[Closed] Identify this war bird please....

Yak-3?

Maybe a yak 9?

I'd say a Yak-3, maybe even this exact one

[img] [/img]

Thanks both. Nailed it.

http://www.warbirddepot.com/aircraft_fighters_yak3-greenwood.asp

Next:

[img] [/img]

No cheating by googling the tail number...

A Hawker Sea Fury, with the Centaurus engine and 5-blade prop replaced with a P&W Wasp, probably from a Skyraider. Looking at the canopy I'd say it has also had a second seat installed.

Hawker sea Fury.

Hawker Sea Fury.

I want this ...

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

chewkw - the Romanians still make them. Fill your boots

You want weird

[img] [/img]

Love these threads....the more obscure the aircraft the better

That B17...have the engines been Photoshop ped on, or was it some sort of post war test bed..

A turboprop B-17? A first for me, at any rate.
Ah, XB-38, prototype using Allison V-12 engines instead of rotary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-38_Flying_Fortress

Come on then spotters of STW.... Name this plane

[img] [/img]

The B17 has got inline engines instead of radials. Edit- Beaten by Countzero

Blohm Und Voss BV-141

Asymmetrical oddness above is a Blohm & Voss BV141

Ten points to the Count!

Blohm & Voss BV141

How about this?
[img] [/img]

Avro Manchester

[img] [/img]

Prone control Gloster Meteor-the front pilot lays on the stomach. Supposed to be better for resisting G forces

Well I know there were highly modified Meteors for test firing ejector seats, but I think they were all mid mounted, nor shoehorned on the front.

Avro Manchester

I used to have a copy of 'Gunner's Moon' by John Bushby which recounted the 'joys' of flying Manchesters operationally with 83 Sqn. Supposedly they didn't fly very well on one engine, which wouldn't have mattered so much if the RR Vulture had actually *worked*.

Well I know there were highly modified Meteors for test firing ejector seats, but I think they were all mid mounted, nor shoehorned on the front.

You mean like this one, which belongs to Martin Baker?

[img] [/img]

How about this:
[img] [/img]

Hurricane with a slip wing fuel tank?

This one, and for bonus geekery points what's special about it?

[img] http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=189397&stc=1&d=1288177266 [/img]

Slip wing Hawker Hurricane. For improving short field performance-the top wing was released at altitude

Probably best if the name wasn't across the side of the aircraft... Obviously a Mirage though!

Pleased to say, my childhood knowledge hasn't deserted me and I've known all of these bar Chewkws!

Shame it takes a war to produce something as cool as this

[img] [/img]

Australian Mirage II -as for something special, built in Aus by CAC?

That it is Samunkin

Also a shame there are no Dh Hornet survivors anywhere samunkim

Australian Mirage II -as for something special, built in Aus by CAC?

Close. That's the one Dassault put an RR Avon in, in the interests of selling Mirages to the Australians in the first place. CAC went on to build 100+ Atar-powered Mirage IIIs:

[img] [/img]

and this/these

bought out of retirement for the Korean war

[img] [/img]

Ratherintobago is that the experimental Avon engined Mirage?

One of the XP-82 twin mustang prototypes is fairly close to flight now in the US

http://xp-82twinmustangproject.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/march-xp-82-twin-mustang.html

XP-32 DLDR

Did they finally get hold of a left hand propeller ?

I've just been reading about this.

[img] [/img]

In 1944 one of these flew from Bordeaux to within 12 miles of New York and took pictures of the skyline and then flew back, the flight took took 32 hours.

fw200 the only 4 engined german bomber of WW2?

only that one appears to have 6!!

Condor.

Condor.

fw200 the only 4 engined german bomber of WW2?

[img] [/img]

Edit, the six engined one in sean's photo above is the Junkers Ju 390 'New York' bomber.

Junkers Ju 390, part of the Amerika Bomber project along with the Me 264

It wasn't only the Germans who built some wierd aircraft:

[img] [/img]

Miles Libellula M39b

It was supposed to be quite a good flyer IIRC

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Some Lysander variant?

Yes it's the Ju 390.

The "Amerikabomber" the Messerschmitt 264.

[img] [/img]

It looked a lot like the B-29 super fortress.

[img] [/img]

Ah, the Delanne tandem wing, or Lysander P12, an attempt to overcome the lack of any rear armament on the Lysander.
The fact it didn't have much in the way of forward armaments either didn't seem to trouble them, but they did only build the one prototype; common sense must have prevailed! 😀
Lots of stuff on the Lysander here: http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/486/language/en-CA/Lysander-Pilot-Report.aspx
Fabulous event aircraft, wish there were more flying.

Rich, that a Dewoitine?

No, it's not is it?
British.
Hmm.

I'm buggered if I can think what that plane that Rich has posted is! Obviously very similar to a late model clipped-wing Spit, but that would be [i]too[/i] obvious, wouldn't it?
Can't be a Spit, undercart is wrong, legs hinge outward, not inward.
Very similar, though, even down to the little chin intake, but a three-bladed prop, not four or five.
I'm stumped.

Is that last one a Sea Fury of some kind?

Matt, no, Sea Fury's have a big Centaurus radial engine, that one above has a smaller inline engine.

Is it the Martin Baker MB3?
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB_3 ]Martin Baker MB3[/url]

Always interested in the planes that lose competitions for selection, this one should be easy for you...
[img] [/img]

Spiteful?

I only know this one from an IT project who used the same mythical names:
[img] [/img]

stewartc Is that the Northrop A9...Lost to the A10 in the fly off...

[img] [/img]

Extra points if you can tell the what the original airframe is...

Well done stewartc! It is an MB3.

Can't remember which x plane the one above is but I'd guess it's based on a Mig 28 out of Top Gun? 😉

X-29, with an F-5 forward fuselage, f-16 undercarriage, and various other parts bin bits.

I'm amazed at how much the SU-25 looks like the loser from the A10 contest. It's almost like the designers took inspiration from it.

willard - Member
I'm amazed at how much the SU-25 looks like the loser from the A10 contest. It's almost like the designers took inspiration from it.

Or that they were both trying to solve similar problems, so ended up with similar solutions. 😉

What about this rarest of British warbirds?

[img] [/img]

Captured Heinkel innit? Both the allies and the axis were very interested in test flying one another's aircraft, in some cases these were cobbled together from one or more damaged examples that had crash landed.

I love these threads. It's good to see just how many aviation nerds there are here.

Nickc, bingo, the Northrop A9

about the Russian plane looking like A10

I was one of the first people from the West inside the Aeronautical design test center outside of Moscow and they had quite a fair bit about their space shuttle on show, i remember asking them "how come it look so much like the American one" and the reply was simply "well ofcourse it does"

also when the companies where trying to get the contract for the B2 both companies working on it had planes which looked a lot like eachother even though both of them was top secret.

Or that they were both trying to solve similar problems, so ended up with similar solutions...

I'm sure espionage didn't come into it at all. 😉

One from me

[Img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Rumoured to be the loudest aircraft ever made.

Entertaining: http://redditp.com/r/Aviation (you can turn any reddit into a slide show using the redditp link, including the [i]racier[/i] subs...)

What a great thread!!!

Not directly a war-bird, but would be used in time of war. What is it?

[img] [/img]

Kneecap!

Boeing E4, aka the 'Doomsday Plane'

So glad stewartc came up with the name for the Martin-Baker, it was driving me nuts!
Always nice to see a photo of [i]Maya[/i] and Mercury[i], very fond of seaplanes in general.
I know the noisy plane at the top, I'm struggling to remember what it is, looks somewhat like a Voodoo.
Back shortly.
Republic XF-84H 'Thunderscreech', reputed to be able to induce vomiting from 100 metres away!
Edit:

After manufacture at Republic's Farmingdale, Long Island, plant, the two XF-84Hs were disassembled and shipped via rail to Edwards Air Force Base for flight testing.[2] First flown on July 22, 1955, the XF-84F had incredible acceleration but soon its impracticality was discovered. It was unsuited to combat due to the engine's 30 minute warm up time but the most serious concerns were vibration generated from the 12-foot propeller diameter and mechanical failures of the prop pitch gearing.[13] The prototypes flew a total of 12 test flights from Edwards, accumulating only 6 hours and 40 minutes of flight time. [b]Lin Hendrix, one of the Republic test pilots assigned to the program, flew the aircraft once and refused to ever fly it again, claiming "it never flew over 450 knots (830 km/h) indicated, since at that speed, it developed an unhappy practice of 'snaking', apparently losing longitudinal stability".[14] Hendrix also told the formidable Republic project engineer, "You aren't big enough and there aren't enough of you to get me in that thing again".[[/b]13] The other test flights were fraught with engine failures, and persistent hydraulic, nose gear and vibration problems.[2] Test pilot Hank Beaird took the XF-84H up 11 times, with 10 of these flights ending in forced landings.[15]

[b]Noise[/b]
The XF-84H was quite possibly the loudest aircraft ever built (rivaled only by the Russian Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear" bomber[16]), earning the nickname "Thunderscreech" as well as the "Mighty Ear Banger".[17] [b]On the ground "run ups", the prototypes could reportedly be heard 25 miles (40 km) away.[18] Unlike standard propellers that turn at subsonic speeds, the outer 24–30 inches (61–76 cm) of the blades on the XF-84H's propeller traveled faster than the speed of sound even at idle thrust, producing a continuous visible sonic boom that radiated laterally from the propellers for hundreds of yards. The shock wave was actually powerful enough to knock a man down; an unfortunate crew chief who was inside a nearby C-47 was severely incapacitated during a 30-minute ground run.[18] Coupled with the already considerable noise from the subsonic aspect of the propeller and the dual turbines, the aircraft was notorious for inducing severe nausea and headaches among ground crews.[11] In one report, a Republic engineer suffered a seizure after close range exposure to the shock waves emanating from a powered-up XF-84H.[/b][19]

The pervasive noise also severely disrupted operations in the Edwards AFB control tower by risking vibration damage to sensitive components and forcing air traffic personnel to communicate with the XF-84H's crew on the flight line by light signals. After numerous complaints, the Air Force Flight Test Center directed Republic to tow the aircraft out on Rogers Dry Lake, far from the flight line, before running up its engine.[14] The test program did not proceed further than the manufacturer's Phase I proving flights, consequently no USAF test pilots flew the XF-84H. With the likelihood that the engine and equipment failures coupled with the inability to reach design speeds and subsequent instability experienced were insurmountable problems, the USAF cancelled the program in September 1956.[20]

[img] [/img]

Thought it was a variant of the I.Ae 24 Calquin, a short bit of googling came up with
I.Ae.30 I-03 Ñancú

I would never have identified Tom's photo, I did try to post a response, but I got kicked off the forum and had to log back in. Thanks for that...
I was going to say that it reminded me of a DH Hornet, but for the nose and tail, but I've never heard of a I.Ae.30 I-03 Ñancú!