What Cockpit? MK VI
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being very literal, no it's not a suicide plane, though maybe you have to wonder a bit about those who were destined to drive it. Actually, from the privileged position of knowing what it is I thought it was quite well equipped!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitbag's challenge?
the incivil beast: Junkers Ju-248 aka Me-263
http://translate.google.com/translat...WE:en%26sa%3DN
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Townsville, Qld, Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About that LC-126 - J2F fiasco....
Profound apologies to all for my naivete in believing the USAF museum photo id when I posted the "LC-126" challenge.
I suppose the near-identical fuselage curves and the way Cessna modified the 170 to produce the single crew seat L-19 helped me delude myself. Also, because I knew the LC-126 was suspended from the museum ceiling, I ignored the Duck's cabane struts and wires, too. In the end, the only accurate clue I gave concerned the radial engine. Very embarrassing.
Evansb did a perfect job in correctly identifying the cockpit, despite the barriers I inadvertently erected. An difficult task extremely well done!
Glenn
I suppose the near-identical fuselage curves and the way Cessna modified the 170 to produce the single crew seat L-19 helped me delude myself. Also, because I knew the LC-126 was suspended from the museum ceiling, I ignored the Duck's cabane struts and wires, too. In the end, the only accurate clue I gave concerned the radial engine. Very embarrassing.
Evansb did a perfect job in correctly identifying the cockpit, despite the barriers I inadvertently erected. An difficult task extremely well done!
Glenn
Last edited by ozbeowulf; 27th Nov 2007 at 00:51.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incivil beast beat me to it. 
Perhaps. It was edited two minutes after I posted my response. You are correct, regardless, and I have dominated this thread lately, so it is your control. Well done
Perhaps. It was edited two minutes after I posted my response. You are correct, regardless, and I have dominated this thread lately, so it is your control. Well done
Last edited by evansb; 27th Nov 2007 at 02:32.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Townsville, Qld, Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Edited: Text removed because it no longer makes sense since an earlier post has been edited.]
Last edited by ozbeowulf; 27th Nov 2007 at 02:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The incivil beast and evansbe are both correct. For those who are wondering about the designations, the aircraft was a more refined development of the famous Me 163. It featured a retractrable undercarriage, pressurised cockpit and a dual chamber rocket motor giving increased endurance, armament was similar to the Komet. Because development progress was slow the whole project was handed over to Junkers who further refined the design, hence their designation. As the end of the war approached responsibility for it reverted to Messerschmitt. The V1 made several unpowered flights before it was captured by the Americans who gave it to the Russians and hence the MiG bureau who then developed the I270 from it. Confused?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: here
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted the Ju-248 first and having investigated a little further, I edited it a bit later to add the Me-263 denomination, without seeing evansb's post before I submited the edit.
evansb, thanks for your gentlemanhood, anyway
Here is the next whatcockpit (an easy one, I guess)
evansb, thanks for your gentlemanhood, anyway
Here is the next whatcockpit (an easy one, I guess)
Last edited by the incivil beast; 6th Apr 2009 at 22:20.