Most Beautiful Aircraft

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If you go to these websites, they have pics of the Me 262 V-1 with prop:

Me 262 Archiv

µÚËÄ½Ú ÏóÌìʹһÑù·ÉÏè

Messerschmitt Me 262.htm

 

[Condora]

Thanks, Adler!

"Es tut mir leid, aber es ist mir seer schwer deutsche lesen, und ich kann ein bischen chinesisch lesen, ich verstehe nicht japanesich" (or something like that, I learned a bit about 20-something years ago, but never practised - sorry about the many mistakes).

They are really interesting, I thought there were no photos, and my jaw dropped to the floor when I saw the prop on the Me-262's... NOSE? I'd always assumed they had used props under the wings, INSTEAD of the jet engines! Maybe one of each, to test the jet, before swapping to all-jet configuration.

Never dreamed that they would cramm a third engine on the plane.

 

[Civettone]

I have to say that those images do look a bit alike. But other photo's from different angles ...

The main difference has to be the triangular transection shape of the fuselage. That is so remarkable when looking at a Me 262 from up front.

What they do have in common is the cockpit nice in the middle. One could also say the nose wheel ... but that was not part of the original Me 262 design.

As a side note, it's the first time I noticed that bulge underneath the Me 309. It strikes me as odd!
Kris

 

[Condora]

The main difference has to be the triangular transection shape of the fuselage. That is so remarkable when looking at a Me 262 from up front.

The Me309 had to have a "rounder" transection, it had a big engine up front defining the shape.
Have you checked Adler's links, to see the Me262 with a prop?

 

[paradoxguy]

Teaser ( ). Here's a good pic...

I think that's a Mk.I. I could be wrong.

Elvis

The armament configuration (one 20mm cannon and two outboard 0.303 machine guns on each side) suggests the depicted Spitfire is a Mk V.

 

[paradoxguy]

I cannot upload from here, I'll try to use some pics taken from the net, one is just a model, but I think it will explain what I mean: remove the prop&engine from the nose, put the jets underwing...

Nice model of the Me-309. Did you build it?

PG

 

[paradoxguy]

Keeping in mind aesthetics are very subjective, here's my list:

Fighter

Fiat CR-42
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-series and 190D-series
Focke-Wulf Ta 152C (the long wingspan of the 152H give it a visually unbalanced appearance)
Gloster Meteor
Kawasaki Ki-61 (versions with retractable tailwheel; its sleek appearance makes it look faster than it was)
Macchi MC-202 and MC-205
Messerschmitt Bf 109F-series, Bf 109K-4 (cleaner lines than the other Bf 109's, especially with the retractable tailwheel)
North American P-51D Mustang
Reggiane Re 2005
Supermarine Spitfire (all Mks)
Yakovlev Yak-3

Bombers

Avro Lancaster
Boeing B-17 Fortress
Junkers Ju 88
Martin B-26
Mitsubishi G4M

Multi-purpose aircraft

DeHavilland Mosquito (all versions)
Junkers Ju 88
Messerschmitt Me 210/410
Mitsubishi Ki-46

Ground attack/dive bombers/torpedo bombers

Curtiss Helldiver
Grumman TBF Avenger
lIyushin Il-2
Nakajima B5N and B6N

 

[Condora]

Nice model of the Me-309. Did you build it?

PG

Unfortunately, no: I cannot do certain things from work (shhh, don't tell a soul!), and I had to look for an image on the net.

 

[AMCKen]

The armament configuration (one 20mm cannon and two outboard 0.303 machine guns on each side) suggests the depicted Spitfire is a Mk V.

Symmetrical radiators and 4 blade propellor? I'll say Mk.IX. : )

 

[paradoxguy]

Symmetrical radiators and 4 blade propellor? I'll say Mk.IX. : )

You're right, I missed the 4-blade propeller, but I shouldn't have!

I agree, definitely later than Mk V, but I have to admit my recognition skills of Spitfire variants later than Mk V's need refining.

 

[AMCKen]

You're right, I missed the 4-blade propeller, but I shouldn't have!

I agree, definitely later than Mk V, but I have to admit my recognition skills of Spitfire variants later than Mk V's need refining.

warbirdregistry.org - Supermarine Spitfire

 

[Dark Matter]

The Cessna C-106 Loadmaster is a buatiful aircraft.

 

[Messy1]

Also, always loved the B-47.

 

[Elvis]

Saw an interview with the late Boeing test pilot Tex Johnston the other day, on a local TV show.
Tex test flew the B-47 and remarked, all these years later, that it was still his favourite airplane.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMCKen,

Great research!
Indeed, appears to be a Mk.IX.
I must admit, I'm a real beginner when it comes to identifying the different mk.'s of Spitfire. My suggestion was only a guess. I think that's the way it was listed at the website I got the pic from.

BTW, a little off-topic (sorry), but $3000 for a Hornet-based AMX in nice shape (some interior wear, but otherwise very good).
Is that a good deal?


Elvis

 

[Messy1]

The B47 has always reminded me of a rather large over size fighter.

 

[AMCKen]

The Cessna C-106 Loadmaster is a buatiful aircraft.

Cessna C-106 Loadmaster - transport

The CC-106 Yukon looks really good.

Photos: Canadair CL-44D4-2 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

 

[Elvis]

Cessana C-106 Loadmaster

Hey you guys ain't kiddin', that's a really sweet lookin' airplane!
Kinda reminds me of a B-26, a little.

Elvis

 

[AMCKen]

Cessana C-106 Loadmaster

Hey you guys ain't kiddin', that's a really sweet lookin' airplane!
Kinda reminds me of a B-26, a little.

Elvis

...or a de Havilland Flamingo.

De Havilland Flamingo aircraft profile. Aircraft Database of the Fleet Air Arm Archive 1939-1945

 

[gumbyk]

Looks like the ugly love-child of a B-26 and a C-47 to me

 

[Elvis]

AMCKen,

Yes, it looks like a slimmer version of the Cessna (or maybe the Cessna's a fat DeHavilland? ).

I wonder why the order was cancelled?
The airplane sounds impressive, for what it was.
Order 30, but cancel after one plane is delivered...hmmm.

Apparently it wasn't because the plane was defficient, either. That one plane soldiered through the entire war and left military service in '46.

Strange.




Elvis