An interesting and possibly troubled figure.
charlie hebdoCoffin? Don't you mean Roy D. Chapin, Sr.?
He means Howard E. Coffin. A much more important figure in the developing American automobile industry than most people recognize.
Coffin? Don't you mean Roy D. Chapin, Sr.?
54light15The car with the horizontal stripes is a Ruxton- also front wheel drive and extremely rare.
There's an over-thirty-page account of the restoration of this particular car on line. I linked to it in an earlier thread here. Interesting discussion of how they came to paint it in a 'grayscale' version of the multiple-tone Urban color scheme.
I've seen the Bucciali at the Meadowbrook show in Michigan-It's one of the longest cars I've ever seen. For the best of Edsel's Lincoln Continental you have to look at the 40-41 with the waterfall grille- from every angle, it just looks right. The story is, Edsel wanted a personal car to use at the estate in Palm Beach- when they saw it, his friends begged him to put it into production and so it was. His prototype still exists in mint condition.
The car with the horizontal stripes is a Ruxton- also front wheel drive and extremely rare.
Actually, front wheel drive was pioneered by Walter Christie who built a transverse-engined front wheel drive racing car in 1904. He also designed a tank that could do 80 mph on rough ground and 120 mph on paved roads. The US Army wasn't interested, so he sold the design to the Russians who used it as the basis of the T-34, pretty much the best tank of the second world war.
Hudsons were named after the owner of the J.L Hudson department store in Detroit who financially backed the car company that lacked a name. The board of directors thought naming a car after the company founder would be a little awkward since his name was Coffin.
Bucciali pioneered front-wheel drive vehicles, two years before the mass-produced DKW F-series.
I first encountered the Bucciali "V-16" only as a drawing in a book of classic cars I was given in my early teens. In those pre-Internet days it was tough to come across anything substantive, but was that ever an evocative silhouette!
Later Christian Huet would document the development, and then there would be a three-part series in 2014 on the car and the two 'replicas' made of it. Here is the first installment.
Oddly enough, I knew a couple of the Tishmans fairly well and never heard about this.
It took a very, very long time, considering the time and effort put into projects like Coddington's Whatthehaye and French Connection, but someone in the rodding community finally woke up and did a version. Let's hope there will be more!
Kind of jumping ahead out of the era of those classics, but one of the things I liked about the PT Cruiser I had was stepping up into it intead of half-sitting down before getting in as I have to do with the Hyundai I'm driving now.
Fun car that Cruiser, but it didn't age well. Too bad.
Lady Firestorm's Kia Soul is like the Cruiser, step up into it, which she loves.
Man, that Bugatti Overmod linked looks cool as hell! Didn't Mussolini have one of those?
Paul of Covington The old cars may not have had all the padding and other safety features, but when you stepped into one, you felt like you were stepping up into something solid. I'm reminded of my father's comment about newer cars: "You have to sit down before you get in."
Yes, but...
We're talking essentially about this -- same color and same trim:
and you most assuredly don't 'step up' into it. Nor, by intent, were you supposed to.
Mind you, it's no Jaguar, or Pantera, or Bullet Bird. But it wasn't something enormous like a '47 Cadillac, either.
Hudsons were another car named after a fast locomotive ... or at least you won't get me to admit anything different ... that you didn't board like a pickup truck.
Substantial, yes. Awkward climb up over the sill of the chassis? I don't think so.
And then of course you have this -- intentionally in later-Twentieth-Century evocative colors:
Of course, there's also these, which are admittedly a bit extreme, but they make a pretty good point:
Now, one or the other of you is surely going to get around to 'well, what if we actually built a car POWERED by a railroad engine; wouldn't that be something you had to climb up into no matter how slinky it was styled?' ...
Well, maybe. But then again, maybe not...
Paul of Covington Flintlock76 I mean, just look at this tank! The old cars may not have had all the padding and other safety features, but when you stepped into one, you felt like you were stepping up into something solid. I'm reminded of my father's comment about newer cars: "You have to sit down before you get in."
Flintlock76 I mean, just look at this tank!
The old cars may not have had all the padding and other safety features, but when you stepped into one, you felt like you were stepping up into something solid.
I'm reminded of my father's comment about newer cars: "You have to sit down before you get in."
Also, the front fenders on a Model A were wonderful for children to use as slides.
Johnny
Flintlock76http://www.ipocars.com/vinfo/lincoln/zypher_v12-1939.html
Well, what would you expect from a car explicitly named after a train?
And this was the 'Packard 120' product in the Lincoln lineup. For true locomotive wonder with that V12 flathead you should go to Edsel's Continentals.
In the glorious period in the mid-Seventies when I got to order all the family new cars at the local Lincoln-Mercury agency, it was their practice to have 'special-interest' cars in the showroom -- perhaps to compete with the Mercedes people up the street who always had some interesting historical thing for sale. One such tempting target was a 'driver restoration' of a '46 Continental, essentially put into not flawless concours undrivability, but as the car would have appeared in a contemporary showroom for sale. (Not quite as practical as one of the box Town Cars, though... when you could get one with four-wheel disc brakes and stage IV towing and built-in CB right from the factory, and if you knew the right people get a police-spec 460 in the thing as well. Surprising how well one of those went, with near 50/50 weight distribution, when you "improved" some things in the suspension...)
Flintlock76I mean, just look at this tank!
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Hard to argue with the choice of the Merlin!
Although, I do have a soft spot for the V-12 engine in the 1939 Lincoln-Zephyr!
I mean, just look at this tank!
http://www.ipocars.com/vinfo/lincoln/zypher_v12-1939.html
Being an old car guy as well as a train guy, I participate in an on-line forum called Bringatrailer.com. Cars are for sale, people write in comments both informed and uninformed. They post questions such as "Which do you prefer, Ferrari or Maserati?" and such like. A question a while back was, 'What is your favourite V-12?" The winner? The Merlin!
charlie hebdo Like a piece of sculpture by a fine artist.
Like a piece of sculpture by a fine artist.
And a fine sounding one as well...
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...
One of the most beautiful airplanes ever built, a national icon for the country that built it, and a sword through Britain's deadliest enemy.
You can't beat that combination!
OK, this is about an airplane. It's not attacking a train and I hope this thread doesn't get locked because of me posting this, but it's so damned beautiful that words fail me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9qqLX3Afaw
rdamonThere is a active plan to re-engine the current fleet and they plan on sticking with 8. https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/engine-testing/rolls-royce-completes-testing-of-potential-b-52-replacement-engines.html
https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/engine-testing/rolls-royce-completes-testing-of-potential-b-52-replacement-engines.html
That's only one of the section 804 design efforts; that's basically the same engine package that fits the Gulfstream V.
General Electric proposed the CF34-10 as the high-bypass 4-engine replacement choice, and the "Passport" business-jet engine (with an enhanced suite of diagnostic and support tools) for the eight-engine choice.
A primary reason to use a small-core engine to replace TF33s is that they can be phased into existing 'power pods' with minimal effect on the 'rest' of the airframe. As I recall, the later mods of the '52 lack explicit aileron authority and the 'fence' effect of the pods is an important part of stability. As I recall, the 'last-century' pitch to use Rolls-Royce RB211 fan engines as the replacement foundered, in part, on having significant required support differences (4 matched converted engines per airframe, no 'mix and match' as seen in the engine-test pictures) that would have to be supported for the considerable time of the conversion; much better to have engines that at least in theory could be 'modularly' installed perhaps even using some of the existing nacelle structure, or even be made 'plug compatible' (in emulation, including implicit FADEC remapping and derating) with the controls for the earlier engine to make them interchangeable in emergency conditions.
In my opinion section 804 was well written and should produce reasonable results -- note that initial choices were supposed to be made around this month, and I don't expect that 'milestone' target would be missed...
They used the B52 to test the engines for the 747 ..
http://newsroom.pw.utc.com/2015-05-26-B-52-Re-Birth-from-Boneyard-Sparks-Memories-for-Former-Pratt-Whitney-Pilot
There is a active plan to re-engine the current fleet and they plan on sticking with 8.
charlie hebdo If the runways were too short to land at Chanute, how did they get there intact?
If the runways were too short to land at Chanute, how did they get there intact?
By using every available foot of the runway and thresholds. As I mentioned, I believe at least one of them over-ran the runway. For the record, the runways at Chanute are 5,001 ft and 4,894 feet. It is now an uncontrolled general aviation airport.
And there's no guarantee those planes actually were flyable after landing, plus what everyone else has said. I'd imagine they planted them pretty hard.
As an aside, my son (a former F15 crew chief) told me they had tried to repower a B-52 with more modern power. I think they only put four engines on, versus the usual eight, and still had to derate the engines as they were too much power for the airframe...
Flintlock76 charlie hebdo If the runways were too short to land at Chanute, how did they get there intact? Pilots have gotten aircraft down on runways (or other places, for that matter) where "The Book" says it's not possible to do so. It's been done. But on the other hand, flying them out of there again can be another matter entirely.
Pilots have gotten aircraft down on runways (or other places, for that matter) where "The Book" says it's not possible to do so. It's been done.
But on the other hand, flying them out of there again can be another matter entirely.
Extremely skilled and proficient operators of any form of machienry can get it to do things the 'specs' say are not possible - those writing the 'specs' are aiming those specs at the average or worse operator - as a safety margin for the the machine.
Every time you watch a motor race - the winner exceeds the norm for operations as identified by those finishing in 2nd and lower positions. Sometime that difference may be 0.001 second or less, sometimes that difference may be a lap or more.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdoIf the runways were too short to land at Chanute, how did they get there intact?
Very light (and probably stripped); full flaps, high AOA in flare (perhaps with added power to hold the descent angle) and then very quick brake accompanied with winding off the flaps as soon as 'committed' to landing wheels-on. I'd also suspect that use of drag chutes would factor into this even if the aircraft weren't being flown there 'permanently'; see about 1:55 in the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnH9GbFum-k]test aircraft footage here[/quote]. Probably some banging down on the undercarriage, perhaps even to the point of gear damage or burst tires (remember the strange landing gear these planes had)
Interesting that I don't think the B-52 has any sort of reverse thrust.
Suspect you could actually get that aircraft (stripped, light, and with minimal fuel to reach a tanker) out of a strip as short as Chanute with appropriate RATO. Wouldn't want to have to design, let alone approve, the clusters necessary, or the hardpoint improvements to take them, lest we find that here too 'cluster' be only half a word...
BaltACD charlie hebdo Flintlock76 Some articles are questioning whether a 75 year old man should have been flying the plane to begin with. I don't know, there's "75" and "75", if you follow my meaning. Some 75 year olds are older, or younger, than others. There are very sound reasons why there is a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots: 65 for domestic flights, 60 international. Pilots in commercial aviation face many more challenges and stresses that do the volunteer pilots for the Collings Foundation. Pilots do not have their licenses invalidated by age alone - all (to my knowledge) pilot licenses have a physical examination component that must be passed.
charlie hebdo Flintlock76 Some articles are questioning whether a 75 year old man should have been flying the plane to begin with. I don't know, there's "75" and "75", if you follow my meaning. Some 75 year olds are older, or younger, than others. There are very sound reasons why there is a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots: 65 for domestic flights, 60 international.
Flintlock76 Some articles are questioning whether a 75 year old man should have been flying the plane to begin with. I don't know, there's "75" and "75", if you follow my meaning. Some 75 year olds are older, or younger, than others.
Some articles are questioning whether a 75 year old man should have been flying the plane to begin with. I don't know, there's "75" and "75", if you follow my meaning. Some 75 year olds are older, or younger, than others.
There are very sound reasons why there is a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots: 65 for domestic flights, 60 international.
Pilots in commercial aviation face many more challenges and stresses that do the volunteer pilots for the Collings Foundation. Pilots do not have their licenses invalidated by age alone - all (to my knowledge) pilot licenses have a physical examination component that must be passed.
1. B-17s are a performance aircraft and a lot trickier to fly a 75-year old four engine bomber than a civilian Cessna.
2. The guys who originally flew B-17s were not over 60.
There were, at one time, several B-52's at Chanute AFB (the maintenance school was there). It was my understanding that they were all flown there. One was in a hangar, the others were outside, on display.
The runways at Chanute are too short to land a B-52, much less to allow one to take off. I heard that at least one overshot the runway on landing.
None are visible in satellite photos now. I imagine they were scrapped in place.
Flintlock76 Thank you Charlie. As I read the (preliminary) report, it looks to me like pilot error, i.e. he misjudged his approach and was landing short, leading to the collision with the landing light system which caused the disaster. Caused by unfamiliarity with the airport? We'll have to wait for the full report.
Thank you Charlie.
As I read the (preliminary) report, it looks to me like pilot error, i.e. he misjudged his approach and was landing short, leading to the collision with the landing light system which caused the disaster.
Caused by unfamiliarity with the airport? We'll have to wait for the full report.
It Can Happen, and occcasionally does happen!
Some may recall a similar "OOPS" that happened in the Wichita area, about a year, OR MAYBE, it might have been a couple of years back?? A Boeing Dreamlifter was making a scheduled pick up at the Spirit Plant here. {Spirit shares a part of the local airbase here.] It was being flown by a contract crew, Their runway shares a similar vector, with a runway at a local general aviation airport; seperation is something like 5 miles(?). They successfully landed the Dreamlifter, BUT they landed on a much shorter runway and nowhere near the structure need for an aircraft of the size of a Dreamlifter. { see link @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter } After a few day of preparations...The Dreamlifter took off; and returned back to the runway it had been intended to originally land on. and picked up the load that it had been scheduled for. Some friends of mine that witnessed the take off said they were reminded of the 1969 Forrestal launches of that USMC C-130 from the Carrier's flight deck.
Years back, I was watching a show about Jimmy Doolittle, he was still alive at the time, and he said that "If the flying you do is light aircraft, and your health stays good, you can probably fly until you're 100. But if you're flying high-performance aircraft the day's going to come when you have to be honest with yourself and realise you're just not physically up to it anymore."
And I'd consider a B-17 to be a high-performance aircraft.
Again, there's "75" and "75," but I do have to wonder.
Not pointing fingers or condemning, just thinking out loud.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.