Unidentified multi-engined warbird over NYC

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?

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

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

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.

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

"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

"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.

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

And the fuselage ain't "svelte."

vince norris