[Dang3r]

Originally Posted by dradernh

I wonder what it was like for pilots landing at that airport for the first time. Do pilots get sweaty palms?

They had, believe me.
Only pilots with several training sessions into simulators were allowed to land on Kai Tak and I agree, that was spectacular.
If you see a picture from today, you won't believe, that on this small spot were one of the busiest airport into the world.

[3798j]

.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I wonder why Canada did not buy the F-106?

I believe that at the time the requirement called for a two man crew (REO/NAV ) to patrol and intercept Russian Bears (And other bogies) who were frequent visitors in the Arctic. The F-4 could have filled that niche.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

I believe that at the time the requirement called for a two man crew (REO/NAV ) to patrol and intercept Russian Bears (And other bogies) who were frequent visitors in the Arctic. The F-4 could have filled that niche.

That makes sense, although purchase of the F-4 probably would've meant additional delay in replacing CF-100s. The first USN squadrons did not get their planes until 1961 if I remember correctly and of course the USAF got in line shortly thereafter. A Canadian F-4 would've been awesome: Good interceptor plus strike capability for NATO. Ah well, hindsight...

[BMWGUYinCO]

So....can we call this an "airplane" fit for posting within this thread?

[minn19]

Originally Posted by BMWGUYinCO

So....can we call this an "airplane" fit for posting within this thread?

I can’t remember which astronaut/pilot said it, but more like a flying brick is what I remember it being described as. The landing speeds and sink rates were nuts. Still amazes me that they could be going thousands of miles an hour and in minutes be at a full stop. Also amazes me they never had a landing mishap/nav error etc.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley...unflyable.html

[Lady Jane]

Gotha Go P.60

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotha_Go_P.60

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by BMWGUYinCO

So....can we call this an "airplane" fit for posting within this thread?

Well, if it doesn't qualify as an airplane by itself, it certainly qualifies as a passenger!



Footnote: I was very lucky to get this photo. I was recovering from a traffic accident while watching the news one morning. They announced it was flying from Sacramento to San Francisco so I hoped I would see it fly over. With both arms in casts and a head concision and a bit drowse from pain medication, I hurried to find my SLR and "run" outside. I get out there and off in the distance I see it coming escorted by a couple of fighter jets. It took everything I had to get the case open and get the camera up with my two casts on and get the shot. I made it just in time.

[Lady Jane]

Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XB-42_Mixmaster



With podded 19XB-2 jets.

[Lady Jane]

Leduc 0.10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leduc_0.10

[F87M2.]

,m

[Llarry]

By the mid-1960s, the flying boat (seaplane without landing gear) was on its last legs in the U.S. Navy. It had gotten a temporary reprieve from involvement in the Vietnam war, where USN patrol aircraft monitored the waters off South Vietnam for arms shipments coming in from the north.

By then, the Navy was down to three seaplane patrol squadrons; two at the Naval Air Station North Island, Coronado, California and one at the Naval Station Sangley Point, Philippines. From Sangley Point it was a relatively easy transit to Vietnamese waters and Sangley was home to all three patrol aircraft then in USN service: the Martin SP-5B Marlin flying boat, the Lockheed SP-2H Neptune and the Lockheed P-3A and P-3B Orion, which was rapidly replacing the other two types in service. Sangley was crowded with those aircraft as the war expanded, and also was home to a small U.S. Coast Guard unit with Grumman HU-16E Albatross amphibian seaplanes.

I mostly had other priorities like school etc., but as an aviation geek still had time to hang out at the seaplane ramp a few times and watch the crews launch or beach the big SP-5B Marlin flying boats. It was a manpower-intensive operation: the aircraft taxies up, a whaleboat or two tug the beaching gear out to the aircraft and attach it, then attach a cable to pull the SP-5B out of the water up the ramp.

For a short period about this time, Sangley was visited by Royal New Zealand Air Force Short Sunderland flying boats. The Sunderland was an old design and was almost as big as the SP-5B but had four smaller piston engines; the SP-5B had two big R-3350 engines of 3,000 hp each.

[Dang3r]

[Dang3r]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

Well, if it doesn't qualify as an airplane by itself, it certainly qualifies as a passenger!

Reminds me to the OO7 "Moonraker"

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Llarry

By then, the Navy was down to three seaplane patrol squadrons; two at the Naval Air Station North Island, Coronado, California and one at the Naval Station Sangley Point, Philippines. From Sangley Point it was a relatively easy transit to Vietnamese waters and Sangley was home to all three patrol aircraft then in USN service: the Martin SP-5B Marlin flying boat, the Lockheed SP-2H Neptune and the Lockheed P-3A and P-3B Orion, which was rapidly replacing the other two types in service. Sangley was crowded with those aircraft as the war expanded, and also was home to a small U.S. Coast Guard unit with Grumman HU-16E Albatross amphibian seaplanes.

When our family got to Sangley, we discovered that many of the teens had small motorcycles. Ohhhh, want one badly! The source was unusual: The Martin company technical rep at Sangley had a connection in Japan at Iwakuni, a seaplane-capable base in Japan that no longer routinely operated seaplanes. Every once in a while, an SP-5B with the tech rep aboard would fly to Iwakuni and he would buy motorcycles for the teens on base. You never knew quite what you would get but the prices were really low. There was a major catch -- and I don't think it ever happened -- but the SP-5B would not maintain altitude with one engine out unless at a very low weight. So if the aircraft lost an engine, the understanding was that the motorcycles would be tossed -- and there were no refunds, as they had already been purchased! Our motorcycles had some kind of "on-base use only" sticker on them and the base was small; no matter: we loved our bikes. (Mine was a 65cc Honda; I was slightly jealous of the guys who had 90s.)

Post-script to the seaplane story: By 1967-68, the Navy retired the SP-5B. The Coast Guard continued to fly the HU-16E for a few years more. Of course that new P-3 Orion that replaced the flying boats has now itself been replaced by the Boeing P-8A.

[Llarry]

Further post-script to the seaplane story: One of the outstanding flying boats of World War II was a four-engined, heavily-armed model used by the Imperial Japanese Navy and designed and built by Shin Meiwa. Shin Meiwa survived the war and in the 1960s-70s designed a new four-turboprop amphibious seaplane with unsurpassed rough water capabilities due to an unusually low stall speed. That 1st-gen postwar model was succeeded about 20 years ago by the improved US-2, used for search and rescue in small numbers by the Japanese JMSDF (Navy.) In addition to four turboprops, the aircraft has a gas turbine used to blow air over the flaps for excellent low-speed characteristics.

The Chinese have recently come out with a slightly larger model that looks to me to owe a lot to the Shin Meiwa design.

[Lady Jane]

YAK-28 Brewer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-28

[Lady Jane]

The A-90 Orlyonok ("Eaglet") is a Soviet ekranoplan (a ground effect vehicle) that was designed by Rostislav Evgenievich Alexeyev of the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau. The A-90 uses ground effect to fly a few meters above the surface. The Russians classify it as Ekranoplan Class B - it can achieve an altitude of 3,000 m (9,800 ft), placing between Class A - which is limited to ground effect, and Class C, which exploits the ground effect only during take-offs and landings.

[other_evolved]

Ekranoplan's are stuff straight from scifi novels to me.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

Ekranoplan's are stuff straight from scifi novels to me.

Pretty much *anything* the Soviets built looks like something from a bad 1950's sci-fi movie.

I did a crew tour of an AN-124 once upon a time (in an "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" way).

It was..... interesting, but I couldn't shake the feeling that I'd walked into a low-budget 1950's movie set.

R.

[Jbrown7403]

The “Caspian Sea Monster”

[Jbrown7403]

Interesting video…