ID of biplane

Profile picture for user Good Vibs

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 294

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]
Attachment Size
UFO...Van Nuys ...July 1965.jpg 200.72 KB
Original post

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 34

A Swallow ??

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

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.
Profile picture for user Consul

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 1,773

It is a Lincoln LP-3 and was then the only example still airworthy. Tim

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 3,208

Lincoln-Page LP-3, re-engined with a round motor

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

Thanks for putting us out of our misery. It's a type I know absolutely nothing about.
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 9,617

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".

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 3,208

And most of them lasted from about 1927 until 1929

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 8,505

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.
Profile picture for user Good Vibs

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 294

Wow, I'am impressed! Anybody have the reg number. N??? Thanks
Profile picture for user Good Vibs

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 294

Now I'am really impressed. With the reg number its of course possible to follow its history. Good Man! Thanks
Profile picture for user J Boyle

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 9,617

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.