Why were almost all of them scrapped?

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:46:14 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

snip

The Jug ran a miserly 80 to 90 gallons per hour at
economy cruise as I recall.

That sounds about right.

I'd like to have one of the tricycle gear Skyraiders. I think most of
those were tail draggers.

I've never even HEARD of an AD that was not a tail dragger. Do you
know if there's a picture of a tricycle gear AD on the net?

I've been searching, but not found any yet. It may just a faulty
memory, but I'm sure I saw one some place.


That thing is huge and had the largest
radial engine we ever used, as far as I know.

I think it was a 3350.

Same engine as on the B-29.

Early versions were 2500 HP and later versions were 2800 HP. How'd
you like to feed that for a trip from coast to coast? All that fuel
with about the same cruse when light (maybe 15,000#?) as a Bonanza..

I believe the 3350 was the largest every used on a single engine
airframe, but here were larger on multi engine planes.


I think there was a 43XX radial that was used
on the Connie or the DC7, but my memory is quite vague on that.

vince norris
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 19 Nov 2005 19:28:25 -0800, "109" wrote:

roger, as for the spitfire comment they got it wrong. they were basic
pilots (50 or so hours) then had 9 hours of COMBAT training before
joining the bob

That sounds more like the times, but it's still less than the average
to get the PPL now days:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

The Goodyear FG Corsairs ran the 4360 as did the Martin Mauler and the
Republic XP-72 until the contract was cancelled just after acceptance
testing. The 4360 was also in the Boeing 377, B-36, B-50 and some others.
There was also the Lycoming 7755 which was 36 cylinders with variable valve
timing. Initial tests indicated 5000 hp with projected top hp of 7000
but... then came the turbines. I think the Smithsonian has the only
remaining example.



"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:46:14 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

snip

The Jug ran a miserly 80 to 90 gallons per hour at
economy cruise as I recall.

That sounds about right.

I'd like to have one of the tricycle gear Skyraiders. I think most of
those were tail draggers.

I've never even HEARD of an AD that was not a tail dragger. Do you
know if there's a picture of a tricycle gear AD on the net?

I've been searching, but not found any yet. It may just a faulty
memory, but I'm sure I saw one some place.


That thing is huge and had the largest
radial engine we ever used, as far as I know.

I think it was a 3350.

Same engine as on the B-29.

Early versions were 2500 HP and later versions were 2800 HP. How'd
you like to feed that for a trip from coast to coast? All that fuel
with about the same cruse when light (maybe 15,000#?) as a Bonanza..

I believe the 3350 was the largest every used on a single engine
airframe, but here were larger on multi engine planes.


I think there was a 43XX radial that was used
on the Connie or the DC7, but my memory is quite vague on that.

vince norris
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Many of the higher performance military machines had construction or
flight characteristics that were not acceptable in a civilian
environment. An example of this was the de Havilland Mosquito, which had
a 'dead man's gap' - an engine failure just after lift-off and before
the aircraft attained a certain speed just could not be controlled, and
would always result in an uncontrollable roll towards the dead engine
and a crash.
Peter

I flew some multis in service but haven't flown them since (too
expensive!). But it's my impression that students are taught to
quickly cut the good engine and land straight ahead.

Wouldn't that work with a Mosquito?

(I realize that landing a plywood box straight ahead at around 100
knots might not be the most pleasant thing to contemplate.)

vince norris

Don't know about the USA, but in my country (New Zealand) you could not
legally fly a military warbird as a civilian aircraft until about the
mid-1970s.
Those few ex-military aircraft that were used were either based on an
original civilian design (e.g. C-47, L-4 Cub) or were operated by
commercial operators (such as airlines) that had enough financial
resources to put the design through the full civil aviation assessment
process.
Many of the higher performance military machines had construction or
flight characteristics that were not acceptable in a civilian
environment. An example of this was the de Havilland Mosquito, which had
a 'dead man's gap' - an engine failure just after lift-off and before
the aircraft attained a certain speed just could not be controlled, and
would always result in an uncontrollable roll towards the dead engine
and a crash.
Peter

wrote:
Didn't ANYBODY after WW2 have the love of airplanes and the foresight
to buy at least one military airplane, especially since they were so
cheap? What were they thinking?! Did they not see the value of these
planes for future generations? Why didn't some civilians simply buy a
B-17 for $700 and park it in their yard? Land is cheap in rural areas.
These airplanes are so precious to me. I have loved the glory of ww2
fighters and bombers since the earliest childhood.

After the war the U.S. government did offer up considerable quantities of
surplus birds for sale. The sadly there were few takers. In the early
1950's you could have bought a P-51, B-17, B-25, etc., with only the ferry
time from the factory to the storage base on the log, for just a couple
hundred dollars. Movie studios purchased some for film work, others became
executive transports, still others became fire bombers. Most were purchased
by metals dealers and melted down for their aluminum which was in short
supply after the war. The birds that were in inconvenient locations like
the South Pacific were pushed into piles and burned, or dumped in the ocean.

The fact of the matter is, as I have confirmed from conversations with lots
of WWII veterans, when the guys were released from the service the last
thing most of them ever wanted to do was sit in another cockpit. Most just
wanted to get home and resume their interrupted lives. In addition, the
dawn of the jet age had made the old prop birds obsolete over night. The
guys that stayed in the service wanted to fly F-86s or F9Fs, not Mustangs or
Corsairs. It is only through the efforts of a few individuals after the
war, and a few Museums, that we have any preserved WWII birds at all.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Didn't ANYBODY after WW2 have the love of airplanes and the foresight
to buy at least one military airplane, especially since they were so
cheap? What were they thinking?! Did they not see the value of these
planes for future generations? Why didn't some civilians simply buy a
B-17 for $700 and park it in their yard? Land is cheap in rural areas.
These airplanes are so precious to me. I have loved the glory of ww2
fighters and bombers since the earliest childhood.

Another question: if someone had the money, would it be possible to use
blueprints to build perfect reproductions of airplanes like the B-17
and P-40?

Brian Johnson wrote:

The fact of the matter is, as I have confirmed from conversations with lots
of WWII veterans, when the guys were released from the service the last
thing most of them ever wanted to do was sit in another cockpit.

Ain't that the truth. This was a blow to some of the aircraft
manufacturers like North American who thought that all these
pilots would start snapping up personal GA aircraft like they
were buying post-war cars. Didn't materialize.