Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

An interesting Army conclusion

Comments

7 comments

  • Colt Super
    I'm not familiar with AAC nomenclature, but isn't this the military designation for the Ford Tri-Motor ??

    Doug
    0
  • catpealer111
    That's what the Army Air Corps called the 4-AT-E trimotor with 300 hp engines.
    0
  • 11BravoCrunchie
    quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
    I'm not familiar with AAC nomenclature, but isn't this the military designation for the Ford Tri-Motor ??

    Doug



    AAC: Army Air Corps. OOOHHHH!!! Sick burn![:D]
    0
  • p3skyking
    quote:The last C-9 built (S/N 29-226) met an interesting end. It was used to test the effects of machine gun fire on a metal skinned aircraft. The test took place in January 1936 after the aircraft had been declared surplus. The fuel tanks were partially filled and the engines started and left running at low rpm. The machine gunners completed two sweeps of the C-9 before it burst into flame at the start of the third firing sweep. The resulting explosion and fire completely destroyed the aircraft. The Army reached the not so surprising conclusion that machine gun fire was effective against an airplane on the ground.

    Pretty effective while airborne too, but the Air Force is still researching that.[;)]
    0
  • catpealer111
    quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
    quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
    I'm not familiar with AAC nomenclature, but isn't this the military designation for the Ford Tri-Motor ??

    Doug



    AAC: Army Air Corps. OOOHHHH!!! Sick burn![:D]


    How is that a burn? It was the Army Air Corps back than, and the Army Signal Corps before that. I know my heritage.
    0
  • Captplaid
    John Moses Browning trumps the Wright Bros was their conclusion.
    0
  • Colt Super
    Not trying to burn - just persuing accuracy in my post (for a change).

    Doug
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?