Do their tongues hang out when flying?

They'd have to spin with the prop then you'd need windshield wipers.

ac130 they've been building since 1954... no not this one. :p:

Attachment 69377

Before Sikorsky came over from the dark side...

Attachment 69378

I have a feeling that I have already posted this but it's worth another look.

Those of a sensitive disposition might be offended by the use of strong language.

The rest of us will just have a good laugh. ;)

Here.

Just as good the second time around.

Someone should make an animated GIF out of that.

Ta! :thumb:

Smart Ruskie, don't need a hangar when you're a Ninja Turtle...

Went over like a lead balloon.

At least a corrugated sheet steel balloon. :haha:

Move along folks, nothing to see here...

Attachment 69513

...just a sleepy-eyed, flying whale with an underbite, move along.









Whale of a plane though.

Empty weight: 127,500 kg (281,089 lb)
Capacity: 50,500 kg (111,333 lb) payload
Max takeoff weight: 227,000 kg (500,449 lb)

Maybe it eats those Spirit Airlines flying bananas.

Attachment 69516

I've occasionally seen one of these monsters but only at great altitude when trailing.

They fly between the Airbus factory near Chester, where wings are manufactured and, I believe, the assembly plant in Toulouse.

If I've managed to be looking at FR24 at the right time I've nipped outside to see for myself but, despite their size and even with the aid of a good pair of binoculars, you don't see much when they are five or six miles up!

I'm never quite sure how to introduce a new topic, but I spent some time this morning looking for information on the C130 fire tanker that crashed in Australia a few days ago.
A couple of overviews with imbedded vids:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...cooma/11894892

https://fireaviation.com/tag/t-134/

There is some duplication but it is a very interesting and tragic story.

One thing I couldn't find is how they got the fairly short range 130 to Australia.
This details the fatal flight:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N134CG/history

but not the transpacific trip. If anyone is a member, the info is available and I would like to learn it.

They can refuel in flight and it is always exciting to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu3KCyTth0o

They might have hopped around the northern Pacific, but that seems to be tough even for modified jet tankers.

Maybe they filled the retardent & water tanks with fuel and ran a hose to the fuel tank. Or set it on one of those empty container ships returning to China. ;)

Send the AWACS out to choose who we'll kill tomorrow.

This family was 5 miles from Aspen, CO when the instruments went crazy and it appeared the engine would quit.
He had to make a split second decision and chose to pull the chute on the Cirrus airplane while he was still
high enough for it to work. The plane ended up in waist deep snow with the chute snagged on a tree which kept
then from sliding down the slope. No one hurt and rescued by the next day as rescue crews snowshoed in.
Took them 3 hours to shoeshoe out.

The plane and chute system from Cirrus Aircraft, Duluth, MN.
Parent organization: Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC)

Wow--I've never seen a parachute on a plane, before. I guess it does make more sense than properly training everyone who gets on how to use a personal chute.

It was first certified in a Cessna in 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus...rachute_System

Taken during Storm Dennis, Saturday last...



Foreshortening of distance due to telephoto lense effect and camera angle probably conspire to make this look worse than it was.

That said it was 'interesting'. :eek:

That's what happens in strong winds, the trick is keeping the wings level. If the wings don't touch first it should be OK even at obscene angles of approach. It helps that the passengers can't see out the windshield. ;)

I believe that the C-5 Galaxy landing gear aligns itself with the extended centre line of the runway so even if the aircraft is crabbing down the approach the wheels will still point in the right direction, within certain limits, no doubt.
I stand to be corrected but I think that the B-52 has a similar capability.

My own attempts at crosswind landings were rarely a thing of beauty.
Being a cautious soul I tended to kick off the drift too early, but on days when I wasn't I'd kick it off too late.
Occasionally I got it right but it tended to be more by good luck than good management. :eek:

That put some strain on the gear and wear on the tires!
I saw a Dennis landing yesterday with incredible wing flexing.

I wasn't aware the B-52 could do that so I checked and it can, 20 degrees left or right. Then checked to see how far a C-5 could turn and it was also 20 degrees.
But I found on airlinersdotnet a discussion claiming The C-5A had this feature, the C-5B did not, then it was removed from all the C-5As. The reasons given were maintenance issues, complexity and improved landing techniques. Sounds like military bullshit to me.

That probably means that they just lowered the crosswind landing limits. :rolleyes:

Yeah, the cross wind is too strong so just keep flying around until you run out of fuel and crash into the children's hospital, grammar school, and SPCA. :haha:

Well, the ambulance will get there quicker...

Where there is enough room, crossed runways partially solve crosswind problems.

Right, most of international/commercial airports have runways in two orientations. Some even have three where, like you said, they have room, and the winds are capricious.

An image search gives me, "Handley Page HP42 Western, G-AAXC, named 'Heracles', owned by Imperial Airways, at Croydon Airport near London in 1936."

A while back I posted a 'colourised' B&W print of another Imperial Airways HP42 on a refuelling stop in Jordan in 1931.

Link

I knew that Croydon airport ceased to exist decades ago and had largely disappeared under suburban concrete, but what I didn't know was that the airport buildings are still there in the middle of an industrial estate.

Attachment 69872

Street View Link

That's pretty neat.

We have a lot of closed airfields in the US but I think they tend to be way out in the boonies where re-purposing is hit or miss.

For sale: one slightly used A-10 Thunderbolt II:

Attachment 69898

Previously owned by a li'l ol' lady from Pasadena...

that'll buff right out

Pan Am Clipper landing in San Francisco Bay after it's first round trip to Hawaii.

Attachment 70052

And a Stewart M-2

Attachment 70053

At the local Habitat for Humanity, they take donations and sell them. Today I drove by and saw a pair of airplane wing frames stacked outside.


WEIRD.

WTF is this? Looks like it lit a fart.

A good way to get killed?

Probably a security violation just to look at it.

a work in progress

I think it might be a MiG 15 exhibited at Air Zoo Aerospace & Science Museum, Kalamazoo, MI.

It appears to have been operated under the civil registration of N621BM at one point.

Admittedly the engine looks a little long vis-a-vis the fuselage but it may be an illusion.

Attachment 70070


Link

Link

Link

Link

Could be the MIG but the wings look different. The end shape could be angle of the photograph but the struts coming over the top of the wing look different.:confused:

Attachment 70072

Looking at both I think you're right about being a MIG, maybe a different one.

Two things sent me in the MiG direction.
One was the old Soviet red star marking outboard of the wing fence, and the second was the fences themselves.
Also, note the antenna by the rear of the cockpit blister at an angle to the fuselage top line; it's the same in both pictures.
Admittedly I'm not 100% sure, but find myself firmly in the 'it'll do for the minute' category.

Aha fences, I didn't know what they're called. Makes perfect sense, thank you. :smack:

I'm not seeing much resemblance between the top airplane and ol' 1621.
Wing angles and their sculptured top surfaces (fences) are different as are the overall proportions.
That huge engine wouldn't fit I think.
Looking forward to more discussion.

Gentlemen, I think that we may be looking at a MiG 17.

What I hadn't noticed is that there are three fences on the wing of the aircraft in the initial photo, the one nearest the fuselage not being particularly conspicuous.

Also the outboard fence stops, not unreasonably, at the aileron.

Shown quite well here:

Attachment 70079

And as far as that engine is concerned:

Attachment 70081

Link

Link

Apologies for brevity but it's past my bedtime. :blush:

Quick PS: Bruce, see the caption to the first photo in the second link.

By jove I think you have. Mig 17 it is. :notworthy

No need to upset your circadian rhythm over this stuff. ;)

Circadian rhythm long since shot to bits!

It's 0445... what on Earth am I doing here?

Drive your car to Crydon and it becomes carry-on....

First plane with cat tracks...

Fly Howard, fly...

Beautiful and historic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H...elageUnder.JPG

'individually machined flush rivets that left the aluminium skin of the aircraft completely smooth."

Dead sexy.

yeah, but what about the plane Griff?

Howard is at least dead.

Maybe, but Howard was pretty sneaky. :unsure:

This looks like a big family...

Speaking of Howard Hughes, I found this while mindlessly internet surfing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Hj_KcE7_M

Just one of Kermit Weeks' 140 airplanes.

Like owning a horse not allowed out of its stall. Damn shame. :(

European traffic is down...

Attachment 70191

And that's about all I've seen this morning.

Just passing north of Oxford as I type.