Read the forum code of contact
By: 13th June 2015 at 11:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-A Swallow ??
By: 13th June 2015 at 12:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Got me foxed too. That fin/rudder shape looks familiar though. If I didn't know better I'd have said it was a Stinson product.
By: 13th June 2015 at 12:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It is a Lincoln LP-3 and was then the only example still airworthy.
Tim
By: 13th June 2015 at 13:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Lincoln-Page LP-3, re-engined with a round motor
By: 13th June 2015 at 14:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Thanks for putting us out of our misery. It's a type I know absolutely nothing about.
By: 13th June 2015 at 14:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No, the Stinson company never produced any biplane in quantity.
Still, I wouldn't have known this one either.
My general rule to avoid looking silly at airports, when asked what some unknown biplane is (i.e. not a Stearman or some other known type) say (with confidence)..."It's a WACO".
The firm made many types and there are many survivors. Playing the odds, you're bound to be right most of the time. However, the tail on this one is definitely NOT WACO.
Looking at old American biplanes is like looking at cars of the 1910-29...there were so many marques. It seems each city had one. Worse, except for details many looked more or less alike following the current "state of the art". And as we see with this ac, over the years they are modified with (slightly) more modern engines. Other designs went by different names as firms were bought and sold, especially after the Lindbergh civil aviation "boom".
By: 13th June 2015 at 14:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-And most of them lasted from about 1927 until 1929
By: 13th June 2015 at 14:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Yes I have to agree they were the aviation equivalent of the modern car. They seem to have been under the impression that being different meant ruling themselves out of the market as "people like what they know" rather than daring to be a little different and probably selling more because not everyone wants the same as the guy next door.
By: 13th June 2015 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Wow, I'am impressed!
Anybody have the reg number. N???
Thanks
By: 13th June 2015 at 19:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It is N3830, now in the Yanks Air Museum at Chino. It now sports a smart dark green scheme. I photographed it there in the 1990s but here is a link to an article showing the aircraft in the same colour scheme as in the OP's photo.
Tim
By: 13th June 2015 at 19:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Now I'am really impressed.
With the reg number its of course possible to follow its history.
Good Man!
Thanks
By: 13th June 2015 at 23:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Yes I have to agree they were the aviation equivalent of the modern car. They seem to have been under the impression that being different meant ruling themselves out of the market as "people like what they know" rather than daring to be a little different and probably selling more because not everyone wants the same as the guy next door.
Yes, aviation was pretty conservative in the old days, but more to the point, the GA biplanes of the era were more a product of "state of the art" as opposed to a "me too" mentality.
Pushing the envelope in terms of fuselage construction would have meant RD and technical risk...which most small firms could not afford. Also, designers, factory workers and available tools were available for tube and fabric biplanes.
Posts: 296
By: Good Vibs - 13th June 2015 at 11:22
Normally I'am fairly good at ID's of aircraft.
But this one has me ?
Who can help.
I took the photograph, with a 350 mm & Pentax H1a at Van Nuys Airport, California in July 1965.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]238280[/ATTACH]