NEWS: Engineers Suspect Foam Hit Shuttle Wing During Liftoff - ABC News

Dale wrote:

Hell, even an _Airacobra_ might be able to take that bunch on. :-D



My dad flew those. Never had a bad thing to say about them.


What theater of the war was he in, and what altitude was he flying it at?
It was supposed to be a pretty good ground attack aircraft (the Soviets
loved it in that role, and wanted all of them we could supply), but had
real problems when flown at anything above about 10,000-15,000 feet due
to its lack of a supercharger.

But if
he'd been able to take a plane home after the war the way some guys
took home their service revolvers, I think it would have been a P-38.


Me, I'd take a Thunderbolt.

Pat

Dale wrote:




More likely a C-17, now that I think about it...



Errr, I was confusing civilian and military designations
there. I meant a Beech Staggerwing (UC-43), not a
Globemaster



Yeah, I was wondering- but that would have thrown them a real curve ball
over Normandy, wouldn't it? :-)

Pat

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:56:48 -0700, Dale wrote:

My dad flew those. Never had a bad thing to say about them. But if
he'd been able to take a plane home after the war the way some guys
took home their service revolvers, I think it would have been a P-38.

....I've heard that from more WWII pilot veterans than any other plane,
and I've heard less bitching about the P-38 than any other plane from
that era as well.

Me, I'd rather take home a Habu...:-)

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 02:55:56 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote:

Dale wrote:

Hell, even an _Airacobra_ might be able to take that bunch on. :-D

My dad flew those. Never had a bad thing to say about them.

What theater of the war was he in, and what altitude was he flying it at?
It was supposed to be a pretty good ground attack aircraft (the Soviets
loved it in that role, and wanted all of them we could supply), but had
real problems when flown at anything above about 10,000-15,000 feet due
to its lack of a supercharger.

Oh, he didn't shoot anybody, he flew them to the Russians. They then used
them to shoot people in a ground attack role, as you suggest. I have quite a
few pictures he took of other P-39s while in flight. Doesn't look like they
were too high up- maybe under 10,000 feet over the Yukon and Alaska.

He once flew one back to the factory which had suffered wing damage and
had a really makeshift patch job. He volunteered, as the other pilots said
they were too touchy to fly with any wing damage at all. It flew fine.

Dale

Dale wrote:


Oh, he didn't shoot anybody, he flew them to the Russians. They then used
them to shoot people in a ground attack role, as you suggest. I have quite a
few pictures he took of other P-39s while in flight. Doesn't look like they
were too high up- maybe under 10,000 feet over the Yukon and Alaska.

He once flew one back to the factory which had suffered wing damage and
had a really makeshift patch job. He volunteered, as the other pilots said
they were too touchy to fly with any wing damage at all. It flew fine.


It was supposed to have been a pretty tough aircraft, which is why the
Soviets liked it- of the 9,589 Airacobras made 4,779 went to the
Soviets, and Bell followed it up with the improved P-63 Kingcobra, of
which it built 3,362 and sent 2,456 to the Soviets.
It wasn't unknown for a Soviet Airacobra to suffer landing gear failure
and belly-land in the snow after a mission, get hoisted up and have its
landing gear fixed and a new propellor stuck on the front, and be back
in combat the next day. That's tough.

Pat