Who Likes Aircraft ?

[Photon440]

Looks like a Douglas to me. DC4 or 5?

Close. It's a Canadair North Star, which used pieces of the Douglas design: based on a DC-4, it used the DC-6 nose and landing gear and shortened front fuselage, parts of the C-54 middle fuselage and wing parts, and DC-4 rear fuselage and tail, plus the aircraft was pressurized, unlike the DC-4. And was more powerful, using Rolls Royce Merlin engines instead of the P&W radials. It cruised about 80 mph. faster than the DC-4 and had a 17% greater range.

71 of them were built. The main users were Trans-Canada Airlines (Now Air Canada) Canadian Pacific Airlines, the RCAF, and BOAC.

 

[Dipstick]

Propellers: 2-bladed Ratier counter-rotating

Two props on same shaft is contra-rotating, counter-rotating is two separate props rotating in opposite directions.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Two props on same shaft is contra-rotating, counter-rotating is two separate props rotating in opposite directions.

I know what it is, but it would be interesting to see the mechanics involved to accomplish it.

 

[Photon440]

I know what it is, but it would be interesting to see the mechanics involved to accomplish it.

 

[Photon440]

The unsuccessful Douglas...
Despite having sold hundreds of DC-3 aircraft, Douglas didn't fare so well with the DC-5.

The first commercial design to feature tricycle landing gear with shoulder wings, a feature common today with commuter turboprops, the DC-5 was intended for smaller routes and passenger loads than the DC-3.

However, the war got in the way, and after that there were too many surplus DC-3's around to make the new design feasable.

In the end, only a dozen were built, in both civilian and Navy versions.

 

[AR67GTX]

Close. It's a Canadair North Star, which used pieces of the Douglas design: based on a DC-4, it used the DC-6 nose and landing gear and shortened front fuselage, parts of the C-54 middle fuselage and wing parts, and DC-4 rear fuselage and tail, plus the aircraft was pressurized, unlike the DC-4. And was more powerful, using Rolls Royce Merlin engines instead of the P&W radials. It cruised about 80 mph. faster than the DC-4 and had a 17% greater
71 of them were built. The main users were Trans-Canada Airlines (Now Air Canada) Canadian Pacific Airlines, the RCAF, and BOAC.

Cruise at 80 mph? Is that a typo?

Close. It's a Canadair North Star, which used pieces of the Douglas design: based on a DC-4, it used the DC-6 nose and landing gear and shortened front fuselage, parts of the C-54 middle fuselage and wing parts, and DC-4 rear fuselage and tail, plus the aircraft was pressurized, unlike the DC-4. And was more powerful, using Rolls Royce Merlin engines instead of the P&W radials. It cruised about 80 mph. faster than the DC-4 and had a 17% greater range.
View attachment 1961092
71 of them were built. The main users were Trans-Canada Airlines (Now Air Canada) Canadian Pacific Airlines, the RCAF, and BOAC.

I assume that’s 80 mph faster than the DC-4 and not just 80 mph.

 

[polywideblock]

 

[Geff McCarthy]

Aircraft guns present particular problems, starting in WWI when the guns were mounted next to the pilot and fired thru the propeller arc. Not good. Then a mechanical synchronizer was added to time each detonation so that the round passed in between the turning blades. Good. As to aitming the fixed guns, you aim the airplane, and look thru some sort of sighting device, some as simple as a mark on the windscreen. Thus the relentless practice of Basic Fighter Maneuvers, to outwit the bad guy and achieve a firing position behind. As to ballistics, you see the P-47's tail jacked up to be level with the ground, and the guns are fired at a target, typically 500, later 1000 feet away. Wing-mounted guns are adjusted for the angle off, an 8 milliradian circle is desired. On the ground and in level, unaccelerated flight, bullet drop is a function of gravity, and drag proportional to air density. Maneuvering at 2-9g makes the ballistics very complex, and air density decrases exponentially with altitude. Gunsights developed during WWII compensated for some of these variables. In Korea, the F-84 and F-86 had a ranging radar that fed into the gunsight reticle "pipper" depression that compensated for range, and an accelerometer compensated for accel. If the radar did not lock on, The pilot could substitiute the range by rotating the throttle so that the ring subtended the wingspan of the bad guy, which you designated before flight. Gunning against other F-100 Super Saabres, I would put in 50' for the 53 foot wing span. The perfect guns solution was 16mm gun film showing "pipper on the canopy". If "Tjinked" just step on the rudder back and forth on the stick to cancel the aggessors gun solution. And prayed.
Nowadays, Continuously Computed Impact Point software displays the impact point in space, and you just need to keep the death dot on the bad guy for a few milliseconds and squeeze. One 20mm High Explosive Incendiary round will kill a jet. But...there has not been a gun kill since "nam. all missiles.

 

[Photon440]

There was an American gun shoot down in the Iraqi war, by Capt. Sheehy with his A-10A on Feb. 15th 1991, downing an Iraqi Mi-8 helicopter.

Venezuela shot down a couple of Broncos in 1992. Actual footage here on Reddit:

 

[Geff McCarthy]

Thanks! I had no idea! I personally have a distant connection to Venezuelan F-16s: When they purchased the first jets, 10 or so, I was the F-16 Pilot Physician at MacDill AFB, Tampa. The Venezuelan AF sent their senior Flight Surgeon to visit, and learn the risks. Nice guy, half time AF, half time private practice. We had him to dinner, etc.
As to the shoot down, clearly the Viper is in a pursuit curve, pilot fixated on the gunsight with probably 200kts overtake. You can time the burst from the smoke - I'd say 1 -1.5sec. Then the airbrakes come out, probably to avoid a collision. Designed as a "day, desert, dogfighter" my name, the speed brakes will stop the jet on a dime, forcing anyone behind into an overshoot. G force is enough to lock the shoulder harness!
Later I got a free Business Class trip to Indonesia when they bought the F-16.
PS: When I wear a USAF cap, people thank me for my service. I am grateful for their appreciation, but I cannot claim any of my 35y career was a hardhip!