The Airplane Thread

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

For me, as a naval aviation geek, the National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Florida was almost a religious experience. Incredible.

The Big One is the Udvar Hazy Museum outside Washington D.C. I left the DC-Baltimore area in late 2003 and have not been back since, just missing the museum's opening. That one is #1 on my list but I don't think I'll make it there. I visited the Smithsonian's Air and Space on the national mall many times and that one was great; I suppose it still is.

Maybe I've got a better chance of making it to Pima. Thanks for the recommendation.

The other one I'd recommend is Planes of Fame in Chino, California. I believe they are building an upscale exhibition building. When I visited it was beastly hot in metal buildings and outside. Of course, Planes of Fame is regularly flying quite a few of their aircraft, too.

Well, I *did* say Air Force.

Since it looks like you're in Oregon, a few others that are fun would be the Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum in Everett, WA (Paul Allen's museum near Seattle), the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, OR (a bit south of PDX, and where the Spruce Goose lives) and the Castle Air Museum in Atwater, CA (although it's slowly disintegrating- they do have a B-36 though).

The Paul Allen museum's level of restoration is flat-out unbelievable-- if you dropped one of their aircraft on the ramp in 1944, the crews wouldn't be able to tell that it was a restoration. For example, he actually had the cotton batting used for wire loom on the inside of the radio's reproduced. All the planes are flyable, but if it's the last example in the world, they aren't flown.

Udvar-Hazy is nice enough, but there are others out there that are as (or more) impressive. Although it's gotten much better since it opened.

And you're right of course-- the National Air & Space Museum should be on the top of everyone's list, as should be the NAF Museum in Pensacola.

[Llarry]

The Vultee Valiant was produced in large numbers just before and in the early years of World War II. The U.S. Army Air Forces knew it as the BT-13 and the Navy as the SNV. 9,525 were built. They were known -- in a somewhat uncomplimentary fashion -- as Vultee Vibrators by the young pilots due to some undesired resonances in some conditions.

The Valiant was a step up from the primary trainers (biplanes, etc.) but not as complex as the North American AT-6/SNJ that came next; no hydraulics, no retractable landing gear, etc.

For my Dad, his SNV time in 1943 was mostly instrument training, much of it "under the hood" and didn't last long; then it was on to the advanced trainer (SNJ in the Navy) and ever closer to combat flying in whatever he or his fellow young student aviators would end up.

The Valiant was actually retired just before the end of WWII and the fledgling aviators went from primary trainers directly to the AT-6/SNJ and had to deal with the increased complexity of an advanced trainer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vultee_BT-13_Valiant

The photo is recent and is a Commemorative Air Force BT-13 in early war scheme. I must admit I am slightly stumped by the insignia: a 3-bladed prop inside a triangle further inside a circle. Hmm?

[Llarry]

Orville and Wilbur Wright are credited with the first powered flight of an aircraft and established the Wright Aeronautical Company soon after. But the company did not make aircraft for long; they soon specialized in aircraft engines.

The Navy bought a single Wright XF3W-1 Apache airplane in 1926 with power from a 1,654 cubic-inch Wright P-1 radial. This aircraft was later re-engined with an R-1340 Wasp engine from the new Pratt & Whitney company, a competitor.

The XF3W-1 was unarmed and was flown in both landplane and floatplane form. It set altitude records of 38,500 feet in floatplane form in 1929 and an amazing 43,166 feet in landplane form the next year. (How would you like to be cruising along in your jet airliner at 30,000-plus foot altitude and spot this little biplane a few thousand feet above!?) Ninety-plus years later, I think it's hard to appreciate the difficulties of taking an open-cockpit biplane up to those altitudes. The third photo shows LT Soucek suited up for his flight and ready for the very bitter cold that awaited him at that high altitude.

Given the experimental character of this aircraft, perhaps a better designation would have been RW (R = Racer, W = Wright). The Navy didn't buy many racing airplanes and the designation didn't last long, but this little one was speedy for the time.

[Llarry]

The thought of flying a 1920s biplane up to very high altitude still intrigues me.

I'd welcome a comment from someone more aeronautically wise than I. As the air thins at high altitude, an airplanes stall speed increases: Less air flowing over the airfoil = less lift.

The extreme example that I always think of is the Lockheed U-2, which routinely operated in the "coffin corner": Any slower and the airplane stalls and any faster and the airplane encounters Mach buffeting. For the early U-2 models, the margins were exceedingly slim -- just a few knots of airspeed too little and the aircraft would stall at high altitude and probably come apart; just a few knots of airspeed too much and the aircraft would start buffeting and probably come apart. The U-2, early or late, was built with light weight as a primary design criterion and so was and is fragile.

Take one of these record-breaking 1920s biplanes with a stall speed of perhaps 50-60 miles per hour and a maximum speed of perhaps 160. The problem surely isn't Mach buffeting but at some altitude the max speed curve and the stall speed curve intersect. The airplane won't go any faster and yet if it goes any slower it will stall.

Any high-altitude biplane pilots here?

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The thought of flying a 1920s biplane up to very high altitude still intrigues me.

This may answer part of your question:


https://airandspace.si.edu/collectio...m_A19350010000

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

This may answer part of your question:

That does indeed address part of the problem. Without the supercharger, the R-1340's output would probably drop to 5 HP at altitude.

I still wonder that LT Soucek was able to fit his giant testicles into that smallish cockpit.

LT Soucek retired as a Vice Admiral.

[Llarry]

Boeing 777-9 (aka 777X) earlier this year. 252 feet long!

Each engine with 110,000 pounds of thrust!

No wonder the 747 is now increasingly a has-been in the passenger market.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Each engine with 110,000 pounds of thrust!

I wonder if some airlines will opt for the Rolls-Royce instead of GE.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

I wonder if some airlines will opt for the Rolls-Royce instead of GE.

According to the 777X wikipedia entry, Boeing is exclusively offering the GE 9X engine, to the chagrin of both R-R and P&W.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X

On the one hand, rather than buying one each Bombardier and Gulfstream as you earlier proposed, how about we go halfsies on a single B777X? Room for a couple of very large master suites, and even a hot tub. On the other hand, owning a 777 private jet would severely restrict the number of airports that are accessible. I suppose the Bombardier/Gulfstream plan is better after all.

[Llarry]

Supersonic Airliner - Part II (or is it Part VII?)

Now BOOM! is promising a new supersonic airliner. So many people have promised a new and viable supersonic airliner over the years that it's easy to be skeptical. One interesting aspect, though, it that American, United and Japan Airlines have signed up (whatever precisely that means).

The whole package includes the Overture aircraft and a Symphony engine to power it. Some parameters:
Cruise speed: Mach 1.7 and altitude: 60,000 feet
Range 4,250 nautical miles (7,850 km)
Passengers: 64 to 80

The engine is a non-afterburning unit, so that Mach 1.7 is a supercruise speed. Interesting.

The cost to develop the aircraft and the engine to power it has to be staggering; thus a lot of my skepticism. The Wikipedia article mentions a total investment so far of $150 million, which sounds far short of what would be required.

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

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Supersonic Airliner - Part II (or is it Part VII?)

Now BOOM! is promising a new supersonic airliner. So many people have promised a new and viable supersonic airliner over the years that it's easy to be skeptical. One interesting aspect, though, it that American, United and Japan Airlines have signed up (whatever precisely that means).

The whole package includes the Overture aircraft and a Symphony engine to power it. Some parameters:
Cruise speed: Mach 1.7 and altitude: 60,000 feet
Range 4,250 nautical miles (7,850 km)
Passengers: 64 to 80

The engine is a non-afterburning unit, so that Mach 1.7 is a supercruise speed. Interesting.

The cost to develop the aircraft and the engine to power it has to be staggering; thus a lot of my skepticism. The Wikipedia article mentions a total investment so far of $150 million, which sounds far short of what would be required.

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

Four engines and only 80 passengers. This will be the modern Concorde.

It won't be finacially viable, but it will attract attention and maybe even get some people to pay the huge ticket price.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

LT Soucek retired as a Vice Admiral.

A footnote on VAdm Soucek and his brothers. He was the eldest of three boys with the names Apollo, Zeus and Venus. (Clearly the parents were fans of the Greek gods.)

Youngest brother Venus tragically died at the age of 3.

The other two attended the U.S. Naval Academy and both became Naval Aviators. Zeus attained fame earlier as the pilot of a record-setting flying boat endurance flight but resigned from the Navy as a Lieutenant Commander. Elder brother Apollo went on to serve a full career as a naval officer. He was the executive officer of the carrier USS Hornet that launched Doolittle's Raiders on the attack on Japan in 1942 and late in World War II became the first Commanding Officer of the new carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVB 42). He attained flag rank not long after and was Commander of the Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River, Maryland. During the Korean War, he commanded Task Force 77, the U.S. Navy carrier task force conducting strikes against Communist forces. Illness forced his retirement from the Navy and he died shortly after retirement.

Little known fact: The Navy (and the Marine Corps I believe) had a policy called the "tombstone promotion" after World War II in which an officer who had been cited for gallantry or heroism -- as documented by the award of certain medals -- was advanced one grade upon retirement. Thus Rear Admiral Soucek became a Vice Admiral (retired). The Army and Air Force were unhappy about this Navy policy and it ended in the 1959. The "tombstone promotion" was a really big deal for Navy Captains, many of whom might become retired Rear Admirals. The policy had no financial impact and was effectively simply a courtesy title; pensions were based on the active duty rank.

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

[Llarry]

Some of my fondest memories from my youth are from 1963-1964 when I would fly with my Dad in Naval Air Station Alameda, California, Flying Club aircraft. Our aircraft of choice was usually a Beechcraft T-34B Mentor but we also occasionally would fly in Cessna 172s. As an aviation enthusiast it was great to get a little informal instruction in piloting skills from my very experienced pilot father.

As I recollect, my brother and sister were not that interested in aviation, so I got the lion's share of flights.

The U.S. Navy had flying clubs at most Naval Air Stations. Sailors could take flying lessons at a significantly lower cost than off base. Most of the aircraft were typical general aviation airplanes, like Cessnas or Pipers. The T-34B was a special case -- the Navy had bought 423 T-35Bs during the 1950s to serve as the primary trainer for Navy, Marine and Coast Guard student pilots. Apparently, they bought too many, because they loaned T-34Bs in small numbers to Navy flying clubs here and there. Alameda was a good-sized NAS and I think they just had the one T-34B.

Anyway, it was a thrill to sit in the back seat with a clear canopy all around and a control stick rather than a wheel. The flying club T-34s had civilian paint schemes and wore civil registration but were still technically owned by the Navy.

Two interesting flights stand out: On one occasion we flew cross-country north to Redding; while there we saw surplus Navy TBMs and F7Fs -- both of which my Dad had flown in the 1940s -- being used to fight wildfires. The other was a big thrill for me as my Dad did an aileron roll right over the middle of San Francisco Bay in the T-34B. (While the T-34B was used to teach student pilots aerobatics, the flying club rule was no aerobatics. )

Navy flying clubs still exist today, though the T-34s are long gone; the clubs purchase their own aircraft, and the club members pay dues and pay for rental and instructor time and gas. But I suspect it is still a good deal for somebody who wants to make progress toward a pilot license.

[vreihen16]

Breakaway runway lights aside (don't ask me how I know), the latter part of this video includes an incredible crabbing exhibition that I have never seen the B-52 do before:

.

[ezaircon4jc]

I don't get the BUFF moniker. IMHO, the B52 is one beautiful aircraft. It isn't Piaggio or Mustang beautiful, but it sure is elegant looking, especially in flight.

[vreihen16]

...and obviously more than a one-trick pony judging by the above performance.....

[Llarry]

Pretty cool 1934 photo showing Boeing F4Bs ready to take off from the carrier USS Saratoga. The Saratoga's sister ship Lexington was sunk in 1942, but the Sara survived the war. The 8-inch guns were removed during World War II and replaced with 5-inchers that were effective against aircraft. The F4B was gone within a couple of years after this picture.

I'm a bit puzzled by the markings on the F4Bs. Sara had two fighter squadrons (Fighting One and Fighting Six) with 36 total F4Bs. These two are from "Felix" which should be Fighting Six, but the rear F4B appears to be from a squadron designated 2 or 3. Then again, the squadrons were frequently being redesignated or shifted between carriers. By 1941, it made a lot more sense, as the Saratoga (CV 3) embarked Air Group Three with Fighting Three, Bombing Three, Scouting Three and Torpedo Three.

As has almost always been the case, there are plenty of onlookers when flight operations are being conducted on an aircraft carrier.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

It won't be financially viable, but it will attract attention and maybe even get some people to pay the huge ticket price.

Sort of a Concorde Lite -- Mach 0.3 slower cruise, slightly less range, fewer pax. Were I a deep-pocketed potential investor, I would pass.

[Lady Jane]

The Israeli AVIA-199. This type was flown by Pee-Wee Herman's father, who founded the IAF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avia_S-199

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Milton...ANCMS9&PC=U531

[Llarry]

Having mentioned my own experience with the Beech T-34 Mentor, let me introduce the aircraft properly.

The Beechcraft T-34 was a clever adaptation of a popular civil airplane, the Beechcraft Bonanza. The Bonanza was a 4-passenger light plane with a distinctive V-tail and came on the market in the 1940s. The military services had huge numbers of North American AT-6 (Air Force) and SNJ (Navy) trainers left over from the World War II era. Beechcraft reasoned that an aircraft that was more modern and economical to maintain might be a winner in the Cold War era. The prototype first flew in 1948 and featured a new, slimmer fuselage with seating for two and used the same air-cooled engine, wings and landing gear as the Bonanza.

The Air Force had started replacing AT-6s in the basic training role with the North American T-28A in 1950. What they wanted was something a bit less challenging for primary flight training, the first step in training a pilot. They selected the Beechcraft T-34A in 1953 and placed orders for 350 T-34As to be built in Kansas by Beechcraft and another 100 to be built by Canadian Car and Foundry in Quebec.

Deliveries of the T-34As to the USAF started in 1955. The Royal Canadian Air Force had ordered 25 examples to evaluate the type. The RCAF ended up using the T-34A on a trial basis for just a year or two before disposing of the aircraft. Another 161 T-34As were license-built in Japan from 1954 to 1957.

The U.S. Navy had noticed the new Air Force trainer and ordered their own model, the T-34B, shortly after the Air Force. Ultimately the Navy bought 423 T-34Bs.

The last T-34B was delivered in 1957 and that appeared to be the end of the road for the T-34.

By 1960, the Air Force had decided to transition to all-jet pilot training with the Cessna T-37 first augmenting, then replacing the T-34A. The Navy continued to use the T-34B.

By the 1970s, though, the Navy wanted to better prepare its primary students for subsequent turbine-powered aircraft and felt the T-34B was lacking. In addition, T-34Bs were starting to reach their service life limits. To explore an upgrade, 2 T-34Bs were modified to use PT6 turboprop engines in an enlarged nose, along with other upgrades. While the PT6 was rated at 715 hp, the engine could be de-rated to provide enough power at 400 hp and provide excellent fuel efficiency and longevity. The first prototype YT-34C flew in 1973 and in 1976 the Navy placed an order for 184 T-34Cs with deliveries to start in 1977. Ultimately the Navy accepted 353 T-34C aircraft. The T-34C was the primary trainer for Navy, Marine and Coast Guard pilots until replaced by the T-6 Texan II in the 2000s and was retired as a trainer in 2013. It remains in service in small numbers as a chase plane.

The T-34C was also marketed as a light attack plane with light armament as the T-34C-1 and saw service in the number of countries in that capacity.

[Llarry]

Airplane thread or joke thread? The Far Side rarely disappoints either way.

[Llarry]

The delivery of 36 F-15QA Advanced Eagles to Qatar is almost complete. The F-15QA is the basis for the U.S. Air Force F-15EX that will soon enter service.

This F-15QA has full internal fuel, conformal fuel tanks on either side of the fuselage and two 600-gallon external fuel tanks, for a total of 30,500 pounds of fuel. I assume the small store on the centerline is a travel pod.

Nice paint scheme.