• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

The Ongoing Mystery Aircraft Thread Part Deux.

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!:devilish::devilish:
Keith
 
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...

1zbe7n5.jpg
 
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.
 
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 ...... !
 
..... 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?
 
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!
 

Attachments

  • Pace Gannet.jpg
    Pace Gannet.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 5
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........
 
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!

 
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
 
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.
 
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....
 
Just gonna post PM's photo and mine here together for comparison..

Same photo? Same aircraft?
 

Attachments

  • 17971577966_62a3e9b63b_o.jpg
    17971577966_62a3e9b63b_o.jpg
    14.9 KB · Views: 1
  • img367.jpg
    img367.jpg
    59.5 KB · Views: 1
Well, I have to assume that the error rests with the caption to the photograph in the Jane's publication. If not, then someone had better report the manufacturer, albeit rather belatedly, to the French trading standards authorities - because this photograph is taken from the manufacturer's advertisement! In the absence of a correct identification, I'll post the advertisement - and thus the identification - in the morning.
 
Here's another - different source. Must be an error that occurred in the 60's? As Lefty says, the big reveal will be interesting! :untroubled:
 

Attachments

  • img370.jpg
    img370.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 7
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top