The brrrt is worse than the bite... Shark mouth schemes....

[Chris Brame]

Um... you mean Cansos or Cansoes? Apostrophe S is descriptive or possessive, says the d@mn proofreader (sorry - I've done this for a living and can't quit )

[Larry Kraus]

David, have you seen this website? This section covers PBY losses:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/ty ... ina/losses:

If you click on the date, a more detailed report will appear. This site also uses multiple designations to describe the aircraft type. I assume that this is used a a general reference rather than an absolutely accurate designation as that on the actual aircraft data plate.

This one, for instance references a Boeing-Canada PB2B-1 Canso A (PBY-5A), which from your previous post is obviously not correct, especially the PBY-5A reference as the PB2B-1 was a pure flying-boat, unless I'm really confused.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 19520518-0

What do you think?

[David Legg]

Um... you mean Cansos or Cansoes? Apostrophe S is descriptive or possessive, says the d@mn proofreader (sorry - I've done this for a living and can't quit )

Agreed!! I do not know what I was thinking of - of course you are absolutely correct!! Cansos and Canso As. Back of class for me.

[David Legg]

[quote="Larry Kraus" .........This one, for instance references a Boeing-Canada PB2B-1 Canso A (PBY-5A), which from your previous post is obviously not correct, especially the PBY-5A reference as the PB2B-1 was a pure flying-boat, unless I'm really confused. https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 19520518-0 What do you think?[/quote]

You cannot have a "PB2B-1 Canso A (PBY-5A)" as that mixes up three separate 'types' of the basic design. Whilst the PB2B-1 and PBY-5A designations both related to US Navy aircraft, they are not transferable as the PB2B-1 and PBY-5A were built by different manufacturers, the first by Boeing Aircraft of Canada Ltd and the second by Consolidated. Plus, the PB2B- 1 was not an amphibian whilst the PBY-5A was. The same goes for the Canso A - although Boeing' built some, they were all amphibs whereas the rest of Boeing's production were non-amphibs - PB2B-1s and PB2B-2s.

I think you are right inasmuch as the ASN website is using multiple designations but they should not be mixed. Does it matter? - I think it does but others may disagree.

Two observations - civilian 'Catalinas' were often registered with type designations different to the ones they were originally built as. We've been here before in other WIX threads - an example would be our UK aircraft G-PBYA which was built as a Canso A but recognised by the CAA as a PBY-5A.

Second, a few US wartime Catalinas were transferred from the US Navy to the USAAF and at least one OA-10A went from the USAAF to the US Navy (BuNo 21232). When the latter aircraft was sold by the FAA to its first civil owner it was quoted as a PBY-5A. I suspect the US Navy to USAAF aircraft were referred to by the OA- etc designation after the USAAF took then on.

[Larry Kraus]

Thanks again David,

I have to agree that identifying aircraft designations correctly is important. However, it's never really easy.

For instance, one of the Twin Beeches that I flew many years ago (N6688) had a data plate that identified it as "SNB-5P". The airworthiness certificate identified the aircraft as a "TC-45J" and the button in the center of the control yoke said "Beech 18". All were correct and I've read that most of the SNB-5 production consisted of conversions from earlier SNB models. That airplane had faired over camera ports in the belly, so I believe the "P" for photo suffix.

That's not the same as mixing and matching incompatible designations, but it does pose a challenge.

[J-Christophe]

Hi All,
0238 / 3-G-2
Canadian Vickers c/n CV-275
ex-RCAF 9841

0238 Armada Argentina, Comando de Aviación Naval 31.10.1947
- Características:
2-P-6 Escuadrilla de Patrulleros de la Fuerza Aeronaval de la Zona Naval Marítima. BACE, 1953.
2-P-13 Utilizado para las pruebas operativas del sistema RATO en Catierville (Montreal). Arribó al país el 31.10.47
2-P-11 DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE ADMINISTRACIÓN NAVAL (DGAN) 15.11.47
- Aterrizaje forzoso en la Base Aeronaval Comandante Espora el 30.09.48, reparado.
2-P-6 Escuadrilla de Patrulleros/Escuadra Aeronaval N"2, 08.06.49 - 1" Escuadrilla de Patrulleros entre 1955 y 1957
5-P-2 Grupo Aeronaval de la Flota, 07.11.1958. donde sirvió hasta el 13/5/1959,
3-G-2 EAPG de Punta Indio el 03/03.1964, dado de baja en 1964

[Scott Rose]

Haven't seen shark mouth markings on a B-17 before. Was this common?

[JohnB]

I believe there is a model kit with a shark mouth...and not of this aircraft.

With nearly 13,009 B-17s built, I'd bet several had those markings.

[bomberfan]

I believe there is a model kit with a shark mouth...and not of this aircraft.

With nearly 13,009 B-17s built, I'd bet several had those markings.

You're probably thinking of Flak Eater, 44-6009.

[Scott Rose]

Part 2


Fw 190A of 7./JG 1 with teeth.
Source: asisbiz.com


B-24 Liberator with teeth.


B-17 Flying Fortress with sharks mouth


P-51 Mustang


P-51 Mustang


P-51 Mustang


P-47 Thunderbolt with serious dental work.


Westland Whirlwind


Bristol F.2b S.No. B1228 'Brisfish'.


A menacing OH-6 Cayuse.


AH-1 Cobra with fangs


AH-1 Cobra with fangs


Hellfire with attitude.

[Scott Rose]

Images restored and new ones added (43 total)

[Chris Brame]

Hold my beer.

[ffuries]

Your unknown type is a Bristol F.2b S.No. B1228 'Brisfish'.

Attachments

[Scott Rose]

Thanks Chris! Thanks Mike!

[bdk]

Never seen a photo of one with the Argus engine before! Does seem like it would be underpowered with the weight of the armored cockpit.

"A key requirement of the original specification was that the aircraft be powered by engines that were not in demand for other designs. Prototypes with low-power german Argus As 410 engines of 465 PS (459 hp; 342 kW) failed acceptance test, a more powerful replacement was found with the french Gnome et Rhône 14M engine of 700 PS (690 hp; 515 kW)."

Henschel Hs 129S