[BAD/OLD PIC QUIZ] Curtiss Kittyhawk #3
Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:39 am
Here, again, I know the place and time, but not the aircraft.
August
August
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:33 am
PoF ex-RCAF 858?
Jim
Jim
Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:44 pm
You might be on the right track there Jim. The picture was taken Sept. 16, 1969, at Ontario and #858 was there then. That is one of the possibilities. However, to throw a bit of a wrench in the works, and hopefully to attract some more guesses, here is a second picture of another P-40N taken at the same place on the same day.
My caption for this one:
"Honey, where'd you park the P-40?"
"Out by the ICBM, dear."
Of interest on this one is that the spinner is not a standard P-40 unit but is shorter and more conical. The prop does not look right either. This and the general state of the aircraft make me think that it is a static display not under active restoration while the other one I posted looks closer to airworthy.
As Jim said, #858 is one of the possibilities. Another P-40N that was at Ontario at that time was 44-7369, later of Don Plumb as C-GTGR, then Joe Mabee and currently Cavanaugh as N40PN. Assuming these two P-40s are 858 and 44-7369, I have no idea which is which but as the WWD lists 858 as being a "wreck" resulting from a gear-up landing that was restored to airworthiness only in 1977-80 and 44-7369 as being flyable by 1971-72, my guess would be that the first pic was 44-7369 and this 858, because the latter looks more like a hasty static patch-up of a belly-landed plane. If someone can supplant guesswork with actual information, please jump in!
August
My caption for this one:
"Honey, where'd you park the P-40?"
"Out by the ICBM, dear."
Of interest on this one is that the spinner is not a standard P-40 unit but is shorter and more conical. The prop does not look right either. This and the general state of the aircraft make me think that it is a static display not under active restoration while the other one I posted looks closer to airworthy.
As Jim said, #858 is one of the possibilities. Another P-40N that was at Ontario at that time was 44-7369, later of Don Plumb as C-GTGR, then Joe Mabee and currently Cavanaugh as N40PN. Assuming these two P-40s are 858 and 44-7369, I have no idea which is which but as the WWD lists 858 as being a "wreck" resulting from a gear-up landing that was restored to airworthiness only in 1977-80 and 44-7369 as being flyable by 1971-72, my guess would be that the first pic was 44-7369 and this 858, because the latter looks more like a hasty static patch-up of a belly-landed plane. If someone can supplant guesswork with actual information, please jump in!
August
Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:35 pm
#2 may have a P-38 prop and spinner, also note the rope keeping the prop from turning. Something must have been missing the the motor department (like the crank?). If you can blow that photo up bigger, does the prop turn in the correct direction of rotation? Top should go to the right from the pilot's seat.
Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:42 pm
Looks like the elevator was disconnected since it is hanging down very steeply.
Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:26 am
I'm afraid I have little to add here...
However, I believe that this image shows the same ship as your first photo:
Image source: unknown
The ship in the first photo could be, and probably is, 44-7369.
I'd say that the second photo is 42-105192 (RCAF 858) because, besides the line of reasoning given by August, this ship has
the opening panel on the left side of the windscreen, as does the POF Hawk, and also because it has non-standard upper cowl
panels for a P-40N, which the POF Hawk also has.
None of this is conclusive, just guesswork based on a comparison of these photos and the two suspects in question.
Fade to Black...
However, I believe that this image shows the same ship as your first photo:
Image source: unknown
The ship in the first photo could be, and probably is, 44-7369.
I'd say that the second photo is 42-105192 (RCAF 858) because, besides the line of reasoning given by August, this ship has
the opening panel on the left side of the windscreen, as does the POF Hawk, and also because it has non-standard upper cowl
panels for a P-40N, which the POF Hawk also has.
None of this is conclusive, just guesswork based on a comparison of these photos and the two suspects in question.
Fade to Black...
Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:32 am
I would say your pic is certainly the same bird as my first pic, and probably at very close to the same time. The shark mouth and oddly painted eye are distinctive. That looks like the same fence in the background, they're in the same spot on the tarmac (note lighter area just in front of the wheels, and even the prop, tailwheel, flaps and chocks are in the same positions. They're both missing the ailerons and the same piece of the belly fairing as well, and there's even that same piece of rope or whatever lying on the ground near the tail.
August
August