> this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing themselves
> up?


Fly real fast? I'm not sure about the bombing, but I do know the P-51s in that
movie were actually radio controlled models. Looked pretty good, too.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Ron]

>Subject: P-51's in movie "Empire of the Sun"
>From: "zxcv"
>Date: 3/18/2004 2:56 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
>P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
>flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs. Would
>this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing themselves
>up?
>

One of the pilots who did some of the flying in the movie, Tom Danaher, was
also given a role in the movie as an commanding officer that arrives to
liberate an internment camp. Tom flew fighters in WW2, and is credited with
the last shootdown of a Japanese bomber in WW2.

He was flying in movies up till very recently, having been in Air America, Out
of Africa, and an IMAX movie about the amazon. He might still be ferrying
aircraft over the pond, but not sure if he is anymore.

He has some history also regarding offshore UK pirate radio stations in the
60s.

http://www.bestaero.com/features/danaher/potm.htm


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[QDurham]

>Dropping bombs *accurately that way is something else.
>
Iin the 50s the USN called it Seaman's Eye Bombing. Did it in P2Vs. Proptips
maybe 3 - 5 feet above the water. Damnably accurate!

Quent

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:52:10 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>zxcv wrote:
>> I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
>> P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
>> flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs. Would
>> this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing themselves
>> up?
>
>
>Fly real fast? I'm not sure about the bombing, but I do know the P-51s in that
>movie were actually radio controlled models. Looked pretty good, too.

There were no doubt, models used but there were also real (full-size)
Mustangs used in the footage. I seem to recall reading in one of
the aviation trade rags about some of the "low level" flying done in
the movie, and how the pilots thoroughly enjoyed it.

Bela P. Havasreti

[M. H. Greaves]

I've just finished reading the book to the film, as usual, though the film
is quite excellent, i enjoyed the book a bit more, you find that there are
things in the book that may not be in the film, and one or two of the parts
of a film may be "holywood'ised!".
Great film, and very interesting.
"zxcv" > wrote in message
...
> I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
> P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
> flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs.
Would
> this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing
themselves
> up?
>
>

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, zxcv
> writes
>I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
>P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
>flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs. Would
>this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing themselves
>up?
>
>
I understand that the way in which bombs are dropped from low level is a
combination of delay fuze (as already mentioned by another respondent)
and the attack profile. If you bomb from enough height to be able to
depart to a safe distance before the bomb goes off then that's okay,
even with impact fuzes. If you are going to be still close to the bomb
when the fuze is impact triggered then it should be a delay fuze, so you
can depart to said safe distance. That's the obvious basic principle.

But I guess that many complications can set in. For instance, (question
to you bods who have actually done this kind of thing) low level skip
bombing will probably give good accuracy, but I assume one must know a
bit about the nature of the target. If the target is sufficiently
massive (e.g. building/ship) so as to be able to bring the bomb to a
halt, then a short delay fuze should be fine - the aircraft will be a
long way the other side by the time the bomb goes off. But if the
target is less robust, the bomb could go straight through the target
(impact triggering the delay fuze as it does so) and accompany the
aircraft for some distance beyond; not nice, and suggests that an attack
from height would have been better.

That leads me to assume that somewhere in the mission planning process,
(following the target description) choice of fuze and attack profile
will be defined, and the safety parameters stated. I assume that even
on general roving tactical bombing missions in WWII, pilots would choose
which targets were safe to attack in a particular mode; given the fuzing
of the bombs they carried.

Re. the film 'Empire of the Sun', am I right to remember that one of the
bombs dropped by a P-51 actually flew off to one side rather than going
straight ahead? I thought at the time it must have been a low-density
repro to do that - rather than a real cast steel jobby.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Cub Driver]

>I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
>P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
>flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs. Would
>this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing themselves
>up?

This seems pretty routine in contemporary movies. It was ture I think
in Saving Private Ryan, in Windtalkers, and of course in Pearl Harbor,
where a P-40 chases a Zero down a street, about the level of the
second-story windows.

Of course at one time or another, planes flew at every altitude right
down to impact. The artistic failure is to take the exceptional and
make it routine.

Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[M. H. Greaves]

yes i did, and what about young jim, managing to get in so close to the
planes?? he's a prisoner right, whats going on there??
I liked frank and basie!! well played parts; jim gets into the mens dorm,
and says to frank ina yankee accent, "Hey, how ya doin' frank", i found that
quite funny!!
yep a good film.
In pearl harbor, how come suddenly the whole USA war effert revolves around
the two good friends??
I got the feeling that if we'd lost either of them too soon in the film, the
war was lost and the japs would have won!! ridiculous i know but you what i
mean!
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
> >P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
> >flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs.
Would
> >this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing
themselves
> >up?
>
> This seems pretty routine in contemporary movies. It was ture I think
> in Saving Private Ryan, in Windtalkers, and of course in Pearl Harbor,
> where a P-40 chases a Zero down a street, about the level of the
> second-story windows.
>
> Of course at one time or another, planes flew at every altitude right
> down to impact. The artistic failure is to take the exceptional and
> make it routine.
>
> Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
> that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
> AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[vincent p. norris]

>On the other hand, some movie directors don't really care --

The director of "Midway" for example. Too many bloopers to mention.

For example: Ensign Gay shown flying an SB2U *Dive* bomber, not a
TBD *torpedo* bomber; but when he was shot down, it miraculously
turned into an F6F.

Charleton Heston's kid flies an F4F but lands (badly) an F6F.

Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera.

vince norris

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

> Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
> that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
> AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.

This makes me wonder just what sort of "modifications" are
typically done by Hollywood to create actual flying aircraft
no longer in existence, or just not available to fly.

Obviously, the main "trick" is simply paint the aircraft in
the correct national markings. Thus a P-51 becomes an Me 109,
an AT-6 a Zero (seems the most common role for a Texan in a
movie). Some F-86s can become "Migs", and I vaguely recall
a C-47 becoming a G4M Betty at one time.

JN-4 "Jennies" served as German and British/US fighters in the
WWI movies of the 20's and 30's. Just a splash of paint and
a roundel made it a Sopwith Camel, or a black cross and it was
a "Fokker".

I believe in "Memphis Belle" a B-17G was converted to an F by
actual removal of the nose turret. Addition of a tail cone
to make an AT-6 into a Zero seems more than necessary, but
some directors are detail focused.

Then of course there are "faux warbird" props. Even during
WWII when the real thing might have been available, you often
see some dummied up aircraft. I think John Wayne in "Flying
Tigers" had some plywood P-40s with propellers that would
lazily spin trying to imitate a squadron cranking up for an
intercept. I think the BoB TV movie "Piece of Cake" used
some dummied up Spits for ground scenes as well. Didn't some
of them spin props too?

Of course with the increasing power of F/X in movies, you can
now film formations worth of Me 262s attacking B-24s or
whatever. The need for the actual warbird is pretty much gone.


SMH

[Laurence Doering]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:10:07 -0500, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
>> that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
>> AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.
>
> This makes me wonder just what sort of "modifications" are
> typically done by Hollywood to create actual flying aircraft
> no longer in existence, or just not available to fly.
>
> Obviously, the main "trick" is simply paint the aircraft in
> the correct national markings. Thus a P-51 becomes an Me 109,
> an AT-6 a Zero (seems the most common role for a Texan in a
> movie). Some F-86s can become "Migs", and I vaguely recall
> a C-47 becoming a G4M Betty at one time.

The most famous modified aircraft of this type are probably the
faux Japanese aircraft used to film the 1970 movie "Tora, Tora,
Tora!" I recently saw the movie again on cable, and it looked
to me like pretty much all of the flying sequences used real
aircraft (as opposed to models -- CGI animation obviously
wasn't a possibility in the late Sixties.)

According to the web page of the Commemorative (nee Confederate)
Air Force's Gulf Coast Wing [1], which owns and operates 14 of the
aircraft that were used to film the movie, the Zeros were modified
AT-6 Texans, the Val dive bombers were modified BT-13 Valiants,
and the Kate torpedo bombers were combinations of AT-6 and BT-13
components "with lots of stretching and modifying both types."

The web page also mentions that the CAF is currently modifying
another AT-6 to look like a Zero to add to their airshow act.

> ... Addition of a tail cone to make an AT-6 into a Zero
> seems more than necessary, but some directors are detail
> focused.

The "Tora, Tora, Tora!" AT-6s were modified to change the
general shape of the wingtips and tail surfaces to match
the Zero's silhouette, and were fitted with replacement
canopies (the T-6 canopy looks nothing like a Zero's.)

On the other hand, some movie directors don't really care --
see, for example, "Iron Eagle II", which gets points for
using real aircraft and air-to-air photography, but loses
them big time for painting red stars on Israeli Air Force
F-4 Phantoms and calling them "MiG"s.

> I think the BoB TV movie "Piece of Cake" used some dummied up
> Spits for ground scenes as well. Didn't some
> of them spin props too?

"Tora, Tora, Tora!" features a number of P-40s and PBYs
getting blowed up good on the ground during the attack.
I assume the P-40s were mockups. Dunno about the PBYs -
it might have been cheaper and easier to use real junked
PBYs from some boneyard somewhere than to build full-sized
mockups.

> Of course with the increasing power of F/X in movies, you can
> now film formations worth of Me 262s attacking B-24s or
> whatever. The need for the actual warbird is pretty much gone.

Maybe, maybe not. The CGI animated flying sequences in
"Pearl Harbor" look pretty lame compared to the flying
sequences in "Tora, Tora, Tora!" While it's true that
you'd have no other choice than CGI if you had to have
a scene that showed large formations of B-17s and German
fighters all at once, real aircraft and air-to-air photography
still give you better looking footage (in my opinion, anyway.)

CGI sequences aren't cost-free, either. Look at "Pearl Harbor" --
they could have used CGI to produce realistic WWII destroyers being
bombed at anchor, but instead opted to set off a bunch of pyro effects
on the decks of several real decommissioned Spruance-class destroyers.


ljd

[1] http://www.gulfcoastwing.org/torapage.htm

[M. H. Greaves]

i saw a film that they tried to make the F4 Phantom a russian fighter! that
said, the chances of getting a REAL russian plane for the film would be
pretty slim!
In 633 sqdn they used me108's because they couldnt get a 109!
In the film Memphis Belle, they had a Bf109 with a Merlin engine (same
engine as in the spitfire and the P51), so they could have a mostly genuine
enemy plane (well apart from the engine).
Of course there werent any originally engined 109's available.
In the original Pearl Harbour they took the two rudders off a B25 and put a
cardboard fin in the middle, to make it look like something else (what, i
dont know!!).
I think we could go on and on, with this!
he he!
regards, Mark.
"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
> > that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
> > AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.
>
> This makes me wonder just what sort of "modifications" are
> typically done by Hollywood to create actual flying aircraft
> no longer in existence, or just not available to fly.
>
> Obviously, the main "trick" is simply paint the aircraft in
> the correct national markings. Thus a P-51 becomes an Me 109,
> an AT-6 a Zero (seems the most common role for a Texan in a
> movie). Some F-86s can become "Migs", and I vaguely recall
> a C-47 becoming a G4M Betty at one time.
>
> JN-4 "Jennies" served as German and British/US fighters in the
> WWI movies of the 20's and 30's. Just a splash of paint and
> a roundel made it a Sopwith Camel, or a black cross and it was
> a "Fokker".
>
> I believe in "Memphis Belle" a B-17G was converted to an F by
> actual removal of the nose turret. Addition of a tail cone
> to make an AT-6 into a Zero seems more than necessary, but
> some directors are detail focused.
>
> Then of course there are "faux warbird" props. Even during
> WWII when the real thing might have been available, you often
> see some dummied up aircraft. I think John Wayne in "Flying
> Tigers" had some plywood P-40s with propellers that would
> lazily spin trying to imitate a squadron cranking up for an
> intercept. I think the BoB TV movie "Piece of Cake" used
> some dummied up Spits for ground scenes as well. Didn't some
> of them spin props too?
>
> Of course with the increasing power of F/X in movies, you can
> now film formations worth of Me 262s attacking B-24s or
> whatever. The need for the actual warbird is pretty much gone.
>
>
> SMH
>

[Cub Driver]

>Maybe, maybe not. The CGI animated flying sequences in
>"Pearl Harbor" look pretty lame compared to the flying
>sequences in "Tora, Tora, Tora!"

That's certainly my feeling. When I see a contemporary movie (Saving
Private Ryan, Windtalkers, Hamburger Hill?, even Pearl Harbor) and
watch the fighters come buzzing in, I feel as though I had been
transported into Flight Simulator. They just don't look real. Pearl
Harbor did a pretty good job with this, because in each case I think
there was an actual plane, which was multiplied by computer tricks.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Jim Doyle]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
> i saw a film that they tried to make the F4 Phantom a russian fighter!
that
> said, the chances of getting a REAL russian plane for the film would be
> pretty slim!
> In 633 sqdn they used me108's because they couldnt get a 109!

Same with 'Von Ryan's Express' - rocket firing 108's! Also didn't Donald
Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The Great Escape'?

> In the film Memphis Belle, they had a Bf109 with a Merlin engine (same
> engine as in the spitfire and the P51), so they could have a mostly
genuine
> enemy plane (well apart from the engine).
> Of course there werent any originally engined 109's available.

Just the one actually, 'Black 6' at Duxford - (has since crashed into a
field at the hands of the then CinC Strike!)

> In the original Pearl Harbour they took the two rudders off a B25 and put
a
> cardboard fin in the middle, to make it look like something else (what, i
> dont know!!).
> I think we could go on and on, with this!
> he he!
> regards, Mark.
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > > Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
> > > that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
> > > AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.
> >
> > This makes me wonder just what sort of "modifications" are
> > typically done by Hollywood to create actual flying aircraft
> > no longer in existence, or just not available to fly.
> >
> > Obviously, the main "trick" is simply paint the aircraft in
> > the correct national markings. Thus a P-51 becomes an Me 109,
> > an AT-6 a Zero (seems the most common role for a Texan in a
> > movie). Some F-86s can become "Migs", and I vaguely recall
> > a C-47 becoming a G4M Betty at one time.
> >
> > JN-4 "Jennies" served as German and British/US fighters in the
> > WWI movies of the 20's and 30's. Just a splash of paint and
> > a roundel made it a Sopwith Camel, or a black cross and it was
> > a "Fokker".
> >
> > I believe in "Memphis Belle" a B-17G was converted to an F by
> > actual removal of the nose turret. Addition of a tail cone
> > to make an AT-6 into a Zero seems more than necessary, but
> > some directors are detail focused.
> >
> > Then of course there are "faux warbird" props. Even during
> > WWII when the real thing might have been available, you often
> > see some dummied up aircraft. I think John Wayne in "Flying
> > Tigers" had some plywood P-40s with propellers that would
> > lazily spin trying to imitate a squadron cranking up for an
> > intercept. I think the BoB TV movie "Piece of Cake" used
> > some dummied up Spits for ground scenes as well. Didn't some
> > of them spin props too?
> >
> > Of course with the increasing power of F/X in movies, you can
> > now film formations worth of Me 262s attacking B-24s or
> > whatever. The need for the actual warbird is pretty much gone.
> >
> >
> > SMH
> >
>
>

[Dan Shackelford]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:56:18 -0500, zxcv wrote:

> I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
> P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
> flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs.
> Would this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing
> themselves up?

Delayed action fuses in the bombs were used in low level attacks.

[[email protected]]

(QDurham) wrote:

>>Dropping bombs *accurately that way is something else.
>>
>Iin the 50s the USN called it Seaman's Eye Bombing. Did it in P2Vs. Proptips
>maybe 3 - 5 feet above the water. Damnably accurate!
>
>Quent

Damnably impossible I'd say...the rules say 100 feet for 'pilot
bombing' and while this figure was likely (certainly) broken a
_few_ times nobody actually flew _knowingly_ with the prop tips
"3 to 5" feet above the water in a P2V. Trust me.
--

-Gord.

[QDurham]

>Damnably impossible I'd say...the rules say 100 feet for 'pilot bombing' and
while this figure was likely (certainly) broken a _few_ times nobody actually
flew _knowingly_ with the prop tips
"3 to 5" feet above the water in a P2V. Trust me.

Sorry Gordo. Been there. Done that. Seaman's Eye bombing as well as mining
operations. Propwash in water. The Navy likes water. "Stay low and you can't
possibly fall very far."

We were "mining" Buckner Bay, Okinawa, once upon a time, leaving a propwash
wake in the water while the AF was up looking for us visually in F86s. Heard
one jet pilot say "I'm all the way down to 5 thousand feet. Wonder where they
are." Then another say something like "I'm down here in Australia. I'll go up
to Alaska and see if they are hiding behind a polar bear," or some such. Whish
whish zippy-zippy zoom-zoom!

We were at 5 feet. They never saw us. Hope we have better anti-mining
techniques now than we had then. Scary. If we could do that in barely 200+ kt
prop planes on a clear day with defense given time of arrival and looking for
us visually, what could the bad guys do on a dark and stormy night? Scary.

Quent (VP 29)

[M. H. Greaves]

Yep, and on dropping the eggs they flew off to one side!
"Dan Shackelford" > wrote in message
om.com...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:56:18 -0500, zxcv wrote:
>
> > I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
> > P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's
were
> > flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs.
> > Would this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing
> > themselves up?
>
> Delayed action fuses in the bombs were used in low level attacks.
>

[Cub Driver]

>Damnably impossible I'd say...the rules say 100 feet for 'pilot
>bombing' and while this figure was likely (certainly) broken a
>_few_ times nobody actually flew _knowingly_ with the prop tips
>"3 to 5" feet above the water in a P2V. Trust me.

How much of a cushion do you have, from ground effect, in a
high-powered aircraft? I suppose it would be least in a fighter or a
B-26. But what about a B-25 or -17? If you were making 200 mph, say,
would the ground really want to reject you, or would you plow right
in?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>We were at 5 feet. They never saw us. Hope we have better anti-mining
>techniques now than we had then. Scary. If we could do that in barely 200+ kt
>prop planes on a clear day with defense given time of arrival and looking for
>us visually, what could the bad guys do on a dark and stormy night? Scary.
>
>Quent (VP 29)

See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a
cushion, or is that a myth?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[vincent p. norris]

>>I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
>>P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
>>flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs. Would
>>this really have been done?

Marine crunchies in the Pacific and in Korea used to say they could
tell if an F4U was being flown by a married man, bescause they pulled
out at 20 feet agl instead of 10.

> How did the planes keep from blowing themselves up?

We used to sing a song at Happy Hour at the O Club about an
unfortunate pilot whose bombs were set for tenth of a second delay,
instead of the proper 10 seconds.

I can recall that one line was, "An F4U without a tail won't fly."

The chorus went something like:

"Ten thousand dollars going home to the folks.
Won't they be delighted!
Won't the be excited!
Think of all the things that they can buy!"

I hope that answers your question, Dan; and if anyone can remember the
entire lyrics, I'd be grateful to see them posted, for my senile mind
can no longer recall them.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>..... a C-47/DC-3 modified to look like a Wellington.

Wow! I can't imagine anything more difficult than that!

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>..... as opposed to the A for amphibian variant.

I had never heard that. I thought the "A" merely meant the first mod
of the "5" model. Do you mean, literally, the A stood for
"amphibian"?

vince norris

[JDupre5762]

>JN-4 "Jennies" served as German and British/US fighters in the
>WWI movies of the 20's and 30's. Just a splash of paint and
>a roundel made it a Sopwith Camel, or a black cross and it was
>a "Fokker".

Hardly. An amazing number of actual WW1 aircraft were used in early movies.
Later films used aircraft that certainly looked a lot closer to the actual
types than JN 4s. Fokkers were made from modifying early Travel Aires which
were remarkably similar to the later Fokkers even being built of steel tubing
and using elephant eared ailerons. Rotary engine types were duplicated with
radial engine aircraft and Garland Lincoln went to great efforts to duplicate
Nieuports.

John Dupre'

[JDupre5762]

>"Tora, Tora, Tora!" features a number of P-40s and PBYs
>getting blowed up good on the ground during the attack.
>I assume the P-40s were mockups. Dunno about the PBYs -
>it might have been cheaper and easier to use real junked
>PBYs from some boneyard somewhere than to build full-sized
>mockups.

The P-40s were mock ups. If you look real closely at several that explode you
will see the fiberglass skin come off revealing a steel tube fuselage. Sadly,
the PBYs were genuine and original flying boat variants as well. There are now
probably only three or four flying boat versions left as opposed to the A for
amphibian variant.

John Dupre'

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Cub Driver wrote:
> How much of a cushion do you have, from ground effect, in a
> high-powered aircraft? I suppose it would be least in a fighter or a
> B-26. But what about a B-25 or -17? If you were making 200 mph, say,
> would the ground really want to reject you, or would you plow right
> in?


Seems like the thing to do is to trim the nose up and manually force it down.
Then if you relaxed for a second, you'd naturally float up away from the water.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[[email protected]]

F-84s were used as MiGs in a couple of Korean War era movies, "Sabre
Jet" for one, IIRC. I think that in these times, movie folks would have
their pick of any Soviet a/c, by either buying or renting from any of
the former Soviet forces. I read an article once where some movie used a
B-26 painted in Jap. markings. There was some Czech, IIRC, movie about
30 odd years ago that used a C-47/DC-3 modified to look like a
Wellington. I read it in an old Air Int. or Enthusiast. Also, IIRC, in
"The Great Escape", the a/c in question was Bucker Bu-?? or its later
built Czech version. The German fighters parked at the airfield were
AT-6s. I also recall a movie back in he '70s that used AT-6s/SNJs to
represent FW-190s & P-47s. ISTR the rear section of canopies were
removed & replaced with a 'razorback' sort of fairing & painted
appropriately. Don't forget the Pumas modified to look like Hind Ds in
"Red Dawn" & later less modified in a "Rambo" movie.

[Alistair Gunn]

Jim Doyle twisted the electrons to say:
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In the film Memphis Belle, they had a Bf109 with a Merlin engine (same
>> engine as in the spitfire and the P51), so they could have a mostly
>> genuine enemy plane (well apart from the engine).
>> Of course there werent any originally engined 109's available.
> Just the one actually, 'Black 6' at Duxford - (has since crashed into a
> field at the hands of the then CinC Strike!)

IIRC, aren't there effectively 3 "types" of 109 around?

[1] Genuine 109s - non flying since 'Black 6' got bent. :-(
[2] 'Mules' that have been fitted with a Daimler-Benz DB-605.
[3] 'Mules' using an engine other than the DB-605.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[M. H. Greaves]

I think it would depend on the attitude and the angle of attack, also wing
area; the vulcan would float because of the wing area, it pushed a cushion
of air in front of it at low altitude.
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Damnably impossible I'd say...the rules say 100 feet for 'pilot
> >bombing' and while this figure was likely (certainly) broken a
> >_few_ times nobody actually flew _knowingly_ with the prop tips
> >"3 to 5" feet above the water in a P2V. Trust me.
>
> How much of a cushion do you have, from ground effect, in a
> high-powered aircraft? I suppose it would be least in a fighter or a
> B-26. But what about a B-25 or -17? If you were making 200 mph, say,
> would the ground really want to reject you, or would you plow right
> in?
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dale]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:


> See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a
> cushion, or is that a myth?

Ground effect is a reduction in drag....not a "cushion" the repels you
from the earth.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jim Doyle twisted the electrons to say:
> > "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In the film Memphis Belle, they had a Bf109 with a Merlin engine (same
> >> engine as in the spitfire and the P51), so they could have a mostly
> >> genuine enemy plane (well apart from the engine).
> >> Of course there werent any originally engined 109's available.
> > Just the one actually, 'Black 6' at Duxford - (has since crashed into a
> > field at the hands of the then CinC Strike!)
>
> IIRC, aren't there effectively 3 "types" of 109 around?
>
> [1] Genuine 109s - non flying since 'Black 6' got bent. :-(
> [2] 'Mules' that have been fitted with a Daimler-Benz DB-605.
> [3] 'Mules' using an engine other than the DB-605.

The Original Me-109 was designed for the Junkers Jumo 210
and the protoype flew with a RR Kestrel engine as I recall.

Quite a few of the surviving '109s' are actually Hispano HA-1112
aircraft that were built post war with either Hispano-Suiza or
RR Merlin engines.

Keith

[Krztalizer]

>
>See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a
>cushion, or is that a myth?

absolutely, it is there. get down low enough over flat seas and you can feel
'something', akin to being on a down bed, held over a hard bed.

G

[Graeme Carrott]

In article >, Jim Doyle
> writes

>> i saw a film that they tried to make the F4 Phantom a russian fighter!
>that
>> said, the chances of getting a REAL russian plane for the film would be
>> pretty slim!

"Ice Station Zero" - a flight of four (?) MiG-21 models turns into a
real Phantom as it overflies the submarine.

>Also didn't Donald
>Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The Great Escape'?
>
I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
might be wrong.

"Sahara" (original version) - is the 'Messerschmitt' a Mustang?
"Where Eagles Dare" - the Bell 47 playing, I guess, a Flettner Fl282?
"A Bridge Too Far" - AT-6s playing Thunderbolts and Typhoons?

--
Graeme

Currently Reading: "The Day We Bombed Switzerland" - Granholm

[QDurham]

Dan Ford wrote in part:
>See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a cushion,
or is that a myth?>

Probably a reality, but I don't recall noticing it in teh exercise mentioned.
Did have a friend who lost an engine in a P2V about half way to Hawaii.
Officially, too heavy to stay airborne, dump enough fuel to be light enough to
stay airborne, and one hasn't enough fuel to reach land. Double bind.
(It has ben suggested that is why Lindbergh elected a single engine plane.
With the engines available, if he had two and lost one -- splash. If he had
one and lost one -- splash. But the chances of losing an engine in a single
engine plane are half those of a twin.)
They went down to zero altitude --ground effect max -- went through plane with
bolt cutters dumping everything dumpable. They spent about 4 hours with one
mill feathered and the other operating beyond all redlines. Arriving at
Barbers Point (?) there was no "letting down" to a landing. They simply
lowered the gear onto the runway. Whew!

Quent

[M. H. Greaves]

To my knowledge there is the merlin engined Bf109 at duxford, and an
originally engined one titled "GUSTAV", it was captured in the desert and
restored later it is the only one with its original daimler benz engine
still in good nick and still powering the aircraft, last i heard of it was
when it was being carted off down under. Its probably back home by now.
These are the only ones i know of in UK, but i believe there is at least one
owned and flown privately in the USA.
"Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jim Doyle twisted the electrons to say:
> > "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In the film Memphis Belle, they had a Bf109 with a Merlin engine (same
> >> engine as in the spitfire and the P51), so they could have a mostly
> >> genuine enemy plane (well apart from the engine).
> >> Of course there werent any originally engined 109's available.
> > Just the one actually, 'Black 6' at Duxford - (has since crashed into a
> > field at the hands of the then CinC Strike!)
>
> IIRC, aren't there effectively 3 "types" of 109 around?
>
> [1] Genuine 109s - non flying since 'Black 6' got bent. :-(
> [2] 'Mules' that have been fitted with a Daimler-Benz DB-605.
> [3] 'Mules' using an engine other than the DB-605.
> --
> These opinions might not even be mine ...
> Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Dave Kearton]

"QDurham" > wrote in message
...
| Dan Ford wrote in part:
| >See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a
cushion,
| or is that a myth?>
|
| Probably a reality, but I don't recall noticing it in teh exercise
mentioned.
| Did have a friend who lost an engine in a P2V about half way to Hawaii.
| Officially, too heavy to stay airborne, dump enough fuel to be light
enough to
| stay airborne, and one hasn't enough fuel to reach land. Double bind.
| (It has ben suggested that is why Lindbergh elected a single engine plane.
| With the engines available, if he had two and lost one -- splash. If he
had
| one and lost one -- splash. But the chances of losing an engine in a
single
| engine plane are half those of a twin.)
| They went down to zero altitude --ground effect max -- went through plane
with
| bolt cutters dumping everything dumpable. They spent about 4 hours with
one
| mill feathered and the other operating beyond all redlines. Arriving at
| Barbers Point (?) there was no "letting down" to a landing. They simply
| lowered the gear onto the runway. Whew!
|
| Quent
|
|


Another example would be the Singapore Airlines 747-400 that had the tail
strike at Auckland a year ago. Pilot and 1st officer screwed up on
the load sheet (long story) and fed the numbers into the computer 100 tonnes
short.


As the plane was racing towards the end of the runway and still not taking
off, the pilot hauled back further on the stick - without advancing the
throttles. Tail drags for 400m while the plane accelerates _very_
slowly.

Eventually they lift off just before the end of the concrete - at something
like 168 knots, which for that configuration, was 3-5 knots under their
stall speed. Such is the value of ground effect.


On another note ....

Helos also come with 2 max hovering altitudes - in ground effect and out of
ground effect.



Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Cub Driver]

Interesting about the Vulcan. What made me think of this was reading
about the supposed difficulty of landing the Northrop YB-49 Flying
Wing bomber at Muroc (later Edwards) AFB -- that it would just float
and float.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:03:47 -0000, "M. H. Greaves"
> wrote:

>I think it would depend on the attitude and the angle of attack, also wing
>area; the vulcan would float because of the wing area, it pushed a cushion
>of air in front of it at low altitude.
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >Damnably impossible I'd say...the rules say 100 feet for 'pilot
>> >bombing' and while this figure was likely (certainly) broken a
>> >_few_ times nobody actually flew _knowingly_ with the prop tips
>> >"3 to 5" feet above the water in a P2V. Trust me.
>>
>> How much of a cushion do you have, from ground effect, in a
>> high-powered aircraft? I suppose it would be least in a fighter or a
>> B-26. But what about a B-25 or -17? If you were making 200 mph, say,
>> would the ground really want to reject you, or would you plow right
>> in?
>>
>> all the best -- Dan Ford
>> email: (requires authentication)
>>
>> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Krztalizer]

>>> said, the chances of getting a REAL russian plane for the film would be
>>> pretty slim!
>
>"Ice Station Zero" - a flight of four (?) MiG-21 models turns into a
>real Phantom as it overflies the submarine.

I have a photo from 1981, holding that MiG 21 model (there was actually only
one - the flight of four was only a flight of one, copied several times). Its
quite large, perhaps 30" long or a bit more. The original model is in a
storeroom today in the San Diego Aerospace Museum.



>>Also didn't Donald
>>Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The Great Escape'?
>>
>I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
>might be wrong.

As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking my neck out
here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around. Anyone know for sure?

>--
>Graeme
>
>Currently Reading: "The Day We Bombed Switzerland" - Granholm
>

Where the heck have you been, Graeme?

yfGordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

[Krztalizer]

>
>We used to sing a song at Happy Hour at the O Club about an
>unfortunate pilot whose bombs were set for tenth of a second delay,
>instead of the proper 10 seconds.
>
>I can recall that one line was, "An F4U without a tail won't fly."
>
>The chorus went something like:
>
>"Ten thousand dollars going home to the folks.
>Won't they be delighted!
>Won't the be excited!
>Think of all the things that they can buy!"
>
>I hope that answers your question, Dan; and if anyone can remember the
>entire lyrics, I'd be grateful to see them posted, for my senile mind
>can no longer recall them.
>

Great post, Vince - love to read about this sort of thing. But seriously, can
we get back to politics now?

<ducking>

Your post got me thinking - I have an original poem in my Corsair file,
attached to a cartoon of a bunch of Vought engineers trying desperately to
install an early turbine engine into the nose of a late F4U... It's worth
finding, to see what the poem was about --

</theme from Jeopardy/>

I found it quickly: the main idea of the page-long poem "The AU In Olde Eden
Town" is summed up below.

"Said he, "T'was a shame,
that a gal of her fame
Should be strapped to a risky-
dirty old Pratt and Whiskey

So to get her into the blue,
the thing to do
Was to give her a Nene,
and make her a Queen."

"So attention All Hands!
Just lend us your ears;
Tere's more for the U-bird
in spite of her years.

She'll still keep her hose-nose,
Jet engine or no.
And Wherever there's trouble,
be ready to go."

Ok, I'll admit, its not going down as a classic poem, but it was some anonymous
writer's tribute to the last throes of 'jet envy' that struck down thousands of
otherwise outstanding projects at the end of WWII. The stationary is from
"Chance Vought Aircraft Departmental Correspondence and neither the cartoon or
the poem are dated. Just little bits of Corsair crap from the binder... Can't
bring myself to throw it away, even though I have boxes of such things that my
wife views as trash. Worse than trash - decades-old trash. But if it was a
dress from 1978, THAT is still important enough for her to keep. Go figure.
:)

v/r
Gordon



<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Krztalizer) writes:
>>
>>See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a
>>cushion, or is that a myth?
>
> absolutely, it is there. get down low enough over flat seas and you can feel
> 'something', akin to being on a down bed, held over a hard bed.

Yabbut - Helicopters are _different_. (And the Navy, of course has to
be different, too, so Navy Helicopters are _very_ different)
In the case of a Fixed-Wing Aircraft, proximity to the ground kills
off the wingtip vortices, In Helicopters (Hmm... If Airplanes are
Fixed Wing Aircraft, I guess that means Helicopters are Broken Wing
Aircraft), you're either piling up the rotor wash faster than it can
run away, or the Earth is vastry increasing its repulsion of the noisy
beast in a last-ditch effort to keep it from marring the ground.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
vincent p. norris > writes:
>>..... as opposed to the A for amphibian variant.
>
> I had never heard that. I thought the "A" merely meant the first mod
> of the "5" model. Do you mean, literally, the A stood for
> "amphibian"?

Well, since it's the Navy, and they couldn'b be like abyone else, it's
one of those "That Depends" things again.

For example, the Amphibian models of the PBY and PBM flying boats were
the PBY-5A and the PBM-5A.

But the F4U-1 Corsair with the bulged canopy was an F4U-1A.
(And the version with 4 cannons was an F4U-1D).

An uprated engine was usually signified by an 'F' tacked on, but not
always.

Fighter Bombers got a 'B' for a suffix.
Radar carrying airplanes gor an 'E'.
Night Fighters/Bombers got an 'N'.
ASW airplanes got an 'S'.
Elint airplanes got a 'Q'.

But it wasn't always consistant. An F6F-5E was a Night Fighter, and
an PBM-3E was an ASW Patrol Bomber.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Krztalizer) writes:
>>>> said, the chances of getting a REAL russian plane for the film would be
>>>> pretty slim!
>>
>>"Ice Station Zero" - a flight of four (?) MiG-21 models turns into a
>>real Phantom as it overflies the submarine.
>
> I have a photo from 1981, holding that MiG 21 model (there was actually only
> one - the flight of four was only a flight of one, copied several times). Its
> quite large, perhaps 30" long or a bit more. The original model is in a
> storeroom today in the San Diego Aerospace Museum.
>
>>>Also didn't Donald
>>>Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The Great Escape'?
>>>
>>I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
>>might be wrong.
>
> As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking my neck out
> here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around. Anyone know for sure?

My money's on a Percival Proctor, or some such similar. Gipsy engine,
and fixed gear with wheel pants.

(As long as it doesn't have a shadow, I should do O.K. I don't have
good luck with shadows)


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Van Gardner]

I have a paperback book called "Battle of Britain" the making of a
film. It's by Leonard Mosley and is about all the tricks they used to
make the movie Battle of Britain. It's one of the most interesting I
have.

Van Gardner

Stephen Harding > wrote in message >...
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
> > that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
> > AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.
>
> This makes me wonder just what sort of "modifications" are
> typically done by Hollywood to create actual flying aircraft
> no longer in existence, or just not available to fly.
>
> Obviously, the main "trick" is simply paint the aircraft in
> the correct national markings. Thus a P-51 becomes an Me 109,
> an AT-6 a Zero (seems the most common role for a Texan in a
> movie). Some F-86s can become "Migs", and I vaguely recall
> a C-47 becoming a G4M Betty at one time.
>
> JN-4 "Jennies" served as German and British/US fighters in the
> WWI movies of the 20's and 30's. Just a splash of paint and
> a roundel made it a Sopwith Camel, or a black cross and it was
> a "Fokker".
>
> I believe in "Memphis Belle" a B-17G was converted to an F by
> actual removal of the nose turret. Addition of a tail cone
> to make an AT-6 into a Zero seems more than necessary, but
> some directors are detail focused.
>
> Then of course there are "faux warbird" props. Even during
> WWII when the real thing might have been available, you often
> see some dummied up aircraft. I think John Wayne in "Flying
> Tigers" had some plywood P-40s with propellers that would
> lazily spin trying to imitate a squadron cranking up for an
> intercept. I think the BoB TV movie "Piece of Cake" used
> some dummied up Spits for ground scenes as well. Didn't some
> of them spin props too?
>
> Of course with the increasing power of F/X in movies, you can
> now film formations worth of Me 262s attacking B-24s or
> whatever. The need for the actual warbird is pretty much gone.
>
>
> SMH

[Krztalizer]

>
>Yabbut - Helicopters are _different_. (And the Navy, of course has to
>be different, too, so Navy Helicopters are _very_ different)

Different, as in similar but not quite the same, or Different as in NQR?

> In Helicopters you're either piling up the rotor wash faster than it can
>run away,

That's the current theory.

> or the Earth is vastry increasing its repulsion of the noisy
>beast in a last-ditch effort to keep it from marring the ground.

That's the only current competing theory.
Having seen more than my share of between-the-wars European bomber designs, I
KNOW UGLY. Hell, if the earth repelled ugly designs, Brequet would hold all of
the endurance flight records. :)

Helicopters do not marr the ground with their visual presence - they are simply
generators for localized disruptions of the normal laws of physics.

v/r
Gordon

[[email protected]]

(QDurham) wrote:

>>Damnably impossible I'd say...the rules say 100 feet for 'pilot bombing' and
>while this figure was likely (certainly) broken a _few_ times nobody actually
>flew _knowingly_ with the prop tips
> "3 to 5" feet above the water in a P2V. Trust me.
>
>Sorry Gordo. Been there. Done that. Seaman's Eye bombing as well as mining
>operations. Propwash in water. The Navy likes water. "Stay low and you can't
>possibly fall very far."
>
>We were "mining" Buckner Bay, Okinawa, once upon a time, leaving a propwash
>wake in the water while the AF was up looking for us visually in F86s. Heard
>one jet pilot say "I'm all the way down to 5 thousand feet. Wonder where they
>are." Then another say something like "I'm down here in Australia. I'll go up
>to Alaska and see if they are hiding behind a polar bear," or some such. Whish
>whish zippy-zippy zoom-zoom!
>
>We were at 5 feet. They never saw us. Hope we have better anti-mining
>techniques now than we had then. Scary. If we could do that in barely 200+ kt
>prop planes on a clear day with defense given time of arrival and looking for
>us visually, what could the bad guys do on a dark and stormy night? Scary.
>
>Quent (VP 29)
>
>
Ok Quent, all I can say is I'm damned glad that I wasn't with
you.

Just so that you won't think that I'm some pimply faced teen I
started my ASW career in 1954 in Lancasters for the RCAF on the
east coast (over the Atlantic of course), then on P2V-7 Neptunes
then on the Argus, about 9,000 hours logged in ASW + 4,000 logged
in Transport Command.

I've seen my share of low level, in the soup patrols. I've
returned to base with the tops of my thighs sore from smashing up
against the lap belt for many hours. I've never seen less than 30
feet on the rad-alt and I know well what that looks like.

I hope you'll allow me a small smile and a wink at your "3 to 5
feet".
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote:

>I think it would depend on the attitude and the angle of attack, also wing
>area; the vulcan would float because of the wing area, it pushed a cushion
>of air in front of it at low altitude.

I think that it's there for all a/c, look at that huge Russian
jobbie...'ekronoplanne' (or somesuch). It was designed to use
ground effect...I understand that you gotta be within about
one-half of your wingspan from the surface. You can almost
picture it, imagine why they use those 'winglets' at the tips of
Airbus and others, they prevent vortices by 'discouraging' the
higher pressure air from under the wings curling up and over the
tips to the lower pressure air above the wing.
--

-Gord.

[QDurham]

>I hope you'll allow me a small smile and a wink at your "3 to 5
>feet".

As you wish. You've a lot more experience than I have -- at the higher
altitudes, of course. (snicker/wink)

Quent

[M. H. Greaves]

It is a 108! i saw it in "mosquito sqdn" and "633 sqdn", and further to that
it was in a flypast issue magaizine (dont ask me which one because it was a
few years ago!!).
But it is a Bf108!!
"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >>> said, the chances of getting a REAL russian plane for the film would
be
> >>> pretty slim!
> >
> >"Ice Station Zero" - a flight of four (?) MiG-21 models turns into a
> >real Phantom as it overflies the submarine.
>
> I have a photo from 1981, holding that MiG 21 model (there was actually
only
> one - the flight of four was only a flight of one, copied several times).
Its
> quite large, perhaps 30" long or a bit more. The original model is in a
> storeroom today in the San Diego Aerospace Museum.
>
>
>
> >>Also didn't Donald
> >>Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The Great
Escape'?
> >>
> >I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
> >might be wrong.
>
> As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking my neck
out
> here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around. Anyone know for
sure?
>
> >--
> >Graeme
> >
> >Currently Reading: "The Day We Bombed Switzerland" - Granholm
> >
>
> Where the heck have you been, Graeme?
>
> yfGordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
> Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.
>

[M. H. Greaves]

including the exploding cardboard hirri's???
"Van Gardner" > wrote in message
om...
> I have a paperback book called "Battle of Britain" the making of a
> film. It's by Leonard Mosley and is about all the tricks they used to
> make the movie Battle of Britain. It's one of the most interesting I
> have.
>
> Van Gardner
>
> Stephen Harding > wrote in message
>...
> > Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > > Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
> > > that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
> > > AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.
> >
> > This makes me wonder just what sort of "modifications" are
> > typically done by Hollywood to create actual flying aircraft
> > no longer in existence, or just not available to fly.
> >
> > Obviously, the main "trick" is simply paint the aircraft in
> > the correct national markings. Thus a P-51 becomes an Me 109,
> > an AT-6 a Zero (seems the most common role for a Texan in a
> > movie). Some F-86s can become "Migs", and I vaguely recall
> > a C-47 becoming a G4M Betty at one time.
> >
> > JN-4 "Jennies" served as German and British/US fighters in the
> > WWI movies of the 20's and 30's. Just a splash of paint and
> > a roundel made it a Sopwith Camel, or a black cross and it was
> > a "Fokker".
> >
> > I believe in "Memphis Belle" a B-17G was converted to an F by
> > actual removal of the nose turret. Addition of a tail cone
> > to make an AT-6 into a Zero seems more than necessary, but
> > some directors are detail focused.
> >
> > Then of course there are "faux warbird" props. Even during
> > WWII when the real thing might have been available, you often
> > see some dummied up aircraft. I think John Wayne in "Flying
> > Tigers" had some plywood P-40s with propellers that would
> > lazily spin trying to imitate a squadron cranking up for an
> > intercept. I think the BoB TV movie "Piece of Cake" used
> > some dummied up Spits for ground scenes as well. Didn't some
> > of them spin props too?
> >
> > Of course with the increasing power of F/X in movies, you can
> > now film formations worth of Me 262s attacking B-24s or
> > whatever. The need for the actual warbird is pretty much gone.
> >
> >
> > SMH

[Dave Kearton]

"M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
...
| I saw a video about the extensive testing of the early 747's (not the
| 400's), and the test pilots had a big wooden skid attached to the rear
| underside, and were taking off at too steep an angle grinding the wood
skid
| along the ground; amazing!!
| shows just how strong they were and how they could stand up to rough
| treatment; of course the one at Aukland didnt have a wooden skid so the
| effect must have been quite sparking, ('s'cuse the pun!!)



I don't have the 747-400 manual on hand, but on one of the first few pages
it mentions that the APU is as effective as a wooden skid, if you drag it
along 400m of concrete.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[M. H. Greaves]

Choppers are known as rotary wing a/c, and ordinary a/c are known as fixed
wing a/c.
"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Krztalizer) writes:
> >>
> >>See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a
> >>cushion, or is that a myth?
> >
> > absolutely, it is there. get down low enough over flat seas and you can
feel
> > 'something', akin to being on a down bed, held over a hard bed.
>
> Yabbut - Helicopters are _different_. (And the Navy, of course has to
> be different, too, so Navy Helicopters are _very_ different)
> In the case of a Fixed-Wing Aircraft, proximity to the ground kills
> off the wingtip vortices, In Helicopters (Hmm... If Airplanes are
> Fixed Wing Aircraft, I guess that means Helicopters are Broken Wing
> Aircraft), you're either piling up the rotor wash faster than it can
> run away, or the Earth is vastry increasing its repulsion of the noisy
> beast in a last-ditch effort to keep it from marring the ground.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Lee Hutchinsom]

> Quite a few of the surviving '109s' are actually Hispano HA-1112
> aircraft that were built post war with either Hispano-Suiza or
> RR Merlin engines.
>
> Keith
>
>

The one used in Memphis Belle was a Spanish built example with a Merlin
engine flown by Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company.

Unfortunatley Mark lost his life in this very aircraft a few years back.

Lee Hutch

[M. H. Greaves]

I saw a video about the extensive testing of the early 747's (not the
400's), and the test pilots had a big wooden skid attached to the rear
underside, and were taking off at too steep an angle grinding the wood skid
along the ground; amazing!!
shows just how strong they were and how they could stand up to rough
treatment; of course the one at Aukland didnt have a wooden skid so the
effect must have been quite sparking, ('s'cuse the pun!!)
"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...
> "QDurham" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Dan Ford wrote in part:
> | >See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a
> cushion,
> | or is that a myth?>
> |
> | Probably a reality, but I don't recall noticing it in teh exercise
> mentioned.
> | Did have a friend who lost an engine in a P2V about half way to Hawaii.
> | Officially, too heavy to stay airborne, dump enough fuel to be light
> enough to
> | stay airborne, and one hasn't enough fuel to reach land. Double bind.
> | (It has ben suggested that is why Lindbergh elected a single engine
plane.
> | With the engines available, if he had two and lost one -- splash. If he
> had
> | one and lost one -- splash. But the chances of losing an engine in a
> single
> | engine plane are half those of a twin.)
> | They went down to zero altitude --ground effect max -- went through
plane
> with
> | bolt cutters dumping everything dumpable. They spent about 4 hours with
> one
> | mill feathered and the other operating beyond all redlines. Arriving at
> | Barbers Point (?) there was no "letting down" to a landing. They simply
> | lowered the gear onto the runway. Whew!
> |
> | Quent
> |
> |
>
>
> Another example would be the Singapore Airlines 747-400 that had the tail
> strike at Auckland a year ago. Pilot and 1st officer screwed up on
> the load sheet (long story) and fed the numbers into the computer 100
tonnes
> short.
>
>
> As the plane was racing towards the end of the runway and still not taking
> off, the pilot hauled back further on the stick - without advancing the
> throttles. Tail drags for 400m while the plane accelerates _very_
> slowly.
>
> Eventually they lift off just before the end of the concrete - at
something
> like 168 knots, which for that configuration, was 3-5 knots under their
> stall speed. Such is the value of ground effect.
>
>
> On another note ....
>
> Helos also come with 2 max hovering altitudes - in ground effect and out
of
> ground effect.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>
>
>

[M. H. Greaves]

yes i (not surprisingly and not unbelievably!!) saw that on the video "the
flying wing - the Jack Northrop Story"
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting about the Vulcan. What made me think of this was reading
> about the supposed difficulty of landing the Northrop YB-49 Flying
> Wing bomber at Muroc (later Edwards) AFB -- that it would just float
> and float.
>
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:03:47 -0000, "M. H. Greaves"
> > wrote:
>
> >I think it would depend on the attitude and the angle of attack, also
wing
> >area; the vulcan would float because of the wing area, it pushed a
cushion
> >of air in front of it at low altitude.
> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> >Damnably impossible I'd say...the rules say 100 feet for 'pilot
> >> >bombing' and while this figure was likely (certainly) broken a
> >> >_few_ times nobody actually flew _knowingly_ with the prop tips
> >> >"3 to 5" feet above the water in a P2V. Trust me.
> >>
> >> How much of a cushion do you have, from ground effect, in a
> >> high-powered aircraft? I suppose it would be least in a fighter or a
> >> B-26. But what about a B-25 or -17? If you were making 200 mph, say,
> >> would the ground really want to reject you, or would you plow right
> >> in?
> >>
> >> all the best -- Dan Ford
> >> email: (requires authentication)
> >>
> >> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> >> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
> >
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[M. H. Greaves]

"ecranoplann" (i think!!) lol
"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote:
>
> >I think it would depend on the attitude and the angle of attack, also
wing
> >area; the vulcan would float because of the wing area, it pushed a
cushion
> >of air in front of it at low altitude.
>
> I think that it's there for all a/c, look at that huge Russian
> jobbie...'ekronoplanne' (or somesuch). It was designed to use
> ground effect...I understand that you gotta be within about
> one-half of your wingspan from the surface. You can almost
> picture it, imagine why they use those 'winglets' at the tips of
> Airbus and others, they prevent vortices by 'discouraging' the
> higher pressure air from under the wings curling up and over the
> tips to the lower pressure air above the wing.
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Cub Driver]

>Choppers are known as rotary wing a/c, and ordinary a/c are known as fixed
>wing a/c.

Some of us know them helicopters and airplanes, respectively.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Fighter Bombers got a 'B' for a suffix.
>Radar carrying airplanes gor an 'E'.
>Night Fighters/Bombers got an 'N'.
>ASW airplanes got an 'S'.
>Elint airplanes got a 'Q'.
>
>But it wasn't always consistant. An F6F-5E was a Night Fighter, and
>an PBM-3E was an ASW Patrol Bomber.

No wonder McNamara decided to take this problem in hand!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Richard Brooks]

M. H. Greaves wrote:
> It is a 108! i saw it in "mosquito sqdn" and "633 sqdn", and further
> to that it was in a flypast issue magaizine (dont ask me which one
> because it was a few years ago!!).
> But it is a Bf108!!

Not forgetting VonRyan's Express!

IIRC they had rockets as well. Not bad for a light trainer.



Richard.



> "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>> said, the chances of getting a REAL russian plane for the film
>>>>> would be pretty slim!
>>>
>>> "Ice Station Zero" - a flight of four (?) MiG-21 models turns into a
>>> real Phantom as it overflies the submarine.
>>
>> I have a photo from 1981, holding that MiG 21 model (there was
>> actually only one - the flight of four was only a flight of one,
>> copied several times). Its quite large, perhaps 30" long or a bit
>> more. The original model is in a storeroom today in the San Diego
>> Aerospace Museum.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Also didn't Donald
>>>> Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The
>>>> Great Escape'?
>>>>
>>> I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
>>> might be wrong.
>>
>> As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking
>> my neck out here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around.
>> Anyone know for sure?
>>
>>> --
>>> Graeme
>>>
>>> Currently Reading: "The Day We Bombed Switzerland" - Granholm
>>>
>>
>> Where the heck have you been, Graeme?
>>
>> yfGordon
>> <====(A+C====>
>> USN SAR
>>
>> Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

[vincent p. norris]

> The stationary is from
>"Chance Vought Aircraft Departmental Correspondence and neither the cartoon or
>the poem are dated. Just little bits of Corsair crap from the binder... Can't
>bring myself to throw it away, even though I have boxes of such things that my
>wife views as trash.

Thanks, Gordon. Let me urge you to get in touch with a museum to
arrange for the transfer of that "trash" so that it doesn't go into a
landfill when you're no longer around to enjoy it.

I would say the same to others in this newsgroup who have old "trash"
that might be valuable to the historical record.

vince norris

[vincent p. norris]

>Well, since it's the Navy, and they couldn'b be like abyone else, it's
>one of those "That Depends" things again.
>
>For example, the Amphibian models of the PBY and PBM flying boats were
>the PBY-5A and the PBM-5A.
>
>But the F4U-1 Corsair with the bulged canopy was an F4U-1A.
>(And the version with 4 cannons was an F4U-1D).

But weren't the letters A, B, C. D, assigned in alphabetical order, to
successive mods?
>
>An uprated engine was usually signified by an 'F' tacked on, but not
>always.

Even if the preceding mod was an A or a B? Are you saying the Navy
jumped over the C, D, and E? What if the preceding mod was up to G,
or H; did they go back to F?
>
>But it wasn't always consistant. An F6F-5E was a Night Fighter,

Was that not because the preceding mod was the F6F-5D?

> and an PBM-3E was an ASW Patrol Bomber.

And did that follow the PBM-3D?

Thanks. vince norris

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
>
>>Fighter Bombers got a 'B' for a suffix.
>>Radar carrying airplanes gor an 'E'.
>>Night Fighters/Bombers got an 'N'.
>>ASW airplanes got an 'S'.
>>Elint airplanes got a 'Q'.
>>
>>But it wasn't always consistant. An F6F-5E was a Night Fighter, and
>>an PBM-3E was an ASW Patrol Bomber.
>
> No wonder McNamara decided to take this problem in hand!

Legend has it that the Great Designation MacNafit took place after
he'd gone in fromt of Congress to tout the various merits of the C-130
over teh Marine Corps GV-1. He rattled on for an hour or so, until
somebody pointed out to him that they were the same airplane. (ANd I
wonder the the USCG's R8V-1 came in as well). Since he hated to be
humiliated, especially by himself, (and he does have a lot to be
humble about) he decreed that the designation systems be merged, so
that he couldn't do it again. (Or you can substitute the F4H/F-110 if
you'd rather.) It's a great story, but I'm sure rality is somewhat
different, (and a lot more dull)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[M. H. Greaves]

Thats interesting info (but not intended to be in a morbid sense), I knew
he'd died, but i didnt realise it was this one he died in! Thanks for that
Info.
I read an article in flypast mag a few years ago about the Bf 109 and they
said it was a tricky beast to fly because of among other things, its under
carriage, next time you see a pic of one, have a good look at the
undercarriage; you'll see what i mean!
"Lee Hutchinsom" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Quite a few of the surviving '109s' are actually Hispano HA-1112
> > aircraft that were built post war with either Hispano-Suiza or
> > RR Merlin engines.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
>
> The one used in Memphis Belle was a Spanish built example with a Merlin
> engine flown by Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company.
>
> Unfortunatley Mark lost his life in this very aircraft a few years back.
>
> Lee Hutch
>
>

[M. H. Greaves]

of course, sorry, havent seen that for a long time!
"Richard Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> M. H. Greaves wrote:
> > It is a 108! i saw it in "mosquito sqdn" and "633 sqdn", and further
> > to that it was in a flypast issue magaizine (dont ask me which one
> > because it was a few years ago!!).
> > But it is a Bf108!!
>
> Not forgetting VonRyan's Express!
>
> IIRC they had rockets as well. Not bad for a light trainer.
>
>
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
> > "Krztalizer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>>>> said, the chances of getting a REAL russian plane for the film
> >>>>> would be pretty slim!
> >>>
> >>> "Ice Station Zero" - a flight of four (?) MiG-21 models turns into a
> >>> real Phantom as it overflies the submarine.
> >>
> >> I have a photo from 1981, holding that MiG 21 model (there was
> >> actually only one - the flight of four was only a flight of one,
> >> copied several times). Its quite large, perhaps 30" long or a bit
> >> more. The original model is in a storeroom today in the San Diego
> >> Aerospace Museum.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Also didn't Donald
> >>>> Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The
> >>>> Great Escape'?
> >>>>
> >>> I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
> >>> might be wrong.
> >>
> >> As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking
> >> my neck out here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around.
> >> Anyone know for sure?
> >>
> >>> --
> >>> Graeme
> >>>
> >>> Currently Reading: "The Day We Bombed Switzerland" - Granholm
> >>>
> >>
> >> Where the heck have you been, Graeme?
> >>
> >> yfGordon
> >> <====(A+C====>
> >> USN SAR
> >>
> >> Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.
>
>

[Graeme Carrott]

In article >, Krztalizer
> writes
>
>I have a photo from 1981, holding that MiG 21 model (there was actually only
>one - the flight of four was only a flight of one, copied several times). Its
>quite large, perhaps 30" long or a bit more. The original model is in a
>storeroom today in the San Diego Aerospace Museum.
>
From memory, 'they' (it) looked as though it had a red light bulb in the
tailcone....
>
>As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking my neck out
>here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around. Anyone know for sure?
>
I'll have to watch it again (!) :)

Gordon: I've been rather busy with one thing another, and also the
signal-noise ratio after Gulf War II got a little too much for me. Too
much politics and too little talk about aircraft!
--
Graeme

Currently Reading: "The Day We Bombed Switzerland" - Granholm

[M. H. Greaves]

he he he! thanks mate!
"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Choppers are known as rotary wing a/c, and ordinary a/c are known as
fixed
> >wing a/c.
>
> Some of us know them helicopters and airplanes, respectively.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[M. H. Greaves]

Not that its actually designed for this purpose of course!
"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message ...
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
> | I saw a video about the extensive testing of the early 747's (not the
> | 400's), and the test pilots had a big wooden skid attached to the rear
> | underside, and were taking off at too steep an angle grinding the wood
> skid
> | along the ground; amazing!!
> | shows just how strong they were and how they could stand up to rough
> | treatment; of course the one at Aukland didnt have a wooden skid so the
> | effect must have been quite sparking, ('s'cuse the pun!!)
>
>
>
> I don't have the 747-400 manual on hand, but on one of the first few
pages
> it mentions that the APU is as effective as a wooden skid, if you drag it
> along 400m of concrete.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

(QDurham) wrote:

>>I hope you'll allow me a small smile and a wink at your "3 to 5
>>feet".
>
>As you wish. You've a lot more experience than I have -- at the higher
>altitudes, of course. (snicker/wink)
>
>Quent

Ooooook... <snort>
--

-Gord.

[Errol Cavit]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message >...
> "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> ...
> | I saw a video about the extensive testing of the early 747's (not the
> | 400's), and the test pilots had a big wooden skid attached to the rear
> | underside, and were taking off at too steep an angle grinding the wood
> skid
> | along the ground; amazing!!
> | shows just how strong they were and how they could stand up to rough
> | treatment; of course the one at Aukland didnt have a wooden skid so the
> | effect must have been quite sparking, ('s'cuse the pun!!)
>
>
>
> I don't have the 747-400 manual on hand, but on one of the first few pages
> it mentions that the APU is as effective as a wooden skid, if you drag it
> along 400m of concrete.
>

Wooden skids give (false, thankfully in SQ286's case) APU fire warnings?

Some piccies

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/9v-smt/3.shtml
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3200538

Discussion on aus.aviation:
>

Cheers, Errol Cavit
"Il vino è la luce del sole catturata dall'acqua."
(Wine is sunlight held together by water.)
Attributed to Galileo Galilei

[JDupre5762]

>To my knowledge there is the merlin engined Bf109 at duxford, and an
>originally engined one titled "GUSTAV", it was captured in the desert and
>restored later it is the only one with its original daimler benz engine
>still in good nick and still powering the aircraft, last i heard of it was
>when it was being carted off down under. Its probably back home by now.

G-USTAV is otherwise known as Black 6. It is a genuine Bf 109 G-6. It is
owned by the RAF museum I believe and since they had several other examples
they allowed this one to be rebuilt to flying condition and flown for a few
years. On its last flight before being grounded for museum display the
aircraft was crashed and heavily damaged. It has since been rebuilt for static
display. I don't believe that it was ever shipped Down Under.

There have been two or three Spanish built Buchons rebuilt with Daimler
engines and flown in Germany. Most have been ground looped and damaged and
then retired after being rebuilt. I believe that there are not now any
original German built Bf 109s flying though several capable of flight and
several more being restored.

John Dupre'

[JDupre5762]

>>I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
>>might be wrong.
>
>As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking my neck
>out
>here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around. Anyone know for sure?

It was in fact a Bestmann or derivative. The key is the fixed gear as the Bf
108 retracts. There are or were then several Bestmann's flying in Europe and
they were also then in production in Egypt as military trainers. Even more
recently the type was offered for sale as the Aeropony with a modern
horizontally opposed engine.

John Dupre'

[QDurham]

>oooook... <snort>
>--
>
>-Gord.

Still friends? Furthermore, you had 2 turning and 2 burning. I only had the
burners, so climbing was always iffy.

Q

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
vincent p. norris > writes:
>>Well, since it's the Navy, and they couldn'b be like abyone else, it's
>>one of those "That Depends" things again.
>>
>>For example, the Amphibian models of the PBY and PBM flying boats were
>>the PBY-5A and the PBM-5A.
>>
>>But the F4U-1 Corsair with the bulged canopy was an F4U-1A.
>>(And the version with 4 cannons was an F4U-1D).
>
> But weren't the letters A, B, C. D, assigned in alphabetical order, to
> successive mods?

Not for the Navy, no. (They always have to be different. Decks, not
floors, Overheads, not ceilings. Bulkheads, not walls, Covers
instead of hats. Plentiful coffee, though.)

>>
>>An uprated engine was usually signified by an 'F' tacked on, but not
>>always.
>
> Even if the preceding mod was an A or a B? Are you saying the Navy
> jumped over the C, D, and E? What if the preceding mod was up to G,
> or H; did they go back to F?

Yep. A good example would be the F11F-1 Tiger jet fighter. WHen
Grummand replaced the original J65 with a J79, the result was teh
F11F-1F. The letter represented a specific type of modification.
'B' in the series, for example, denoted a FIghter-Bomber. For
example, the Navy's Fury series of jet fighters ran through the
following sequence -
FJ-1 The original Fury, a straight wing jet.
FJ-2 Basically a minimum-change carrier-capable (barely) version
of the F-86.
FJ-3 A complete restringing of teh FJ-2 to use a J65 engine, and
have better carrier compatibility.
FJ-3M Were FJ-3s modified to carry a pair of Sidewinders. (M for
Missile)
FJ-3D Were FJ-3s that carried Drone Director equipment. They
acted as initial guidance for Regulus cruise missiles.
FJ-4 A completely new aircraft, thinner wing, lots more fuel.
FJ-4B Fighter-Bomber/Light Attack version of teh FJ-4. A
competitor to the A4D Skyhawk.

Note that there are 3 suffix letters used: 'B' for Bomber, 'M' for
Missile, and 'D' for Drone Director.
ANd that the basic FJ designation described 3 (or 4, depending on your
point of view) completely different airframes.
To make matters worse, all FJ-4s were capable of carrying Sidewinders.


>>But it wasn't always consistant. An F6F-5E was a Night Fighter,
>
> Was that not because the preceding mod was the F6F-5D?

Nope, it was becasue it had an APS-4 radar in a wingtip pod.

And the followon was the F6F-6N, with an APS-6 radar.

>> and an PBM-3E was an ASW Patrol Bomber.
>
> And did that follow the PBM-3D?

No. Acutally, I goofed on the PBM-3. There wasn't a PBM-3E.
There were, however, the:
PBM-3R, a transport conversion
PBM-3C With standardized USN/Brit communications gear
PBM-3D With uprated armament adn armor
PBM-3S A dedicated ASW version.
(Note that the -3C, -3D, and -S all carried radar)

The came the PBM-5. The flavors for that one were:
PBM-5
PBM-5E A PBM-5 with APS-15 radar.
PBM-5S A dedicated ASW PBM-5E
PBM-5A an Amphibian PBM-5
PBM-5G PBM-5 used by the Coast Guard for Search and Rescue.

Ah, I just dug up my list of Special Puropse Suffixes.
Suffix Possible Meaning
Letter
A Miscellaneous Modification
A Armament carried on a normally unarmed aircraft
A Arrester geat carried on a normally non-carrier
aircraft
A Built for the Army or obtained from the Army
A Amphibious Version of Flying Boat
A Land based version of a carrier aircraft
B Miscellaneous Modification
B Special Armament (As in bombs)
B British version
C Arrester gear added
C Reinforced for catapulting
C Cannon Armament
C Navy equivalent of Army 'C' series modification
CP Trimetrogon Camera
D Drop tanks
D Drone COntrol
D Navy equivalent of Army 'D' series modification
D Special Search
D Special Radar
E Special Electronic Equipment
F Flagship conversion (VIP transport)
F Special power plant
G Search and Rescue
G Coast Guard
G Gun carried on normally unarmed aircraft
G Navy equivaleant of Army 'G' series modification
H Hospital conversion (Air Ambulance)
H Navy equivalant of Army 'H' series mod.
J Special weather equioment
J Navy equivalent of Army 'J' series mod.
K Drone conversion
L Winterized
L Searchlight carrier
M Missile carrier
N Night Fighter
N All Weather aircraft
NA Night/All Weather aircraft stripped for day use
NL Night, Winterized
P Photo Recon
Q Elint/ECM
R Transport conversion
S ASW
T Trainer version
U Utility version
W Special search equipment
W Early Warning Radar aircraft
Z vip TRANSPORT

sIMPLE, HUH?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[[email protected]]

(QDurham) wrote:

>>oooook... <snort>
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>
>Still friends? Furthermore, you had 2 turning and 2 burning. I only had the
>burners, so climbing was always iffy.
>
>Q

Sure...only had the 'two by two' for a short while...then had 4
big ones for another 8 yrs. On second thought, the P2V only had
the two 3350's when I was on them, they got the burners a bit
later...
--

-Gord.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:01:17 -0000, "M. H. Greaves"
> wrote:

> I saw a video about the extensive testing of the early 747's (not the
> 400's), and the test pilots had a big wooden skid attached to the rear
> underside, and were taking off at too steep an angle grinding the wood skid
> along the ground; amazing!!

They put an oak skid on all airliners that they're certifying when
they get to the runway work. It's not exactly special to the 747.

Not having had anything to do with Cat I/II testing for transports or
bombers (just fighters), I don't know if the USAF does the same thing
with their transport airplanes, like the C-17 and C-130. I don't
recall ever having seen it, but that doesn't signify anything.

> shows just how strong they were and how they could stand up to rough
> treatment; of course the one at Aukland didnt have a wooden skid so the
> effect must have been quite sparking, ('s'cuse the pun!!)

It always surprises me how long they can scrape the tail along the
runway without actually wearing through the skin.

Incidentally, ground effect is only there to about half the span above
the ground. For an interesting story about flying in ground effect,
look for the remarks by the (NASA?) pilot who flew the Canadian flying
saucer.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[M. H. Greaves]

possibly, yes but its better than losing the ass of the plane!
"Errol Cavit" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message >...
> > "M. H. Greaves" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > | I saw a video about the extensive testing of the early 747's (not the
> > | 400's), and the test pilots had a big wooden skid attached to the rear
> > | underside, and were taking off at too steep an angle grinding the wood
> > skid
> > | along the ground; amazing!!
> > | shows just how strong they were and how they could stand up to rough
> > | treatment; of course the one at Aukland didnt have a wooden skid so
the
> > | effect must have been quite sparking, ('s'cuse the pun!!)
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't have the 747-400 manual on hand, but on one of the first few
pages
> > it mentions that the APU is as effective as a wooden skid, if you drag
it
> > along 400m of concrete.
> >
>
> Wooden skids give (false, thankfully in SQ286's case) APU fire warnings?
>
> Some piccies
>
> http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/9v-smt/3.shtml
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3200538
>
> Discussion on aus.aviation:
>

om>
>
> Cheers, Errol Cavit
> "Il vino è la luce del sole catturata dall'acqua."
> (Wine is sunlight held together by water.)
> Attributed to Galileo Galilei

[[email protected]]

And it looks like a Wellington even!

[M. H. Greaves]

Thanks for that, i didnt know it had crashed, it did have a tendency to be a
beast to taxi and take off, because the u/c was toed in, and at such an
angle (i.e. the oleo legs not straight down like the spitfire or the hurri'
and others), but it was deadly in the hands of an ace!
"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
> >To my knowledge there is the merlin engined Bf109 at duxford, and an
> >originally engined one titled "GUSTAV", it was captured in the desert and
> >restored later it is the only one with its original daimler benz engine
> >still in good nick and still powering the aircraft, last i heard of it
was
> >when it was being carted off down under. Its probably back home by now.
>
> G-USTAV is otherwise known as Black 6. It is a genuine Bf 109 G-6. It is
> owned by the RAF museum I believe and since they had several other
examples
> they allowed this one to be rebuilt to flying condition and flown for a
few
> years. On its last flight before being grounded for museum display the
> aircraft was crashed and heavily damaged. It has since been rebuilt for
static
> display. I don't believe that it was ever shipped Down Under.
>
> There have been two or three Spanish built Buchons rebuilt with Daimler
> engines and flown in Germany. Most have been ground looped and damaged
and
> then retired after being rebuilt. I believe that there are not now any
> original German built Bf 109s flying though several capable of flight and
> several more being restored.
>
> John Dupre'

[[email protected]]

The talk of the flyable 'real' 109s & Hispanos has me wondering. Are
there now or were there, 'recently', (30-or so years) not counting
Israel's postwar use, any flyable Czech Avia S99s, the 109s with the
Junkers Jumo? I've read they were they nastiest of 109 variations.

[Krztalizer]

>
>I'll have to watch it again (!) :)

You'll see I was wrong LOL

>Gordon: I've been rather busy with one thing another, and also the
>signal-noise ratio after Gulf War II got a little too much for me. Too
>much politics and too little talk about aircraft!

NO SH%T!

Glad to see you back, even in a quasi-lurk status.

yfGordon

[Krztalizer]

> I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around. Anyone know for sure?
>
>It was in fact a Bestmann or derivative. The key is the fixed gear as the Bf
>108 retracts. There are or were then several Bestmann's flying in Europe and
>they were also then in production in Egypt as military trainers. Even more
>recently the type was offered for sale as the Aeropony with a modern
>horizontally opposed engine.

Thanks, John. I knew I'd be wrong. :)

v/r
Gordon

[Krztalizer]

> Let me urge you to get in touch with a museum to
>arrange for the transfer of that "trash" so that it doesn't go into a
>landfill when you're no longer around to enjoy it.

My garage is divided into "Give to San Diego Aerospace Museum" and "Give to my
kids". My kids are fully up to speed on what to do, no matter what Mrs. Tossit
tries to do. :))

>I would say the same to others in this newsgroup who have old "trash"
>that might be valuable to the historical record.

absolutely! In fact, I would urge everyone here to go through their 'trash'
and see if there was anything they felt like letting go of, and send it to
their local air museum NOW. Besides, its a real charge to see some of your
former bits on display; until recently, the San Diego Aerospace Museum had my
Soviet flight gear and the stuff I brought out of Mogadishu on display - for
years I got comments on it.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

[Krztalizer]

> For an interesting story about flying in ground effect,
>look for the remarks by the (NASA?) pilot who flew the Canadian flying
>saucer.

I have a report on that testing - the sign off officer for the report was
Chuck Yeager! I keep forgetting to get him to sign it.

Great to see you, Mary.

yf
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose AN engine, than THE engine.

[QDurham]

>"quasi-lurk status."
>Wow! Contageous?

Quent

[Errol Cavit]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
<snip>
>
> >>Also didn't Donald
> >>Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The Great Escape'?
> >>
> >I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
> >might be wrong.
>
> As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking my neck out
> here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around. Anyone know for sure?
>
Anyone know which movies this Bf108 was in?

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/bf108.html

Errol Cavit | "I long for the day when we can match the Germans in the
sky, 'plane for 'plane. When that day dawns, Germany is beaten. We
know by experience that we can whack his land forces, tanks included,
any day of the week." Private L. A. Diamond, 23 NZ Batt, 1941

[Mary Shafer]

On 22 Mar 2004 16:02:10 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

> > For an interesting story about flying in ground effect,
> >look for the remarks by the (NASA?) pilot who flew the Canadian flying
> >saucer.
>
> I have a report on that testing - the sign off officer for the report was
> Chuck Yeager! I keep forgetting to get him to sign it.
>
> Great to see you, Mary.

Great to be able to stop by. The movers come tomorrow for the first
pass, which includes all the NASA stuff, the aerospace books, and the
models, plus all the other books and the bookshelves and the beads.
There's a little other furniture, too, but not much. Then they come
back on the first for everything else, which includes the heretofore
untouched kitchen.

I stop by usenet for an occasional reconnection with the world and
sanity. I keep thinking of all the military wives who moved from one
set of military housing to another, every three years and I don't feel
so bad about this little move. (The last time we moved, rather than
adding another house, was in 1972, you see.) Compared to PCSing, this
is nothing.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Regnirps]

I have some pictures in bound issues of "Impact" that show a bomb from a
leading plane hit the water and skip then penetrate the wing of the second
plane. Photos are from number three as number two goes into the palm trees and
the moored Japanese ship is left untouched.

-- Charlie Springer

[M. H. Greaves]

Yes i believe it was in "Von Ryans express", it was in "633 sqdn", "mosquito
sqdn" these are the ones i know of!
regards. mark.
"Errol Cavit" > wrote in message
om...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
> <snip>
> >
> > >>Also didn't Donald
> > >>Pleasence get shot after James Gardner crashed theirs in 'The Great
Escape'?
> > >>
> > >I thought that was a Bucker Bu181 Bestmann (or a derivative), but I
> > >might be wrong.
> >
> > As Captain Tenneal would say, "Well, you're wrong." :) (Sticking my
neck out
> > here) I think its a 108. Dern few Bestmanns around. Anyone know for
sure?
> >
> Anyone know which movies this Bf108 was in?
>
> http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/bf108.html
>
> Errol Cavit | "I long for the day when we can match the Germans in the
> sky, 'plane for 'plane. When that day dawns, Germany is beaten. We
> know by experience that we can whack his land forces, tanks included,
> any day of the week." Private L. A. Diamond, 23 NZ Batt, 1941

[machf]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:15:14 -0600 (CST), wrote:

>The talk of the flyable 'real' 109s & Hispanos has me wondering. Are
>there now or were there, 'recently', (30-or so years) not counting
>Israel's postwar use, any flyable Czech Avia S99s, the 109s with the
>Junkers Jumo? I've read they were they nastiest of 109 variations.

Weren't those the S.199s, rather? The S.99s being the Czech-built
Bf 109G-10s... (and the CS.99s, the Bf 109G-12s).

There used to be a very detailed page on the different Czech variants,
but it disappeared a few years ago. I think it was at
http://willowood.multimania.com/home.html (The Mule Index Home).

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

[JDupre5762]

>>The talk of the flyable 'real' 109s & Hispanos has me wondering. Are
>>there now or were there, 'recently', (30-or so years) not counting
>>Israel's postwar use, any flyable Czech Avia S99s, the 109s with the
>>Junkers Jumo? I've read they were they nastiest of 109 variations.
>

Israel had one aircraft aboard a transport that got siezed in 1948 in Cyprus or
Rhodes and wasn't released until about 1950. By then they had given up on the
few remaining ones they had. I am not sure if they flew this last one or not.

The Czechs started to get Soviet equipment in the late 1940's so I doubt they
had any flying for long after that.

If one could be had it would make a very cool warbird but it would take an even
cooler pilot to fly it.

John Dupre'

[Laurence Doering]

On 20 Mar 2004 19:30:00 GMT, QDurham > wrote:
> Dan Ford wrote in part:
>>See my question to Gord about ground effect. Is it really there, as a cushion,
> or is that a myth?>
>
> Probably a reality, but I don't recall noticing it in teh exercise mentioned.
> Did have a friend who lost an engine in a P2V about half way to Hawaii.
> Officially, too heavy to stay airborne, dump enough fuel to be light enough to
> stay airborne, and one hasn't enough fuel to reach land. Double bind.
> [...]
> They went down to zero altitude --ground effect max -- went through plane with
> bolt cutters dumping everything dumpable. They spent about 4 hours with one
> mill feathered and the other operating beyond all redlines. Arriving at
> Barbers Point (?) there was no "letting down" to a landing. They simply
> lowered the gear onto the runway. Whew!

There was a similar incident in August 1957, when an Air Force C-97 had a
propeller runaway midway between San Francisco and Hawaii. The #1 propeller
eventually separated from the engine, damaging the #2 engine and prop in the
process. The crew jettisoned everything they could, and the aircraft descended
to an altitude of around 100 feet. On two engines, they flew for almost five
hours in ground effect and made it to Hilo, Hawaii with about 30 minutes of
fuel remaining.

The incident is described in great detail in chapter 12 of Macarthur Job's
_Air Disaster, Volume 4_ (ISBN 1 875671 48 X).


ljd

[QDurham]

>the aircraft descended
>to an altitude of around 100 feet. On two engines, they flew for almost five
>hours in ground effect

I suspect they were lower than that. Ground effect only has much effect up to
about half the plane's wingspan. Much above that there is essentially zero
effect.

Quent

[alan morriss]

hi, i was one of the pilots flying in the movie. i always regard the time as the best 3 months in my life. the zero replicas were constructed at la ferte allais near paris to the design from tora tora tora . there were 3 flyers and the rest non flyers. initially the cannons were made from wood for lightness , but down in spain charles bishop the art director insisted that we had them done in metal . the extra weight put the centre of gravity to far forward, so we had to ballast the tail.
i was windy of doing aerobatics because of this, but tom used to loop and roll them. the p 51 pilots were ray hanna, mark hanna and hoof proudfoot.
on the zero replicas there was tom danaher, steve bolan and myself . victor kriz also did a little.
the very best bit of flying was cut. i was supposed to get airborne and be shot down by hoof in the p 51. tom asked me if he could do it, and of course i agreed. we knew it would be good. when hoof made a pass at him, tom was on the mustang's tail in 45 seconds, and there was nothing hoof could do to shake him off. it all happened at around 300 feet.it was about the most exciting bit of flying i ever saw. you do not become an ace for nothing, and tom got 3 in one day.
the bombs were filled with plaster for weight, and ray put them through the hangar front. if you watch you will see a 50 gallon barrel flying up through the roof. this was done by cutting the bottom out of it, and placing it over a bucket of avgas. 3 sticks of gelignite were hung above the bucket.
there are only 3 of us left alive now. alan
I was watching "Empire of the Sun" the other night and near the end some
P-51's attack the Japanese base. What struck me was that the P-51's were
flying in just a few feet above the ground and dropping their bombs. Would
this really have been done? How did the planes keep from blowing themselves
up?

This seems pretty routine in contemporary movies. It was ture I think
in Saving Private Ryan, in Windtalkers, and of course in Pearl Harbor,
where a P-40 chases a Zero down a street, about the level of the
second-story windows.

Of course at one time or another, planes flew at every altitude right
down to impact. The artistic failure is to take the exceptional and
make it routine.

Great movie, by the way--Empire of the Sun, I mean. But did you notice
that the entire tail section of the "Zero" turned? Probably it was an
AT-6 with a pointy tail cone pasted on.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[alan morriss]

hi again , before the first gulf war tempted me away, i was working up in inverness .scotland, on the marine pollution unit. our job was to spray oil slicks with dispersant. incidentally, this was not a detergent , but vegetablle oil seeded with bacteria.
using dc3s we spprayed from 25 feet. if you went too low the spotter plane could see the tracks of your propwash in the water and told you to pull up. we started our run from 150 feet , descending to about 25 purely visually. there was no turning below 50 feet . that run was the most nerve wracking thing imaginable, and seemed to go on for ever. however, we were well within the ground cushion, so little power was needed to keep the 80 knots required. you really noticed it. the relief when the spotter said spray off was fantastic ! we did 3 runs and then back to stornaway to refill. alan
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"M. H. Greaves" wrote:

I think it would depend on the attitude and the angle of attack, also
wing
area; the vulcan would float because of the wing area, it pushed a
cushion
of air in front of it at low altitude.

I think that it's there for all a/c, look at that huge Russian
jobbie...'ekronoplanne' (or somesuch). It was designed to use
ground effect...I understand that you gotta be within about
one-half of your wingspan from the surface. You can almost
picture it, imagine why they use those 'winglets' at the tips of
Airbus and others, they prevent vortices by 'discouraging' the
higher pressure air from under the wings curling up and over the
tips to the lower pressure air above the wing.
--

-Gord.[/QUOTE]

[Moonurlidonia]

скачать аватар анг, торрент ру фильмы скачать, avon каталог 08 2010 скачать