Gunboards Forums banner
21 - 40 of 375 Posts

· Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
101,779 Posts
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.
 

· Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Spitfire cockpit.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
914 Posts
Top turret, located on the top of the fusilage of a medium or heavy bomber.
Don
 

· Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
Oneshooter, my father was a Marine Corps Aviator from '52 to '71. I was raised at MCAS El Toro, Tustin and Iwakuni. He thought I was going to be a Cobra Pilot. When I went armor you would have thought that I told him that I was a heroin-dealing, homosexual campaign worker for Hillary Clinton. He calmed down after a few years. lol.
 

· Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
Definitely a top turret, probably a B-17, but could have been a B-24. Long shot is it is on a B-25 or 26.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Munrod WINS!!! Top turret on a B-17. Damned small on the inside!

Sorry for the delay but between rebuilding the house and work I have not had much time to research. Lets try this one.

What ship?
What innovation was first used on this ship?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
 

· Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
101,779 Posts
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.
 

· Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
101,779 Posts
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/
 

· Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Clyde WINS!!!!! The biggest problem was that the Navy kept adding things to it. It got so heavy that it wouldn't fly right with the available power plants! Scared hell out of the test pilots!

And again:

What plane?
Success?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
 

· Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
101,779 Posts
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.
 

· Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
The A-5, if I'm not mistaken, also had an interesting way of dropping its nuclear ordnance. It spit them out of a pod between the engines.
 

· Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
101,779 Posts
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...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
803 Posts
As a Recon aircraft, it was very successful. But the pilots weren't known for having a lot of common sense. I once saw a pic taken by a "Viggie" of the underside of the Golden Gate Bridge. Not that big a deal, eh? The cameras in a "Viggie" shot straight down so to get that pic the plane was inverted!! Geez, talk about having big, brass cajones!!!
 

· Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
101,779 Posts
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.
 
21 - 40 of 375 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top