The Airplane Thread

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

As you say, perfect for the transport of BBQ material.

And fast delivery...

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

My Dad recounted the "Special Missions" to some US Airbase. What they were actually doing was pre-ordering steaks and lobsters from the Officers' Mess because they were really cheap. The Voodoo had a large swiveling belly luggage bin (Probably a former bomb bay) that they would load-up in coolers.

A few decades ago, one of the local ANG C-5 flight crews was busted for allegedly picking up more than a few live lobsters during a training flight. I believe that their pickup point was between your location and mine, so it very well could have been the same base. Ever since then, I've always chuckled about someone eating fresh lobsters whenever I see an ANG plane returning from a training flight.

I should mention that I have nothing but respect for the ANG flight crews who fly the Air Force's castoff planes, as well as the ground crews who work tirelessly scrounging parts and keeping those planes flying. I have no problem with it if they want to bring back a few lobsters for ANG crew dinners from time to time.....

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

A few decades ago, one of the local ANG C-5 flight crews was busted for allegedly picking up more than a few live lobsters during a training flight.

P-3 Orion American crews used to go to RCAF Summerside on Prince Edward Island to pick-up "illegal canners". (Too small for market but tasty as hell and illegal under conservation laws)

[flybigjet]

Many years ago, I carried a P-3 squadron from Sigonella, Italy to Navy Brunswick in Maine in a C-5 Galaxy.

We dropped the squids and their equipment off, spent the night and then were going to fly one leg back to our home base in Delaware.

Since Brunswick was right on the coast, before we went to bed, we called back to the squadron and said that for anybody who wanted, we'd pick up Maine lobsters at cost.

The squadron promptly went nuts.

We arranged for a local shop to deliver directly to the airplane in the morning-- they showed up with damn close to a hundred small white coolers. Each cooler had a pair of lobsters wrapped in newspaper and soaked in seawater.

We daisy-chained those suckers up the crew entry ladder and lined them up all the way down the cargo compartment, threw tie-down straps over the top of them, and took off.

When we got to Dover, the squadron rustled up a deuce and a half truck and we took those white coolers and handed them out for what we paid for them. The bubba's of the squadron ate well that night!

I always wondered what the NTSB would have thought if we'd put it in the dirt. Here is the remains of a C-5, the crew, and a couple hundred random crustaceans scattered about the countryside!

R.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Many years ago, I carried a P-3 squadron from Sigonella, Italy to Navy Brunswick in Maine in a C-5 Galaxy.

R.

NAS Sigonella, Sicily. C5 with Mt.Etna in the background.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

NAS Sigonella, Sicily. C5 with Mt.Etna in the background.


Attachment 3265979

That's a Travis bird-- assigned to the 60th AMW. The base is halfway between San Fran and Sacramento.

R.

[Llarry]

The U.S. Air Force is now about a third of the way through the purchase of 179 Boeing KC-46A tanker/transports. The last should be delivered in 2029.

Originally the USAF had planned to buy a second batch of tankers via a new competition, but it looks like they're changed their plans. Now there is talk of buying 75 more KC-46s -- perhaps in improved form -- as a interim measure while they develop a completely new design: Stealthy? Blended body/wing? It's still not very clear what the ultimate decision will be.

In the meantime, the KC-10A tanker transports in New Jersey appear to be completely gone to the boneyard and replaced by KC-46As, while those in California are starting to go as well. Of the two large USAF refueling wings, the one is Kansas is now about half KC-46A and the other half still KC-135R. The large wing in Washington state is still all KC-135Rs; they should start their transition within a couple of years.

[Llarry]

Addendum to the KC-46 story -- back in the beginnings of the program, the B767-200 tanker/transport was to be designated the KC-767. But irregularities and scandal plagued the program and it was cancelled.

However, a couple of other countries went ahead with KC-767 purchases: Italy bought four and Japan bought another four. Afterwards, Columbia converted a used B767 into a KC-767 and flies that single example.

Japan, meanwhile, has supplemented its four KC767Js with six KC-46As and Italy is reportedly in discussions with Boeing to trade-in its four KC767s for six KC-46As.

Israel has ordered four KC-46s with an option for a further four.

The list of air forces flying the KC-767/KC-46 is not a long one. Each time a country looks for a tanker/transport they inevitably pit the Boeing entry against the Airbus A330 tanker transport and in the majority of cases the Airbus has come out on top. The total number of aircraft is skewed by the fact that the 800-pound gorilla USAF is buying so many; so far the number of KC-46s/KC-767s is about the same as the number of A330 MRTTs. As KC-46 deliveries continue the Boeing will take the lead.

[Llarry]

The Airbus competitors; the A310 MRTT and the A330 MRTT.

The Airbus A310 MRTT has not been a big seller. Some have a refueling boom and some do not. Virtually all have wing-mounted drogue refueling pods. In terms of deliverable fuel, an A310 tanker has about the same capacity as the old Boeing KC-135. An example of an A310 MRTT is Canada's current CC-150.

The A330 MRTT has considerably more fuel capacity than the Boeing KC-46 competitor and more capacity in the passenger or cargo role as well. Again, Airbus offers the model with a refueling boom or not.

There has been a lot of criticism of the system to control the boom on the Boeng KC-46A, which uses a series of video cameras to present a 3-D view to the boom operator in the front of the airplane. The older tankers had a boom operator reclining in the rear of the tanker with a window for direct observation as he/she operated the boom. The Airbus tankers use a similar system to the KC-46A; apparently a video view is the wave of the future.

[Llarry]

Blue Angels 1969

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Blue Angels 1969

I always thought the Blue Angles got the good stuff. Turns out they get what isn't suitable for the line aircraft. Considering that, they do a marvelous job of keeping the aircraft airworthy. I imagine the Thunderbirds have the same policy of getting the leftovers.

[dradernh]

I saw what I think must have been a Douglas DC-4 flying into Cincinnati's Lunken Field around noon today. I know little about this subject and came up with that because it looked like a DC-3 with four engines. It was a beautiful sight.

Whatever it was, it took me back to going to the local airport in Billings, Montana in the mid-1950s to watch aircraft landing and taking off.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by dradernh

I saw what I think must have been a Douglas DC-4 flying into Cincinnati's Lunken Field around noon today. I know little about this subject and came up with that because it looked like a DC-3 with four engines. It was a beautiful sight.

Whatever it was, it took me back to going to the local airport in Billings, Montana in the mid-1950s to watch aircraft landing and taking off.

We had a DEA-confiscated DC4 sitting on the southeast ramp at SLC for over 6 months. Turns out a conglomerate out of Florida purchased the plane. It was probably back running drugs again.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

I always thought the Blue Angles got the good stuff. Turns out they get what isn't suitable for the line aircraft. Considering that, they do a marvelous job of keeping the aircraft airworthy. I imagine the Thunderbirds have the same policy of getting the leftovers.

It varies by era, but in general the Blue Angels tend not to have the latest and greatest aircraft. The F-4J period (1969-1973) was interesting: They got some of the first F-4Js off the production line but those aircraft did not have the radar -- thus they were called "lead nose" F-4Js as they had lead weight up front to preserve the weight and balance. (Without the radar up front, the nose radome could be used for a small amount of storage.) They also did not have the uprated J79 engines of the later mainstream F-4Js; they had (slightly) lower-thrust F-4B engines. They did have the beefed-up wheels and tires of the F-4J.

The current Blue Angels F-18Es are similarly early production models which are 20+ years old and well-used. But then the Blues invariably modify their aircraft -- it's more than just a paint job. They pull out some combat/ weapons-related components and install the smoke system, among other mods. And, like you say, they are impeccably maintained.

[RobotDoctor]

At SFO a few years ago

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by RobotDoctor

At SFO a few years ago

Could not imagine that aircraft doing a on the ground evacuation in a manageable fashion. I see they have a crap ton of slides in double width but that's still alot of people getting out of the thing in chaos.

[Llarry]

I've previously posted that the U.S. Army is interested in replacing its turboprop-powered RC-12 Guardrail aircraft -- based on the Beechcraft King Air -- with something larger and jet-powered.

It appears that the Army has just taken the first step on that path by purchasing two Bombardier Global 6500 jets for conversion to surveillance aircraft. The work to convert the aircraft will no doubt take a while and the Army wants to field the aircraft in two forms: ATHENA R will be a battlefield radar surveillance plane and ATHENA S will be a signals collection variant.

This could be a major win for Bombardier; I'd estimate that over 50 RC-12s need replacement.

[Llarry]

A couple of weeks ago I made several posts on U.S. air-dropped or -launched weapons. Here's an update on that subject.

The Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (AIM-260) is coming to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The AMRAAM has a great record and each model has increased lethality and range -- I believe the latest AMRAAMs can down an enemy aircraft at well over 50 miles of range. But technology moves on and the forthcoming AIM-260 successor will have a range of 200 miles. In order to be accommodated in the weapons bays of existing aircraft, the AIM-260 will be about the same overall size of the AIM-120. You can find plenty of illustrations of what the -260 will look like, but all are speculative -- no photos have been released. The new missile may be in the inventory soon.

The GBU-72 Advanced 5,000-pound Penetrator (bunker-buster) is another weapon under development. Designed to be carried by the F-15E, it has laser guidance.

The GBU-53 StormBreaker is one of the newer, smaller (250-pound) bombs designed for precision strike while minimizing collateral damage. It uses millimeter-wave radar, infrared and laser guidance and is carried by the F-15E, F-35 and Navy F-18.

The CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon is a non-explosive bomb that uses penetrating rods of three sizes to cover an area on the ground. The rods, though deadly when dropped, pose no danger to anyone afterwards. As the bomb nears the target, it starts spinning rapidly, releasing the rods. The CBU-107 is carried by the F-15E, F-16 and B-52. (CGI illustration)

[dradernh]

Originally Posted by RobotDoctor

At SFO a few years ago

SFO is the airport from which I've made at least 90% of my lifetime departures and landings.

Except for Hong Kong's now-closed Kai Tak Airport, I've always enjoyed the view-from-the-window experience of coming in to SFO the most.

The 47° turn almost immediately before landing put Kai Tak in class by itself. That was after flying by high rises into which people cooking dinner could be quite clearly seen.

As a passenger, the first time into Kai Tak was the most dramatic I've experienced in terms of wondering how the landing was going to turn out.

I could go on...Phuket...Stapleton...etc.

[Llarry]

The U.S. aviation industry produces two heavy-lift helicopters.

The choice of the U.S. Army -- and many other countries' militaries -- is the Boeing CH-47 Chinook. The Chinook first flew in 1961, so has been around a long time, but has been upgraded to new generations every so often. The current model is the CH-47F which is the standard Army heavy-lift helo. It maxes out at 50,000 pounds. The cargo/passenger compartment is suitable for small vehicles and other bulky loads. The CH-47 can also carry heavy items slung underneath the aircraft.

The Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment flies an improved/modified variant of the F as the MH-47G. The G has a greater allowable takeoff weight and almost twice the fuel capacity of the F. The easy identification feature of the G is the long refueling probe extending from the front of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook

The other heavy-lift helicopter is the Marines' Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion. Like the CH-47, the CH-53 has been around a long time; the original CH-53A first flew in 1964 and by 1967 was deployed to the Vietnam war. Originally a twin-engine design, by the 1970s a third engine was added, significantly increasing lift capacity. A few -53s are also flown by Navy mine countermeasures squadrons, though it looks like they will not survive too many more years.

With three T408 turboshaft engines at 7,500 shaft horsepower each, the CH-53K has almost 50% more power than the most powerful CH-47. Of course, those powerful engines are thirsty and the fuel capacity of the -53K is over twice that of the CH-47D. The CH-53K also has significantly more load-carrying capacity that its CH-47 competitor, with a max takeoff weight of 88,000 pounds. Despite this, the two have similarly-sized cargo/passenger compartments: 30 feet long x 8.3 feet wide (47) or 8.6 feet wide (53) and 6.5 feet high. The CH-53K also has the capability of transporting heavy/bulky sling loads; during Vietnam, it was often used to recover damaged aircraft -- as was the CH-47. Note that the CH-53K comes standard with a refueling probe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikors..._King_Stallion

The two helicopters are among the fastest in the U.S., inventory, topping out at 170 knots (315 km/hr.)

I do not have the latest cost figures, but I would estimate that the CH-53K is far more expensive than the Chinook -- yet another example of the Marine Corps leading a charmed life in the budget process.

The CH-47 is used by a large number of countries. Earlier CH-53s, by comparison, were only used by Germany and Israel and by Japan as a mine countermeasures helicopter. Germany has selected the CH-47 to replace its older CH-53s and Israel has already placed an order for 12 of the latest CH-53Ks. I suspect more export sales of the -53 will be difficult.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

The choice of the U.S. Army -- and many other countries' militaries -- is the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.

While the CH-53K still has that new-helicopter smell -- only one squadron has so far equipped with Ks -- the H-47 Chinook continues to see improvements. The relatively small number of MH-47Gs, which are the Special Operations cream of the crop, are undergoing Block II improvements. The Army has balked at spending the money on Block II modifications for the almost 500 regular CH-47Fs, but may ultimately do so.

There have been studies and tests on further improved rotors for the Chinook; a four-blade rotor in place of the three-blade would provide a substantial increase in lift and allowable load. There may yet be a CH-47H in the future.

[3798j]

"Lady be Good"...a remarkable and sad story.

https://planehistoria.com/lady-be-good/