Some very sad news...
-
I must agree! :thumbsup:
-
As I understand it his 2400+ landings is still the record, the closest is about 2000ish for a US pilot but that includes second seat and passenger landing whilst Brown is actual landings. his record also includes the first multi engine landing, the first angled flight desk landing and the first jet landing on a aircraft carrier (and being the chief test pilot for the rubber deck project which involved landing a p[lane without landing gear on a rubber deck de Havilland Sea Vampire Flexible Deck Landing - YouTube[^]) another point is that a large proportion of these were on pre angled deck carriers which meant that if you missed the wires you crashed big time and not just got to go round again as a modern navy pilot gets to do
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Ahh, I heard in passing that a US pilot had beaten his record (not how). On thing I belive he also made the first tricycle under carriage landing (in a P63 Kingcobra). With Chuck Yeager one of the few orignals :thumbsup: :sigh: I will watch the rubber deck landing later, I have seen the photos in Wings On My Sleeve.
-
Ahh, I heard in passing that a US pilot had beaten his record (not how). On thing I belive he also made the first tricycle under carriage landing (in a P63 Kingcobra). With Chuck Yeager one of the few orignals :thumbsup: :sigh: I will watch the rubber deck landing later, I have seen the photos in Wings On My Sleeve.
not a p63 but a p39 - on an empty carrier (the crew wasn't expecting him and went for lunch) so no arrester gear was deployed but he still managed the landing not technically the first tricycle landing as one of the aircraft in ww1 was officially classed as a having one IIRC the US did try to beat his record but the pilot suffered a nervous breakdown before breaking 2000. seemingly Neil Armstrong wanted him for the moon landing but Brown refused to give up his British nationality
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
not a p63 but a p39 - on an empty carrier (the crew wasn't expecting him and went for lunch) so no arrester gear was deployed but he still managed the landing not technically the first tricycle landing as one of the aircraft in ww1 was officially classed as a having one IIRC the US did try to beat his record but the pilot suffered a nervous breakdown before breaking 2000. seemingly Neil Armstrong wanted him for the moon landing but Brown refused to give up his British nationality
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Truely he had 'them' of stainless steel, I though it was P63 King Cobra as it had a more powerful engine than P39 Cobra. I think it was a case 'tis better to plead forgiveness, than seek permisson' :), I didn't know of the moon landing, I would not be supprised though he seemed to be of a more stable personality than Buzz Alderin, a number of Brits worked on it (Authur C Clarke etc.)
-
Truely he had 'them' of stainless steel, I though it was P63 King Cobra as it had a more powerful engine than P39 Cobra. I think it was a case 'tis better to plead forgiveness, than seek permisson' :), I didn't know of the moon landing, I would not be supprised though he seemed to be of a more stable personality than Buzz Alderin, a number of Brits worked on it (Authur C Clarke etc.)
The P63 was pretty much a different aircraft to the P39 Airacobra (as named by the Brits) other than the layout, few parts were common between the two, they basically took a P39 replaced the wings with a different airfoil section, put a bigger engine in with a different supercharger, replaced the tail, up rated the undercarriage lengthened and strengthened fuselage and redesigned the nose and the cockpit layout but the guns were the same as was the cab door to the cockpit! but after all that it was inferior to the other allied fighters available so was fobbed off on the russians ps you were right about the tricycle carrier landing as the one I was aware of is not actually classed as a tricycle
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
The P63 was pretty much a different aircraft to the P39 Airacobra (as named by the Brits) other than the layout, few parts were common between the two, they basically took a P39 replaced the wings with a different airfoil section, put a bigger engine in with a different supercharger, replaced the tail, up rated the undercarriage lengthened and strengthened fuselage and redesigned the nose and the cockpit layout but the guns were the same as was the cab door to the cockpit! but after all that it was inferior to the other allied fighters available so was fobbed off on the russians ps you were right about the tricycle carrier landing as the one I was aware of is not actually classed as a tricycle
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
I was told by a friend of Dads who was on some trips to Russia (on a MAC) that the reason the Soviets liked the P-39 (P-63 as well I guess) it performed well a low to mid altitudes where the most of the fighting was done, also the cannon which the Soviet air force loved. However it could not climb well and in the P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra the engine was behind the pilot I guess they not fun to crash :wtf: !
-
I was told by a friend of Dads who was on some trips to Russia (on a MAC) that the reason the Soviets liked the P-39 (P-63 as well I guess) it performed well a low to mid altitudes where the most of the fighting was done, also the cannon which the Soviet air force loved. However it could not climb well and in the P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra the engine was behind the pilot I guess they not fun to crash :wtf: !
they were originally supposed to have both a supercharger and a turbo charger but when they built them they just couldn't fit the turbo with all the pipework it needed so it ended up with just the supercharger and it killed the mid to high altitude performance - exactly the zone the European air war was fought, so they dumped them on the Russians who found that anything was better than the i16's I doubt it was fun to crash any prop fighter, it would be difficult to choose between being squashed by a big engine and squashing into one either way it would leaver little to recover although there was that heinkel that had one in from and one behind the pilot so you got both versions
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
they were originally supposed to have both a supercharger and a turbo charger but when they built them they just couldn't fit the turbo with all the pipework it needed so it ended up with just the supercharger and it killed the mid to high altitude performance - exactly the zone the European air war was fought, so they dumped them on the Russians who found that anything was better than the i16's I doubt it was fun to crash any prop fighter, it would be difficult to choose between being squashed by a big engine and squashing into one either way it would leaver little to recover although there was that heinkel that had one in from and one behind the pilot so you got both versions
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Quote:
although there was that heinkel that had one in from and one behind the pilot so you got both versions
Ahh you mean the Dornier Do335 Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] not sure but I seem to remember some thing about it being the fast prop aircraft of WWII. As they say 'Taking off is optional, landing not so much!'.
-
Quote:
although there was that heinkel that had one in from and one behind the pilot so you got both versions
Ahh you mean the Dornier Do335 Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] not sure but I seem to remember some thing about it being the fast prop aircraft of WWII. As they say 'Taking off is optional, landing not so much!'.
that's the one, IIRC only a handful of pilots ever flew it (including Brown by the way) and whilst fast was a pig to fly and had a tendency for the rear engine to overheat and either sever the rear controls or set off the explosives that were installed to blow off the tail (so the pilot could bail out)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
that's the one, IIRC only a handful of pilots ever flew it (including Brown by the way) and whilst fast was a pig to fly and had a tendency for the rear engine to overheat and either sever the rear controls or set off the explosives that were installed to blow off the tail (so the pilot could bail out)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Mad, this weekend I am going find my copy of 'Wings on my sleeve', didn't he also fly the Me-163 (with out the rocket!) and a He-162 (wings held on with glue!)...