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!"
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.
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
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."
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
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 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!
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
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
charlie hebdo In my opinion, among propeller planes, nothing says mean warbird better than a 109.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
(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.
Jones 3D Modeling Club https://www.youtube.com/Jones3DModelingClub
Firelock76If 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. 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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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
"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.
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 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!
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.
[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.
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 recall reading about an early joint railroad/air operations wherein passengers flew by day and travelled by train at night.
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.
samfp1943A little Railroad Airline History:
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.
Alittle Railroad Airline History: Santa Fe Skyways ?
YEP! formed by AT&SFRR in 1946. HQ was in Wichita, Ks. Aircraft were Surplus 4ea C-54's (military version of the DC-4), and a couple of C-46's ( Curtiss Comando). There is not much written about this operation; and some confusion as to the two engined aircraft (one might have been a C-47 ( military version of the DC-3(?).
It was started as a cargo carrier, and flew approximately 2 million miles while it flew; It was shut down by the CAB(Civil Aviation Board) in 1947/48(?). The airline had started operations on a temporary flight certificate, and it was terminated in 1947/48(?).
Regulators were afraid of AT&SF becoming monopolistic(?). It was not only a railroad, but a bus line(Santa Fe Trailways), a truck line (Santa Fe??).
At one point, I had read that the railroad had envisioned their airline to be lined up with service on one of the overnight Pullman trains.Passengers would have a Pullman berth at night, and then transfer to fly during the day(?). [No good source on that last piece of information.]
The cargo was flown from the LA area via 'the Valley', picking up fresh product in Salinas; onto a stop in Amarillo (refuel?), and then to Chicago. Apparently, the C-54's were equiped to keep the fruit and vegies chilled(?)
About the same time that CAB shut down Santa Fe Skyways, they also put an end to Missouri Pacific's Eagle Airline(?). And at one point, Southern Pacific flew from the west coast to Hawaii, as a 'one ticket' convenience(?), from LA, and SFO (?).
[Remember as well, Burlington Northern Air Freight,as founded, it was a wholley- owned carrier of BNRR, was operated out of their 'Hub" in Ft. Wayne,In. It was started in early 1970's(72?), and has been through a number of ownership changes, and is now BAX Global, a part of Schenker Logistics.]
Very interesting, gentleman. Hence my statement of the DC-3/ C-47 being in the Number One spot of great aircraft. There hasn't been any of those built since 1945 and there's still some out there doing what they were built to do and still earning their keep doing what they were built to do.
As CSS said, longevity isn't everything but it's a pretty darn good yardstick in my estimation. That humble old "Gooney Bird," even better than Donald Douglas and his boys ever dreamed it would be. And you know what they say...
"The only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3!"
A personal note. When I was with the Second Marine Air Wing in the 1970's at Cherry Point NC the Wing was still operating the C-117 variant of the DC-3. We called them "Hummers," since the jets screamed but the "Hummers" hummed. Service with the Hummer squadron was considered a "Siberia" for Marine pilots, but the Hummer jockeys considered it a "well-kept secret," they loved that old bird!
Here's a picture of the last one flying from 1992.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C-117D_US_Marine_Corps_final_flight_1992.JPEG
All I meant is that it's one distinction that isn't shared between the two when one compares them.
And that's why I said C-130. Like the Tu-95, it has been around for decades and production of enhanced versions of the original design lasted into the 1990's (Today's J model Super Hercules is in essence a fresh design).
Yet like the Tu-95 fleet, active C-130's in most of the world's militaries are newer. Other than perhaps a handful in 3rd world nations, the first decade of C-130 production is extinct from the active military inventory. I doubt the US for instance is flying anything today older than the H model, and I wouldn't be surprised if none of the H model C-130 airframes active in the American military were older than about 1975.
Anyways, here's at least one civilian operator of the Boeing 707, albeit utilized to support military customers.
http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/what-we-do
One of the reasons that the Tu-95 is so loud is based on the fact that it is a turboprop. The contra-rotating propellers are so large that the blade tips are supersonic at normal operating speeds.
Don't sell the Tu-95 short just because there is more recent production than the B-52. The C-130 is still in production and I don't think that there are too many pre-1965 examples still in service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.