Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)

[Eric Mc]

5ohmustang said:

Thanks for the info. It's sad to see any aircraft mothballed.

What's sad about it?

The facility has been in use for around 60 years. It's peak regarding number of aircraft was immediately after the end of the war in Vietnam when there were almost 6,000 aircraft parked there. The numbers now hover around the 3,000 to 4,000.

Many of the aircarft that are stored here are retained to provide spares for those still in service. some are refurbished to fly again. Some are sold to friendly countries and, of course, many do get scrapped eventually. Some of the aircraft in that picture have been parked for over 30 years.

[yellowjack]

hidetheelephants said:

Ayahuasca said:

DiscoColin said:

Ayahuasca said:

This is a proper amazingly cool picture of aircraft. Much want.



Let's have a go - Clockwise from the top -

Outside: Spitfire, Spitfire, Harrier, Hunter, Mustang?, Starfighter, Cherokee?, Thunderbolt, (?) , Bucc, Gladiator, (?) , (?), Gnat, 109?

Inside: Viscount, Mosquito with weird exhausts, Wellington, Anson

The red one at 11 o'clock is a Focke Wulf 190. The white one in the bottom right is an F5. Rightmost red looks like a Gloster Meteor. Between those last two is an ME109.

Don't know where Hunter came from. It's a Meteor.

550 beer tokens for that?! I'd rather buy the kits, 2 tins of paint and DIY.

Looking closely it seems that the "artist" has just recycled a bunch of old (assembled) Airfix kits by heavily painting over them. It'd look OK if it were complete kits, but so many are missing bits. Canopies, horizontal tail surfaces, propeller blades, and even complete propeller assemblies. It's a prime candidate for the "these pictures make my teeth itch" thread as it is.

Is it a Fairey Battle in red at 9 o'clock?

ETA: The white one directly to the left of the Thunderbolt. It looks like some kind of inter-war Hawker biplane, missing it's entire top wing. £550? GTFOOH!

Edited by yellowjack on Monday 21st November 12:36

[Eric Mc]

Yes - that white one to the left of the P47 certainly looks like the Airfix Hawker Hart/Demon minus its top wing.
That definitely looks like the (woefully inaccurate) Airfix Battle and immediately to its right is the Airfix Avro Anson.

[Dr Jekyll]

Eric Mc said:

Yes - that white one to the left of the P47 certainly looks like the Airfix Hawker Hart/Demon minus its top wing.
That definitely looks like the (woefully inaccurate) Airfix Battle and immediately to its right is the Airfix Avro Anson.

I did read somewhere that Airfix based the kit on drawings from Fairey but the drawings were pre production and different from the production aircraft.


So arguably the Airfix Battle is fine but the real ones were inaccurate.

[Eric Mc]

That is indeed what happened. The drawing office at Fairey (or the successors) supplied Airfix with drawings that did not represent the final production variant. This was around the mid 1960s.

The only accurate 1/72 Fairey Battle model out there is a limited run kit made by MPM/Special Hobby. Maybe the Battle would be a suitable subject for the "new" Airfix treatment.

[Eric Mc]

5ohmustang said:

Just that most will never fly again. So much money was spent on their r&d, the maintenance time of the ground crew and the testament of American engineering, now they sit in a graveyard.

I'd gladly take an F4 Phantom.

All machines have finite lives. Indeed aircraft are more finite than other machines because every part of an aeroplane is built with a "life" of so many thousand hours. Once those hours have expired, that part must be replaced. After 30 odd years (in most cases), those parts will be in short supply and the aeroplane will be grounded.

In fact, that is the main purpose of the Davis-Monthan facility - to supply parts to keep remaining examples going.

[naturals]

Eric Mc said:

What's sad about it?

The facility has been in use for around 60 years. It's peak regarding number of aircraft was immediately after the end of the war in Vietnam when there were almost 6,000 aircraft parked there. The numbers now hover around the 3,000 to 4,000.

Many of the aircarft that are stored here are retained to provide spares for those still in service. some are refurbished to fly again. Some are sold to friendly countries and, of course, many do get scrapped eventually. Some of the aircraft in that picture have been parked for over 30 years.

The American's like to paint it in a positive light (I've lived in AZ and visited - it's depressing as hell). They'll proudly show you a part being taken from an F16 and say "that's over $1m cheaper than buying the part from the manufacturer". The sad reality is that many of the airframes have mere hundreds or thousands of hours on them and are retired well before their time to ensure the USAF "saves" on parts in future. They wholly miss the billions of dollars spent on R&D and buying the thing in the first place. Government waste at its absolute finest.

[Eric Mc]

What else should they do?

[Hugo a Gogo]

I thought the broken-up b52s were part of START treaty, leaving them on display so Russian satellites could see they were beyond use

[Eric Mc]

They are.

They would have gone to Davis Monthan anyway but they were deliberately left on view (rather than smelted) as part of the oversight agreement.

[FourWheelDrift]

The Airliner Centipede.

[16v_paddy]

It's not all bad though, sometimes a plane gets rescued from the boneyard & brought back to life http://www.janes.com/article/64266/usaf-returns-mo...

[MartG]

A tad overpowered ? McKinnon G-21C - a 4 engined Grumman Goose!






The four engines were Lycoming GSO-480s, so actually the combined engine power was similar to that of two R-985s of the original Goose.

[Eric Mc]

Why?

[MartG]

Eric Mc said:

Why?

Could be a number of reasons - economy, reliability, spares availability

[Eric Mc]

How many got converted?

[Ayahuasca]

They look like more modern horizontally opposed engines as opposed to the big old Pratt and Whitney radials. So as noted above, possibly more economical to keep going.

[Stickyfinger]

Ayahuasca said:

They look like more modern horizontally opposed engines as opposed to the big old Pratt and Whitney radials. So as noted above, possibly more economical to keep going.

I would think the shorter take off runs (12 prop blades vrs 4) and the ability to fly/land on 3 engines makes sense

[Ayahuasca]

Stickyfinger said:

Ayahuasca said:

They look like more modern horizontally opposed engines as opposed to the big old Pratt and Whitney radials. So as noted above, possibly more economical to keep going.

I would think the shorter take off runs (12 prop blades vrs 4) and the ability to fly/land on 3 engines makes sense

Actually, from the rear view, are the four engines turboprops?

[hidetheelephants]

Eric Mc said:

Why?

It's not terribly clear, 1400 bhp from 900kg with the extra drag of 4 engines over 900 bhp from 580kg from the Wasp Juniors doesn't present much of an advantage TBH. I'd assume the Lycomings gave better fuel consumption and perhaps the spares costs were lower. The later turboprop conversions gave a much more pronounced advantage in power and weight.