J G 927 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Caproni Ca.3 Heavy Bomber (1917) Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 945 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Sì, non sto solo dicendo. Applausi Andrew Link to post Share on other sites
M.I.B. 39 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 U got it Mr Guest Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Ok lets see how many nano seconds it takes you to get this........ Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 945 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 A prototype multi-role combat aircraft it was intended to carry out bombing and reconnaissance missions, as well as act as an escort fighter, but it was already obsolete when built. It first flew in 1936 and only 1 prototype was built. From a country oft invaded, you could say the aircraft was "great". Cheers Andrew Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 ? Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Just under 2 hours. I am impressed. But Andrew I want a name......... ............. I must try harder next time.......... Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 Right company John, but not the CA-3 !! There is a distinct difference between the CA-3 and the later one pictured! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caproni_CA.3_2009-06-06.jpg Link to post Share on other sites
M.I.B. 39 Posted September 16, 2013 Report Share Posted September 16, 2013 I thought it was a Ca1 HERE. There were multiple versions of this airframe so I was thinking I shouldn't bite whatever the answer is but......... Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 That picture they call a CA-1 is in fact a CA-46, a much later version. the earlier ones had a somewhat ungainly nosewheel arragement and different engines and propellors. the only thing they had in common was the basic layout. they were however very different aicraft. Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 945 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 John, I was trying to give the others a chance, hence the play on words with the use of "great". However, if you insist, if I was to say the manufacturer was "the cab" and used "great" to describe it's designator, it makes it the LACAB GR.8. Cheers Andrew Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Sure was an odd looking critter! I think it got beaten with an ugly stick! Link to post Share on other sites
J G 927 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Well done Andrew...... its all yours.. Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 945 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Something a little more contemporary for a change. Cheers Andrew Link to post Share on other sites
stu7708 244 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 My first gut feeling was some sort of Piper, but I can't find any that match.. Among other things most Pipers that comes close seem to have the gear bay door mounted on the landing gear... Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 IAR-823. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,316 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 My first thoughts were something like the Socata Tobago because of the way the windscreen droops down on the sides. EDIT: but I believe Alan has in down pat. Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 It's a nice little aircraft, http://www.chooseyouritem.com/airplanes/photos/4194000/4194442.jpg Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 945 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 As usual Alan, you don't miss much. Over to you. Cheers Andrew Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 Thanks Andrew, ok here's another relatively easy one. Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 945 Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 I'd provide the answer to this joint venture (and it would have flown at Mach 2 too), but I'm in another self induced holding pattern, in order to give the others a chance. I'll give it a few days, not that I think we will need it.. Cheers Andrew Link to post Share on other sites
dodgy-alan 1,587 Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 I'd provide the answer to this joint venture (and it would have flown at Mach 2 too), but I'm in another self induced holding pattern, in order to give the others a chance. I'll give it a few days, not that I think we will need it.. Cheers Andrew I had a feeling this one would lift off pretty quickly! Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew Godden 945 Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 I'd provide the answer to this joint venture (and it would have flown at Mach 2 too), but I'm in another self induced holding pattern, in order to give the others a chance. I'll give it a few days, not that I think we will need it.. Cheers Andrew I had a feeling this one would lift off pretty quickly! About 1963. Link to post Share on other sites
Quickmarch 488 Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 Looks like a VTO prototype of some sort. I wonder if those engines rotate. Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted September 19, 2013 Report Share Posted September 19, 2013 I think you're on to something there, March. Probably not much reason to put them all the way out there if not for that. Structurally, it's a dumb place to put the thrust axes unless there's some other reason to do it. John Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now