Check this out, I remember listening to the music in school many years ago but the film is amazing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKRCJhLU7rs
Well , actually the music piece was written before the advent of the locomotive series seen in the film , the Chapelon Pacifics .
Nevertheless , they must have been amazing locomotives indeed : although the spindle is being brought to backwards as seen immediately after that close up on the clock , the locomotive starts out forwards - gee .
Seriously : some really fast revving to be seen at 7:30 , 7:33 , 7:49 and 8:04 ; interesting too : the close to rail view of passing through that wide left at speed , see how the engine's running is shortly being disturbed by switchwork only to re-settle to smooth running immediately after , although trackwork is clearly less than perfect and still *far* from the simply immaculate alignment I witnessed when travelling the SNCF Eastern mainline Strasbourg to Paris with curve lead-in and lead-out as soft as to become hardly noticeable and with just perfect compensation by amount of superelevation . What impressed me , too , was how drivers of those very strong electrics universally started trains in a very smooth style , like emulating a Pacific or Mountain up front , not an electric of potentially high tractive effort which *could* abruptly 'tear' a train off a station platform like to make you sit down whether there's a seat or not , the way some DB drivers would do .
Fascinating to see how these 231. C / .E locomotives of decidedly non-fit outlines came into their own when seen in their smooth running at speed .
Juniatha
edit : Strasbourg in French spelling as spoken in Alsac-Lorraine
Juniatha, you're back! Thank goodness, I thought you were angry with us!
By the way, did you get those 611 pictures I sent you, or attempted to send?
Hi Fireloco
time is too precious to waste it by anger or other negative emotion . All of us are better off exchanging positive emotion .
If positive emotions cannot be shared I prefer zero emotion , not to become entangled in a negative spin .
Think of how much trouble , fiendishness , riot and - in the final consequence - war could be spared , how much energy could be applied instead to solving urgent global problems crucial to win our future .
See message , too , Fireloco .
Well, I just watched "Pacific 231." Hard to say what's more impressive, the music or Monsieur Chapelon's locomotive!
Oooooo-la-la!
Maybe someone should try a video of French steam with that magnificent march "Regiment de Sambre-Meuse" playing in the background.
What a lucky guy to have such a fine neighbor! And a war hero at that!
Last year the Lancaster flew to Britain to take part in Battle of Britain commemorative flights, along with a Spitfire and Hurricane. What a time to be in Britain! This Labour Day, when the Canadian National Exhibition closes with an air show, there will be a B of B commemorative flight. I can watch that from my back yard with an adult beverage in my hand. But, what a time to be in Britain! Dang!
54light15 You know what else is impressive? The Canadian Warbirds Museums Avro Lancaster that just now flew over my house. 4 Packard-built Merlins makes for some mighty fine music!
You know what else is impressive? The Canadian Warbirds Museums Avro Lancaster that just now flew over my house. 4 Packard-built Merlins makes for some mighty fine music!
Earlier in July, a restored B-24J was here for a show and did a buzz over my house. I would have loved to hear the differences in the sound of the 4 Merlins vs 4 P&W R-1830-35s!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Why would anybody want to see something as ugly as a B-24?? Disclaimer, Dad flew with the 306th Bomb Group in 1944.
2 years ago I was in New York City walking down the west side and what flies down the Hudson? The B-17G from the Yankee air museum in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which, by the way was where B-24s were built by Henry Ford in the Willow Run plant. What sweet music it made! My old man was a dorsal gunner on a B-29, completed his training but the war ended before he could see combat.
CSSHEGEWISCH Why would anybody want to see something as ugly as a B-24?? Disclaimer, Dad flew with the 306th Bomb Group in 1944.
I would! And have! OK, a B-24 isn't as good looking as a B-17, it couldn't take the punishment a '17 could, it was more difficult to fly than a '17, but by God a lot of history was made by the B-24 and a lot of good men served on 'em.
I'll visit a B-24 any time one come to town.
By the way, the late Jimmy Stewart flew B-24's.
And achieved the rank of Brigadier General in the Air Force Reserve.
Firelock76 CSSHEGEWISCH Why would anybody want to see something as ugly as a B-24?? Disclaimer, Dad flew with the 306th Bomb Group in 1944. I would! And have! OK, a B-24 isn't as good looking as a B-17, it couldn't take the punishment a '17 could, it was more difficult to fly than a '17, but by God a lot of history was made by the B-24 and a lot of good men served on 'em. I'll visit a B-24 any time one come to town. By the way, the late Jimmy Stewart flew B-24's.
One of the major problems with the B-24 was the combination of high wing and sealed fuel tanks rather than the bladders used in most aircraft, which resulted in fuel leaks that made their way into the fuselage after relatively minor damage.
Jimmy Stewart appeared in the film "No Highway" based on the book by Neville Shute (Conway) as a research scientist working on airliner structural failures who found himself on an airliner that was likely to fail during the current flight.
At an intermediate stop he retracts the undercarriage on the hardstand after failing to convince the flight crew of the problem.
A friend was concerned that Jimmy Stewart (not surprisingly) appeared more familiar with the controls than his character was supposed to be...
After repairs, the aircraft taxies out for takeoff and the tailplane falls off....
Interestingly, the book, written in 1949, predicted the failures of (and the official responses to) the De Havilland Comet years later.
M636C
I've been trying to remember the title of that movie, which I saw on television when I was about 10 or 11. I do remember that the plane (model name "Reindeer") looked like a Viscount with some extra parts.
Honegger wrote Pacific 231 in 1923
The locomotive in the film clip 231 E 24, was the fourth Chapelon Pacific built new in 1936, originally NORD 3.1194. 3.1171 to 3.1190 (231 E 1-20) were rebuilt in 1934/35 from Paris Orleans 3520 class built as early as 1909.
Apart from the double chimney as the poppet valves, the external appearance of the P-O Pacifics was generally similar to the rebuilds, dating right back to the smaller wheeled 4500 type, the first Pacific in Europe in 1907. Many ETAT Pacifics, similar apart from a round top firebox to the 3520s, were built for a number of French systems (including the P-O).
The PLM had numerous locomotives of a different design, and the Nord had two native designs with narrow fireboxes before adopting the Chapelon rebuilds.
But it is likely that Honegger had a locomotive that looked like 231 E 24 in mind when he wrote the piece....
CSSHEGEWISCH I've been trying to remember the title of that movie, which I saw on television when I was about 10 or 11. I do remember that the plane (model name "Reindeer") looked like a Viscount with some extra parts.
The wikipedia entry is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Highway_in_the_Sky#
The British release used the book title, but it was called "No Highway in the Sky" in the USA. The aircraft is illustrated by a movie frame grab. I think the "Reindeer" name was derived from the multiple vertical tails.
Having read the book, I think the Bristol Brabazon was the aircraft Shute had in mind when he wrote the book. There was a reference in the book that the tailplane had a greater span than a WWII fighter aircraft wingspan...
Bristol Brabizon
Bristol Britannia (derived from the Brabizon)
If memory serves, by looking at that photo of the Brabazon you can see what the trouble with the aircraft was, that very unconventional engines-buried-in-the-wings combined with counter-rotating propellers. The Bristol engineers just couldn't get the bugs out of it.
The Britannia as I understand was pretty darn good.
The trouble with the Brabazon was trying to build a jumbo airplane with '40s materials and piston engines. By the time they got it done, the future had gone to faster aircraft, most notably the Comet.
I for one would have been interested to see a Brabazon engined with the Tu-95's NK-12s -- including the multiple-speed gearboxes -- and the later version of the propellers. Wouldn't have cut down on the noise much, might not have increased the speed enough, but it would have allowed the 'lap of luxury' last-bastion-of-the-Empire stuff to be preserved...
I haven't heard it personally, but I understand the noise of a TU-95 is absolutely horrendous! Supposedly even US submarines can track that airplane when submerged. Not that the "Bear" isn't a good airplane, but wow!
Did you know the Republic Aircraft tried a turboprop fighter in the 50's? The noise level from that one, I believe a variant of the F-107, was so bad that even with ear protection ground crews got nauseous. It was dropped without regrets.
Haven't had the privilege to see Fifi in the air yet, but happily, B-17's and B-24's get to this neck of the woods from time to time thanks to the Collings Foundation.
Years ago, a group in Geneseo was flying a B-17 (Fuddy Duddy was its name), a Catalina, and a B-25 around the Northeast like that group and the Confederate Air Force do.
Wonder if they're still around or where these planes ended up if they're not. Hope the Flying Fortress isn't the one that had to make an emergency landing in a muddy field that prevented firefighters from getting their equipment in to save her a while back. :(
Firelock76Did you know the Republic Aircraft tried a turboprop fighter in the 50's? The noise level from that one, I believe a variant of the F-107, was so bad that even with ear protection ground crews got nauseous.
You're talking about the XF-84, a variant of the F-84F (A pre "Century" series fighter-bomber).
The Allison T-40, a comparable engine to the contra-rotating turboprops on the Bear, was used in other models, too. The Convair R3Y Tradewind was the only turboprop flying boat to enter US Navy service, albeit in small numbers due to the program soon being cancelled due to the unreliable engines and the shift away from flying boats.
Lots of one-off prototypes as well, like several vertical take-off experiments and the XF-84.
I remember going with my family to Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport in the evening during the late 1950s to see our neighbour (the Engineer Officer of the Royal Navy's Fourth Submarine Squadron) who had been recalled to the UK, depart on a Bristol Britannia. I think that this was the first air farewell, although I remember farewelling people on Orient and P&O liners earlier.
A lasting memory is the noise of the compressed air starter for the Bristol Proteus turboprops as the four engines fired up. The air starter on a Century 636 sounded vaguely similar...
The designer of the Proteus apparently said they were aiming to build the most economical aero engine in the world, regardless of size and weight. he then said "we acheived the size and weight..."
The engine arrangement on the Brabazon (and the Saunders Roe Princess flying boat) was similar to that on the Convair B-36, except that they used tractor propellers rather than pusher propellers. I guess the nuclear deterrent and its priority meant that more effort could be spared to make it work on the B-36....
The new European Airbus A400M military transport uses counter-rotating turboprops. Seems to have many problems, however. One crashed on test flight in May.
The main problem with the A400M is the cost; Airbus will be hard pressed to make a profit selling them due to budget overruns in development. While they have cut into Boeing's C-17 market, being cheaper, they do not have equal performance. They are intended to replace the C-130s but are larger, leaving open a market for a smaller transport aircraft.
The crash was caused by the fuel trimming software creating a fuel imbalance that cause engines to fail and the plane to bank, IIRC.
Good to see that many others here are aviation fans!
NorthWest Good to see that many others here are aviation fans!
My experience has been that there is a sizable overlap between the two fields. In my case, it couldn't be helped since I grew up about two blocks from three main lines (South Shore, CWI & NKP) and right under the southeast approach to Midway Airport (DC-7's, Super G's, Viscounts, etc.)
I would agree with that, too. I've also met a few railfans who are fans of large vessels. I am not in that category (yet) but I do have some interest in large ships.
No surprise there's a lot of aviation fans here. As the late, lamented David P. Morgan once said "Big things that move are a lot more interesting than big things that don't!"
I lucked into a fine condition copy of Morgan's "The Mohawk That Refused To Abdicate" a few months back. It was hard to miss at the train show, what with that loud, garish, oh-so-Seventies dust jacket, but as they say "Don't judge a book by it's cover!" Good Lord, that man could write!
A bit more on the Brabazon. I'll admit it's been 20-plus years since I read the article about it in "Aviation History" ( I think) magazine so my memory could be faulty on this, but as I recall there were actually TWO engines for each of the propellers that were connected through a complicated transmission system, hence the "bugs" that couldn't be worked out. The whole thing was over-engineered when a simpler approach would have been better. Again, I could be remembering wrong so if someone wants to correct me on this I won't be offended.
The B-36 by comparison had direct-drive from the recip engines to the props.
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-plane-that-flew-too-soon/
Maybe memory fills in gaps?
I have seen nothing about any technical problems with the Brabazon. Other sites suggest that the yuuuge lightweight structure showed fatigue cracking whereas the above site suggests the cracks were in engine mounts and amendable to correction with proper reinforcement.
Everything I have seen is that the failure of the plane was in marketing -- there were no customers.
It was marketed as carrying small numbers of passengers at slow speeds with adequate amenities to make the journey "civilized." I think there is an analogy there to long-distance passenger trains. I have brought this up earlier on the Passenger Trains Forum with respect to the design trade between a fast mode where people tolerate being crammed in for short durations vs a slow mode that lets you "get up and walk around", but providing that walk-around space costs fuel and other expenses.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Just watched the video of the A400M. I was VERY impressed with the short take-off roll, impressed with how fast it stopped, and VERY, VERY impressed with that Immelmann Turn the pilot performed with a bird that big!
Those are state-of-the-art multi-blade propellers, but they don't appear to be of the counter-rotating type. They do seem to have a reverse feature which I assume is to aid in short-field stops.
Looks like a pretty versatile machine, to me at least.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.