[Llarry]

A bit more U-2 geekery if nobody objects...

A pilot and a journalist suited up for a ride to 70,000 feet.

The pilot's view from altitude.

And a photo of one of the two National Aeronautics and Space Administration's ER-2s.

And a question: How high can the U-2S fly? I do not know, but I do know that early U-2s could exceed 70,000 feet and that improvements over time have increased that ceiling. On the other hand, loading the aircraft up with sensors adds weight and weight is the enemy of altitude. So those who know could tell us but then they'd have to kill us. My guess is that a minimally-equipped U-2S without all the heavy sensor pods etc could easily top 75,000 feet but I don't know. But altitude is not the objective -- intelligence collection is, and that requires all the electronic doo-dads.

[3.0L]

Originally Posted by 3798j

.

That's probably a very rare vehicle that goes faster in reverse than forward.

[Llarry]

Here's an interesting graphic of the cross-section of various commerical airliners -- a bit old but interesting nonetheless.

I flew on a Navy C-47 (DC-3) in 1965 -- as I remember there were two seats abreast on one side of the aisle and just a single seat on the other. Not roomy at all.

[3798j]

.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by 3798j

.

Imperial Airways Handley Page HP-42 interior ca. 1936.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_H.P.42

[chassis]

A321

[Dino GT]

🚁
🚁

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by chassis

A321

How can you tell? That could be an A318/319/320

[Lady Jane]

Adam 500 and 700.





Here's another Adam. Older members should know the call-sign.

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

...
Here's another Adam. Older members should know the call-sign.

IIRC "Adam Dozen"

[chassis]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

How can you tell? That could be an A318/319/320

Seat back safety card.

[Jbrown7403]

Ahhhh…good old Braniff…

[Lady Jane]

Canadian Pacific DC-8_63 at Toronto International in 1972.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadi...ific_Air_Lines

[Jbrown7403]

Clipper Juan T. Trippe N747PA. In my opinion, best livery on the best plane ….. ever.

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Jbrown7403

Clipper Juan T. Trippe N747PA.

I just had to do a historical check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Trippe


Which led to this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-42

The very first PanAm Clipper built by... Igor Sikorsky.

[sygazelle]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Adam 500 and 700.

Attachment 3108055

Attachment 3108056

The Adam 500 is much better looking than the Cessna 337 Push Pull. Great concept as proven by Cessna and others, but poorly executed.

[Llarry]

The early years of U.S. Navy aircraft carrier operations and aircraft:

The first carrier, the USS Langley was converted from an auxiliary ship and was small and slow but provided valuable experience in operating airplanes from a ship at sea. The next two were converted battle cruisers that had been laid down, then cancelled well before completion; the USS Lexington and USS Saratoga were the largest carriers in the world when commissioned in the 1920s.

Thye 1920s were a period of experimentation: What kind of aircraft would be most effective? How many could be accommodated on the carrier? Initial planning was for three types of carrier aircraft: torpedo bombers to attack an enemy fleet, scouts to search for enemy ships and fighters to protect the fleet against enemy air attack. Not until about 1930 were the aircraft strong enough to undertake dive bombing -- an almost vertical dive with a 500- or 1,000-lb bomb with a high-G pullout at low level after dropping the bomb.

The Old Guard battleship admirals saw aircraft as useful for scouting and observation, i.e, finding the enemy fleet and then spotting the fall of shells and correcting the aim of battleship guns. The aviators soon realized that the carrier and its aircraft were a potent weapon on their own.

The first carrier aircraft were flimsy and crude by later standards. At first, Boeing dominated the Navy fighter market, although Curtiss produced some fighters as well. By the 1930s, Grumman fighters became the standard, partly due to retractable landing gear. By the mid/late-1930s, it became clear that monoplanes were the future; the first Navy monoplane fighter was the Brewster F2A Buffalo.

The other main type was the torpedo bomber. Douglas, Curtiss and then Martin dominated the biplane torpedo bombers. By the late 1930s, the Douglas TBD Devastator monoplane replaced earlier types.

Rounding out the early air groups were scouting planes and Vought dominated this type.

The first dive bomber was the Martin BM, which could double as a scouting airplane. Later dive bombers were designated scout bombers, reflecting their dual purpose.

Here's a brief video of landing operations on the Langley:

This era is also known as the "yellow wing" period, as the aircraft had yellow upper wing surfaces; they also had very colorful markings with tail colors indicating which aircraft carrier they were assigned to and engine cowling and fuselage stripes indicating squadrons.

Two of the aircraft in service pre-WW2 saw action in early combat and were slaughtered: The F2A monoplane fighter and the TBD monoplane torpedo bomber did not fare well in early operations. Fortunately, better airplanes were coming soon.

[Llarry]

It occurs to me that many of my posts concerning U.S. Navy aircraft reference old and new designation systems. The old system was used from the 1920s to late 1962 and the new system since 1962. For an aircraft like the F-14 Tomcat, no problem -- it was always the F-14. But for earlier aircraft it can be confusing.

So here is the briefest possible primer on the old system:

The old system used a letter or two for the function of each aircraft; A for attack, F for fighter, P for patrol and S for antisubmarine, for example. Some types used two letters for function: all helicopters used two letters, for example HS for ASW helicopter or HU for utility helicopter. Two other notable examples of two letter functions were SB for scout bombers and TB for torpedo bombers; both types had dual functions.

The next part of the designation was a number denoting the number of models of that type by the manufacturer. The number 1 is not used.

The last letter denotes the manufacturer of the aircraft; there were a lot of these and companies came and went over the years.

Some examples:
A2F = Attack aircraft, the second model by Grumman (F)
F4U = Fighter, the fourth model by Vought (U)
R4D = Transport, the fourth model by Douglas (D)
SB2C = Scout bomber, the second model by Curtiss (C)
HO4S = Observation helicopter, the fourth model by Sikorsky (S)
HSS = ASW helicopter, the first model by Sikorsky (remember, the number one is not used, so not HS1S)
P2V = Patrol plane, the second by Lockheed (V)

The full designation also added a number indicating the specialized model of that aircraft, for example P2V-1. And when an aircraft was adapted for a further specialized role, yet another letter would be added at the end of all that, such as P2V-1T (A P2V-1 for training)

The system was complicated -- a lot more complicated than the Air Force's system -- and the 1962 Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, directed that the Navy adopt the Air Force system. (Yes, some hard feelings ensued.)

[Lady Jane]

Originally Posted by Llarry

It occurs to me that many of my posts concerning U.S. Navy aircraft reference old and new designation systems.

Yes, I noticed that and found it very irritating.
And BTW, more pictures please.

[Lady Jane]

Cessna Skymaster and Super Skymaster.

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

Bat*21



Red Bull.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by Lady Jane

Yes, I noticed that and found it very irritating.

So you're saying that you want full details on the Vought FU?

By the way, Fighting Squadron Two was a unique squadron in the pre-WW2 Navy: Most of the pilots were enlisted. Their nickname was the Fighting Chiefs, although not all the enlisted pilots were Chiefs. The squadron insignia was a Chief Petty Officer rank device; on the tail of this 1920s FU-1.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by sygazelle

The Adam 500 is much better looking than the Cessna 337 Push Pull. Great concept as proven by Cessna and others, but poorly executed.

We had nicknames for many aircraft. The C337 was the "mix master" and the C500 series was the "flying roadblock." We also discovered that over the radio, turkey sure sounds a lot like Cherokee!