A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

We don't need no steenkeeng one-man rig



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #8  
Old March 20th 13, 07:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 746
Default We don't need no steenkeeng one-man rig

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:04:44 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
What??? The 1,800 lb wing?



I used to be the only one who *didn't* disappear when Dave R. got his LAK-12

fuselage out of the trailer... So I moved!



"Tom K (ES)" wrote in message

...

Reminds me of my Lak-12...


That P-47 wing had a self-sealing fuel tank, 4, .50 cal gun mounts with ammunition trays and numerous hard points for bombs and rockets. It also had a main gear leg to support all that weight. The fuselage had pilot armor and heavy vacuum tube avionics. "Civilianized" WWII fighters often weighed a ton less than the GI versions after they were stripped of the mil-stuff.

I was surprised to see so few men lifting the propeller. Those had steel blades with silver solder contouring the airfoil. They were seriously heavy.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.