Northeast Airlines (since absorbed by Delta), was originally Boston-Maine Airways, a subsidiary of B&M.
North Central Airlines (later Republic, then part of Northwest, also part of Delta) was Wisconsin Central Airlines, a subsidiary of WC/SOO. A bit of irony, Metra's suburban route on the former Soo Line is called the North Central Service.
samfp1943A little Railroad Airline History:
I recall reading about an early joint railroad/air operations wherein passengers flew by day and travelled by train at night.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 samfp1943 A little Railroad Airline History: I recall reading about an early joint railroad/air operations wherein passengers flew by day and travelled by train at night.
samfp1943 A little Railroad Airline History:
I remember reading about that as well. If I remember correctly east of the Mississippi it was a joint effort between the PRR and Transcontinental Air Transport (TAT), later to become Trans-Western Airlines (TWA). Later on Trans-Western became Trans-World, the TWA most of us remember.
West of the Mississippi I'm not sure who handled the railroad portion.
[T-A-T]Firelock 76: Your memory is pretty close!
Starting in July of 1929 the PRR would by railroad, take passengers from NYC to Columbus,Oh. At Columbus they would board a Ford Trimotor aircraf [T-A-T] for the day flight to Indianapolis, St.Louis, Kansas City, Wichita,, and finally to Waynoka, Ok.: where the passengers would bord a Santa Fe Train for the overnight run to Clovis,NM.
There(Clovis,NM.) boarding a second TAT tri-motor, would continue on to Albuquerque,NM, Winslow,Az., and then on to LA or San Francisco.
Their operational slogan:" Harnessing the plane, and the iron horse"
The fare from NYC to California was $338.00, and included a lower berth on the overnight rail parts of the trip.
I was told by a local man at the Wichita Air Museum, the Santa Fe Skyways wanted to copy the TAT parts of the trip(?). But apparently, those plans were not relized when the CAB pulled the temporary operating permit of SF Skyways(?) in 1947(or 48)?.
There is, apparently, no accurate, written record of the story of the Santa Fe Skyways, available now. Pictures of their aircraft are not widely available, and exist only as photos of models, and depictions in computer programs; individual oral histories but nothing researched or provded with solid information (?).
Kansas Historical Society(Topeka) does have some black&White photos of a couple of their aircraft, and some cockpit interior photos; but not much else seems to be available.
Frankly surprised no one has mentioned the aircraft that has most critically changed the air transport industry, the Boeing 747.
I don't think any single airframe had anywhere near the number of hours/miles on it than the one that was Braniff 'Big Orange'. Perhaps by one or more orders of magnitude. Admittedly this was due to synthetic operating conditions, like those used in Kiefer's Niagara-E7 comparison, but since we see so many people continuing to use that comparison as a modern defense of steam, perhaps its artificiality can be overlooked in respecting the technical achievement.
Flies nicely inverted for several minutes, by test; the limiting factor being some of the lubrication systems on the engine. Main airfoil is symmetrical, even if the dihedral is wrong. Don't try this with too many other planes.
The Boeing 747, good Lord, how did I forget that one? Right you are, Overmod!
Thanks Sam! Sometimes I wonder just how good my memory is, considering just how much useless knowledge I've got packed in the ol' "brain housing group."
And speaking of that "train and plane" collaboration, PRR calender artist Grif Teller did a calender painting on that very subject called "Giant Conquerors of Time and Space," and here it is...
http://www.artcom.com/Museums/newones/17579.htm Scroll down a bit for it.
I also remember Leon Russell being described as a "Master of Time and Space" on a Joe Cocker album, but of course that's not germane to this discussion!
The DC-3/C-47 is even still in US military service these days. The USAF bought a Basler turboprop conversion a few years ago for the 6th Special Operations Squadron.
"The best replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3!" Indeed!
I did some research, and the USAF 6th Special Operations Squadron phased out that DC-3, actually a Basler BT-67, in 2008.
I'm sure it's missed, and I'm equally sure it's found a good home.
These two were not warbirds but one of them could be a powerful "warchicken", another one was one of the most interesting "ironbird" I really like:
RC SCALE FLYING BOAT DORNIER DO X
Lun-class ekranoplan, a warchicken? Starting from 2m22s
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Thanks for those videos Mr. Jones, very entertaining!
You know, if the original DO-X performed as well as that superb model Dr. Dornier would have been a happy man indeed! And the operator did some great flying with it!
I remember seeing a show about the "Ekranoplan" on the History Channel a few years back. More of a high-speed surface transport than an aircraft if I remember correctly the concept was good, but what killed it was it was only good for use in fairly calm seas, in heavy weather it was no use at all. Interesting machine though. And that commentator's right, don't underestimate the Russians, they're a pretty innovative people.
You are welcome, Firelock! Glad to know you like these videos. I always interested in machines or ideas which is massive, powerful but not 100% practical. Imagine I am a multi-billionaire, I would convert the Ekranoplan or DO-X into a private yacht or provide passenger service between Miami and New York in good weather. I believe many people will want to try it. :P
I'm always interested in machines or ideas which are massive, powerful but not 100% practical...
Much better than the Ekranoplans was that other Bartini innovation fitting the criteria:
(Watch for the streamlined 2-8-4!)
Pity his student and protege Korolev got better funding ... just as the United States eschewed the B-70 not once but twice.
Those who know the Mars will appreciate some of the ... issues ... an A-57 might have even with modern engine materials.
If I remember correctly, the B-70 program was cancelled due to the rapid improvements in Soviet surface-to-air missle technology. High altitude and supersonic speed (which is what the B-70 was designed for) just wasn't a defense against the SAMs anymore.
Too bad, in a way. Those who flew the B-70 said it was a sweet-flying airplane.
Bartini? What happened to him serves him right! Italian and Communist when he should have been a good son of "Holy Mother The Church!" Mamma mia!
My grandmother would have cracked a rolling pin over his head!
PS: I don't blame him for being anti-Mussolini, Il Duce was a disaster.
Firelock76If I remember correctly, the B-70 program was cancelled due to the rapid improvements in Soviet surface-to-air missile technology.
They might hit something as pathetic-performing as a U2 but not a B-70, which was faster and, at altitude, more agile than an A-12.
What killed the B-70 was that rockets did the job better, faster, and cheaper. And inherently supported MIRV, and then MARV. Much the same reason the A-57 never got anywhere; Korolev's boosters worked perfectly on little more than kerosene and LOX to exceed mach 25.
In fact, I suspect the Semyorka/Vostok family deserves a spot on our list, as some version of it flew for nearly as long as I've been alive.
OvermodMuch better than the Ekranoplans was that other Bartini innovation fitting the criteria: (Watch for the streamlined 2-8-4!) Pity his student and protege Korolev got better funding ... just as the United States eschewed the B-70 not once but twice. Those who know the Mars will appreciate some of the ... issues ... an A-57 might have even with modern engine materials.
Some years ago, "Air & Space: Smithsonian" had a pretty good article about various ekranoplans. Most sailed on the Caspian Sea and seemed to be less of an aircraft then a modified ground effects vehicle.
In my opinion, among propeller planes, nothing says mean warbird better than a 109.
Overmod Firelock76 If I remember correctly, the B-70 program was cancelled due to the rapid improvements in Soviet surface-to-air missile technology. They might hit something as pathetic-performing as a U2 but not a B-70, which was faster and, at altitude, more agile than an A-12. What killed the B-70 was that rockets did the job better, faster, and cheaper.
Firelock76 If I remember correctly, the B-70 program was cancelled due to the rapid improvements in Soviet surface-to-air missile technology.
What killed the B-70 was that rockets did the job better, faster, and cheaper.
One huge advantage of the A-12 over the B-70 was radar cross section, the design spec for the A-12 RCS was for the detection range to be so short that there would not be enough time to launch the SAM's. The B-70 design inadvertently maximized RCS (similar to the B-52H), giving plenty of time to launch the SAM's (though the B-70 might have been able to dodge them given proper ECM).
The B-70 would have been the R/S-70 had it gone into production, with the next plane design called the R/S-71 - until LBJ dislexated that to SR-71, as with AMI becoming "A-11" (AMI actually being the F-12).
charlie hebdo In my opinion, among propeller planes, nothing says mean warbird better than a 109.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 was a mean looking airplane all right. As a matter of fact most German aircraft from World War Two have kind of a sinister appearance to them. I don't know if that was by accident or design, but it sure seemed to work out that way.
Matter of fact, here's one of those meanies brought back to life...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQpVpV2sUM8
Very wise of them too, flying it from a grass strip, that's what it was designed for.
While we're at it, how's about a six plane flyover of Junkers Ju-52's?
Relax, they left the Fallschirmjaeger back home!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GRSiTgL94
This past weekend there was an open house at McConnel AFB, here. It was quite a display of aircraft. It was interesting to see a B-29(Doc), and a B1b parked on the ramp,a C-5. Jumbo 747 Dreamlifter, and C17 fly over along with a B-2 F-35 and A-10
Link to an article on the 'Frontiers of Flight' event @ https://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article216766160.html
A
samfp1943This past weekend there was an open house at McConnel AFB, here. It was quite a display of aircraft. It was interesting to see a B-29(Doc), and a B1b parked on the ramp,a C-5. Jumbo 747 Dreamlifter, and C17 fly over along with a B-2 F-35 and A-10
The differences in size between historic and modern aircraft can be stunning. A few years ago at an airshow here I was speaking to the C-5 crew who, it turned out, had carried a B-17 (wings detached) on their plane. The same goes for the side-by-side flight of an F-51 (a post-war designation of the P-51) and an F-18.
tree68 samfp1943 This past weekend there was an open house at McConnel AFB, here. It was quite a display of aircraft. It was interesting to see a B-29(Doc), and a B1b parked on the ramp,a C-5. Jumbo 747 Dreamlifter, and C17 fly over along with a B-2 F-35 and A-10 The differences in size between historic and modern aircraft can be stunning. A few years ago at an airshow here I was speaking to the C-5 crew who, it turned out, had carried a B-17 (wings detached) on their plane. The same goes for the side-by-side flight of an F-51 (a post-war designation of the P-51) and an F-18.
samfp1943 This past weekend there was an open house at McConnel AFB, here. It was quite a display of aircraft. It was interesting to see a B-29(Doc), and a B1b parked on the ramp,a C-5. Jumbo 747 Dreamlifter, and C17 fly over along with a B-2 F-35 and A-10
Had racing organization catered dinner a few years ago at the Combat Air Museum at Forbes Field in Topeka. They had a number of WW I and WW II fighters on display. It was amazing how small they all were - especially the WW I ones. You can look at pictures all you want - until you actually see the objects in relation to your own view of the world you can't comprehend what you are seeing in the pictures.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDuntil you actually see the objects in relation to your own view of the world you can't comprehend what you are seeing in the pictures.
Indeed - I toured the B-17 that was there - as big as they look in war movies, there wasn't much room. Of course, ball turrets are legendary for that, but I had problems getting my 6'5" frame into the nose.
One category that has so far been overlooked is small recognizance and bush planes. For that I would nominate both the De Havilland Beaver and Noorduyn Norseman. Production of both ended over 50 years ago and numerous radial-engined examples are still flying in commercial revenue service today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-2_Beaver
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noorduyn_Norseman
I would agree with the 747 and C-130 Hercules in the passenger, cargo, and military categories.
Could the AC-130 gunship count as a fighter?
And guess what is the largest aircraft to ever land on a carrier:
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp
"Look Ma, no hook!"
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
BaltACD tree68 samfp1943 This past weekend there was an open house at McConnell AFB, here. It was quite a display of aircraft. It was interesting to see a B-29(Doc), and a B1b parked on the ramp,a C-5. Jumbo 747 Dreamlifter, and C17 fly over along with a B-2 F-35 and A-10 The differences in size between historic and modern aircraft can be stunning. A few years ago at an airshow here I was speaking to the C-5 crew who, it turned out, had carried a B-17 (wings detached) on their plane. The same goes for the side-by-side flight of an F-51 (a post-war designation of the P-51) and an F-18. Had racing organization catered dinner a few years ago at the Combat Air Museum at Forbes Field in Topeka. They had a number of WW I and WW II fighters on display. "It was amazing how small they all were - especially the WW I ones. You can look at pictures all you want - until you actually see the objects in relation to your own view of the world you can't comprehend what you are seeing in the pictures."
tree68 samfp1943 This past weekend there was an open house at McConnell AFB, here. It was quite a display of aircraft. It was interesting to see a B-29(Doc), and a B1b parked on the ramp,a C-5. Jumbo 747 Dreamlifter, and C17 fly over along with a B-2 F-35 and A-10 The differences in size between historic and modern aircraft can be stunning. A few years ago at an airshow here I was speaking to the C-5 crew who, it turned out, had carried a B-17 (wings detached) on their plane. The same goes for the side-by-side flight of an F-51 (a post-war designation of the P-51) and an F-18.
samfp1943 This past weekend there was an open house at McConnell AFB, here. It was quite a display of aircraft. It was interesting to see a B-29(Doc), and a B1b parked on the ramp,a C-5. Jumbo 747 Dreamlifter, and C17 fly over along with a B-2 F-35 and A-10
Had racing organization catered dinner a few years ago at the Combat Air Museum at Forbes Field in Topeka. They had a number of WW I and WW II fighters on display. "It was amazing how small they all were - especially the WW I ones. You can look at pictures all you want - until you actually see the objects in relation to your own view of the world you can't comprehend what you are seeing in the pictures."
Last year there was an AN-224 landed at Wichita ( Eisenhower IAP) to load a cargo of crated Cessna planes ( to be used in pilot training?). It seemed to be an even bigger version of the one I walked into at Oshkosh some years back. Planes or Trains both fascinating.
SD70Dude One category that has so far been overlooked is small recognizance and bush planes. For that I would nominate both the De Havilland Beaver and Noorduyn Norseman. Production of both ended over 50 years ago and numerous radial-engined examples are still flying in commercial revenue service today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-2_Beaver https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noorduyn_Norseman I would agree with the 747 and C-130 Hercules in the passenger, cargo, and military categories. Could the AC-130 gunship count as a fighter? And guess what is the largest aircraft to ever land on a carrier: http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp "Look Ma, no hook!"
I called and asked my BIL what he would consider the AC130 as. He goes if your on the reciving end from one you swear it is Hell raining down on you. If your the ones that called it in you think it is a angel from heaven itself raining fire on your enemy. 2 20mm cannons 2 40mm Bofors and a 105 howitzer that all can hit the same target. The only problem with the sucker is they have to use them no anti air can be in the area and they eat ammo faster than anything else we fly.
Shadow the Cats owner SD70Dude ... Could the AC-130 gunship count as a fighter? I called and asked my BIL what he would consider the AC130 as. He goes if you're on the receiving end from one you swear it is Hell raining down on you.
SD70Dude ... Could the AC-130 gunship count as a fighter?
... Could the AC-130 gunship count as a fighter?
I called and asked my BIL what he would consider the AC130 as. He goes if you're on the receiving end from one you swear it is Hell raining down on you.
Not the 20mm cannon of WWII. 25mm, and then 30mm, and now 40mm, and chain guns. (And follow-on to the M61A Vulcan/GAU4 ... there's a quality difference.)
Overmod Shadow the Cats owner SD70Dude ... Could the AC-130 gunship count as a fighter? I called and asked my BIL what he would consider the AC130 as. He goes if you're on the receiving end from one you swear it is Hell raining down on you. Not the 20mm cannon of WWII. 25mm, and then 30mm, and now 40mm, and chain guns. (And follow-on to the M61A Vulcan/GAU4 ... there's a quality difference.)
I have always wondered how fire control and aiming are accomplished with the AC-130.
BaltACDI have always wondered how fire control and aiming are accomplished with the AC-130.
I believe the original modified C-47 'Spooky' had individually trainable mounts (with airmen actively pointing them)
The H and U variants have individual gunners for each of the mounts, with a fair amount of central fire-control avionics. The W has a modular system that depends much more highly on the 'Gunslinger' precision-guided weapon system (and wing-mounted GBU-39s); it only has one gun (but it's a doozy!) on the left-hand side in a 360-degree mount. Interestingly, as provided in the Precision Strike Package, this weapon does not have a dedicated gunner... draw your own conclusions, but examination of the PSP specs will, I think, give you the answer without compromising security. Note that the accuracy of the gun at 4000' range from the aircraft is well within 20' and it has widely-selectable burst control.
The Ghostrider version (AC 130J) was able to add the 105mm howitzer and wing-mounted Hellfires, but if I'm not mistaken this project has been cancelled in favor of more Ws.
Want to go a little "retro" everybody? We can do that.
What's this one about? Let me give you a hint...
"Beware the Hun in the sun!"
Be prepared to be as stunned as I was when I found this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOhjtLFIrms
And on the original AC-47 "Spooky" the three 7.62mm Vulcan guns were in fixed mounts. There was a "gunsight," for lack of a better term, on the left wingtip. The pilot would put the sight on the target area and begin circling, then would open fire.
As most of us probably know, the original name of the aircraft was "Puff The Magic Dragon." The radio call-sign was changed from "Puff" to "Spooky" as it was phonetically better for radio transmissions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.