Unidentified multi-engined warbird over NYC

[rottenberg]

Yesterday, tunring towards the sound of a very loud set of droning
engines, I observed a large multi-engined, propeller driven, unswept
winged aircraft flying overhead. Fid anybody else in the metro-area
catch this?

[vincent p. norris]

> I observed a large multi-engined, propeller driven, unswept
>winged aircraft flying overhead.

Didn't see it; live too far away. But it wasn't necessarily a WW II
warbird; might have been a DC-4, or 6, or 7, or Connie....... Maybe
even a C-130.

(Yes, the DC-4 was also a C-54 and an R5D, but is not exactly a
"warbird," IMO.)

vince norris

[Ron]

>
>Didn't see it; live too far away. But it wasn't necessarily a WW II
>warbird; might have been a DC-4, or 6, or 7, or Connie....... Maybe
>even a C-130.
>
>(Yes, the DC-4 was also a C-54 and an R5D, but is not exactly a
>"warbird," IMO.)
>

The one I was flying recently was Adm Nimitz transport aircraft in the pacific
theatre during WW2.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[rottenberg]

vincent p. norris > wrote in message >...
> > I observed a large multi-engined, propeller driven, unswept
> >winged aircraft flying overhead.
>
> Didn't see it; live too far away. But it wasn't necessarily a WW II
> warbird; might have been a DC-4, or 6, or 7, or Connie....... Maybe
> even a C-130.
>
> (Yes, the DC-4 was also a C-54 and an R5D, but is not exactly a
> "warbird," IMO.)
>
> vince norris

Thanks for the response. While "warbird" might have been a bit
presumptive, it was definately old, and was definately no turboprop.
Also, while I couldn't be sure what it was, the fuselage appeared a
bit to svelte to be a "herky", and the wings were not high-mounted.

[vincent p. norris]

> the fuselage appeared a bit to svelte to be a "herky", and the wings were not high-mounted.

That would pretty well eliminate the B-17 and B-24. But it fits the
description of the DC-4, 6, 7 and Connie.

vince norris

[Brett]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote:
> > the fuselage appeared a bit to svelte to be a "herky", and the wings
were not high-mounted.
>
> That would pretty well eliminate the B-17

The B-17's wing isn't high-mounted.

> and B-24. But it fits the
> description of the DC-4, 6, 7 and Connie.
>
> vince norris

[rottenberg]

"Brett" > wrote in message >...
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote:
> > > the fuselage appeared a bit to svelte to be a "herky", and the wings
> were not high-mounted.
> >
> > That would pretty well eliminate the B-17
>
> The B-17's wing isn't high-mounted.
>
> > and B-24. But it fits the
> > description of the DC-4, 6, 7 and Connie.
> >
> > vince norris

It definately wasn't a Connie - it only had one-tail. If anything, it
looked more like a B-29 (but that's obviously a bit much to expect),
so the DC-7 is more likely. I just wish I got a better idea of how
many engines it had. I'm also guessin that, if it was a warbird, it
probably wasn't flying over a long distance, meaning it was close to
its destination and departure point. Though that's just a guess,
based on the idea that an air-worthy vintage aircraft is going to
spend as little time as possible being risked in the air, especially
during thunderstorm season.

[vincent p. norris]

>The B-17's wing isn't high-mounted.
>
And the fuselage ain't "svelte."

vince norris