Aircraft Identification

From gardening and needlework to Mornington Crescent and captioneering.
User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:13 pm

The first regular flights between Australia and the UK commenced in 1931 and took 16 days each way. Until around 1938 they were ferrying mail only. Then planes made by Short Brothers took on 15 passengers at a time for the trip. I should have said boats, for that is what they were - flying boats. Thus, Australia's first international airport was located in Sydney Harbour. By then trips took only ten days each way. And they cost a bit more than a year's wages per customer. I don't know if that was the cost each way or return.

When WWII started the half dozen flying boats were requisitioned by the military, but regular services resumed soon after that was over and done with. Not many years later the aerodrome in Botany had been turned into a proper airport. The routes going out of Rose Bay kept shrinking until a takeoff from Lord Howe Island in 1974 marked the last scheduled flight by one of those monsters.

I never did get closer than a few hundred metres from any of them, but that was close enough to almost split my eardrums. I don't think I have ever heard a louder plane, except for those fighter jets that turned on their afterburners 50 metres above the lake I was swimming in as they took off. They were not being rude. There's just not much space for taking off in the Swiss Alps.

(Not loaded: BQYGqt3x9s8)
(View video on YouTube)

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:22 pm

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]
Roo St. Gallus;675468 wrote:
Roo St. Gallus;675450 wrote:
Worldtraveller;675421 wrote:The Dornier Seastar is a beauty, but I love seaplanes (one of my fave WWII aircraft is the Catalina).
Yeah, my current fave. Strictly pin-up stuff.
Speaking of Dornier and pin-ups, there is, right now, at least, a resurrection of the Do-24 in the Do-24ATT, which Claude's grandson, Iren, had entirely refitted for UNICEF work in the South China Sea area. What a beaut.

Image

Here is a recent 'mishap' article.
She's a beaut for sure. I love me some flying boats. If I could afford to own any aircraft in the world, I wouldn't want a fancy biz jet, it would be a Catalina. :D

Although when it comes to business aircraft, I'm partial to the Piaggio Avanti.[/QUOTE]

Heh...Avanti garde, eh? So you would stay with props, rather than move to jet power?

I used to drool over the Piaggio P.136 Royal Gull, until I caught sight of the Dornier Seastar.

Image

Now, of course, I'd like both. Which is just fine, because I can't have either.

I know nothing about Piaggio's reputation for quality, serviceability, or durability, but that little Royal Gull would be just the sweet little number for some outback lake hopping.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Tue Aug 08, 2017 10:47 pm

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]
Roo St. Gallus;675474 wrote:
Worldtraveller;675457 wrote: They also were dabbling in converting DC-9s for use as medium capacity aerial fire fighters.
Yeah? How would that compare to a purpose-built craft like the Canadair (now Bombadier?) CL-415, or the Beriev Be-200? Is there some kind of financial savings in converting an existing transport craft, over underwriting a purpose-built craft?
There are a number of water bomber conversions for different size aircraft, and like aircraft in other markets, they fit different niches.

I've been involved in a few different water bomber projects over the years. Of course, one of Erickson's biggest business segment is firefighting with their Aircranes, so the company knows something about it. The group that's working on the DC-9 is separate from the helicopter business somehow, though.

The global supertanker (http://fireaviation.com/tag/747/ ) is a new player in that field. If you go watch the video of them painting it, the time lapse footage was taken from a camera that was literally mounted right above my office door in that hangar. :) I also watched several of the water drop tests that are in the various videos there (the initial testing and flights were done in Marana, Az).

I'm hoping to get some work with a company that is decommissioning their P-2V fleet and replacing them with BAe-146 aircraft that are being converted for firefighting.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...Now, see, I know of niches, but not well. It would seem to me that the purpose built aircraft, particularly those which can reload 'on-site', rather than requiring a return to an airstrip where they have to be filled and relaunched, would be the premiere aircraft at an incident. I would guess that in firefighting, time is quite important and the time expended returning to an airstrip to be reloaded is a major element. I am assuming that most of the 'aircranes' would be utilized in some kind of 'bucket brigade' approach with water supply close to the incident, but fairly sure that they could also be easily uploaded with chemical retardants as well. Fixed wings seem as though they must be dedicated to chemical retardants or dedicated to watering hot spots. So far as I know, the on-site refillables like the CL-415 are limited to water bombing, unless they are forced in to the 'return to the airstrip to be reloaded' program.

I'm not sure how YUGE jet carriers (like a 747) can be low and slow enough to safely hit hotspot targets...or, is the load so large that higher and faster approaches can be used and/or accuracy counts less? (I wonder the same thing with Beriev's Be-200, which is a huge on-site scooper water bomber.)

Feel free to lecture me at length about my ignorance of waterbombing practices...I'd love to know more. :D
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:20 pm

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]
Worldtraveller;675489 wrote:
Roo St. Gallus;675474 wrote:
Worldtraveller;675457 wrote: They also were dabbling in converting DC-9s for use as medium capacity aerial fire fighters.
Yeah? How would that compare to a purpose-built craft like the Canadair (now Bombadier?) CL-415, or the Beriev Be-200? Is there some kind of financial savings in converting an existing transport craft, over underwriting a purpose-built craft?
There are a number of water bomber conversions for different size aircraft, and like aircraft in other markets, they fit different niches.

I've been involved in a few different water bomber projects over the years. Of course, one of Erickson's biggest business segment is firefighting with their Aircranes, so the company knows something about it. The group that's working on the DC-9 is separate from the helicopter business somehow, though.

The global supertanker (http://fireaviation.com/tag/747/ ) is a new player in that field. If you go watch the video of them painting it, the time lapse footage was taken from a camera that was literally mounted right above my office door in that hangar. :) I also watched several of the water drop tests that are in the various videos there (the initial testing and flights were done in Marana, Az).

I'm hoping to get some work with a company that is decommissioning their P-2V fleet and replacing them with BAe-146 aircraft that are being converted for firefighting.
Hmmm...Now, see, I know of niches, but not well. It would seem to me that the purpose built aircraft, particularly those which can reload 'on-site', rather than requiring a return to an airstrip where they have to be filled and relaunched, would be the premiere aircraft at an incident. I would guess that in firefighting, time is quite important and the time expended returning to an airstrip to be reloaded is a major element. I am assuming that most of the 'aircranes' would be utilized in some kind of 'bucket brigade' approach with water supply close to the incident, but fairly sure that they could also be easily uploaded with chemical retardants as well. Fixed wings seem as though they must be dedicated to chemical retardants or dedicated to watering hot spots. So far as I know, the on-site refillables like the CL-415 are limited to water bombing, unless they are forced in to the 'return to the airstrip to be reloaded' program.

I'm not sure how YUGE jet carriers (like a 747) can be low and slow enough to safely hit hotspot targets...or, is the load so large that higher and faster approaches can be used and/or accuracy counts less? (I wonder the same thing with Beriev's Be-200, which is a huge on-site scooper water bomber.)

Feel free to lecture me at length about my ignorance of waterbombing practices...I'd love to know more. :D [/QUOTE]
You would probably be surprised at how accurate those large aircraft can get with their drops. However, it's not about whose is biggest, it's about how they work together under the control of one or two airborne fire marshals.

You get the big planes (the 747 is the biggest, with 19,000 gallons), to lay down 'fire breaks' and put out large conflagrations that are spreading quickly. The smaller planes and helos follow up with with more precise, targeted drops that get the hot spots the big ones miss, or that may be hard to reach for the less maneuverable aircraft.

This video is the one taken mostly from my office position. I know all the guys in this video (this is the hangar I worked in every day for over a year).

I saw two of these test drops in person as well.

I have some good video from the back seat of an Erickson Aircrane doing a water drop. If you want I can dig it up. It's interesting because once the water is out,it appears to just hang in the air as it breaks into drops. That's why they tend to drop a little lower when fighting fires.

Most helos can only fill by dropping their bambi buckets into a lake or pool or something to fill them. The Aircranes have two methods to fill: 1) A pump attached to a suction hose that fills the (almost 4000 gallon) tank in a little over 60 secs, this is done in a hover and it's a motorized pump; and 2) the sea snorkel which can be used on the ocean or large lakes. This allows a quicker turnaround for the helos, but the big tankers are equivalent to about 5 helo drops (more like 6-7 for the smaller helos using bambi buckets).

This was my office about 2 weeks/year when I worked for Erickson. I loved that job.

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:22 pm

And this is a classic if you're a fan of the SR-71.

The video isn't much, but listen to the end. it's worth it.

http://twistedsifter.com/videos/an-sr-7 ... eck-story/

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:27 pm

[quote=""Hermit""]The first regular flights between Australia and the UK commenced in 1931 and took 16 days each way. Until around 1938 they were ferrying mail only. [/quote]

Wait...wait...According to what I understand via wiki, the second and third place winners of the MacRobertson Air Race, from London to Melbourne, in October 1934, "were taken by airline transports flying regular routes with passengers, with the KLM Douglas DC-2 PH-AJU Uiver (Stork) gaining a narrow advantage over Roscoe Turner's Boeing 247-D, both completing the course less than a day behind the winner. Both were equipped with full variable-pitch propellers and had just completed test and development phases, and the DC-2 was flown without significant modification." The winner did so in 3 days, so second and third reached Melbourne on day 4.

Perhaps because their 'regular routes' were not London to Melbourne, but Amsterdam to Melbourne? It sure sounds like KLM was carrying regular passengers from Europe to Australia before the 1934 race.

Thanks for the Sandringham (nee Sunderland) pix. "Australia: Come in your Shorts." :D

Pan American Airways was built on the 'Clipper' trade during the 1930s. That story is one of wretched excess at work...elite travel by flying boat basically built the infrastructure of international air travel.
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:29 am

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]Perhaps because their 'regular routes' were not London to Melbourne, but Amsterdam to Melbourne? It sure sounds like KLM was carrying regular passengers from Europe to Australia before the 1934 race.[/quote]
Neither. Second and third place getters were using airline transports flying regular routes with passengers rather than purpose-built racing planes. Those planes were not flying their regular routes at the time. There were no regular anywhere in Europe to anywhere in Australia services, nor the other way around until later.

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:32 am

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]
Roo St. Gallus;675474 wrote:
Feel free to lecture me at length about my ignorance of waterbombing practices...I'd love to know more. :D
You would probably be surprised at how accurate those large aircraft can get with their drops. However, it's not about whose is biggest, it's about how they work together under the control of one or two airborne fire marshals. [/quote]

Makes sense.
You get the big planes (the 747 is the biggest, with 19,000 gallons), to lay down 'fire breaks' and put out large conflagrations that are spreading quickly. The smaller planes and helos follow up with with more precise, targeted drops that get the hot spots the big ones miss, or that may be hard to reach for the less maneuverable aircraft.
Makes more sense.
This video is the one taken mostly from my office position. I know all the guys in this video (this is the hangar I worked in every day for over a year).

I saw two of these test drops in person as well.
Shazzam! Great pix.
I have some good video from the back seat of an Erickson Aircrane doing a water drop. If you want I can dig it up. It's interesting because once the water is out,it appears to just hang in the air as it breaks into drops. That's why they tend to drop a little lower when fighting fires.

Most helos can only fill by dropping their bambi buckets into a lake or pool or something to fill them. The Aircranes have two methods to fill: 1) A pump attached to a suction hose that fills the (almost 4000 gallon) tank in a little over 60 secs, this is done in a hover and it's a motorized pump; and 2) the sea snorkel which can be used on the ocean or large lakes. This allows a quicker turnaround for the helos, but the big tankers are equivalent to about 5 helo drops (more like 6-7 for the smaller helos using bambi buckets).

This was my office about 2 weeks/year when I worked for Erickson. I loved that job.
Thanks. Your office pic did not come through for me.

(I think I already posted the pix ITT of the Beriev Be-200 showing off.)
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:33 am

Try this link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B33mKk ... sp=sharing

Roo, did they do any aerobatics or get a little 'tipsy' during your ride in the Tiger Moth? I would love to fly inverted in an open cockpit someday.

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:10 am

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]Try this link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B33mKk ... sp=sharing

Roo, did they do any aerobatics or get a little 'tipsy' during your ride in the Tiger Moth? I would love to fly inverted in an open cockpit someday.[/quote]

Heh...Sure beats the hell out of that 'corner office', now doesn't it?

After my stint with the stick, when I turned control back over to the pilot, he did a couple of quick cookies in both directions before taking us back to the tarmac. But I don't think we even came to wings vertical, much less any where near inverted.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:33 am

[quote=""Hermit""]
Roo St. Gallus;675505 wrote:Perhaps because their 'regular routes' were not London to Melbourne, but Amsterdam to Melbourne? It sure sounds like KLM was carrying regular passengers from Europe to Australia before the 1934 race.
Neither. Second and third place getters were using airline transports flying regular routes with passengers rather than purpose-built racing planes. Those planes were not flying their regular routes at the time. There were no regular anywhere in Europe to anywhere in Australia services, nor the other way around until later.[/QUOTE]

Were they 'airline transports flying regular routes with passengers', or 'not flying their regular routes at the time'?

Perhaps you meant, "Second and third place getters were using airline transports flying the race route with passengers, rather than purpose-built racing planes. Those planes were not flying their regular routes at the time. There were no regular anywhere in Europe to anywhere in Australia services, nor the other way around until later"?

From what I understand, KLM was operating to the Dutch East Indies successfully by the mid-1930s. Australia was within easy reach, as the DC-2 in the MacRobertson showed. It seems that KLM regular service to Australia had to wait until 1952, though, because Australia denied them landing rights, despite their request to open service following the MacRobertson race. If there weren't any services to Australia from Europe, it sounds like the responsibility for that lay with Australia, which seemingly actively impeded such from happening.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 6129
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by Hermit » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:19 am

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]From what I understand, KLM was operating to the Dutch East Indies successfully by the mid-1930s. Australia was within easy reach, as the DC-2 in the MacRobertson showed. It seems that KLM regular service to Australia had to wait until 1952, though, because Australia denied them landing rights, despite their request to open service following the MacRobertson race. If there weren't any services to Australia from Europe, it sounds like the responsibility for that lay with Australia, which seemingly actively impeded such from happening.[/quote]
You are sort of right. The UK put the kibosh on KLM's proposal with Australia's wholehearted agreement.

While the Australian colonies officially became the Australian nation on the first of January 1901, it very much hung onto the Old Dart's coat tails in practice. Foreign policy was in effect determined in London and we did not mind. There simply was no question about sending Australian troops halfway around the world in 1914 to be slaughtered there. And we were proud of it. The ANZAC legend was born. Nothing had changed when WWII started. On 3 September 1939 at 9:15 pm our Prime Minister announced to the nation via the wireless: "Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of the persistence of Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her, and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." And off we went again. Our next Prime Minister had great difficulties in getting some Australian divisions back downunder when the Japanese made their way towards us a couple of years later. He got too few back, and too late to prevent the Japanese from landing in New Guinea and their aeroplanes close enough to repeatedly bomb Darwin.

But that was not all. Until 1986 the last court of appeal was not the High Court of Australia, but the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. And even now ties, both emotional and official remain, even if the latter are not much more than symbolic and the former nowhere near as strong as they used to be. The next referendum on the matter will surely turn us into a republic. The previous one was cunningly sabotaged by yet another conservative PM, who was a staunch monarchist. He made sure that the referendum presented the voters with three options. One was to leave things be as they are. The other two proposed two different republican models, effectively splitting the republican vote in two.

So yes, Australia would definitely go along with the UK's view that flight services will be kept "in house" so to speak, but it was the UK which called the tune. Unsurprisingly, the Sydney to Southampton air service was a joint venture between Qantas and Imperial Airways. Australian pilots and crew would take the aeroplanes to and back between Sydney and Singapore, and British would handle the same aeroplanes for the other two thirds or three quarters of the trip. British prestige was at stake. As far as Britain was concerned, and with our own willing collusion, we were still de facto the colonial boys.

TL;DR version: Twas dem wat did it, not us, guvner.

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:24 am

Heh...

"The Pommies, it was!"

Gotcha.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:47 am

So, WT...

I assume you are familiar with the CL-415.

Image

I consider these to be 'medium-sized' purpose-built water bombers. Have you seen them in action? If so, how does the volume of CL-415 load compare to the 747? Half? A third? Or less? I assume that they are used for close-in, hot spot targets.

Or, being an engineer, you probably have the load capacity figures somewhere at hand...
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:21 am

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]So, WT...

I assume you are familiar with the CL-415.

Image

I consider these to be 'medium-sized' purpose-built water bombers. Have you seen them in action? If so, how does the volume of CL-415 load compare to the 747? Half? A third? Or less? I assume that they are used for close-in, hot spot targets.

Or, being an engineer, you probably have the load capacity figures somewhere at hand...[/quote]
Familiar with it, yes....even got to see one up close of its cousin once (although I didn't get to climb aboard like I would have liked). My first job outta college was working VIP interiors on Bombardier Challengers, and they brought in one of the older model CL-215s (the rotary engine, not the turbo prop like the 415) for some company shindig, but all they did was park it on the ramp for show (which was nice enough, it's a pretty airplane in its own right).

I had to google the water capacity, and the sources agree that it has round 1400 - 1500 gallon capacity. So less then even some of the smaller helo buckets. The advantage of the CL-X15 would be that, like the helos, it can refill from a lake or large river, but it can get there and back a bit faster.

I know our pilots (Erickson is based in OR) did a fair bit of fire fighting N of the Canadian border, and worked in conjunction with the CLs (and other aircraft on bigger fires). I wish I would have gotten copies, but one of the co-pilots had some great pictures taken from the air of a CL doing a water run.

If you ever get the itch to do some aerobatics, you should definitely check out Fighter Combat International. They have a range of programs from relatively short flights with some aerobatic maneuvers, to the package I did. I did the full up, 2 day air combat 'school' with a friend, which included a wide range of aerobatics after the fights were over. :cool:

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:25 am

[quote=""Hermit""]
Roo St. Gallus;675514 wrote:From what I understand, KLM was operating to the Dutch East Indies successfully by the mid-1930s. Australia was within easy reach, as the DC-2 in the MacRobertson showed. It seems that KLM regular service to Australia had to wait until 1952, though, because Australia denied them landing rights, despite their request to open service following the MacRobertson race. If there weren't any services to Australia from Europe, it sounds like the responsibility for that lay with Australia, which seemingly actively impeded such from happening.
You are sort of right. The UK put the kibosh on KLM's proposal with Australia's wholehearted agreement.

While the Australian colonies officially became the Australian nation on the first of January 1901, it very much hung onto the Old Dart's coat tails in practice. Foreign policy was in effect determined in London and we did not mind. There simply was no question about sending Australian troops halfway around the world in 1914 to be slaughtered there. And we were proud of it. The ANZAC legend was born. Nothing had changed when WWII started. On 3 September 1939 at 9:15 pm our Prime Minister announced to the nation via the wireless: "Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of the persistence of Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her, and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." And off we went again. Our next Prime Minister had great difficulties in getting some Australian divisions back downunder when the Japanese made their way towards us a couple of years later. He got too few back, and too late to prevent the Japanese from landing in New Guinea and their aeroplanes close enough to repeatedly bomb Darwin.

But that was not all. Until 1986 the last court of appeal was not the High Court of Australia, but the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. And even now ties, both emotional and official remain, even if the latter are not much more than symbolic and the former nowhere near as strong as they used to be. The next referendum on the matter will surely turn us into a republic. The previous one was cunningly sabotaged by yet another conservative PM, who was a staunch monarchist. He made sure that the referendum presented the voters with three options. One was to leave things be as they are. The other two proposed two different republican models, effectively splitting the republican vote in two.

So yes, Australia would definitely go along with the UK's view that flight services will be kept "in house" so to speak, but it was the UK which called the tune. Unsurprisingly, the Sydney to Southampton air service was a joint venture between Qantas and Imperial Airways. Australian pilots and crew would take the aeroplanes to and back between Sydney and Singapore, and British would handle the same aeroplanes for the other two thirds or three quarters of the trip. British prestige was at stake. As far as Britain was concerned, and with our own willing collusion, we were still de facto the colonial boys.

TL;DR version: Twas dem wat did it, not us, guvner.[/QUOTE]
Interesting how politics affects everything, innit?

I'm not surprised that some of those early records would be set by what are basically airliners. For those routes, range is much more important than raw speed, and the early airliners, even with their limitations, had much more range than anything else.

Roo, I need to dig through my old pics, but if you're a fan of the DC-3, I have some you'd like. The Hamburg (Germany) airshow in 2003 had no less than 5 C-47/DC-3s present (technically, 4 DC-3s and a DC-2, but most people can't tell them apart). They actually all flew together in formation and did some passes, which was quite spectacular.

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:48 pm

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]
Roo St. Gallus;675521 wrote:So, WT...

I assume you are familiar with the CL-415.

Image

I consider these to be 'medium-sized' purpose-built water bombers. Have you seen them in action? If so, how does the volume of CL-415 load compare to the 747? Half? A third? Or less? I assume that they are used for close-in, hot spot targets.

Or, being an engineer, you probably have the load capacity figures somewhere at hand...
Familiar with it, yes....even got to see one up close of its cousin once (although I didn't get to climb aboard like I would have liked). My first job outta college was working VIP interiors on Bombardier Challengers, and they brought in one of the older model CL-215s (the rotary engine, not the turbo prop like the 415) for some company shindig, but all they did was park it on the ramp for show (which was nice enough, it's a pretty airplane in its own right). [/quote]

Oh, I can well understand. It has that 'utilitarian beauty', rather like the A-10 Warthog. It's not conventionally attractive, but the shear impressive functionality for the job they've been tasked is the more than adequate compensation. And, I'd call the 215 the 'older sister' of the 415, rather than a cousin. A closer relation than cousin, and a babe in her own right.
I had to google the water capacity, and the sources agree that it has round 1400 - 1500 gallon capacity. So less then even some of the smaller helo buckets. The advantage of the CL-X15 would be that, like the helos, it can refill from a lake or large river, but it can get there and back a bit faster.
Wow. Considering that the Global Supertanker is rated at almost 20,000 gallons, it would take about a dozen runs for the CL-X15 to match the volume of a single load.

Is there a factor of one method being better than others for certain aspects of the firefight? I would think that hovering over a hot updraft from a fire with a rotor craft and bucket would be no fun, but I don't know how to compare it to flying through the updraft in a bomber. Is the risk equivalent?

If you ever get the itch to do some aerobatics, you should definitely check out Fighter Combat International. They have a range of programs from relatively short flights with some aerobatic maneuvers, to the package I did. I did the full up, 2 day air combat 'school' with a friend, which included a wide range of aerobatics after the fights were over. :cool:
Heh...Thanks, but I doubt I'll ever take it up. I'm not a 'thrill-seeker' and tend to be pretty 'risk averse'; I'd rather watch others, who are good at it, do it.
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:03 pm

[quote=""Worldtraveller""]
I'm not surprised that some of those early records would be set by what are basically airliners. For those routes, range is much more important than raw speed, and the early airliners, even with their limitations, had much more range than anything else. [/quote]

Range, durability, reliability, and relative ease of maintenance, unlike the hothouse racers that de Havilland built for the MacRobertson race.
Roo, I need to dig through my old pics, but if you're a fan of the DC-3, I have some you'd like. The Hamburg (Germany) airshow in 2003 had no less than 5 C-47/DC-3s present (technically, 4 DC-3s and a DC-2, but most people can't tell them apart). They actually all flew together in formation and did some passes, which was quite spectacular.
Now you hit a weak spot. I'm something of a Douglas fan, but the Dakota is the gem of the crop, as far as I'm concerned.

There is a functional DC-2 that frequents the Seattle Flight museum. I saw it once sitting on the tarmac across from their Connie. I don't know if it is affiliated with the museum or with another owner who flies in to the field. Sometimes, it takes setting them side by side to tell them apart, but this one had fairly unique engine cowlings, and the twin nostril lamps. It looks like a Dakota on a diet.
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:04 pm

Here's a photo of the Dakota pair, -3 above, -2 below:

Image

I suspect that is the DC-2 I saw on Boeing Field. You can see the cowling difference clearly. I'm not sure why that was done.

Along these lines, Bill Boeing bought himself an executive aircraft just before the US entry in to World War II.

What did he by for his personal use? One of these:

Image

Actually, Boeing got the prototype. And had it outfitted for eight seats.

Yes, it is a Douglas. A DC-5, actually. Only 5 made it in to civil colors and only a dozen were ever built.

It was drafted, of course, and Bill had to do without. Still, I'd call ol' Bill a pretty discriminating buyer when it came to aircraft, and he bought Douglas. Later, the firm with his name would do the same.
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:52 pm

[quote=""Roo St. Gallus""]

Wow. Considering that the Global Supertanker is rated at almost 20,000 gallons, it would take about a dozen runs for the CL-X15 to match the volume of a single load.

Is there a factor of one method being better than others for certain aspects of the firefight? I would think that hovering over a hot updraft from a fire with a rotor craft and bucket would be no fun, but I don't know how to compare it to flying through the updraft in a bomber. Is the risk equivalent?[/quote]
I'll be honest, I don't know. I suspect, though, that it's 90% determined by what's available, rather than what they would want.

Helos can't get to remote areas quickly because they are simply slow. The CL-415, DC-9, DC-10, 747, etc, all have the speed to get anywhere in the US in, say 12 hours or so, and start delivering agent/water. There are usually local helos available all around, even if it's just a sherriff/police Bell 206 or similar with a bambi bucket to help out.

When I was working at Erickson, the plateau across the freeway (literally less than 5 miles from our facility) had a pretty good fire going, so we all got to stand in the parking lot and watch two of our birds go to work. It was a pretty good PR move for the company too for the local community. I was standing bout 50 yards from one as it hovered to fill it's tank. :) Those six big rotors make quite the wind, as you might imagine.

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:28 pm

I found the pictures from my Staggerwing ride. See if this works, I haven't used photobucket in a while.

http://s26.photobucket.com/user/Wylann/ ... t=3&page=2

Still looking for the DC-3 and other airshow pics.

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:47 am

Note here...

I used to use Photobucket for personal images, primarily to allow me to post my own images at places like here on rare occasion. Despite offering a 'free service', they began limiting its use after a few years and have now changed the goalposts sufficiently that they no longer allow me access to my own images unless I buy in to their changed program. It is a bait-and-switch extortion.

Botophucket.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming....
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:06 pm

Interestingly, I found what appear to be the easier aerobatics to actually require the most skill (and presumably, practice).

I would have thought the hammerhead, Lumshevak, and cuban 8 for instance would be difficult to pull off, but they are actually pretty easy as long as you go into them correctly (which is relatively simple).

By comparison, the easy looking tailslide is quite difficult, and the torque roll even harder.

Worldtraveller
Posts: 3825
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:03 am
Location: S. OR.

Post by Worldtraveller » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:36 pm

A relevant news item popped up in my feed today:

Lost plans for WW2 Mosquito found.

I look forward to seeing a couple of these flying!

User avatar
Roo St. Gallus
Posts: 8148
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:32 pm
Location: Cascadia

Post by Roo St. Gallus » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:33 am

Hmmm...

Image

I'm not as familiar with the Short civil Empire flying boats as I am with the Pan Am experience with Sikorsky, Martin and Boeing. It looks like I should do some reading on Imperial Airways. And the Short brothers' venture. Roe & Saunders were in to making flying boats, too, weren't they?

Which reminds me, I should get ahold of a copy of Accidental Airline about the Queen Charotte Airways venture in British Columbia....Stranraers, Norsemen, Dakotas, Cansoes and Dragon Rapides on floats, o my!

Image

Image
Last edited by Roo St. Gallus on Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:04 am, edited 5 times in total.
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

Post Reply