Jump to content

Guess the plane


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

St

 

OK. But the UK register shows[ATTACH=full]52890[/ATTACH]

yes and no. The register shows the original builder/designer who died soon after construction started - this is the second airframe. The project then was taken up by a company and finished with inverted inline engines and then modified further to add these flat engines and change the canopy/nose as the preproduction prototype - then it got the new numbers and name - that’s why close enough - it was the ST2 but was modified into the Speedtwin comet by Speedtwin company from the original part built Phillips ST

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATTACH=full]52888[/ATTACH]

I’ll admit I googled this one. Hate to think of the drive shaft running up the fin and going through a gearbox or universal at the top of the fin. Hate to think what a drive shaft failure left you control wise

Colani Cormoran

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, described as the ugliest jet ever built, according to the page where I found the photo.Built in Poland to meet a Russian requirement for an agricultural aircraft.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, described as the ugliest jet ever built, according to the page where I found the photo.Built in Poland to meet a Russian requirement for an agricultural aircraft.

Yes ... but wasn't it also the first pure jet cropduster? Might have been ugly but probably quite practical I'd think, huge hoppers in the right place, high tail and all that. Lots of wing area, structurally simple.

 

And let's be fair - the Russians have built far uglier aircraft than that one ;-)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes ... but wasn't it also the first pure jet cropduster? Might have been ugly but probably quite practical I'd think, huge hoppers in the right place, high tail and all that. Lots of wing area, structurally simple.And let's be fair - the Russians have built far uglier aircraft than that one ;-)

Not practical in use - far too slow in flight to be efficient on the jet and takeoff acceleration too poor to be truely useful. Only 175 built and the AN2 it was supposed to replace just continues to be used past the retirement of the jet duster. If it had used a turboprop instead it may heve been a better aircraft in its design environment ...but from what I read years ago the Russians insist eyed on a jet so got it and were the only buyer

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You sure knows yaw hairy planes!

Actually had a job while at uni watching old film for a production house and identifying/cataloging all the aircraft into a database. It gets a bit boring after the first 70-80 hours and you start going into sub types and then into unit markings as well on the wwii stuff.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually had a job while at uni watching old film for a production house and identifying/cataloging all the aircraft into a database. It gets a bit boring after the first 70-80 hours and you start going into sub types and then into unit markings as well on the wwii stuff.

Crickey Kaspar, how'd you get a job like that?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Crickey Kaspar, how'd you get a job like that?

It's amazing what appears on the notice board at student unions ... and how little students will accept to sit and watch a tv screen 026_cheers.gif.2a721e51b64009ae39ad1a09d8bf764e.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...