[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Artemis

IMHO no immediate departure/takeoff as they seemingly were coordinating airshow traffic and airshow time slots. Made the pilot repeatedly fidget her gear to kill time between approach RWY, holding point (piano keys) until "Rolling!" (14:37-18:08).

I understand coordinating times, but unless they didn't have the timing right (which they should have) she should have been held short. Yes, I've had to do timed departures.

[Jbrown7403]

Damn it! I was going call it a night and go to bed until I saw this video!

Seriously, that was awesome! Love the vertical spins ( ) around 28:30 and the P-51 appearance!

[Llarry]

Here's an unusual airplane: The U.S. Army's Lockheed YO-3 observation aircraft of the Vietnam war. Based on a glider and using various engineering means to minimize noise; designed to pass over the enemy at night at low altitude without being heard. Some sources say it could fly over at just 200 feet without being heard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Lockheed_YO-3_Quiet_Star

[Llarry]

Here's a rare F-14 Tomcat photo; VF-191 'Satan's Kittens' only flew the F-14A for a short period; they were right at the tail end of the Reagan defense buildup. They, along with sister squadron VF-194, never deployed and may not even have gotten a full complement of aircraft before being disestablished.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Here's an unusual airplane:

Sharing some DNA: Martin X-26A

[Lady Jane]

Martin P6M SeaMaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_P6M_SeaMaster

[Dino GT]

🚁

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Martin P6M SeaMaster

A technically impressive aircraft, yet it was probably good that it was cancelled; the strategic nuclear mission of the Navy was being de-emphasized, except for the excellent Polaris submarines.

The P6M-1's J71 engines were a bit underwhelming. The P6M-2's four J75s would've certainly fixed the lack of power, but brought aerodynamic troubles. In addition, the P6M program would have required an extensive support structure, including new seaplane tenders, etc.

Still, an interesting historical development.

[Llarry]

An A-10 Warthog of the Michigan Air National Guard firing its awesome 30mm cannon. The A-10 is a product of the 1970s and was designed to help stop Soviet ground forces in ground combat in Europe. It proved its worth in Iraq and Afghanistan and has many fans among Army troops who saw it in action there. It is now criticized as being vulnerable to modern air defenses, and yet few aircraft are designed to be as survivable as the A-10.

Like most USAF F-15s and F-16s, the A-10s are getting "old" and, unlike the fighters, no replacement is on the horizon. Periodically the Air Force has proposed retirement of the A-10 -- each time to vociferous opposition.

[dradernh]

Originally Posted by Llarry

An A-10 Warthog of the Michigan Air National Guard firing its awesome 30mm cannon. The A-10 is a product of the 1970s and was designed to help stop Soviet ground forces in ground combat in Europe. It proved its worth in Iraq and Afghanistan and has many fans among Army troops who saw it in action there. It is now criticized as being vulnerable to modern air defenses, and yet few aircraft are designed to be as survivable as the A-10.

Like most USAF F-15s and F-16s, the A-10s are getting "old" and, unlike the fighters, no replacement is on the horizon. Periodically the Air Force has proposed retirement of the A-10 -- each time to vociferous opposition.

I continue to believe the Ukrainians could make good use of a couple of hundred A-10s.

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by dradernh

I continue to believe the Ukrainians could make good use of a couple of hundred A-10s.

That would double the size of the Ukraine air force.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by dradernh

I continue to believe the Ukrainians could make good use of a couple of hundred A-10s.

I'm not sure that we have a couple of hundred in storage, but I think 60 or 80 would be invaluable.

The problem with aircraft is the time required to train the pilots and get all the maintenance support in place. Of course, if we had started six months ago, we'd be six months ahead of the current status.

[Llarry]

I'm sure our aviation professionals know this, but did you know that the Boeing 707 and the Air Force's C-135 (KC-135, RC-135, etc.) are two different airframes? They have a common progenitor, the Boeing Dash 80, but Boeing decided to make the commercial aircraft just a bit wider. They are close, but not identical.

Later, the Air Force decided to buy not only hundreds of tankers (original Boeing designation the 717): the KC-135A and subsequent versions -- but also a limited number of model 707s. The military designation for the 707 was C-137 and the first ones were purchased for use as presidential transports. Years later, the E-3A Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), also Boeing 707-derived, was purchased in larger numbers and remains in service today. Then the Navy got in on the Boeing 707 bandwagon with the E-6A Mercury, sometimes called the "Doomsday Plane" and bought a small number of those. They are still in service and now have been updated and redesigned E-6B.

The E-6A was designed to communicate to the nation's ballistic missile submarine fleet in case of war: essentially, to give the order to fire the missiles. Thus the term Doomsday Plane. The Air Force had a similar mission using EC-135s to control strategic bombers and ICBMs and, in a case of interservice cooperation, the Air Force mission was integrated with the Navy mission (and the EC-135s retired) and now the E-6Bs communicate with all components of the strategic nuclear triad: ICBMs, bombers and sub-launched missiles.

I've always been fascinated by the way that the E-6 sends messages to submarines. The submarines are submerged, of course, and the only signals that can be received are very low frequency (VLF) signals, which require very large antennas. A problem in an aircraft. The method that is used is that the E-6 spools out an extremely long transmitter wire -- like 25,000 feet long! -- and goes into a tight orbit so that the wire drops from gravity and becomes more or less vertical, as the E-6 turns around the antenna.

Anyway, as befits a critical component of the U.S. strategic forces, the E-6B stays dispersed and on the move (and thus hard for an enemy to take out in a surprise attack.) Here's a photo of an E-6B in its unique paint. From the mid-1950s to the 1980s, Navy tactical carrier aircraft had white undersides -- to better resist structural damage from nuclear flash. I'm not sure that's what's going on here with the E-6B but maybe.

[Llarry]

To add a little historical context and detail to the E-6B story, the origins of communicating via airborne VLF began in 1963, not long after the U.S. Navy first started strategic missile submarine patrols. The first aircraft for the task was the C-130 -- the Navy had a number of them modified for the mission and designated EC-130G and then EC-130Q, all of which were retired in the 1990s as the E-6A became operational.

There are actually two trailing wires deployed from the aircraft: The actual active transmitter wire is "only" 5,000 feet long, while the longer 25,000-foot wire is a passive re-radiator.

In the attached photo of a long-retired EC-130, you can see two drogues that pull the wire into the airstream: One is at the extreme tail of the EC-130 and the other is below the national insignia. The E-6B installation is similar.

[Lady Jane]

Airborne Surveillance Testbed and B767 prototype.

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by DM5PAV

Well, they had one explode.

Two exploded.

Challenger on launch and Columbia on reentry.

[Lady Jane]

Percival Pembroke C1 of the RAF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Pembroke

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

[B]Airborne Surveillance Testbed and B767 prototype.

That jet was Boeing's 767-200 first airframe and is now scrapped.

[Lady Jane]

RCAF Ventura a.k.a. B-34 Lexington.


https://www.silverhawkauthor.com/pos...ckheed-ventura

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

That jet was Boeing's 767-200 first airframe and is now scrapped.

An interesting story:

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-767-...ebody%20family.

[Llarry]

The evolution of the U.S. Navy Carrier Air Group (CVG) in World War II:

1941 CVGs had four squadrons: A fighter squadron (VF), a dive bomber squadron (VB), a scouting squadron (VS) and a torpedo squadron (VT). The dive bomber and scouting squadrons normally used the same airplane but had slightly different missions: The scouting squadron would search for the enemy and usually carried a 500-lb bomb whereas the dive bombing squadron would usually use 1000-lb bombs. Each squadron had 18 aircraft, for a total of 72 in the CVG.

The early battles with Japan showed that change was needed. The problem was that the fighters were needed at two places for two missions: They were needed to protect their home carrier or task group from enemy air attack and were also needed to escort the attack forces to the enemy task group and prevent Japanese fighters from defending the Japanese carrier or task group. Splitting a regular-size squadron in two left too few fighters for either task.

At the same time, Grumman had come up with a new method of folding the wings of their aircraft that enabled far more aircraft to be carried by the aircraft carrier. Grumman dubbed it the Sto-wing and the first photo shows how it solved crowding on carrier decks. Early Grumman F4F Wildcats did not have the folding wing, but in 1942 an improved F4F using folding wings arrived in the fleet, enabling the number of fighters in the fighter squadrons to be doubled to 36. Now we had 18 fighters to escort the bombers AND 18 to protect the fleet.

The Douglas TBD torpedo bomber that was used in the feet had folding wings already, although it was sorely lacking in other areas. The Douglas SBD dive- and scout-bomber did not have folding wings and the wing construction prevented fielding a folding-wing version.

The new, larger CVG with double fighters and about 90 aircraft served into 1943. The Douglas TBDs took horrific losses at the Battle of Midway in June of 1942; fortunately a new torpedo bomber, the Grumman TBF with that same Grumman-developed folding Sto-wing was being delivered to replace the TBD.

Waiting in the wings was another, even better fighter: The Vought F4U Corsair. The Corsair had been meant to replace the F4F but had a protracted and troubled development history. By early 1943 it was ready for combat, but was kept off the carriers and used primarly by land-based Marine Corps fighter squadrons. By now the Navy had learned that folding wings were an absolute requirement for carrier aircraft.

In 1943 two new aircraft appeared on the scene. The greatly improved Grumman F6F Hellcat with folding Sto-wing replaced the F4F Wildcat on carriers, and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver with folding wings started to replace the trusty SBD. The new airplanes were larger and the carrier decks got more crowded, but operating procedures were improved. In 1943, the dive-bombing (VB) and scouting (VS) squadrons were merged into one double-size VB. Now the CVG had a fighter squadron with 36 planes, a bombing squadron with 36 and a torpedo squadron with 18 -- still 90 total aircraft.

This scheme served until late 1944 when Japan began suicide Kamikaze attacks on the fleet. Suddenly it seemed that no number of fighters was sufficient. It was decided to double the number of fighters again -- this time to 72 fighters per carrier, and reduce the number of other aircraft to accommodate the change. The changes took place in early 1945 and the huge increase in fighters caught the Navy by surprise. Marine fighter squadrons flying the F4U Corsair were embarked in carriers as a temporary measure. The huge, 72-plane Navy fighter squadrons were split into a fighting squadron (VF) and a Bombing-Fighting squadron (VBF). The SB2C and TBF (or TBM) squadrons were reduced to 15 aircraft each. The CVG now totaled 102 aircraft. The previous reluctance to put F4Us aboard was abandoned and Navy fighter squadrons began to transition to the F4U in great numbers. Some groups had one F6F squadron and one F4U squadron and some had two of either type.

Once the war ended, the overcrowded flight and hangar decks became a thing of the past.

Post-script: Leroy Grumman's Sto-wing invention lives on today. The latest Grumman E-2 AEW aircraft uses the very same folding design pioneered on the F4F of 1941-42.

[Llarry]

Apparently Curtiss decided to pay Grumman for the rights to use the Sto-wing folding mechanism on the last battleship/cruiser floatplane used by the U.S. Navy, the Curtiss SC Seahawk. The SC joined the fleet during the last year of WW2 and served only a few years before being replaced with helicopters.