[Llarry]

Originally Posted by 3798j

.

I love this photo; it graphically shows the incredible industrial capacity of the American economy during World War II. Granted that the war material produced by that economy was much simpler than today, but the numbers are still stunning: 596 Corsairs were produced in the month of May 1944 and 605 Hellcats were produced in the month of March 1945. The same could be said of a myriad of war-related production: ships, ammunition, tanks and other vehicles, etc. The world had never seen such a demonstration of industrial might before and will likely never see it again.

Many -- including myself -- reverently respect the people in uniform -- "The Greatest Generation" -- that fought that war, but the truth is that without the industrial might of the American economy, those people would not have had the tools to prevail in the fight. The USA mobilized as never seen before and I don't think we'll ever see its like again. The credit goes not only to the soldiers, sailors and Marines who fought and died, but also to the industrial workers -- including many women who joined the labor force for the duration of the war -- who supplied those fighters with the tools for the fight.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The credit goes not only to the soldiers, sailors and Marines who fought and died, but also to the industrial workers -- including many women who joined the labor force for the duration of the war -- who supplied those fighters with the tools for the fight.

JFK said it eloquently: "It's not what your Country can do for you..."

Today, not so much.

[JJ 911SC]

FT4U

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

JFK said it eloquently: "Ask not what your Country can do for you..."

Today, not so much.

[Llarry]

The Boeing 757 was designed to be a replacement for the 727 tri-jet and a larger narrowbody airliner than the 737. It first flew in 1982 and 1,050 were built between 1982 and 2004 in both passenger and cargo versions. A stretched version, the 757-300 was introduced in 1998, but only 55 were sold. The replacement for the 757 was essentially stretched versions of the 737.

The 757 was purchased in small numbers by the U.S. Air Force as the VC-32A VVIP transport (commonly referred to as "Air Force Two') and as the C-32B transport, which keeps a low profile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

[Llarry]

Update on the replacement program for the presidential transport helicopters of Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1).

As a reminder the current helicopters, the Sikorsky VH-3D and the Sikorsky VH-60N have been in service since 1978 and 1988 respectively. The Navy has retired all H-3s long ago, so these Marine One VH-3Ds are the only ones left. Both types were planned to be replaced by the new helicopters.

The replacement, the Sikorsky VH-92A, first flew in 2017 and the plan to deliver 21 helicopters (plus two development helos) is moving along, with deliveries set to finish this year, I believe.

However, the program has hit a glitch: the secure communications system in the new helicopters is not working properly, and therefore they are not being used to transport the president. (Your tax dollars at work!)

[3798j]

That photo I posted showing the large number of Corsairs and Hellcats was in the blimp hangar of the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. It's a wooden structure that still stands today...
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/ca/...rangeCo_SE.htm

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The Boeing 757 was designed to be a replacement for the 727 tri-jet and a larger narrowbody airliner than the 737.

You forgot N757AF in your list of notable examples. It spent over 4 years parked on the tarmac down the road from my house.....

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

You forgot N757AF in your list of notable examples. It spent over 4 years parked on the tarmac down the road from my house.....

Back in service. Beautiful plane.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

...
The 757 was purchased in small numbers by the U.S. Air Force as the VC-32A VVIP transport (commonly referred to as "Air Force Two') and as the C-32B transport, which keeps a low profile...

Technically, whatever fixed-wing the the veep is flying in is AF2. Could be a C500 or the 75. I'm pretty sure the only reason the veep wouldn't get the 75 would be airport restrictions. AFAIK, the veep doesn't get the 74.

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Back in service. Beautiful plane.

Yes, I know this because it left storage here on a ferry permit to Louisiana (???) for post-storage maintenance.

Someone apparently also removed the middle east prince's 747 that was on the same ramp for 15+ years with missing engine(s). I don't know what the story was with that one, other than rumors that the cabin crew stayed with it for a long time to ensure that nobody boarded wearing shoes.....

[Lady Jane]

Bombardier Global 8000. WOW...!!!

https://businessaircraft.bombardier....-pdp-section-2

[Llarry]

Wow is right. The most impressive statistic to me is 2,900 foot cabin altitude when at 41,000 feet - amazing.

The price is pretty amazing, too: $78 million to start.

[JJ 911SC]

Wow... And it all started with this way back in the late 1930's...

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....and-bombardier

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....-success-story

[Llarry]

It looks like Bombardier has moved ahead in their perennial competition with Gulfstream. The latest, longest-range Gulfstream jet, the G800, is shorter with less cabin volume. It matches the Global 8000 in range -- 8,000 miles -- and in cabin pressurization, but falls slightly short in max cruising speed. The G800 costs "only" 72.5 million.

Both companies are getting very close to Mach 1, which would mean a whole new ball game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650/G700/G800

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

It looks like Bombardier has moved ahead in their perennial competition with Gulfstream. The latest, longest-range Gulfstream jet, the G800, is shorter with less cabin volume. It matches the Global 8000 in range -- 8,000 miles -- and in cabin pressurization, but falls slightly short in max cruising speed. The G800 costs "only" 72.5 million.

I don't care! I want one of each...!

EDIT: Did you know that the Rolls Royce Pearl powering the G800 was developed with BMW?

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

I don't care! I want one of each...!

EDIT: Did you know that the Rolls Royce Pearl powering the G800 was developed with BMW?

I want one of each as well. Or, if you get one or two, please stop by and take me for a ride.

The previous generations were powered by BMW-Rolls Royce (BR710, etc.) engines as well; you can't get much better than that!

Of course if the internal space in a Bombardier or Gulfstream isn't enough, you can always go with a 737-based Boeing Business Jet... but you will have to give up some speed, some altitude and some cabin pressure.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by 3798j

That photo I posted showing the large number of Corsairs and Hellcats was in the blimp hangar of the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. It's a wooden structure that still stands today.

There is an apparently identical blimp hangar on the Oregon coast at Tillamook. There were two but one was used to store (massive amounts) of hay and burned years ago, leaving just the concrete towers on either end. There used to be a decent aircraft museum in the intact one. I visited several times but always felt slightly nervous looking up at all that wooden structure that was 75+ years old; it would ruin your whole day if a couple of hundred pounds of Douglas fir beam fell on your head from that height!

[Llarry]

A cool photo of a Boeing (767-based) KC-46A taking off from Tinker AFB, Oklahoma. The markings on the underside -- to assist receiver aircraft to line up for refueling -- are interesting. Tinker is home to the KC-46A training unit.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The markings on the underside -- presumably to assist receiver aircraft to line up for refueling -- are interesting. Tinker is home to the KC-46A training unit.

There's no "presumably" about it.

The yellow stripe denotes centerline-- although if your'e experienced as a receiver it's more nice to have then mandatory for horizontal alignment-- on larger aircraft (e.g. a C-5) the thrust from the tanker's engines tends to "sort of" keep you where you should be behind the aircraft (although on the KC-10, the engine in the tail tended to make life slightly interesting as its thrust would hit the T-tail-- you ended up flying slightly in a crab as a result).

The vertical references are based on what the aircraft "should" look like on a 30 degree line from the boom pod (such as it is). You end up knowing what the picture looks like (e.g. those two panels on the tanker line up juuuuust in the corner of the receiver's windscreen, or something like that).

All of this is somewhat moot as there are director lights just forward of the yellow stripe. They (sort of, depending on which tanker) are based on boom movement-- they give up/down and fore/aft position and commands. If you're perfectly "in the envelope", you see two green lights. If you move fore/aft or up/down, you'll get yellow or red lights (blinking or not) to tell you what you're doing in the envelope. It's an acquired skill to follow the lights and understand what they're telling you. After a while, you get really good at it, and if you're brave, you can have the boom operator turn them off and do it "old school". But, you'd better have your shite in one sock to pull that one off.

And for the record? The KC-46 is ABSOLUTE GARBAGE and an offense to taxpayers everywhere. It should never, ever have been built-- it's a lemon that Boeing (with the collusion of an entirely corrupt Congress) shoved down the Air Forces throat. The Commander in Chief of the Air Mobility Command (who owns/operates the tankers) tried to kill the program to no avail.

It has so many problems, I don't even know where to start. It's a suck tanker, it's a suck airlifter, and most of the time, all it can do is fly local training sorties.

Yup-- I know the full story on that one. You can thank those a**hats at Boeing and Congress for that debacle.

R.

[3798j]

The Soplata Aircraft Collection...a 12 minute look.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by 3798j

The Soplata Aircraft Collection...a 12 minute look.

I could not open the video but managed to get a bit of history:

https://planetags.com/blogs/planetag...serving-planes

[Llarry]

In a previous discussion of Canada's buy of F-35As, I lamented the fact that Canada had no boom-equipped tankers to aerial refuel the aircraft. Well, there's actually a relatively simple answer, I think: Simply specify the retractable refueling probe that is fitted to F-35Bs and F-35Cs. No doubt that will require some rearrangement of internal components, but I wouldn't think it would be a showstopper.

Here's a photo of an F-35A refueling using the boom/receptable arrangement and another photo of an F-35B using the probe and drogue method.