YAK 9 a P-39 copy?
ArtKramr
tools and dies. The YAK 9 looks very similiar. Is there any evidence that
Yakovlev copied the Aircobra and produced it under the YAK name?
F/O Arthur Kramer
344th Bomb Group 494th Bomb Squadron
9th Tactical Air Force
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Maiesm72
That's a pretty strange question.
The P-39 was a mid-engined aircraft with a tricycle landing gear. Other than
that it differed from the Yak 9 only in wing planform, location of wing to
fuselage, tail shape, length, wingspan, chord and almost everything else.
Was this supposed to be a humerous post?
Tom
ArtKramr
>From: maie...@aol.com (Maiesm72)
>Date: Sun, 03 October 1999 11:25 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991003232541...@ng-cl1.aol.com>
I recently met a Russian who flew with the Russian Air Force during the war. He
then emigrated to the US and said that he thought the P-39 and the Yak both had
a similiar aerodynamic feel when he flew them both. I never flew either, so I
don't know. But I was hoping that someone in this NG had flown both the P-39
and the Yak and could shed further light on the concept. And of course your
post is accurate, which makes the concept even more intersting. Do you know of
any Russians on this NG who might have flown both planes?
C.C. Jordan
>The US sent masses of P--39 Aircobras to Russia plus parts, blueprints and
>tools and dies. The YAK 9 looks very similiar. Is there any evidence that
>Yakovlev copied the Aircobra and produced it under the YAK name?
>
>F/O Arthur Kramer
>344th Bomb Group 494th Bomb Squadron
>9th Tactical Air Force
>England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Hi Art,
The Yakovlev fighters had nothing in common with the P-39.
The Yak-9 was an evolutionary aircraft having its roots in
the I-26 prototype of 1939.
Differences should be easy to spot. The P-39 had its engine
mounted behind the cockpit. The Yak had its engine mounted in
the more conventional location. The P-39 employed tricycle landing
gear. The Yaks were all tail draggers.
The early Yakovlev fighters used a great deal of wood in their
construction. The P-39 did not.
The Yak-3 series were very likely, the finest dogfighters developed
during the war. Terrific manueverability, tremendous climb rate and
400+ mph speed all combined to make the Yak-3 the most feared
of Soviet fighters. However, typical of most WWII Soviet liquid
cooled V-12 powered designs, they were under-gunned and not
especially durable. The later Lavochkins were far more resistant to battle
damage due to their excellent radial engines (La-5 thru La-7)
The Russians have always been among the premier innovators
in aviation. With the exception of the Tu-4, a copy of the B-29,
the Russians had never been prone to copy.
The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was the product of a company
who's lead designers were virtually all expatriate Russians (Seversky,
Gregor and Kartveli).
So, the answer to your question is no. The Soviets had little reason to
copy the P-39 when by 1943, they already had better designs in production
(Yak-7, Yak-9 and La-5FN). Soviet military aviation was indeed lacking in
several areas. However, the basic Soviet designed aircraft wasn't one of them.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org - Cradle of Aviation Museum
Maiesm72
It sure would be nice to hear from some of the Russian fighter pilots.
Have not seen any post, but stranger things happen on RAM virtually every day
:-)
Best wishes,
Tom
ArtKramr
>From: maie...@aol.com (Maiesm72)
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 12:43 AM EDT
>Message-id: <19991004004302...@ng-cq1.aol.com>
It would be nice to hear from a real Russian fighter pilot on this NG. :->
Robert Beechy
>The US sent masses of P--39 Aircobras to Russia plus parts, blueprints and
>tools and dies. The YAK 9 looks very similiar. Is there any evidence that
>Yakovlev copied the Aircobra and produced it under the YAK name?
>
Nope. There was an attempt at building an aircraft very similar in
concept to the P-39 by Gudkov, known variously as the Gu-1 and Gu-37.
Only one prototype was built. While it had a mid-mounted engine,
tricycle landing gear and nose-mounted armament, construction was
mostly wood, with some metal. Development was lengthy and the first
flight was not made until 1943. After a lengthy take-off run the
aircraft attained an altitude of 200m, sideslipped, and crashed,
killing the test pilot. Gudkov's design bureau was closed
subsequently.
Source: "The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft 1875-1995" by
Bill Gunston, ISBN 1-85532-405-9.
----
Robert
The Uncommon Aircraft Website: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8780/index.html
Newest addition: IAI Lavi
boob...@my-deja.com
> >It sure would be nice to hear from some of the Russian fighter
pilots.
Just so we're on the same page here, would you mind letting the group
know how many hours do you have logged as a pilot of any aircraft,
either during or after the war?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
boob...@my-deja.com
:>know how many hours do you have logged as a pilot of any aircraft,
:either during or after the war?
:26 Martin Marauder through 50 combat missions over France, Belgium
:Holland Italy and Germany.
Thank you for your reply. Perhaps you misunderstood the question, which
asked how many hours you have logged as the PILOT of any aircraft, not
as a crewmember, however admirable your history in such a role may have
been. While your list of accomplishments in wartime may have earned
you a number of medals, as far as the evaluation of aircraft goes, left-
seat experience can't be overlooked as crucially important.
Janne Kylliö
>The US sent masses of P--39 Aircobras to Russia plus parts, blueprints and
>tools and dies. The YAK 9 looks very similiar. Is there any evidence that
>Yakovlev copied the Aircobra and produced it under the YAK name?
Serious trolling alert. ;-).
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 09:40 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7taaor$vph$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <19991004020140...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
>
>> >It sure would be nice to hear from some of the Russian fighter
>pilots.
>
>know how many hours do you have logged as a pilot of any aircraft,
>either during or after the war?
>
>
Martin Marauder through 50 combat missions over France, Belgium Holland Italy
that go with the theatre ribbons including the German Army of Occupation medal.
Thanks for asking. How about you? I would be interested in your war experiences
now that I have given you mine.
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 07:05 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37f8886d...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>
>
>On 04 Oct 1999 02:32:44 GMT, artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>The US sent masses of P--39 Aircobras to Russia plus parts, blueprints and
>>tools and dies. The YAK 9 looks very similiar. Is there any evidence that
>>Yakovlev copied the Aircobra and produced it under the YAK name?
>>
>
>concept to the P-39 by Gudkov, known variously as the Gu-1 and Gu-37.
>Only one prototype was built. While it had a mid-mounted engine,
>tricycle landing gear and nose-mounted armament, construction was
>mostly wood, with some metal. Development was lengthy and the first
>flight was not made until 1943. After a lengthy take-off run the
>aircraft attained an altitude of 200m, sideslipped, and crashed,
>killing the test pilot. Gudkov's design bureau was closed
>subsequently.
>
>Source: "The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft 1875-1995" by
>Bill Gunston, ISBN 1-85532-405-9.
>----
>
>Robert
>The Uncommon Aircraft Website:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8780/index.html
>Newest addition: IAI Lavi
>
wrong or I missunderstood him. Thanks again. I never saw a YAK all during the
war.
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 11:59 AM EDT
>Message-id: <19991004115945...@ng-fe1.aol.com>
>
>> boob...@my-deja.com
>
>>Just so we're on the same page here, would you mind letting the group
>>know how many hours do you have logged as a pilot of any aircraft,
>>either during or after the war?
>
>
>Since you didn't sign your name, who are you?
>
>Tom
>
He was asking the question of me. I have about 100 hours stick time in B-26's,
C-47's and A-26 Douglas invaders. Note that he never replied to my request that
he give us his flying experiences. What do you think that means?. (grin)
Maiesm72
boob...@my-deja.com
> artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
So, just so we're all understanding where you're coming from, then,
it's pretty safe to say that you have zero pilot in command time of any
aircraft and have never made an unassisted or unmonitored takeoff or
landing, correct? After all, it's no big trick to have "stick time" in
an aircraft in flight--until recently, after all, it was not uncommon
(especially among non-US carriers) to occasionally let a passenger sit
in the co-pilot's seat of a commercial airliner (unofficially, of
course) for a few minutes while the crew showed him some of the bells
and whistles. Your lack of "stick time" in any single engine aircraft,
much less primary trainers, would indicate that your training in basic
airmanship or aerodynamics is slim to none.
Again, none of this has any bearing on your fine and meritorious
service record. I'm simply trying to figure out how much trust to
place in your flying insights, and even if those 100 hours were all
pilot in command time, 100 hours over 55 years just isn't that much.
I am a commercially-rated pilot with 2900 hours of flying experience in
a variety of General Aviation aircraft, including gliders, hot-air
balloons, and 40 hours in jets. I do not have a military record of any
sort. However, my work of 30 years involved designing weapons
systems. I don't pretend that my work is experience equivalent to
serving in combat. Perhaps you should stop pretending that your
experience is equivalent to piloting an airplane.
Maiesm72
Troll?
I think that I'll join with a lot of other people and just ignore posts from
people who won't use their name, especially when they can't answer a simple
question.
BTW, hitching rides and quite often right seat (or rear, or front, as the case
may be) for more than thirty years along with slowly getting to my license has
netted me over 150 hours.
Lots of Spamcans, B-17, B-24, B-29, NA-50, Pt-19, PT-26, Ryans of several
types, Seabee, F.27, Beaver, PT-17, Bushmaster 2000 (look that one up), S.58,
T-33, B-25, PV-2 and a half dozen others.
Now that I can afford it I'll get my license and probably club a Spamcan, but
those warbirds are still the most fun. Nothing compared to an hour of combat
flying, just fun.
Cheers,
Tom
Gordon
web or a bookstore and find a three view of the two aircraft and compare them,
with special attention given to engine placement. Outside of very basic
similarities in planform, the two aircraft are not similar. Yakovlev had
designed many aircraft prior to the Yak-9, and each of them were stepping
stones toward it. The P-39 was from a completely different school of thought.
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
"Senso, got anything on your radar?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."
Gordon
>Whoever asked this question, I would like to suggest...<
If it was you, Art, then I apologize -- after I re-read my post, it sounded
pretty snotty and that wasn't my intent.
v/r
Gordon
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 01:26 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7tao0c$ako$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
coming from. Nowhere.
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 12:26 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991004122626...@ng-fe1.aol.com>
read my many posts making it clear that I was a Bombardier Navigator and never
said I was a piilot or anything near that. I guess he just can't read too well
and is the only one who doesn't know I spent the war in the nose of a B-26.
The B-26 Marauder was never fun. It was like trying to control a high speed
garbage truck. The C-47 was a pussycat. just think it and the plane goes there.
But the A-26 Invader was the best of all. It was like a twin engine fighter,
Fast and agile and light on its feet. When you were in a Marauder you felt as
though it didn't want to fly. But the Invader felt like it couldn't wait to get
into the air. I don't fly anymore. Y'know, those planes can get you killed.
(grin)
boob...@my-deja.com
> I guess that guy with no name who accused me of pretending to be a
>pilot never
>read my many posts making it clear that I was a Bombardier Navigator
>and never
>said I was a piilot or anything near that. I guess he just can't read
>too well
>26.
>The B-26 Marauder was never fun. It was like trying to control a high
>speed
>garbage truck. The C-47 was a pussycat. just think it and the plane
>goes there.
>But the A-26 Invader was the best of all. It was like a twin engine
>fighter,
>Fast and agile and light on its feet. When you were in a Marauder you
>felt as
>though it didn't want to fly. But the Invader felt like it couldn't
>wait to get
>into the air. I don't fly anymore. Y'know, those planes can get you
>killed.
For all my detractors: read's Art's post above. Of course he was a
b/n. When he's swimming in a particular mode of braggadoccio he never
fails to disclose this. However, other times, he often takes effort to
hide this when trying to impress expertise on other points. I found
his above response almost incredulous. He claims to never claim to be
a pilot, and then proceeds to tell us how it felt to handle different
aircraft. Well, to be fair, today he put in some weasel words to let
him claim that he was just pointing out how it felt for him as a
passenger. Usually he doesn't. Read some of his other posts and you'd
swear that he was a fighter pilot, Marauder pilot, etc.
How well can YOU tell from the back of an MD-80 whether it handles like
a flying garbage truck or not? To anybody who thinks that Arthur's
figure of "100 hours" stick time isn't overstated by a factor of about
10: Bridge for sale. Prime location, East River.
Pete
<boob...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> Perhaps you should stop pretending that your
> experience is equivalent to piloting an airplane.
Perhaps you should just go back to trolling the Linux NG's...
Pete
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 04:17 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7tb20o$im8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
F/O Arthur Kramer
ArtKramr
PLONK !
Tom Cosgrave
ArtKramr <artk...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>
> I never pretended any such thing or even close. But now we know where you
are
> coming from. Nowhere.
Art,
I think he is coming from somewhere....his ass.
Tom
--
--
Tom Cosgrave
{ t...@tomcosgrave.com }
{ http://www.tomcosgrave.com }
"Wasted your life in black and white, Kevin Carter"
Maiesm72
credence whatsoever in a person who will not put their name to a posting.
Just me, I guess.
Tom
Maiesm72
>Y'know, those planes can get you killed.
Yeah, only too well :-(
The PV-2 that I flew two or three times (right seat with lots of attention from
the pilot/owner) ended up killing seven people, some of them friends. He pushed
the envelope way too far and dumped her into a lake.
One one occasion I passed on flying a mission with our local sheriff's air
patrol because the pilot refused to do a preflight of any kind and the aircraft
was in poor condition. A month later he crashed, killing himself and a
passenger. That was a 185, not a warbird, but the results are the same.
Most of the warbirds are 50+ years old. I guess we risk it every time we go up,
but I, personally, feel that the risk is worth it. I know one thing, my
insurance is paid up and sizeable with appropriate risk premiums.
If you ever get up to the SF Bay Area drop me a line and we'll take you out in
one of the birds.
Tom
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 06:49 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991004184928...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
Thanks for the offer. I sure will. Providing it is not a Marauder :->
ArtKramr
>Message-id: <19991004183917...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
He has already said that he has no flying experience, no miliitary experience
and no experience useful to this NG whatever. That takes care of him. (grin)
Gordon
>Most of the warbirds are 50+ years old. I guess we risk it every time we go
>up,
>but I, personally, feel that the risk is worth it. I know one thing, my
>insurance is paid up and sizeable with appropriate risk premiums.
At the Planes of Fame Museum's Rollout/Lecture on the Me-262 this past
Saturday, the discussion lead by Ed Mahoney and Hans Busch was highlighted by a
Bf-109E-4 that kept making high speed dives and passes down the runway. Quite
glorious actually, watching it race around in the same skies as a pair of P-51s
giving rides to well-heeled av-fans.
The Bf-109E-4 is the actual machine used by Marseille when he was a worthless
pup in France, prior to the development of his "shooter's eye". When he was
transferred to North Africa to meet his glroy and fate, the tired old E-4 was
sent Eastward to join the debacle in Russia... Months later, ground fire
brought it down in a heap where it was captured by Soviet forces. Years after
the war, some bureaucratic BS required the local Oblast Commander to report on
what German equipment still existed and by what method it was destroyed -- to
make it official, the Sovjets drove a T-34 over the mangled wreckage, wiping
out large chunks of the thing. That apparently filled the requirement for
"total destruction" and the remaining debris was dumped in a scrap landfill.
Years later, Westerners seeking the prize located it and for the minor ransom
of (I think) $115,000, the pile of junk was turned over to a guy that rebuilt
it into 1941 condition. Its GLORIOUS.
The reason I am wasting bandwidth to type all of this is to point out that
following its high speed passes and dives, it landed and was immediately
inspected... The airframe had stood the test just fine -- however, it had shed
three access panels on just one of the dives! Point is, even on thoroughly
maintained and meticulously restored aircraft, things that old break.... Be
careful up there, chaps...
v/r
Gordon
Gordon
>a variety of General Aviation aircraft, including gliders, hot-air
>balloons, and 40 hours in jets. I do not have a military record of any
>sort.
Aaahh. Ok, no we know what your experience level is, in regards to combat
aircraft. Thanks for the clarification.
v/r
Gordon
Gordon
>How well can YOU tell from the back of an MD-80 whether it handles like
>a flying garbage truck or not? >
I'm willing to bet that if you were riding in the nose of the MD-80 while it
tried to hold formation with about 100 other aircraft, you could probably make
a fairly accurate assessment. No one in the bombadier's position was riding
there with his eyes closed and his ears shut -- trust me on one item: pilots
feel perfectly free to tell the crew all sorts of uncomfortable details, all
leading to the crew having a fairly good handle on that a/c's flying
performance. Then, when that NFO or crewman gets a chance to "take the stick",
guess what they do? They spend half the time giving little warnings, just to
make SURE you understand that you are flying a greased pig.
> To anybody who thinks that Arthur's
>figure of "100 hours" stick time isn't overstated by a factor of about
>10: Bridge for sale. Prime location, East River.
Bridge for sale. One occupant under bridge. See advertiser for further details.
I have read probably 500 of Art's postings over the last 12-18 months and we
tend to disagree almost as often as we agree, but one thing I am completely
sure of is that he has NEVER attempted to convince anyone that he was a combat
pilot. Your comments, boob-aabaaa, are way off base. Not surprising, since
you never flew from one.
n/r
Gordon
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 07:45 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991004194554...@ng-cn1.aol.com>
> Point is, even on thoroughly
>maintained and meticulously restored aircraft, things that old break.... Be
>careful up there, chaps...
>
>v/r
>Gordon
Right. I wouldn't get into a 55 year old Marauder under any circumstances.They
could kill you on a whim when they were brand new.
wal...@oneimage.com
>snip a ton:
Not a chance in the world. First off the Yak9 was a logical
progression from the Yak1 though the YAK3. Secondly the YAK9
has a conventionally mounted engine compared to the P39's 'engine
behind". If you wanted to compare a YAK9 to any other single liquid
cooled engine fighter the Dewoitine 520 comes about as close as any.
Except the Russians and Yakolev were quite capable of designing
their own airplanes to meet their own requirements - then as well
as now. If you're thinking 'copying' applies because of the Yak9's
coaxial cannon firing through the prop - a WW1 Spad had the same
type installation - 37mm!
BTW - were you trolling when you submitted this rather off the
wall question?
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
silverpelican
boob...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <19991004111549...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> > artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> So, just so we're all understanding where you're coming from, then,
> it's pretty safe to say that you have zero pilot in command time of
any
> aircraft and have never made an unassisted or unmonitored takeoff or
> landing, correct? After all, it's no big trick to have "stick time"
in
> an aircraft in flight--until recently, after all, it was not uncommon
> (especially among non-US carriers) to occasionally let a passenger sit
> in the co-pilot's seat of a commercial airliner (unofficially, of
> course) for a few minutes while the crew showed him some of the bells
> and whistles. Your lack of "stick time" in any single engine
aircraft,
> much less primary trainers, would indicate that your training in basic
> airmanship or aerodynamics is slim to none.
>
> Again, none of this has any bearing on your fine and meritorious
> service record. I'm simply trying to figure out how much trust to
> place in your flying insights, and even if those 100 hours were all
> pilot in command time, 100 hours over 55 years just isn't that much.
in
> a variety of General Aviation aircraft, including gliders, hot-air
> balloons, and 40 hours in jets. I do not have a military record of
any
> systems. I don't pretend that my work is experience equivalent to
> experience is equivalent to piloting an airplane.
>
come on the NG, and that would be nice. BTW, just what kind of weapon
systems did you design for those General Aviation aircraft. I didn't
know they could even be armed.
I might add that combat experience in anything is a hell of a lot more
dangerous than gliders or hot air balloons. As you are a newby in RAM,
it would be good if you just sat quietly or pushed off.
--
There is no Lumber Cartel and silverpelican is not unit# 1932.
"It was necessary to destroy the village in order
to save it". Tet,1968
silverpelican
boob...@my-deja.com wrote:
snip
> For all my detractors: read's Art's post above. Of course he was a
> b/n. When he's swimming in a particular mode of braggadoccio he never
> fails to disclose this. However, other times, he often takes effort
to
> hide this when trying to impress expertise on other points. I found
> his above response almost incredulous. He claims to never claim to be
> a pilot, and then proceeds to tell us how it felt to handle different
> aircraft. Well, to be fair, today he put in some weasel words to let
> him claim that he was just pointing out how it felt for him as a
you'd
> swear that he was a fighter pilot, Marauder pilot, etc.
>
like
> figure of "100 hours" stick time isn't overstated by a factor of about
> 10: Bridge for sale. Prime location, East River.
>
today, you had zip posts to any aviation or military NG.
What you are is a fucking troll. Shove off to alt.linux.advocacy or
whatever.
Your credence in this NG is worn out.
(For the last 1000 posts or so, silverpelican has been silverpelican
and will remain so.)
silverpelican
silverpelican
jan...@cc.tut.fi wrote:
> ArtKramr <artk...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
> >The US sent masses of P--39 Aircobras to Russia plus parts,
blueprints and
> >tools and dies. The YAK 9 looks very similiar. Is there any evidence
that
> >Yakovlev copied the Aircobra and produced it under the YAK name?
>
>
> --
> jan...@cc.tut.fi
>
Oh, I think Art was trying to get a thread started and succeeded. As it
turned out, there was a troll but it wasn't Art.
Incidently, the follow on to the P-39 was the P-63 and I understand the
entire production run went to the Sovs at their request.
--
Tom Cosgrave
ArtKramr <artk...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>
Goddamn, those Norden sights really are good ;-)
Tom
--
--
Tom Cosgrave
freelance webdesigner
{ http://www.tomcosgrave.com/design }
home
Maiesm72
>The reason I am wasting bandwidth to type all of this
Uh, this IS the military aviation newsgroup. Far from wasting bandwidth, this
is the kind of post most of us come hear to read.
Thank you.
Tom
ArtKramr
>From: krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Gordon)
>Message-id:
>I have read probably 500 of Art's postings over the last 12-18 months and we
500 POSTINGS ???!!!! Wow. I guess I do talk a lot. Think I'll listen for a
while. (grin)
C.C. Jordan
>Art
>
>>Y'know, those planes can get you killed.
>
>Yeah, only too well :-(
>
>The PV-2 that I flew two or three times (right seat with lots of attention from
>the pilot/owner) ended up killing seven people, some of them friends. He pushed
>the envelope way too far and dumped her into a lake.
>
>One one occasion I passed on flying a mission with our local sheriff's air
>patrol because the pilot refused to do a preflight of any kind and the aircraft
>was in poor condition. A month later he crashed, killing himself and a
>passenger. That was a 185, not a warbird, but the results are the same.
>
>Most of the warbirds are 50+ years old. I guess we risk it every time we go up,
>but I, personally, feel that the risk is worth it. I know one thing, my
>insurance is paid up and sizeable with appropriate risk premiums.
>
>If you ever get up to the SF Bay Area drop me a line and we'll take you out in
>one of the birds.
>
>Tom
Back in 1977, I was a flight engineer flying several different Naval transports.
One C-131F I logged time in, suffered a serious fire in #1 engine on the ground
shortly after start up. 3 or 4 years later, this same Convair tumbled into the
St. Johns river in short final into NAS Jax. Leaving Jax just 15 minutes
earlier, a fire developed in #1 engine (again!). Being just over max gross
weight, the pilots elected not to feather the engine and turn off the fuel
selector. The fire eventually burned through the firewall into the wing and
exploded a fuel tank. The only survivor, a female flight attendent, was able to
provide the specific circumstances of the crash.
Ultimately, the cause of the fire was traced to a stainless steel
hard fuel line in the accessory section. The line had been weakened,
apparently by the original fire but had not been replaced. The pilot's
inexcusably bad judgment was the cause of the crash. Simply cutting the
supply of fuel would have avoided the explosion. Certainly the fire would have
self extinguished without fuel. At that point, fuel could have been dumped
to reduce weight.
Anyway, I was long gone by then. My local newspaper carried a photo of the
doomed Convair (taken by a boater on the river) with fire extending beyond
the tail surfaces.
Another case of death due to dumbass (I believe 16 passengers and crew were
killed).
I believe the Bureau number was 141008, but it was a long time ago.
My regards,
C.C. Jordan
The Planes and Pilots of WWII Internet Magazine
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.cradleofaviation.org - Cradle of Aviation Museum
Gordon
I read an article today concerning a US FG, the 31st, that was sent to Englad
to fly the P-39 in combat in the ETO. When they arrived, some of the P-39s
that had been given to the Brits were not even uncrated! The RAF simply didnt
have enough "pilots to waste in poorly performing aircraft". The 31st came
over and found that the a/c they expected, the P-39, was simply not good enough
to compete in European skies, so they were given reverse-Lend/Lease Spitfire MK
V and IX fighters, and accounted well for themselves. Later, the 31st was
shipped to North Africa to participate in Operation Torch where they again did
yeoman duty. I thought the photos of the tired and aging Spits, complete with
British roundels under the wings and stars and bars on the fuselage made a
perfect statement about the cooperation that they represented.
Now, back to the mucly-maligned P-39s. What happened to those crates...?
Shipped on to Murmansk, "With lots of Luck, signed, RAF"?
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 10:59 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37f96...@206.168.123.253>
Nope. A Russian pilot gave me the info. Either he was wrong, or I misunderstood
him. I never saw a Yak in my life.
Tom Cosgrave
Maiesm72 <maie...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Most of the warbirds are 50+ years old. I guess we risk it every time we
go up,
> but I, personally, feel that the risk is worth it. I know one thing, my
> insurance is paid up and sizeable with appropriate risk premiums.
I said this before, and got poo-poohed, but I think the way around these is
to build copies of the warbirds.
Tom Cosgrave
ArtKramr <artk...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>
circumstances.They
> could kill you on a whim when they were brand new.
I guess that's a result of war.
They weren't perfect, but they were needed, and so, sent out without the
bugs in the aircraft being fully "ironed out".
In fact - it's kinda like Microsoft ;-)
Lawrence Nyveen
> artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >snip a ton:
>
> Not a chance in the world. First off the Yak9 was a logical
> progression from the Yak1 though the YAK3.
Walt -
The Yak 3 is actually a later model than the Yak 9. Those goofy Soviets!
Laurie Nyveen nyv...@videotron.canada
a.k.a. Webs, member of the WarBirds training staff
_____________________________________________________________________
Editor, Netsurfer Digest - http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/index.html
101 Sqn opus-in-progress - http://101.warbirds.org/
DNRC Minister of Adding "ue" to Words That End in "log"
"All we are, basically, are monkeys with car keys."
- Grandma Woody (Northern Exposure)
Please shorten canada to ca to e-mail me. Sorry.
Ken Duffey
And the Supermarine Spitfire Mk VII (8) was a LATER model than a Spit Mk IX
(9).
This was because of different development lines and the 'stop-gap' appearance
of the Mk IX while the slower, more measured, development of the Mk VIII took
place.
Us goofy Brits !
I can't think of an example off hand, but I am sure the US can throw up
similar oddities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.lindenhillimports.com/flankers.htm
S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
>
> Re: P-39s to England
>
> I read an article today concerning a US FG, the 31st, that was sent to Englad
> to fly the P-39 in combat in the ETO. When they arrived, some of the P-39s
> that had been given to the Brits were not even uncrated! The RAF simply didnt
> have enough "pilots to waste in poorly performing aircraft".
My guess it should read "did not had enough poorly trained pilots to
waste in poorly performing aircraft" :) At that time when P-39 arrived
to Britain, RAF's ass, even through seated in the Spit, had been kicked
over France. According to "Clash of Wings" on PBS, in 1942 RAF operation
over France, Luftwaffe outscore Brits 4:1. One could only wonder how bad
things would had been if RAF used P-39. While P-39 was no kick ass
fighter, Russians showed that they were more then capoble blowing
Luftwaffe out of the sky. Many top Russian aces flew P-39's, they
outscored British aces in Spits, and where never shot down in combat. I
guess it is all back to quality of the pilot. Good pilot would always
win over the poor one, even if poor one is flying red hot plane.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
wal...@oneimage.com
>In article <37f96...@206.168.123.253>, wal...@oneimage.com wrote:>
>> artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
>> >snip a ton:
>>The Yak 3 is actually a later model than the Yak 9. Those goofy Soviets!
>>Laurie Nyveen
Roj. Should have remembered that; just got through reading Bill
Gunston's two books on Soviet fighters. Parallel development, actually.
YAK3 for air superiority over the FEBA; YAK9 (later on) for support of
the troops and some air superiority. Both low altitude light weight
fighters with considerably less (but still adequate for a good gunner)
armament then comparable Allied fighters. Designed strictly according
to Soviet needs of the moment using materials and methods Soviets had
in plenty. Both were excellent weapons in their chosen environment. But
neither of them had any 'genes' of the P39.
FWIW there was one Soviet aircraft built with the 'engine behind'
I forget who built it or its designation but it was supremely ugly, an
armored battlefield cannoneer, and the Russian nickname was Russian for
'hunchback'. Yes, it was as ugly as Charles Laughton in 'The Hunchback of
Note dame." {probably flew the same way, too.)
HarHill
>
>I read an article today concerning a US FG, the 31st, that was sent to Englad
>to fly the P-39 in combat in the ETO. When they arrived, some of the P-39s
>that had been given to the Brits were not even uncrated!
I have to check but I believe some P-39's were flown from England to Africa (
via Gibralter ) along with P-38's after Torch. Some force landed in Portugal
and were impounded and later impressed into Portuguese AF service. I do know
Jack Ilfrey landed his P-38 there and even escaped after refueling. A great
story in itself.
Harold
Gordon
>and were impounded and later impressed into Portuguese AF service. I do know
>Jack Ilfrey landed his P-38 there and even escaped after refueling. A great
>story in itself.
Happy Jack is in fine form these days -- he was seated at our table at the
American Fighter Aces Association reunion dinner last month -- great stories!
I am very glad to report he was in great shape, too..
v/r
Gordon
Arthur Perrin
story is that the Americans didn't want to fly it because the prop shaft went
between their legs and they were afraid ot the results if one let go!
Arthur Perrin
chunk
> >a flying garbage truck or not? >
>
It didn't take long in the back of an S-3B Viking to tell whether you had a
good stick or not...When you are concentrating real hard on what is going on
with the aircraft, such as night trap, you can tell whether you should be
sweating, even from the SENSO seat. I am aware of at least one crew that
ejected after a low altitude stall in which the only person to seem to
recognize the buffeting for what they were was the SENSO. (Good job, Tuna!)
Kevin "chunk" Brady
Gordon
>FWIW there was one Soviet aircraft built with the 'engine behind'
>I forget who built it or its designation but it was supremely ugly, an
>armored battlefield cannoneer, and the Russian nickname was Russian for
>'hunchback'. Yes, it was as ugly as Charles Laughton in 'The Hunchback of
>Note dame." {probably flew the same way, too.)
> Walt
A "Gorbac"..?
Stephen Harding
> Happy Jack is in fine form these days -- he was seated at our table at the
> American Fighter Aces Association reunion dinner last month -- great stories!
> I am very glad to report he was in great shape, too..
Boy I'll bet he had some great stories!!!
Ilfrey of course gained ace status in his P-38, avoided internment in
Portugal by tricking authorities into filling up his plane and then
getting away, causing an international incident, got shot down over France
and made it back to England, and even landed his P-51 in Germany to pick
up a shot down comrade. The book "Happy Jack's Go Buggy" even has a
picture of him readying his wife for an "unauthorized" ride in his P-38.
The guy knew no bounds and seemed to live to the limit!
Yep, I'll bet that guy had some stories to tell!!!
SMH
wal...@oneimage.com
Umm - Gorbach or Gorback - ISTR.
BJ
Arthur Perrin
the Hurricane, Spitfire and 109 . Certainly looks like a Hurricane.
Arthur Perrin.
wal...@oneimage.com wrote:
> nyv...@videotron.canada (Lawrence Nyveen) wrote:
> >In article <37f96...@206.168.123.253>, wal...@oneimage.com wrote:>
> >> artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >> >snip a ton:
> >>>Walt -
> >>The Yak 3 is actually a later model than the Yak 9. Those goofy Soviets!
> >>Laurie Nyveen
>
> Roj. Should have remembered that; just got through reading Bill
> Gunston's two books on Soviet fighters. Parallel development, actually.
> YAK3 for air superiority over the FEBA; YAK9 (later on) for support of
> the troops and some air superiority. Both low altitude light weight
> fighters with considerably less (but still adequate for a good gunner)
> armament then comparable Allied fighters. Designed strictly according
> to Soviet needs of the moment using materials and methods Soviets had
> in plenty. Both were excellent weapons in their chosen environment. But
> neither of them had any 'genes' of the P39.
> FWIW there was one Soviet aircraft built with the 'engine behind'
> I forget who built it or its designation but it was supremely ugly, an
> armored battlefield cannoneer, and the Russian nickname was Russian for
> 'hunchback'. Yes, it was as ugly as Charles Laughton in 'The Hunchback of
> Note dame." {probably flew the same way, too.)
> Walt BJ ftr plt ret
Vladimir Malukh
ArtKramr wrote:
>
> The US sent masses of P--39 Aircobras to Russia plus parts, blueprints and
> tools and dies. The YAK 9 looks very similiar. Is there any evidence that
> Yakovlev copied the Aircobra and produced it under the YAK name?
>
Have you been thinking before sending that post?
Do you have any knowledge about avaition technology
background? P-39 has almost unique design, I hardly
can remeber anything similar to it, epxept of
P-63. Engine is different place, which forces
complettlyy different to other a/c design
solutions, like landing gear with nose leg.
Yak fighters design (from Yak-1 to Yak-9)
is very similar to each other and in most coming
from I-26 proptotype (1939). They has nothing
in common to P-39 exept of two wings,
one engine, one pilot, vertical and horizontal tails.
But in that case almost all of WWII figthers are
the same and copied from P-39, which is as
you americans say BS :)
--
Vladimir Malukh
-----------------------------------------
Vladimir Malukh
wal...@oneimage.com wrote:
>
> artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >snip a ton:
>
> Not a chance in the world. First off the Yak9 was a logical
> progression from the Yak1 though the YAK3.
Not quite correct. In fact Yak-3 (Yak-1M) was logical
progression from Yak-1, while Yak-9 was development
of Yak-7. Both Yak-1 and Yak-7 were parallel developments.
--
Vladimir Malukh
-----------------------------------------
Vladimir Malukh
Arthur Perrin wrote:
>
> Chris Ellis in "Combat Aircraft" says the Yak 1-9 design was influenced by
> the Hurricane, Spitfire and 109 . Certainly looks like a Hurricane.
> Arthur Perrin.
>
In that case all of them are "copies" of Polikarpov I-17 :):)
It was shown on some exhebition in mid of 30-s.
--
Vladimir Malukh
-----------------------------------------
Joe Trnka
one design to resemble another. That's the logical outcome of the similar
application of similar technology at a similar point in time.
It is entirely another thing to say that one design is a "copy" of another.
This implies no independent research, equipment, or technological
application. That would be absurd in this instance because the Yak design
bureau was a very capable design group that produced unique, robust,
excellent fighters.
Remember, Soviet design bureaus were limited more by an industrial base that
had just recently been created than by intelligence or ability of the
designers. They may appear conservative to us now, but remember the
limitations on them at the time.
Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote in message
news:38015C70...@propro.ru...
Agtabby
the Russian designers did amazingly well.
Consider they had less resources, less advanced technology, and he usual
problems of living in a system where the wrong opinion can get you killed.
The USSR produced planes that were well suited to their task, and in large
numbers. Sure their designs were influenced by others, but that was true of
everybody.
This is not to defend the Soviet system. Nazi Germany produced brilliant
designs, but I am not fan of the Nazis. I hate the Illinois Nazis.
Andrew
Boban
Agtabby <agt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991024142636...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
> I am US citizen, and about as anti-USSR a person as you will find. That
said
> the Russian designers did amazingly well.
Why would youv be anti-USSR? what have they donr to you?
> The USSR produced planes that were well suited to their task, and in large
> numbers. Sure their designs were influenced by others, but that was true
of
> everybody.
It was very hard to make something revolutionary new in those days .
> This is not to defend the Soviet system. Nazi Germany produced brilliant
> designs, but I am not fan of the Nazis. I hate the Illinois Nazis.
>
System has nothing to do with he issue.Soviets made some great airplanes
like YAK-9 and Americans had nothing to do with it.P-39 is completely
different airplane,but original question was asked by Art Kramer notorious
Russian-haterwho wants to deminish Russian contribution in ally victory in
W.W.II
ArtKramr
>Date: Mon, 25 October 1999 09:46 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7v1n1f$39j$1...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu>
>but original question was asked by Art Kramer notorious
>Russian-haterwho wants to deminish Russian contribution in ally victory in
>W.W.II
>
I am not a Russian hater. I just hate those Russians who have come to the US
and Canada and then demean and insult everything Ameican and Canadian and
praise Russia, a country that they ran away from and won't return to. But I
should point out that Russia fought only for Russia, The Western Allies fought
to save France, Belgium and Holland, a huge sacrifice to save others and free
the western world restoring democracy. Democracy was the last thing that the
Russians had in mind .It was one brutal dictatorship vs another brutal
dictatorship. Hobson's choice at best. Also, I trace part of my ancestry to
Kremenchug in the Ukraine. But I would never in my wildest dreams suggest that
Russia or the Ukrainie are better places to live than America. One has to be
demented to even consider such a thing.
F/O Arthur Kramer
344th Bomb Group, 9th Air Force
KDBANGLIA
>
>Agtabby <agt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19991024142636...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
>> I am US citizen, and about as anti-USSR a person as you will find. That
>said
>> the Russian designers did amazingly well.
>
>Why would youv be anti-USSR? what have they donr to you?
>
>
This is an interesting point. In the previous posters line he writes "I am US
citizen..." and not "I am a US citizen..." Is he a new national?
I don't know the name of this phenomenon but my brother who was British, joined
the USAF and served in 'nam and at one point my mother was told that 'he was
more American than the Americans'. Is it these people who give the older
generations of the US who are not as rabid, a bad name to the world?
Kick their arses in line, I say! ;-)
Richard.
C.C. Jordan
>I am US citizen, and about as anti-USSR a person as you will find. That said
>the Russian designers did amazingly well.
Andrew, I would suggest that a far better way of evaluating people is one
at a time. Take each person as they come on their individual merit. Every
culture and nationality has its share of buttheads (for lack of a better term).
It's bad practice to define a people by the government that rules over them.
If we use that measurement on ourselves, what does the Clinton administration
say about Americans?
>
>Consider they had less resources, less advanced technology, and he usual
>problems of living in a system where the wrong opinion can get you killed.
The Russian's were not behind in terms of aviation technology. On the contrary,
Russian designers have been on the cutting edge since aviation's infancy.
Seversky, Sikorsky, Gregor, Kartveli, Tupolev, Yakovlev, Petlyakov, Myasishchev,
Illyushin, Beriev and dozens like them were all brilliant designers and
innovators.
It was the Communist Revolution that resulted in the first four on the above
list designing aircraft for America.
I don't know how many aircraft were designed exclusively by Native
Americans, certainly damn few. The aircraft that served this nation in peace
and war were, by and large, the product of immigrants and their decendents.
And, no small number of those were Russian.
Boban
all people should know that it has nothing to do with P-39.
ArtKramr <artk...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message