Here’s Howard’s 262 and a shot of a possible racing Star, I am not sure what it was really, But if Mr Rob or anyone else know’s please tell us all.

The P-80 in the that pic is the prototype, not a racer. The Me-262 had very unreliable engines, and while the engine in the P-80 was basically of the same generation it had much greater reliability.

The simple reason is that the Me-262 used the Jumo axial flow engine whose design parameters were far in excess of its components to deliver. Main problem was poor strength alloys in the compressor blades, if they didn’t expand and hit the casing they broke and went through the casing.

On the other hand the P-80 has a workmanlike Whittle designed centrifugal flow engine which although primitive by our current standards didn’t attempt to overstretch the technological envelope and thus was more reliable.

The reality was that the Me-262 was half a generation behind the P-80. Also as to finish – the 262s came from the factory with their panel joins sealed and taped. If Hughes did that to his, which is conjectural at best, he was only doing what Messershmidt had done in the first place.

he heh he … he said Beaver…. Why is it we Canucks don’t necesarily find anything perverse in that???

and ssshh…. Kylie was away when Keira was over

I have often thought we Australians should call it Platypussy, but apparently we don’t.

😎

Its nice but I don’t think it will ever replace the aeroplane. 🙂

Seriously though that is a sweet looking little plane – the colour scheme is attractive also.

Nice pic – thanks for posting.

How appropriate that a Government organization should operate a hot air balloon.

🙂

Dear me another cerebral discussion about a topic, the subject of which has not actually been seen yet.

Hollywood makes entertainment for the masses, not the very few who claim to have detailed knowledge of the subject of that entertaining frippery. As the late great Frank Muir once said “Film can’t be art – have you seen the sort of places they show them in”.

As an archaeologist if I was to enter this debate with the same level of intensity as some contributors then I would be launching a tirade against the Indiana Jones films. As I used to say to non-archaeologists who mentioned those films to me “Hell they only got the level of danger about half right”.

And yes I have been shot at, and chased by knife wielding locals, and believe me in reality one doesn’t have a big revolver to shoot back with. One just gets the hell out very quickly and tries not to get caught up in the situation again.

Problem is that as anyone who has been in jobs or the military where there is a threat of danger, the reality is that 99% of the time is sheer mind numbing routine – Hollywood makes a buck from that 1% of reality, so it does have to over pad the thing.

I’m waiting for the Hollywood blockbuster entitled “Mess Hall” or “Cleaning Kit”.

🙂

As I’ve said before, I will publically eat my own head

While I hate to change the subject in this cerebral thread, that is really quite utterly unimagineable from the physical point of view 😀 . However if you are selling tickets to the event I will subscribe. 🙂

I suspect it is a Camel. The clue is the bracing wires at the front of the cabane struts. This is a quite distinctive feature of the Camel.

To hopefully end a disagreement, I thought I’d come here for a definitive answer to…

What’s this… (I’m 100% sure I know – just need some back up!)

😀

Thanks 🙂

I doubt that it is either a genuine P64 or one of its predecessors the NA-50A or the NA-68. It appears to be a rather crude rebuild of a AT-6 (Harvard) Another clue is the trailing edge of the rudder, to resemble the single seater fighter variant. The clue to this is in the length and structure of the canopy.