Thanks Carlo - let's see if we can rouse those twin-boom pusher enthusiasts from their Sunday snooze....
Thanks Carlo - let's see if we can rouse those twin-boom pusher enthusiasts from their Sunday snooze....
R.A.E. Zephyr?
Mike is right, indeed - another Douglas-engined machine -
Huub, nice to see a rare and exotic visitor to these parts ! You are most welcome - especially for that delightful avatar !
Thank you, Mike.
Might I offer two for the price of one?
Firstly, I think that I know the artist responsible for Huub's 'attractive' avatar. Would anyone like to let me know what aeroplane he part owns and flies?
And secondly, for those of you whose aviation library is too conventional to include the works of this artist, here's an interesting parasol wing monoplane that, as far as I can see, hasn't hitherto graced this forum.
It seems that we are in a time warp, the third Douglas-engined aircraft in less than 36 hours
This is the Camsell Monoplane from 1939
Groundoug Day?
Indeed it is the deliciously illegal Camsell Monoplane - although I have her as dating from 1937 - which flew sans registration, sans CofA but, apparently, surprisingly well!
So have a schnapps, Robert, but don't take a double as you didn't tell me that Romain Hugault co-owns and flies a J-3 Cub!
Thanks, Mike, I really love the comics from Charles M. Schulz or Hergé but Romain Hugault is not my field of knowledge.
Here is an aircraft definetly without a Douglas in the front row.
The Hispano Suiza E-30, later renamed Hispano E-30
_
gX
Absolutely correct!
It seems that my source was the same as your photo.
I think, after this mystery a tasty Rioja will be an adequate reward
Hope, you like red wine, Uli.
Correct, but I had too much Rioja last night
Time for a "new" copter, perhaps?
_
gX
You Gents have been busy this morning!
That a Merckle SM-67 Uli?
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contri...dijk/12046.jpg
Yes it's the third prototype of the Merckle SM-67.
Over to Texas
_
gX
According to Hubschraubermuseum Bückeburg, D-9506 is the SM-67 V2. Doesn't that make it the 2nd proto?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubsch...B%C3%BCckeburg
Hi dan_pub
AFAIK the SM-67 in the Bueckeburg Museum is V3, the one with the enclosed cabin. V2 was the static airframe and parts of that one were used to make the V3 complete for static display.
V1 (Artouste II-B engine) was damaged beyond repair in an aciddent, V2 was a static airframe and V3 (more powerful Artouste II-C engine) had a fully enclosed cabin . It was also damaged in a hard landing, but repaired although it may not have flown again.
Hope someone can confirm this.
Two of the trainer parasol were built and came in a variety of flavors. Wheel pants/no pants, and a couple of different engines with and without cowling. This was the inline variant.
Er, the wing looks as though it is attached to the fuselage. That's not my definition of a parasol......
Agreed, but I was going by the definition provided by the gaggle of folks at wiki. Seems to be a pylon of sorts?
"A parasol wing aircraft is essentially a biplane without the lower pair of wings. The parasol wing is not directly attached to the fuselage, but is held above it, supported either by cabine struts or by a single pylon. Additional bracing may be provided by struts extending from the fuselage sides"
By that definition I would say so Keith, especially with the PBY. The Comper I think of as more of a shoulder wing. A fine line there I guess.
Back to the mystery- the engine is a Cirrus-Hermes and was flown in the mid 1930's.
I'm kicking myself - Moses' machine is the Renard R-33.(OO-ANV) (Described in Jane's as a 'high-wing braced monoplane') Maybe if I hadn't been convinced it was American.....
And, in my photo it does look like a sort of parasol......I just feel there should be fresh air between wing and fuselage. As for the Catalina - naaaahh !
Incidentally, can anyone tell me why Belgian registrations begin with O or OO ? Surely they must have had first shot at B ? And why O ?
Bookmarks