[Clyde]

First one looks like a Koenig-class from the Kaiser's Navy. Class of four, all laid down 1911, in service 1914, served through WWI, including +present at Jutland. All four (Koenig, Grosser Kurfurst, Markgraf, Kronprinz) scuttled at Scapa 1919 and sunk there. Grosser Kurfurst salvaged in 1936, other three remained in place until more recent years.

Mating looks like the 1914 fit.

Second ship is Italian. Not sure if it is Conte de Cavour or a Caio Duilio, but it is in the modernized state from the total conversions informed 30s, with lengthened hull, removal of Q turret, and reboring main battery from 12" to 12.6". Ships came out with 10 guns, 28 knots and improved but still inadequate for modern conditions armor and underwater protection. Conte de Cavour and Giulio Cesar converted 1933-1937, Caio Duilio and Andrea Doria converted1937-1940 and had 85K SHP for 27 knots instead of 93k for 28. Cesare was transferred to Russia and re-named Novorossijsk, lost 1955 at Sevastopol, hit left-over WWII mine, apparently.

 

[Clyde]

I'll have to get Breyer out - but No. 1 just might be No. 2 before conversion. But I will have to check references to see if that is correct or not. I stand by No. 2 being one of the Eytie Dreadnoughts as converted

 

[Clyde]

OK - I as wrong aout No. 1, not a KOENIG. Even found he right picture - it is CONTE DI CAVOUR, at Taranto in June 1917 (page 171, Preston's BATTLESHIPS OF WWI).

 

[Clyde]

Actually, the rebuilt Cavours and Duilios weren't all that bad, though they would ahve had a bad time if they'd had the misfortune to encounter ABC with Warspite or any other QE. Or James Somerville with Renown. On the other hand - the amount of work and resources spent on them might ahve been better used to get an extra Veneto or two.

 

[Clyde]

No. The Italians were on the winning side and suffered no restrictions from Versailles. They were (like France) relegated to a lesser capital ship tonnage than the British, Americans or Japanese (the 5-5-3-1.75-1.75 ratios) under the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921. But the ships could have been replaced under the age clauses of the WNT without a problem instead of reconstructed (which also had limitations which were at least skated around on these conversions IMO). Both the Italians and the French were entitled to build some new tonnage by the mid-30s and did so, producing the 35,000 ton displacement Venetos in Italy and the Richelieus in France (as well as the earlier Dunquerque and Strasbourg there). In addition to reconstructions.

The Italians and the Japanese went further with reconstruction than any of the other powers, by the way.

 

[Clyde]

The limiting factor in re dry-docks isn't building - it is having docks big enough to put the ships in for service and repair (especially repair of battle damage) later on. Means size is limited by dry dock dimensions.

And when you do the sort of total conversion the Cavours and Duilios or the Japanese BCs and Nagatos got, you are getting into the same sort of required resources new construction needs. And while you may get decant ships (the Kongos, built as battle cruisers before and during WWI, can reasonably be called fast BBs after the changes they got, while the Nagatos came out almost as fast as South Dakotas or Washingtons, though with less protection, but then they were always a bit light that way), my opinion is the resources would have been better spent on new ships.

I think the British would ahve been better served by building something like Vanguard in the mid-30s instead of the major reconstruction some of the QEs got (espeicially QE, Warspite and Valiant). But they did have some treaty problems that way, so maybe I'm wrong. They should unquestionably have done "the big thing" for Hood, probably starting c.1938 and then pushing it really hard.

 

[Clyde]

Well the piccies of a boat are all of DD-445, USS Fletcher. The airplane is an F/A-18 assigned to the USN Flight Demonstration Team, the Blue Angels. The girl is handsome, blonde and seems to be (hooray!!) challenged in the "What can I find to wear" department. Good enough?

 

[Clyde]

Could be in a B-24 or PB4Y Privateer instead of a B-17, but agree a ball turret. I recall getting in one of those at an air show at Scholes Field at Galveston c. 1956 or 57. I'd have been a pretty skinny 13 or 14 (I only weighed 155 when i was commissioned in 1966), and it was still a tight fit. Not my idea of the ideal way to go to war, though having a pair of 50s to discourage unwelcome attentions from bad guys has attractions.

 

[Clyde]

Not exactly first all-big gun BB - HMS Dreadnought was completed and in commission well before SC went down the ways, though design dates and initiation of construction make SC arguably first.

The real innovation was all center-line turrets, with Nos. 2 and 3 raised above 1 and 4.

Besides being first all big gun BB in service, Dreadnought (more importantly) introduced turbine propulsion for heavy ships.

 

[Clyde]

Grumman XF10F-1 Jaguar. Photo looks to be the one taken during landing after first flight at Edwards, May 18, 1952.

Originally was to have a tilting, variable incidence wing (like the F8U) but wound up with a swing wing. Had LOTS of problems. Only two prototypes built and only one flew. One destroyed in a barrier crash, the other as an artillery target. History from Jones, US NAVAL FIGHTERS/

 

[Clyde]

Oh my - A3J (later A-5/RA-5C) Vigilante. As a bomber - not a success, and not used in any case for the designed purpose (nuking the Russians), which is OK by me. Reconfigured as a recon bird, it did quite well.

One of the prettiest Navy (or any other service for that matter) jets ever, but like other high performance aircraft of its time (say the B-58) it was a bear in terms of amount of maintenance per flight hour and requirement for VERY careful flying strictly "by the book" in terms of weight and balance and such.

The XF10F problems with being short on power wasn't unique. F6U Pirate became marginally adequate after they put in after-burning engines. F7Us were known as "Ensign Killers" and called the "Gutlass". And took something like ten times the maintenance hours per flight hour that the contemporary F9F Panther did.

 

[Clyde]

Yep, it had a tunnel between the engines and plans were for it to sort of defecate a nuke as it blazed over the target at high speed and then flee at a thousand knots or so. I think the crews mostly didn't really believe they'd recover the boat after that. I wouldn't have...

 

[Clyde]

Well, the driver "responsible" (maybe "irresponsible" fits better) for that flight had a LOT of self-confidence and was SURE of his ability to do anything he wanted to with that big, hot bird. I MIGHT be willing to go under the Golden Gate Bridge with a really good driver in the left seat, in something like a Beech Staggerwing, but NOT any sort of aerial hot-rod like a Viggie. Right-side up only, thank you very much. Neat airplanes, though.

 

[Clyde]

Nah, not waiting, just hit it early and it was on a subject I have some knowledge of and references to refresh memory handy.

The pictures are both Curtiss aircraft, the radial powered bird with contra-props being the XP-60C-Curtiss Electric Cotraprop, R-2800 power); the bird with in-line power looks to be an XP-60 or XP-60D. I'll have to dig a little more and see if i can figure out which.

Neither was successful. They were intended to replace the P-40 (essentially a re-engined P-36/Hawk 75 and pretty elderly, dating to the mid-30s) in production, and they didn't.

Edit - after comparing the photos in Jones and the one posted, I think the picture on the right is an XP-60 with an Allison V-1710. Shape of tail and nose contour plus lack of radio mast fits that better than the XP-60D which was Merlin powered and had a larger tail.

 

[Clyde]

Bertone? maybe. But look at a BMW 507 and wonder if maybe a Bavarian did it...

 

[Clyde]

Plus the capability to carry an additional FFAR "Mighty Mouse" air-to-air rockets in the pods on the wings.

A warm fuzzy to anybody who knows what its original designation was.

 

[Clyde]

Axtually - i show YF-97A with 108 ordered as F-97A, but redesignated as F-94C before any were much more than order nuimbers. First, I think, "no gun" fighter/iterceptor in USAF.

 

[Clyde]

It is a F-94, designated as a -2 TRAINER! Longer cockpit for a PI. Only 20-30 built. Non known to survive.

Again:

What plane?
Successfull?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

Curtiss CW-21 Demon. Not successful. I think a few may have been sold to the ChiNats, who'd apparently buy anything.

 

[Clyde]

Could be - I think the Dutch may have bought some too. They would also buy what they could get in lieu of things they would have preferred but which were unavailable. As shown by their purchase of Brewster B-339s (export F2A Buffalos) and Johnson rifles.

 

[Clyde]

Looks very much like a Lake design (see Lake Amphibians), but appears to be a single-seater instead of the side-by-side two seater or bigger most Lakes are.

That's the best I can do at the moment. Oh - it is obviously a test aircraft in US service rather than a civil bird. Not sure where it is. {Proposed use? Dunno- some sort of liaison, maybe infiltration/exfiltration of agents in places that had water, maybe.