What Were the Most Iconic Planes of WWI and WWII?

  • Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Plane
In summary, the conversation mainly revolved around discussing various types of planes and their design features. The main topic of conversation was a photoshopped image of a F86 Bi-plane that one user had created. This led to discussions about the design and functionality of different WWII planes, such as the B-17, P-47 Thunderbolt, P-38 Lightning, Supermarine Spitfire, and Vought Corsair. The conversation also touched on the unique bent wings of the Corsair and the reason behind their design. There was also a question posed about the folding wings on the Hellcat, which was later revealed to be a trick question as the Hellcat does not have folding wings.
  • #1
DaveC426913
Gold Member
22,989
6,664
This came to me last night while falling asleep. I just had to see how it looked. Maybe some rainy day, I'll pop by the hobby shop and kit bash it.

LJ061027F86.jpg


And if anyone wants to see http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/vintageaircraft/sabre-picture2.jpg" ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hmm An F86 Bi-plane. You may be on to something here Dave.:smile:
 
  • #3
It reminds me of fruit flys mutated by radiation that come out with two sets of wings.
 
  • #4
zoobyshoe said:
It reminds me of fruit flys mutated by radiation that come out with two sets of wings.


Or when they play games with the homeo genes and produce legs growing out of the head.
 
  • #5
selfAdjoint said:
Or when they play games with the homeo genes and produce legs growing out of the head.
Or when zoobies mutate them by mispluralization.
 
  • #6
DaveC426913 said:
This came to me last night while falling asleep. I just had to see how it looked. Maybe some rainy day, I'll pop by the hobby shop and kit bash it.
Some things just aren't meant to be. :rolleyes: :biggrin:

That's post WWII. :-p
 
  • #7
Anyway, my favorite WWII plane is the beautiful B-17. Actually, it's my all time favorite plane.

galloway.jpg
 
  • #8
DaveC426913 said:
This came to me last night while falling asleep. I just had to see how it looked. Maybe some rainy day, I'll pop by the hobby shop and kit bash it.
Nice job on the image! But pilots would have hated it with a passion. Quiz question -- why?
 
  • #9
berkeman said:
Nice job on the image! But pilots would have hated it with a passion. Quiz question -- why?
For one thing it would have terrible forward visibility.

Let's not even mention drag!
 
  • #10
Integral said:
For one thing it would have terrible forward visibility.

Let's not even mention drag!
I was going to say the same thing. A pilot couldn't see what's coming at 12 o'clock. To much forward visibility would be compromised. :rolleyes: I have to wonder if the struts would be strong enough, too.
 
  • #11
zoobyshoe said:
Anyway, my favorite WWII plane is the beautiful B-17. Actually, it's my all time favorite plane.
The B-29 is my favorite 4 engine craft.

For fighters it's hard to pick a favorite, but it would be the P-47 Thunderbolt or P-38 Lightning, but I also like the Supermarine Spitfire and Vought Corsair, and then there is the DeHaviland Mosquito, which is really cool. I'd be happy to fly any of them. :-p :biggrin:
 
  • #13
berkeman said:
Hey, speaking of airplane quiz questions, does anybody know why the WWII F4-U Corsair had bent wings? I finally found out why, and the answer is pretty interesting. Why do the wing roots bend down, and then back up for the rest of the wing?

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...144&prev=/images?q=corsair&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=


Because to land on an aircraft carrier the struts had to be small to take the forces, and yet allow the propellor arc to clear the flight deck. :rolleyes:

I know a guy who flew F-4U's during the war. His name is "Mo-Chance". Gota pic of him in his plane. Ill post it in a bit.
 
  • #14
cyrusabdollahi said:
Because to land on an aircraft carrier the struts had to be small to take the forces, and yet allow the propellor arc to clear the flight deck. :rolleyes:
Ding ding ding. We have a winnah. BTW, the rest of the explanation that I heard was that the Corsair had an unusually large and powerful engine, and Vaught wanted to use a bigger propeller to take advantage of the extra power. But the landing struts ended up too long for carrier landings as Cyrus says, so that's why they bent the wing roots down.

The whole time I was watching Black Sheep Squadron on TV many years ago, I kept trying to figure out some aerodynamic reason for the bend...never did get it. Until I heard the explanation years later on a documentary show on the Military Channel.
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
This came to me last night while falling asleep. I just had to see how it looked. Maybe some rainy day, I'll pop by the hobby shop and kit bash it.

LJ061027F86.jpg


And if anyone wants to see http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/vintageaircraft/sabre-picture2.jpg" ...


You really did a bang up job fotoshopping there my friend, Fooled me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
berkeman said:
Ding ding ding. We have a winnah. BTW, the rest of the explanation that I heard was that the Corsair had an unusually large and powerful engine, and Vaught wanted to use a bigger propeller to take advantage of the extra power. But the landing struts ended up too long for carrier landings as Cyrus says, so that's why they bent the wing roots down.

The whole time I was watching Black Sheep Squadron on TV many years ago, I kept trying to figure out some aerodynamic reason for the bend...never did get it. Until I heard the explanation years later on a documentary show on the Military Channel.


Here is a question for you buddy, how did they come up with the folding wings on the Hellcat?
 
  • #17
cyrusabdollahi said:
Here is a question for you buddy, how did they come up with the folding wings on the Hellcat?
That's a trick question. They don't fold.

At least I don't see any images of folded wings or Hellcats on carriers for that matter. But I could be wrong of course...:blushing:

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=hellcat
 
  • #18
Yes, they do fold. Keep searching, though you only have one foot left. :wink: :smile:

Here's a pic of Mo.

mo.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #19
http://63.192.133.13/VMF-312/New_MOChance.jpg

Mo in the bottom F4-U (530).


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3759/3flightlo1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
DaveC426913 said:
LJ061027F86.jpg

Oh yes, those are used for crop dusting.
 
  • #21
edward said:
Hmm An F86 Bi-plane. You may be on to something here Dave.:smile:
I call it the Sopwith F86 Sabre because I'm thinking about pairing it with a Fokker-Mig15 Triplane! (in red)
 
  • #22
Astronuc said:
That's post WWII. :-p
Slaps forehead. You know, I just didn't even think when I wrote that. Should've said Korean...
 
  • #23
cyrusabdollahi said:
Because to land on an aircraft carrier the struts had to be small to take the forces, and yet allow the propellor arc to clear the flight deck. :rolleyes:
Huh. I always wondered that too. I too assumed some aerodynamic thing.

So, is that true for the Stuka too?
 
  • #24
Stuka had fixed landing gear
and was not a carrier plane
 
  • #25
bi-planes work at LOW speed
wing tip votex kill speed by interaction
 
  • #27
ray b said:
bi-planes work at LOW speed
wing tip votex kill speed by interaction


True in general, but I remember some speculative constructions from the early 60's that found arrangements where that doen't necessarily happen. I believe I saw one that was claimed to be supersonic. This is when that was a hot topic and the "area rule" was new.
 
  • #28
turbo-1 said:
Actually, this one was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-15_Belphegor

How ugly can a plane get?

I think that's about it!

What is really funny is what I nearly posted instead of the crop dusting "joke": I was going to say that it looks Russian to me. :smile:
 
  • #29
ray b said:
Stuka had fixed landing gear
and was not a carrier plane
That's what I thought too. So why the strange wing configuration? Can't be for the same reason as the Corsair.
 
  • #30
It could be for a similar reason. Low wing position allows shorter landing gear struts which cause less drag and are probably stronger - an advantage when you need to operate out of rough air-strips.
 
  • #31
turbo-1 said:
It could be for a similar reason. Low wing position allows shorter landing gear struts which cause less drag and are probably stronger - an advantage when you need to operate out of rough air-strips.
Wiki:
"Its rugged fixed undercarriage allowed it to land and take-off from improvised airstrips close to the battlefront, giving close support to the advancing German forces."
 
  • #32
turbo-1 said:
It could be for a similar reason. Low wing position allows shorter landing gear struts which cause less drag and are probably stronger - an advantage when you need to operate out of rough air-strips.
I think it to do with the large bomb carried underneath the fuselage.

The Ju 87A was able to carry a single 500 kg bomb but only without the rear gunner and at short ranges.

The Ju 87B might have been able to carry a single 1000 kg bomb but only without rear gunner and at short ranges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

IIRC, the bomb was attached to a hinge and cradle underneath the fuselage. The hinge allowed the bomb to clear the propeller in a dive (like the SDB Dauntless).
 
  • #33
Out of curiosity, I Googled Stuka, and the consensus seems to be that the decision to stick with fixed landing gear was driven by the need for structural integrity. These planes were designed to dive at 80 degree angles and the abrupt pull-up after bomb release demanded very strong wings. Wing strength would have been compromised by the addition of recesses for retractable landing gear, so the wheels were mounted on fixed struts. The reverse-gull-wing design was adopted so that the struts could be as short as practical, which made them less prone to flexure on landing and take-off in rough airstrips. The struts and wheels were skirted to reduce drag in the air, and also to make them less likely to be fouled by vegetation, etc in the rough makeshift airfields that the Stukas were deployed from. Since their landing gear was very simple and rugged, the Stukas could be based very near the front lines and could fly more sorties per day than planes with retractable landing gear that had to use more conventional airstrips. This gave better air-support to the ground troops, more opportunities to destroy bridges and attack convoys, etc, and saved in fuel (very important!). When the cowlings around the wheels were reduced in size (later in production) they were often removed in the field because mud could foul them and prevent the wheels from spinning freely.
 
  • #34
Thinking stragetically about the Ju87B's ability to carry a single bomb, wouldn't it be better to just put multiple, smaller bombs mounted under the undercarriage in rows of 2, which would give the bombs a better chance of hitting the target.

I mean, the same principle is used on the Starscream I missile used on the Thor Anti Aircraft (and also anti naval and ground systems since the Star I can target tanks, and ships (basically an anti everything missile)) Mobile Defense systems (Star I has 3 smaller darts that can track a target using the grid laser projected from the Thor system.)

:smile: I used a parenthesis inside a parentheis
 
  • #35
what are you talking about?
 

Similar threads

What Are Your Ideas for a Photo Contest Theme?
Replies
16
Views
47K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
Replies
4
Views
1K
COVID Reaction to COVID-19 Vaccine (or what to be prepared for)
9
Replies
287
Views
22K
Other Colton's Journey from Biochemistry to Astronomy: Struggling with Spatial Ability
Replies
6
Views
2K
Can I Reconnect with My Friend After Months of Silence?
Replies
4
Views
3K
What if Gravity could be controlled?
Replies
2
Views
2K
What Are S-Particles and How Do They Affect Gravity?
Replies
6
Views
2K
PF Fan Fiction: Mathematicians in Love
Replies
2
Views
3K
Re-taking a failed semester in collage and dropping the previous recorded one?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Mechanical Engineering (BS) Vs. Pursuing Physics PhD
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top