PDA

View Full Version : Hmm, that would have looked cool.



M2morris
06-05-2011, 06:27 PM
I was messing around with Gimp photo thing:
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/planegeek/HellcatsWP51-2.png

M2morris
06-05-2011, 06:27 PM
I was messing around with Gimp photo thing:
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/planegeek/HellcatsWP51-2.png

Badsight-
06-05-2011, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
Hmm, that would have looked cool. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
& it did!

http://iforce.co.nz/i/ui2lyven.1pe.jpg

IIRC, the ability to create curved Perspex canopys happened during the Mustangs development

M2morris
06-05-2011, 09:42 PM
Yep, the Bearcat is the first thing I thought of too, but it's not a Hellcat of 43-45.
I think bubble canopies and clear blown teardrops 'were' being used in Europe at the time.

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-05-2011, 11:19 PM
Ah... I think bubbletop canopies are overdestimated... most of my favorite planes have a razorback. I cannot imagine a P-36 or P-40 with a bubble. This look just odd:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/P-40Q.jpg

But I'm sure, oppinions differ here. ;-)

Luno13
06-06-2011, 12:14 AM
I'm with you on that Caspar. I think the P-51 A,B, and C look way better than the D. The same goes for P-47 razorback variants.

Stiletto-
06-06-2011, 02:58 AM
The experimental P-40 with the Merlin and bubble canopy was a very odd ugly plane indeed. Whre I would consider the original P-40's some of the best looking planes of the war.

Some planes don't look too bad with their bubble canopy versions but I can't imagine what a 109, G.55, RE.2002, MiG-3, Ki-61 or Hurricane would look like.. Planes like those would look so different.

WTE_Galway
06-06-2011, 03:55 AM
Corsair anyone ?

http://www.warbirddepot.com/dbimages/174/174-a-1280.jpg

http://www.aerosphere.com/Art_Collectors/Untitled/Corsair/corsair_lg.jpg

http://steeljawscribe.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/image/6a1740a27a1207ee46914f3973369263.jpg

... and what about this ...

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/CA-15.jpg/300px-CA-15.jpg

M2morris
06-06-2011, 11:12 AM
Yeah, God that P-40 is ugly alright. Some planes just don't look right with a bubble canopy. But then, I'll bet that P40 pilot can turn around well enough to see his own rudder trim tab if he wants to. So, sacrifice efficiency for looks? I think I would just get used to the bubble.
Edit: The front part of that P40s canopy needs to be flat in places. Thats what looks ugly about it.

Luno13
06-06-2011, 02:18 PM
Not to bash you Aussies, but the Kangaroo is arguably one of the ugliest airplanes to have ever been conceived. I find that the Boomerang is much more aesthetically pleasing, but I'm sure most would disagree with that.

The bubble-top Corsair looks ok, but I much prefer the sleek look of the birdcage:

http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k384/west-front/untitled-24.jpg

EJGrOst_Caspar
06-06-2011, 02:29 PM
Yes, the Kangaroo looks like a copied P-51D, with mismatched proportions...

I think, the reason for me, liking more razorbacks, is that it looks a bit more like a work machine and also more agressive. Bubbletops make a plane looking a bit like a funplane or acrobatic plane - a tool in short.

Just from the optical impression of course.

http://www.gaetanmarie.com/images/p36/p36-001.jpg

The red F4U looks ok at least, I must agree.



EDIT: I must reconsider my opinion partially, if it comes to japanese planes. Most of them have a birdcage, but in bubbletop shape. Its looking very good there, IMHO.

http://www.google.de/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.polish-aircraftprofile.strefa.pl/portfolio/slides/ki-44_2.jpg&sa=X&ei=_jntTcbNEM2VswbOoIXoCg&ved=0CAUQ8wc4Ow&usg=AFQjCNEb9s8UbmJk6kjPf2hlrnBdI8Svcg

Badsight-
06-06-2011, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luno13:
but I'm sure most would disagree with that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>CAC CA-15 is like a beast Mustang

up-sized for more power & speed (which it wasnt/didnt have)

that the H mustang ends up looking similar shows how different groups of men working in different parts of the world can come to the similar solutions to the same problem

WTE_Galway
06-08-2011, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Luno13:
but I'm sure most would disagree with that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>CAC CA-15 is like a beast Mustang

up-sized for more power & speed (which it wasnt/didnt have)

that the H mustang ends up looking similar shows how different groups of men working in different parts of the world can come to the similar solutions to the same problem </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CAC had been license building Mustangs since 1943.

I don't think they ever denied that the CA-15 was a P51D derivative, or at least very heavily influenced.

dwagener
06-09-2011, 01:02 PM
Hmmmmm. It's funny how the paint seems to be falling off those old Japanese planes, and the North American planes appear to hang to their paint quite well.

Nowadays it seems to be the converse, North American autos seem to lose their paint more readily than the Japanese imports.

It's just an observation, but maybe they learned something back in the Pacific from 1941 - 1945?