Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Radoye]

Argentinian H-75O?

[mexchiwa]

Not a Curtiss, or a Northrop, or a GeeBee...

I think this is interesting because no one knows what it is...

Don't think it's a fake, either

[SAS~Storebror]

Not a Curtiss, or a Northrop

How would you know?
It can very well be a Curtiss or a Northrop.
Your statement has no substance.

[sniperton]

Fine, let's try it again.

Is there anything visible on the picture which clearly identifies it as an airplane different from any of the suggested ones?

You know, if it"walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...."

James, where are you?

[P51vsFw190]

Unfortunately Mex is correct. This isn’t as easy as it seems. He is correct in saying that it is not a Curtiss.

The aircraft pictured is one of the two Military Aircraft HM-1’s. Much is known of the first one which was a direct modification of the then Hawks Miller HM-1 racing plane known as “Time Flies”. After the first aircraft crashed during flight testing, another was built, this time with fixed landing gear. This is the aircraft in question. It is often reported that only one was built.

The aircraft pictured here is the first aircraft with retactable gear.
The photos that Mex have are the only ones known to exist of the second prototype.




James

[sniperton]

Congrats

But I want to learn. How can you tell it from this picture that it's the same plane and not, say, the H75-N?
The shape of the cockpit is blurred and its offset position towards the tail is hardly perceptible due to the shortening and the practically indiscernible tail section.

[P51vsFw190]

In that picture you can tell it is not the H75 because the cockpit shown there is set much farther back from the front of the wing. The H-75N had the same fuselage and wing as a regular Hawk 75 but was provided with fixed gear as it was an export variant.

See this picture here:



Notice that this picture is taken from almost the same angle as the picture you have there. Notice that the landing gear are different in shape and width than your photo. Look at the wing and you will see that both the wing and cowl are completely different from the mystery plane. Notice that in the picture you have, the landing gear legs have little fairings that jut out from the front of the wing. These are not present on this picture of an H-75N. Finally, compare the canopy shape between the photos. On the picture above the canopy is taller and more structured than on your photo.

This evidence suggests that the aircraft in question is not a H-75N


James

[sniperton]

Thanks a lot, James, makes sense, now I see why it cannot be a H75.
I just wonder, and forgive me for my curiosity, how do you know that IF it's not a H75, it must be HM-1?
Do you come to that conclusion by excluding all other possibilities (in this case you have to know and to take into consideration all possible candidates), or is your identification based on a flash like "hey, man, it's a HM-1, it's definetely that plane"?
Just asking because I'm editing a study on connoisseurship in art and I'd like to learn how it works for other people well versed in something.

[P51vsFw190]

To tell you the truth I’m not actually sure how it works myself. You see, I’ve been interested in airplanes since I was very small. I own lots of literature on aircraft from my many years of trying to learn more and continually buying more and more books. So when I see an aircraft, my mind goes through a process that takes the many aircraft that I know by heart and puts them into groups that are like each other if that makes sense. Then I choose the most viable option for whatever the situation is.

I hope this helps. If you want to ask more questions like this feel free to PM me or send me an e-mail. I would love to help you in whatever it is you are working on.

[P51vsFw190]

Back to the topic at hand however.

This pretty yellow bird is the next thing that I will attempt to torture you with. (I will)



Enjoy,


James

[SAS~Storebror]

This pretty yellow bird is the next thing that I will attempt to torture you with.

...but it's not your turn yet and maybe it will never become anymore. You can't be sure

In that picture you can tell it is not the H75

It shows that it's not the H-75N commonly known.
It does not tell that it's not a spanish or who-the-fuck-else's derived version of it.
As much as it doesn't tell the same thing about being another custom version of the of-so-many different Gamma's we know.
And as much as it doesn't tell that it's not another 5-second-brainfart from the Japs derived from the Ki-15.

The aircraft pictured is one of the two Military Aircraft HM-1’s.

Apart from the obvious difference (retractable gear), the plane you show has a completely different tail (higher horizontal stabs for instance and no tail wheel), no spinner hub, no z-shaped pitot tube, no landing light in the left wing, and apparently no flaps.

After the first aircraft crashed during flight testing, another was built, this time with fixed landing gear.

Please quote your sources.
Wiki says:

On August 23, 1938, Ortman flew above Rentschler Field (...) the stresses placed on the wings were too great and a wing sheared off. Ortman was able to bail out safely, but the aircraft was demolished and the project was abandoned.

That'd be no second plane, no fixed gear version.
And even if there was any, where's the evidence that it looks like the plane we search for?

No sorry James, this is as much a fixed-gear-version of the HM-1 (which is yet to be shown that it even exists) as it can be another Curtiss, Kawasaki or Lockheed.

He is correct in saying that it is not a Curtiss.

Mind you that Curtiss built other planes beside the H-75N. This statement "it is not a Curtiss" is just all bullshit. Can't stress that enough. You have nothing to backup such stance.

Best regards - Mike

[P51vsFw190]

You seem to be rather on edge about something and you also seem to be getting unnecessarily upset about this. There was no need for harsh language at all during this quest update. I’m not sure why you are so pissed off by my interpretation of a blurry picture but as your friend I really think you should take a couple steps back and reevaluate what you were trying to get across because all I noticed about your entry was the obviously distressed tone you wrote it in.

Just my thoughts,


James