The unarmed Turbinlite aircraft illuminated enemy bombers so they could be attacked by other aircraft.
Well, that was the goal anyway. My (mis)understanding is that there were several attrition losses during the tricky co-ordination of the Havoc and the night fighters, but actual shootdowns consisted of one Heinkel 111 and one friendly fire incident at the expense of a homeward-bound Shorts Stirling (fortunately the latter made a good landing, supposedly followed by a frank and open exchange of views between its crew and their tormentors).
The experiment was pursued enthusiastically but briefly, retired in favor of better radars that could be carried by a night fighter.
@ttyymmnn Eastern Airlines is another one of those zombie trademarks that's been shuffled around and revived a few times, not as badly as Pan Am, but, still.
There was a new Eastern Airlines that operated as a division of Swift Air from 2015-2017 as a charter airline, using the same logo and livery as the original, then another Eastern Airlines in operation from 2018-present as a rebranding of the former Dynamic Airways International, in which Swift Air was the controlling shareholder. They're a small, scheduled low cost carrier primarily serving a few Caribbean destinations, and also added cargo services in 2021 under the Eastern Air Cargo name, and use a totally new livery and logo.
@CB I mean that's mostly right. There were some helicopters zipping around at the end of WWII, but they were slow, short ranged, couldn't carry much, and were fragile even from a helicopter perspective. By the Korean War, you had some helicopters that were more useful, but it wasn't really until the age of jet turbine powered helicopters in the 60s that they became practical for a broad range of roles. The definitive helicopter, the UH-1 (Iroquois officially, and Huey to the populace) first flew in 1956, but wasn't operational until 1959.
@Ad-absurdum-per-aspera Those are all good points, and I do remember watching a show about aircraft and engines and how the bolts are supposed to shear in the right circumstances - if the turbine seizes up quickly it puts a huge torque on the mount and thus the wing, so the bolts are supposed to shear rather than pretzel the wing.
Though I think your comment was better directed at @ash78 since he's the one that brought up the jettisoning the engines. I was just playing along with it.
@BaconSandwich Well you have torpedoes obviously. I suspect in the air, travelling at supersonic speeds generates enough noise that hearing nearby targets becomes impossible. And of course you certainly can't do any sort of active sonar (echolocation) at supersonic speeds since you'd fly past your pings before they even reached the taarget.
the first jet-powered presidential aircraft, with tail number SAM (Special Air Mission) 26000 and SAM 27000.
SAM970 (pictured!) would disagree with that statement.
SAM970/971/972 were not officially reserved exclusively for presidential travel like later Air Force Ones, but they were purchased and outfitted with the intention that would be Ike's and later presidents' travel, and served in that role.
Ike took advantage of his new jets with a trip to West Germany, the UK, and France in late August/early September 1959, followed by an 11 nation trip through Europe, Asia and North Africa in December. He flew to South America, Europe, and East Asia the following year.
Backed by the power of jets, he visited roughly three times as many countries in his last two years as he did in his first six, and at much greater distances (his only previous destinations outside of North America as President were Switzerland and France, though he had also visited South Korea as President-Elect).
@Ad-absurdum-per-aspera also, they had a several decades long package deal, where if you sailed one way on Queen Elizabeth 2 at full price, you could return on Concorde at half price, I guess the Soviets could have done the same thing by twinning the Tu-144 with Aleksandr Pushkin, but I'm not sure there would have been enough takers
Such is life in the middle of nowhere. When I moved to Saskatchewan in 1994 the Regina airport had a fully functional animatronic T.rex and NO DOWN ESCALATOR, only up. We prairie trash have fucked up priorities and we settle for less. Our only direct flights were basically to drink on the beach in Mexico. Flight to Toronto? that'll be a 4 hour layover in Calgary. Work will fly me to Vancouver, I'd rather drive.
Damn, that's awful. I usually enjoy Southwest—almost always friendly staff and decent customer service. Heck, I even prefer flying with them over some of the non-budget carriers.
I saw that one video of someone flipping out at a couple counter staffers at ABIA and it's deeply frustrating to see the customer-facing employees take all the abuse for a meltdown that clearly was baked into the system by bad decisions made over their head. It's always the lower-level staff who end up suffering the most from the poor decisions of the higher-ups, and it's frickin' enraging.
@ttyymmnn it wasn't a catapult, there was no propulsive assistance other than some from gravity, as it was somewhat downhill (as downhill as they could get on a fairly flat area). It was a wooden cradle mounted to a dolly that rode along a wooden rail. The Brazilian claim is because the Wright Flyer required some fixed infrastructure on the ground to do it's take off roll, but that's kind of an arbitrary definition of an aircraft, if you ask me.
At one point, the Germans were really sensitive about pointing out that Count von Zeppelin achieved controlled, powered flight in 1900, but hydrogen assistance means that doesn't count
They believed that the problems of aerodynamic wings and sufficiently powerful engines were surmountable, and they focused on developing a system of control that would govern movement of the airplane in three axes of flight: roll, pitch and yaw.
And they had a wind tunnel to test different airfoil shapes and the effects and control of the three axes. Here is a replica.
At the time there were other wanna be aviators trying to get there first. Not sure how many others took as serious an engineering approach as did the Wrights. I believe they flew first because they were the first to use an aeronautical engineering approach.
@ttyymmnn That was a great read! I actually saw an RAF A400M a week ago. Well, i heard it but England had to be covered in thick clouds. I checked on flight radar and it flew right over my school and was only 4000ft above the ground. Very cool but very disappointed!
@ttyymmnn Yes, double mamba driving counter-rotating props through a single - presumably absurdly complicated - gearbox. Crazy design. Apparently it was in aid of being able to improve loitering time by shutting down one turbine and feathering one prop, without suffering the control asymmetry of a conventional twin setup.
Boeing has (probably) failed to get Congress to extend its deadline for changing 737 MAX cockpit alerts
Boeing is following what their airline customers want, cheaper 737's.
The 737 fleet has held on to the 1950's tech to add cheapness. Cheaper to build, and much cheaper to not add an airplane Type.
The airlines love keeping the old tech to avoid additional Type's which would require separate pilot groups, each rated on a Type.
The hot mess that Boeing got into over the 737 brought them some considerable Congress flack (high body count).
They were hoping to sneak this by and sell more cheap 737's to their cheap airline customers. The cheap airlines only think about their cheap passengers, who only click buy on the cheapest fare on the internet.
Walmart of the sky, it's no wonder air travel sucks. Only cheap matters.
I don't think that discussing the crash or speculating about possible causes is disrespectful to the lost pilots.
‘... As @drVanTraveler said, ultimate responsibility lies with the Cobra pilot who was in command of his ship’
‘Air boss directs a risky maneuver, plane hits drone, plane crashes into other plane’
‘… without an altitude separation The air boss better find an attorney.’
So it's entirely possible that none of the above is the root cause. Perhaps there was a mechanical failure, or a mechanical failure caused by the P63 hitting the drone or whatever object was up there. The death of six people was then wrongly attributed to specific individuals by us in our discussion. I don't think that is good, nor fair.
'The NTSB et al will do their investigation, and we will discuss again when it comes out next year.'
Yes, and that is the appropriate time to discuss; when fault has been determined by the experts, and the responsibility for the death of six people is no longer being speculated on by those of us that likely don't have all the data. At that point they typically share the pertinent facts and the rest of us can see the whole picture.
The NTSB often releases preliminary info when they believe there is something to be shared that may benefit others, in this case, other air show flights. I am sure every other air show is reviewing how they do their formation flights right now. Even if what transpired here is less than the best practice it may or may not be the primary cause in their final report and the responsibility for the deaths may not follow.
I believe it's not fair to the potentially innocent, dead or alive, to attribute the deaths to them. Certainly when we are doing so on less than complete data.
Another reason for bombing at 5000 feet was that it allowed better cooling for the fire prone B29 engines. At that point, they were commonly losing planes to engine fires. In fact the joke was that Curtiss Wright killed more bomber pilots than the Japanese......
@ttyymmnn Very cool video! I didn’t see them doing any carrier landings, they were going back and forth between the NAS and carriers that were a little further away. But they were just constantly flying, with the approach to the NAS seemingly along the beach.
@ttyymmnn "There were extensive flight simulator re-enactments of the flight. These focussed on the possibility of returning to La Guardia or diverting to Teterboro. An important issue here was pilot reaction and consideration time. Simulations with an immediate turn to an airport were partly successful, but not so when a reaction delay was added. The investigation concluded that Sullenberger's decision was correct."
@ttyymmnn XP980 was restored to her unpainted test markings before being remanded to the Fleet Air Arm museum, which I like:
24/02/1963 - first flight at Dunsfold
16/11/1963 - made a heavy landing
25/11/1963 - flew again following repairs
11/02/1965 - to Bircham Newton 10/03/1965 - to Dunsfold via RAF West Raynham
14/07/1965 - grounded
30/12/1965 - next recorded flight
27/01/1966 - last flight from Dunsfold To A&AEE for trials, damaged during practice forced landing, used for spares recovery
1970 - moved to Tarrant Rushton
03/1970 - used by Flight Refuelling as ground experimental vehicle/barrier trials
03/1971 - wing returned to Boscombe Down, replaced with wing from Harrier GR1 XV751 1972 - to RAE Bedford for pilotless crash barrier trials
09/1973 - to 71MU at RAF Bicester for conversion to display exhibit (not carried out) * ?/?/? - to RAF Gaydon for grounds handling training
06/11/1974 - to Bitteswell
08/1975 - to RAE Bedford for Sea Harrier restraining hook trials
08/1977 - to Tarrant Rushton for Drone braking tests as part of the Sea Vixen D3 programme
09/10/1980 - to School of Aircraft Handling at RNAS Culdrose for dummy deck training and allocated A2700 with engine E4754
1981 - repainted to look like a Sea Harrier
09/03/1989 - moved to FAAM to be part of VSTOL Exhibition 13/11/1999 - moved to the Cobham Hall store
On display in FAA Museum in Hall 4/Leading Edge Exhibition