The Ongoing Mystery Aircraft Thread Part Deux.

***Moses03*** · May 18th, 2015, 12:10

Welcome back Mike.

You know how those translators can bungle up things!

Maybe BG can translate for us as the text was lifted from this page.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuvoli_N.5

**lefty** · May 18th, 2015, 21:41

Did a bit of digging -reckon it means metal prop.

Anyway, back at the weekend. Keep up the good work !

**Baragouin** · May 19th, 2015, 07:14

Originally Posted by Moses03

Welcome back Mike.

You know how those translators can bungle up things!

Maybe BG can translate for us as the text was lifted from this page.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuvoli_N.5

Sorry Moses but I'm having rather hectic days...I'll try nevertheless to help you out by translating the passage concerning the "Nuvoli 5-Aq": "experimental altitude trainer built upon request of the Ministry of Aeronautics. It sported metallic spatted wheels, NACA engine cowling Magni type and a FIAT A70 engine with metallic propeller. This was the last Aircraft built in 1938 by the Laboratorio Artigianale Aeronautico (roughly translated aeronautical workshop) inasmuch as his managing director was enrolled full time in the military as officer of the "Genio Militare" ( I don't know the exact translation but this is a corps that builds Bailey bridges and such like amenities)"

I'm not a great translator but this is hundred times better than anything produced by a computer. By the way Aq means Alta quota (high altitude)

Cheers
BG
At long last here's my easy mystery

**Green** · May 19th, 2015, 14:06

Originally Posted by Baragouin

At long last here's my easy mystery

Hi BG.

The Fiat B.R.3.

**Baragouin** · May 20th, 2015, 02:42

Yessir Mr.Green that's what it is a FIATBR3

Your turn please
BG

**Green** · May 20th, 2015, 03:12

Thanks BG.

Probably an easy one in return then...

***Moses03*** · May 20th, 2015, 14:49

One-off Fiat B.R.G.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contri...erone/4159.htm

This was a bomber? Hmm.

**DHC2Pilot** · May 20th, 2015, 16:27

Gentleman....I'm curious as to how the number of wing bays are determined when Warren struts are employed. As with the Fiat BR.3 above I would say 4 bays....correct? I'm also questioning this....if you have an unequal span biplane with top wing longer than the bottom, and you have one or two standard bays present with additional angled struts (connected to the standard vertical struts on the bottom wing), would this triangular bay at the tips be considered a proper wing bay or not?
I've been working on a aircraft database for the past 6 years and have started entering more in-depth data (34 characteristics total ) for the 51,000+ aircraft I've managed to enter thus far....yes, i've lost my marbles

. Only about 2,200 models completed and I'm starting to run into more and more models I'm not sure how to classify (i.e. Wing bays, strut arrangements, etc.)

Thanks in advance for the input!

Cheers,
John

***Moses03*** · May 20th, 2015, 17:01

The database is quite the undertaking John. Something I can't quite seem to get motivated to do! Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by DHC2Pilot

Gentleman....I'm curious as to how the number of wing bays are determined when Warren struts are employed. As with the Fiat BR.3 above I would say 4 bays....correct? I'm also questioning this....if you have an unequal span biplane with top wing longer than the bottom, and you have one or two standard bays present with additional angled struts (connected to the standard vertical struts on the bottom wing), would this triangular bay at the tips be considered a proper wing bay or not?

No means an expert here, but I would agree with the 4 bays.

On the triangular portion at the tip, even though it is enclosed, doesn't there have to be a section of wing top and bottom to be a bay?

Like this I presume?

Again, not sure at all.

**DHC2Pilot** · May 20th, 2015, 17:19

Your example is spot on Kevin....I too am unsure as to the exact definition of a 'bay', however I am in agreement with your assessment that there should be a section of wing both top and bottom to be considered as one. Then again that would conflict with our determination regarding the Warren configuration on the BR.3. Its stuff like this that keeps me up at night....lol.

**Dev One** · May 20th, 2015, 23:39

If one goes to the other extreme, how many bays are there on a Auster/Cub? Or are bays only quoted if a multi plane?
Sorry thats the devil in me coming out!

Keith

**Baragouin** · May 21st, 2015, 03:40

Originally Posted by Moses03

One-off Fiat B.R.G.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contri...erone/4159.htm

This was a bomber? Hmm.

How silly of me! I was just unable to reconcile the front view of the BRG with the side view I have in my database....
BG

***Moses03*** · May 21st, 2015, 04:54

Will press on here as I think we are good on the Fiat.

Don't rush to conclusions on this one. It's a bit tricky...

**pomme homme** · May 22nd, 2015, 00:36

Should we assume that it started life as Grumman Goose - or would this be to bark up what is completely the wrong tree!

***Moses03*** · May 22nd, 2015, 05:31

Started out as a Grumman Widgeon, then out to the west coast for a makeover...

Figured Wout would have snapped this one up straight away.

**pomme homme** · May 22nd, 2015, 09:58

Well, I'll go and stand in the corner. Can't tell my geese from my widgeons. I saw radials and thus thought goose. Now what did you say about rushing to conclusions ...... !

**pomme homme** · May 22nd, 2015, 12:18

..... it couldn't be the Masandorf conversion Widgeon (of which wikipedia says 'it is often mistaken for a Grumman Goose' [!]) that used to appear in the opening sequences of that appalling television series 'Fantasy Island', could it?

***Moses03*** · May 22nd, 2015, 12:33

I have seen it called that. "The Pace/Mansdorf or Gannet conversion of the Widgeon with the Lycoming 300 hp. radial engines made it look very much like the Goose."

My photo has it as the Pace Gannet. In Aerofiles, it is listed under Gannet:

<small>Gannet Aircraft Inc, Sun Valley CA.</small> Super Widgeon c.1955 = STOL modification of Grumman Widgeon; load: 1700# v: 190/170/x range: 1000 (on 158 gallons of fuel). Claimed water take-off in 10 seconds.

Anyhoo, over to you PH!

**lefty** · May 22nd, 2015, 22:11

According to Jane's, 13 airframes were being modified by Pace from zero-hours S.C.A.N. 30 airframes, which presumably they picked up for a chanson........

**pomme homme** · May 23rd, 2015, 02:10

Apologies for the misspelling, Moses03. Whilst wikipedia says Masandorf, it's evident that it should say Mansdorf.

And with further apologies for my delay in posting the next image, the size of that and the fact that it's another of my 'grainies'. However I've only come across two photographs of this aeroplane - and the other one's worse than this!

**lefty** · May 23rd, 2015, 04:02

Would this be a better pic, ph ?

**Baragouin** · May 23rd, 2015, 08:34

Hi Lefty and Pomme-Homme!
All the Levasseurs look pretty much alike but I would say yours look like a PL101
Cheers
BG

Only now I realize that this is a sesquiplane: therefore it should be the PL7

**pomme homme** · May 23rd, 2015, 08:44

My one is a Levasseur, but its not a PL 101 or a PL 7, Baragouin. So if your image, lefty, is of a PL 101 or a PL7, then it's not a better pic of my offering! But if it's of another model of Levasseur, then it could be. But without knowing, I can't say beyond that I don't think that my image and your image, lefty, are of the same model of Levasseur.

**lefty** · May 23rd, 2015, 09:44

OK, my image is of the PL.7 T2B2b. Is this supposed to be the PL.14 ? There is a Russian site that shows this photo but, to be honest, it doesn't look much like the images of the PL.14 that I have....