Aircraft Identification

From gardening and needlework to Mornington Crescent and captioneering.
Post Reply
User avatar
Tharmas
Posts: 472
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:37 am
Location: Dallas, TX USA

Aircraft Identification

Post by Tharmas » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:19 pm

Years ago I made a hobby of attending air shows, although these days my mobility issues prevent that (you do a ton of walking at a typical airshow).

Anyway, about 15 or 20 years ago I attended one with my first digital camera. It had a proprietary file format, but I kept the images on a CD anyway, even long after the camera was trashed. Recently I found a conversion program to create jpegs from those images. What’s bugging me is that there’s one aircraft of a type I positively can’t identify. Can anybody give me any help?

This is a Curtis Robin (1928): Image

In those days it was exciting to see surplus cold war aircraft coming in from China: this is a MIG 15 of Korean war fame. It had a reverse engineered Nene engine, developed by Rolls Royce and given to the Soviets after WWII as an appeasement gesture. The story went that when they uncrated this example, purchased from China as surplus, it had all weapon systems intact, which took a little scrambling with US Customs.

Image

This is a Chinese trainer. The image is identified as a YAK 18, but I think the Chinese version, the CJ6, was substantially different.

Image

This is the one I can’t identify. My Image is identified as “ER something.” The rondel and markings on the horizontal stabilizers look like early WWII USAAC markings, but the design looks more recent than that to me. Any ideas?

Image

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:36 pm

There's a number on the vertical rhs thingy in the rear. It's difficult to make out, but perhaps a bit of sharpening might help clarify exactly what it is. To me it looks like it could be N93628. Would that be some sort of registration number you could track down to someone's or something's database? Ask around various aviation authorities and bureaucracies, maybe?

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:57 am

It's an Erco Ercoupe.
We who choose to surround ourselves with lives, Even more temporary than our own, Live within a fragile circle, Easily and often breached.
- Irving Townsend

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:13 am

Nice ID, Val.

I like your hobby, Tharmas. I've done a few air museums, but I don't tend to do airshows because it requires too much time in direct sun. My physician advises against.

I don't know if you've been this way (US Pacific Northwest region), but there are a couple of great air museums in the area. There's Evergreen in McMinnville, complete with Howard Hughes' 'Spruce Goose' in regal static indoor residence. Then there is the much smaller Tillamook Air Museum, located in a former USNAS blimp barn at the coast. They have a collection of flying aircraft, including a really cherry, and functioning, Lim-6 (a Polish MiG-17) owned by an Oregon couple.

The collection is small but impressive and the barn is a curiosity, but the salt sea air is not the best location for a bunch of antique aircraft. The Tillamook collection is moving to Madras, in the high desert of central Oregon, where the weather is clearer and drier and far less corrosive. It is rumored that major portions of the Evergreen static collection will be also be going to Madras as well, possibly rotating with the pieces in McMinnville. Sadly, it seems the balloon barn will be abandoned...

There is a B-17 ("Lacey Lady") being refurbished and renovated for flight (as I understand it) at McNary Airport in Salem, Oregon. Not far north up the freeway, there is a firm at Aurora Airport which refurbishes antique aircraft, especially Dakotas.

Then, of course, just a couple hours up the freeway to Seattle is the whizbang Museum of Flight with its almost endless archival aircraft to draw upon for display...and show, if they so desired. It is located, of course, on the edge of Boeing Field and the Boeing corporation plant surrounds it. I've been once, but I was feeling quite punky that day and didn't cover much to my satisfaction. I'm looking forward to my return to undertake a much more thorough and prepared forced march. I haven't even set foot on the nearby Flying Heritage Collection grounds (Paul Allen's private stash).

Lastly, I'm planning to do two cross-country trips to take in the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles Airport in Washington and to Dayton for the Museum of the USAF at Wright-Patterson Airbase. I'm betting there is an official US Naval Aviation museum somewhere (Pensacola?). I'd also like to squeeze in someplace to review the Commemorative Air Force fleet. I was thinking Chico, but it looks like HQ is in Dallas. Wanna wanna wanna....

For that matter, I had been considering flying to Yellowknife, on shores of the Great Slave Lake, in the middle of Canuckistani nowhere, just to admire the Buffalo Airways fleet and cop a ride...maybe. I'm a big Dakota fan.

So...I'd be interested in more pix, if you got 'em. Thanx.
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Tubby
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:32 pm
Location: USA

Post by Tubby » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:18 am

I don't believe Dad ever flew an Ercoupe, but I remember him telling me the controls were designed to be as similar to an automobile's as practical, so it would not intimidate the rookie aviator.

My brother was always spectacularly good at identifying WW II - era military aircraft of all nations.

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:36 am

Roo wrote:Nice ID, Val
This book has been my throne room companion for the last decade:

Image

There was also a one-off (afaik) F-82 twin mustang style twin boom variant, presumably to increase range, safety and passenger capacity.
Last edited by Val on Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
We who choose to surround ourselves with lives, Even more temporary than our own, Live within a fragile circle, Easily and often breached.
- Irving Townsend

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:28 am

[quote=""Tubby""]I don't believe Dad ever flew an Ercoupe, but I remember him telling me the controls were designed to be as similar to an automobile's as practical, so it would not intimidate the rookie aviator.

My brother was always spectacularly good at identifying WW II - era military aircraft of all nations.[/quote]

I had no idea what it was, but it looked stylistically 1950s to my eye, so I was skeptical about the meatballs and pinstripes which had disappeared in 1942. But, thanks to Val, I googled it and it's a 1937 design.

So, it was a trainer for new solo single engine pilots?
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Tubby
Posts: 3744
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 3:32 pm
Location: USA

Post by Tubby » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:29 am

^----^ That's the way it was told to me. Very difficult to crash, such as by stalling when turning to final approach.

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:35 am

[quote=""Val""]
Roo wrote:Nice ID, Val
This book has been my throne room companion for the last decade:

Image

There was also a one-off (afaik) F-82 twin mustang style twin boom variant, presumably to increase range, safety and passenger capacity.[/QUOTE]

Always good for throne reading.

My tastes run to things like cargo craft, STOL craft, and seaplanes. I'm not ever likely to own any kind of aircraft, but if I could, I'd be lusting after a Dornier Seastar.

Image

(flyporn)
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:40 am

...and more flyporn

Image

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:46 am

This is my idea of flyporn. Most beautiful aircraft ever made.

Image

Although I must admit the Atlas Cheetah (a saffer development based upon the Mirage III/Nesher airframe) is a close second. The proportions and that pointy snout is pure eyeball badass to me:

Image

The Cheetah C is a very capable aircraft Gen4++ aircraft, but in 1996 the russkies and the SAAF had a series of joint exercises, and the Mig-29 flew circles around it, with a 4:1 kill ratio in WVR engagement despite the Cheetah having much better avionics, radar and the best high off-boresight helmet-cued IR missile in the business.
We who choose to surround ourselves with lives, Even more temporary than our own, Live within a fragile circle, Easily and often breached.
- Irving Townsend

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:56 am

That's funny, I was just off to bed when I saw this thread. My first instinct was a Miles M.28 but on second thoughts the canopy was wrong and there was no way you'd get a Gypsy in that nose.

I decided it must be some odd US copy by Cessna or similar from the nosecone and went to bed. I was wrong apparently - nice identification Val.

However, the most beautiful combat jet ever made:

Image

No competition!

But I think you have to see it flying to get it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRuPo2xIOZs

Then of course there's:

Image

from any angle

Image

They are art:

Image

and got around a bit!

Image


Just because everyone agrees doesn't mean they are wrong...

Then of course:

Image

Image

Much missed this year.
Last edited by subsymbolic on Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:37 am

You reckon Bucky is beautiful? To me it gives an impression of immense durability but it isn't pretty to me. The Canberra, now there's a pretty plane.

But taste is a funny thing. I think the A-10 Warthog is gorgeous, whereas everybody else thinks it looks like an ass.
We who choose to surround ourselves with lives, Even more temporary than our own, Live within a fragile circle, Easily and often breached.
- Irving Townsend

User avatar
Wizofoz
Posts: 7672
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:55 pm

Post by Wizofoz » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:12 am

Now, THIS is poetry in aircraft form-

Image
When it comes to truth, there is no "Opposing opinion"

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:34 am

[quote=""Val""]You reckon Bucky is beautiful? To me it gives an impression of immense durability but it isn't pretty to me. The Canberra, now there's a pretty plane.

But taste is a funny thing. I think the A-10 Warthog is gorgeous, whereas everybody else thinks it looks like an ass.[/quote]

Here's the thing, I see planes in two ways. Firstly as a static thing and secondly as a dynamic flying thing. I agree about the A10, because they fly beautifully with an almost glider like elegance that belies their weight.

The Canberra, while it looks fantastic on the ground, looks positively laboured in the sky. Pilots report that it is an absolute shit to fly at low level, with an over stiff wing making for a very uncomfortable experience. You can see it, with the aircraft jittering and bouncing around, while the Buc's legendary low level capability is based on passing though the air in as smooth a manner as is possible.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:37 am

[quote=""Wizofoz""]Now, THIS is poetry in aircraft form-

Image[/quote]

There seems to be a glider in the way so I can't really see it? :D

User avatar
Wizofoz
Posts: 7672
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:55 pm

Post by Wizofoz » Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:13 am

A Discus 2A to be precise- I'm tossing up whether to get one of those, or an LS8.
When it comes to truth, there is no "Opposing opinion"

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:57 am

[quote=""Wizofoz""]Now, THIS is poetry in aircraft form-

Image[/quote]
There is beauty in function, but the two don't necessarily connect. In this case the angular changes of the wing, and moreso the rear wing assembly really grate in comparison to the slipstreaming shape of the glider's front. Val is exactly right. Taste is a funny thing. To be more prosaic I say that there is no objectivity in taste.

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:33 pm

Special mention:

Image

Extraordinairy bit of kit and still looks the business more than half a century later. I can only imagine the impression it created when it was first revealed.
We who choose to surround ourselves with lives, Even more temporary than our own, Live within a fragile circle, Easily and often breached.
- Irving Townsend

User avatar
Wizofoz
Posts: 7672
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:55 pm

Post by Wizofoz » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:50 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]
Wizofoz;643300 wrote:Now, THIS is poetry in aircraft form-

Image
There is beauty in function, but the two don't necessarily connect. In this case the angular changes of the wing, and moreso the rear wing assembly really grate in comparison to the slipstreaming shape of the glider's front. Val is exactly right. Taste is a funny thing. To be more prosaic I say that there is no objectivity in taste.[/QUOTE]


Interesting take- I'm biased because I know what it DOES is so beautiful.
When it comes to truth, there is no "Opposing opinion"

User avatar
Val
Posts: 5809
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Location: Location:

Post by Val » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:22 pm

What happened to the Jonker hard-on you had at some point?
We who choose to surround ourselves with lives, Even more temporary than our own, Live within a fragile circle, Easily and often breached.
- Irving Townsend

User avatar
Wizofoz
Posts: 7672
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:55 pm

Post by Wizofoz » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:36 pm

[quote=""Val""]What happened to the Jonker hard-on you had at some point?[/quote]

Too much dinaro just now.

There are different classes of racing gliders, and I can afford an older example of the current best "standard" class- 15m wings, with restrictions on weight and complexity.

The JS1 is da shit in the 18m and open classes, but that makes it more expensive for starters, and they haven't been around long enough to depreciate down to my budget.

I was reading about a JS1 today- Dude caught a monster mountain wave out of Minden in Nevada, and flew 2200KM at an average of 256KMH- not bad on no engine!!
When it comes to truth, there is no "Opposing opinion"

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:02 pm

[quote=""Val""]You reckon Bucky is beautiful? To me it gives an impression of immense durability but it isn't pretty to me. The Canberra, now there's a pretty plane.

But taste is a funny thing. I think the A-10 Warthog is gorgeous, whereas everybody else thinks it looks like an ass.[/quote]

I'm with you on both counts, Val.

The Cheetah is the variation on a theme from Marcel Bloch, right? It's two generations away from it's progenitor, the Dassault Mirage III, processed through Israeli IAI Nesher and Kfir, before the Sabras passed the blueprints on to the Saafers to redesign? It certainly is a sweet looking little thing, but if we get in to Bloch's extensive body of work and their descendants, I tend to moon over the Mirage F1.

Image
I have no idea how either stack up against the likes of Sukhoi's nasty wasp, but I'm guessing neither do particularly well.

It's one thing about fighter jocks and their cadre that they tend to look down their noses at the joes and craft that do most of the heavy and dirty work, like the Warthog. It was the same with the Warthog's predecessor, Douglas' long-running hit, the A-1 Skyraider. Durability, hang time, carry capacity, accuracy of arsenal delivery, and pilot protections....deliver the goods and get home in one piece. Douglas did it repeatedly, and Fairchild Republic repeated that success with the Warthog. The A-10 has to be one of the best designed aircraft ever built to fulfill its purpose...starting with designing the thing around the GAU-8 cannon. It ain't pretty...shit, it's ugly as sin...but it sure is pretty.

Of course, I'm probably a pretty suck opinion for most because I like the aesthetics of the Constellation...particularly in its military service mufti as the C-121 Warning Star. Classic beauty.

Image
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:09 pm

[quote=""Val""]Special mention:

Image

Extraordinairy bit of kit and still looks the business more than half a century later. I can only imagine the impression it created when it was first revealed.[/quote]

Most people were stunned. Of course, it wasn't really revealed until after it was decommissioned. Now, everybody knows because it seems like they were distributed nationwide for broad display....After reading all the amazing stats, I just come back to the realization that they've got something better now. (Hi-rez photo-recon satellites, probably.)
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Jobar
Posts: 26251
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Georgia

Post by Jobar » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:09 pm

Just a few weeks ago I watched several documentaries about the SR-71.

(Not loaded: YJ5FjVOvkB0)
(View video on YouTube)

I remember having a model of it hanging in my college dorm room. I still think it's both the most beautiful and most potent aircraft ever built.

Post Reply