The Airplane Thread

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

The V-Tail Bonanza a.k.a. "The doctor killer".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza


Left a mark in the music industry when one crashed on this date today in 1959 with Buddy Holly and others on board.


Attachment 3379206


And another one crashed this week in Florida.

https://www.foxla.com/news/clearwate...bile-home-park

Also called "Widowmaker".


When I was a private pilot I flew primarily Cessna 150s, 172s, and 182s. I worked at the gas pit so I used to offer to wash and wax planes in exchange for a free hour in various private planes. It was a great experience to fly so many different aircraft. One time a Bonanza V-tail pulled in to get gas. I did my usual offer to wash and wax for an hour ride and the owner said sure! I will never forget how fast things change in that aircraft. It was thrilling and a bit scary at the same time.

[3798j]

.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Doctors (and lawyers, I suppose) had/have a lot of disposable income, and the "Split-Tail-Doctor-Killer" was a sexy looking beast and in their price point.

The problem arose when doctors and lawyers, who were highly trained and competent in their own professions, thought that their skills transferred directly from one industry to another. In other words, you might be the worlds hottest doc, but you had damn well understand the difference between currency and proficiency in the aviation world.

Current simply means you're legal as far as the FAA is concerned. Proficient means you actually are warmed up and have a vague clue about what you're doing.

They're VERY different things.

Yes, you can get away with doing three takeoff/landings in 90 days (and you can actually do all three on Day 89 and still be legal), but even if you have have thousands and thousands of hours, it might not be the smartest move you could make from a proficiency standpoint.

On top of that, the doctor/lawyer with a whopping 200 hours and maaaaybe an Instrument rating goes out at night and/or in sketchy weather and the end result tended to be about what you'd expect.

Termination of the flight due to rapid deceleration trauma.

R.

Some of our newly certified controllers had the same attitude. They thought that since they were signed-off they knew it all. I had to remind more than a few that being newly signed-off just meant that they were dangerous and their real learning was just beginning. I remember learning a TON when I was on my own with no "net." We were only allowed to be on leave for 30 days at a time before needing recertification. Like flying (and driving to a lesser extent) controlling is a perishable skill.

[Lady Jane]

Douglas F3D Skyknight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F3D_Skyknight

https://plane-encyclopedia.com/cold-...f3d-skyknight/

Two versions:

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Douglas F3D Skyknight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F3D_Skyknight

https://plane-encyclopedia.com/cold-...f3d-skyknight/

Two versions:

Not for nothing was the F3D nicknamed the DRUT -- a jet with (almost) prop performance. Your second picture is an interesting "what-if" but I doubt the -3 would've been much better. The Marines were very happy to get the EA-6A and finally put the F3D (new EF-10B) out to pasture. In the F3D's defense, I suppose one could say that it showed its 1940s ancestry.

[M-technik-3]

Ok who here lives in Bellevue Washington and had a spare Genie 2 Nuclear capable missile?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...rage-106923439

[3798j]

Convair XC-99...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XC-99

[Llarry]

Grob G520 EGRETT -- sort of a "U-2 Lite" with all-composite construction and a max certified altitude of 50,000 feet. Only six built per Wikipedia, but apparently still on offer, though as the G520NG with a max certified altitude of 45,000 feet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G_520

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Grob G520 EGRETT --

Your link doesn't work for some reason . But try this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G_520

[Llarry]

Somewhere in the US, 1946: B-17 Flying Fortresses waiting to be scrapped.

[Llarry]

The Martin-Baker MB 5 -- another potentially excellent aircraft that was overtaken by the coming jet era. Only one was built and was assessed as having excellent performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB_5

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Somewhere in the US, 1946: B-17 Flying Fortresses waiting to be scrapped.

I think that's Walnut Ridge airfield.

[BMWGUYinCO]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Somewhere in the US, 1946: B-17 Flying Fortresses waiting to be scrapped.

I'll tell you a couple of stories about the B-17 that my father told me.

My Dad was an aviator (fixed wing and rotor) with the U.S. Army for 25 years. Many years after WW2, they fitted B17s with radio controlled gear and flew them out to White Sands, to fly them remotely for target practice with the Nike Ajax surface to air missile systems.

One day, my dad flew a chase plane (from a safe distance of course). They fired up a B17 and flew it remotely over white sands, where they fired a Nike Ajax at it. It struck the wing and exploded...and the B17 kept right on flying. So they landed it, and my dad was ordered to land next to it, and shut off its engines, which were still running. He climbed inside and looked for the engine cut off levers. Everything had been stripped inside, leaving pretty crude mechanicals. He tried with all his might to pull on the levers to shut off the engines, but they wouldn't budge.

He got back on the radio and relayed this information...to which he was ordered to "MAN UP!" and shut off those engines! He returned, and said he had to grab each lever with both hands, set his feet on the bulkhead and heaved with all his might for each one to get them to move. He did get it shut down. But he always felt sorry when he saw those beautiful planes being shot down simply for target practice.

He also told me another story. When the B17s were retired, they took the Wright radial engines out of them and fitted the Army's CH-21, aka "The flying banana" with them. My dad flew these in Alaska in the late 60s and said they were amazingly reliable.

My Dad celebrated his 93rd birthday on January 24th. He lives on his own, still drives, takes care of himself, and is as sharp as he was in his youth. We joke that he won't die of natural causes, but it will be some external event like a meteor falling on his house.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by BMWGUYinCO

I'll tell you a couple of stories about the B-17 that my father told me.

A somewhat analogous story about the Navy F6F Hellcat: In the 1950s a large number of Hellcats were converted into F6F-5K drones and used for target practice. In particular, they would have the drone tow a flare on a cable and fire a Sidewinder missile at it during development of the Sidewinder during the 1950s. I vaguely remember seeing brightly-colored F6F-5Ks at China Lake around 1956-58.

Nowadays an F6F warbird is probably worth a couple of million and a B-17 goes for several times that.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Army, along with the Army National Guard, operates some 2,200-plus Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawks. The original UH-60A was succeeded by improved versions such as the UH-60L and UH-60M. The Army planned to upgrade 760 older variants to the latest UH-60V version but has apparently now cancelled that plan after the conversion of only 151 helicopters.

The UH-60s are all capable of using the external stores support system (ESSS) to carry external fuel tanks or weapons. The attached UH-60V photo shows the ESS and a large external fuel tank. The second photo shows the helo head-on with four tanks -- good for long-distance self-deployment purposes.

[Llarry]

An F-4J Phantom of Marine Fighter-Attack Squadron 333 dropping 500-pound Mark 82 bombs with Snake Eye tails. The Snake Eye allows the bomb to be dropped at low level and to be slowed before hitting the ground, allowing the aircraft to safely escape the resulting blast. This setup was used extensively in the Vietnam War.

The F-4's paint scheme depicts an aircraft of the 1960s-1980s. The F-4J is now long retired. VMFA-333 became an F-18 squadron but was disestablished in 1992.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The UH-60s are all capable of using the external stores support system (ESSS) to carry external fuel tanks or weapons.

The Navy MH-60Rs and MH-60Ss have a different/smaller stub wing that can carry (smaller) external fuel tanks or weapons. See attached photos.

[Lady Jane]

In the news today: "B-1 makes a house-call against Iran's proxies all the way from Texas, demolishing 85 aimpoints."

[Llarry]

Further information on U.S. Army aviation plans:
-- The Army will reduce the UH-60 inventory to 1,978 helicopters, and will complete the retirement of all UH-60As, which first entered service in 1979, this year.
-- New UH-60Ms will be produced under a multiyear contract.
-- For the long-term, a new Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) will replace the H-60. The Bell V-280 will form the basis of FLRAA.
-- The CH-47F Block II improved heavy-lift helicopter will begin production in 2024-2025.
-- The Army will abandon plans to develop a new manned light recon/attack helicopter and focus on unmanned alternatives.

Originally Posted by Llarry

The U.S. Army, along with the Army National Guard, operates some 2,200-plus Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawks. The original UH-60A was succeeded by improved versions such as the UH-60L and UH-60M. The Army planned to upgrade 760 older variants to the latest UH-60V version but has apparently now cancelled that plan after the conversion of only 151 helicopters.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

For the long-term, a new Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) will replace the H-60. The Bell V-280 will form the basis of FLRAA.

The Bell V-280 tilt-rotor design offers considerable speed advantage over a helicopter, but will not enter service until the 2030s.

In late November of 2023, a U.S. Air Force Japan-based CV-22B Osprey special operations tiltrotor crashed, killing all 8 airmen aboard. Since then, there has been a worldwide grounding of all V-22s, including the small fleets of Japanese MV-22Bs, USAF CV-22Bs and U.S. Navy CMV-22Bs and the large fleet of Marine Corps MV-22Bs, which form the backbone of Marine vertical lift. I suspect that the Marine Corps is severely constrained by the grounding of their Ospreys.

While the Navy's inventory of Ospreys is small, they provide critical support for carriers at sea, with a detachment of three CMV-22Bs busy shuttling spare parts, mail and passengers to and from each carrier. The Pacific Fleet had already transitioned to all CMV-22Bs and their older Grumman C-2A Greyhound turboprops had been sent to the boneyard. The Atlantic Fleet force of C-2As has been tasked to fill the gap during the grounding of the CMV-22B force.

I believe the cause of the November crash has been identified and a transmission component must be replaced in all V-22 aircraft before they can be flown.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Further information on U.S. Army aviation plans

Yet more Army aviation info...

Two prototype light recon/attack prototypes -- the Bell 360 Invictus and the Sikorsky S-97 Raider -- have been developed at great cost but will be cancelled. See photos.

When the UH-60 entered service in 1979, it was powered by a new General Electric T700 turboshaft engine that has since been produced in great quantity for a variety of H-60/S-70 variants and for the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. A new GE T901 offering about 50% more power is under development and the Army plans to re-engine UH-60s and AH-64s with that engine in coming years.

[Llarry]

All this info about U.S. Army aviation seemed to come out in dribs and drabs; I apologize for the multiple posts.

The Sikorsky H-60/S-70 helicopter has been produced in large numbers from the late 1970s to date and the corresponding T700 turboshaft engine (two per helo) in large numbers as well, of course.

The General Electric T700s in early UH-60As of the late 1970s had an output of 1,543 shaft horsepower each. The T700-GE-701C engines in the upgraded UH-60L of the late 1980s was rated at 1,857 shp. The naval variants put out slightly more.

The power output of the current T700-GE-701C/D engines has crept up to just under 2,000 shp. The Army's special operations MH-60Ms have a T700-derived YT706 (that Y stands for service test, but I suspect what it really means is "this is an expensive engine and you regular helicopter people better keep your hands off! For special operations use only!" ) engine with larger compressor and other improvements that puts out 2,600 shp. As related above, GE and the Army have developed a new T901 engine that will be rated at about 3,000 shp, practically doubling the power output of the original UH-60As. And they plan on putting this T901 powerplant in their UH-60M and AH-64 aircraft. I suspect other users, such as the U.S. Navy and any number of other countries will not be far behind in queuing up for more powerful engines.

The other interesting thing is that other users may get their hands on early H-60s that become surplus to Army requirements. New S-70 civil variants are expensive helicopters and used Army UH-60s will likely be attractive to firefighters, police, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_T700