The Aviation Thread [Contains Lots of Awesome Pictures]

Very true. My dad flew them over Germany in WWII. If he hadn't survived, I wouldn't be here. Quick aside story from my Dad: Many airmen had these small New Testament bibles with a metal front cover. The original idea was that you would put them in your left front breast pocket to protect your heart from flying shrapnel, but in fact most fliers put them in their back seat pocket to protect their ass and other organs. :)

"Yes, I carry my Bible separated into its constituent books each with its own metal cover, why do you ask?"
 
Never seen a 747 operating as a firefighting tanker before.

TH06-FOREST_302750e.jpg


http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article933929.ece
 
I think there is one here in the US too. Didn't we have a series of posts about air tankers not too long ago?
 
I like The B-24 Flying Coffin, but I prefer the B-17, the Beauty Queen of Bombers, in my opinion. Also, as I recall it had the highest survival rate of US bombers. Even when it was shot down the crew could almost always get out before it crashed due to all the holes in the fuselage and the abundance of hatches.

https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blind_io/2010/12/05/b17-625x450.jpg

Beautiful flying shot of a B-17. :cool:

Yeah, I saw The Memphis Belle too.

Still, as a whole the B-17 was the most survivable bomber.

I didn?t know about the survivability aspect of B-17s vs. B-24s, but my titbit is that the B-24s were trickery to fly in large formations, which was a problem in the 8th AF in WW2.

Also, in the movie, the Memphis belle was played by a number of aircraft one of which was the still airworthy ?Sally B?(Wiki). This aircraft is based at Duxford and was there on my last visit.

:)


I think there is one here in the US too. Didn't we have a series of posts about air tankers not too long ago?

Yes we did and that B747 is currently in Israel helping to sort out this mess: BBC News - Israel: Haifa forest fire 'under control'
 
It is operated by Evergreen International Aviation and is currently based at McClellan Field outside of Sacramento, California.

 
I love shots like this.

http://img200.imageshack.**/img200/5530/70939933.jpg

That is ridiculously low. Bad approach? Or short runway? I mean he could git a semi-truck at that height!
 
That would be one tall semi truck.
 
That is ridiculously low. Bad approach? Or short runway? I mean he could git a semi-truck at that height!
Open up google earth, turn on 3d buildings, and look at the approach to San Diego International. Note the 5 story parking structure just at the end of the runway. When landing you actually pull up right over it, then push it back down on the other side.
 
eww, don't zoom in too far on San Diego International. The aerial imagery isn't anywhere near looking straight down, it's just wrong looking. That's ridonkulizzle though.

edit: And I found that B-24 photo through the google but can't actually find it on flightaware so I don't know where that is. Must not be tagged or something.
 
Last edited:
What a load of bullshit. If it was the fault of Continental or one of their employees, then why did the Concorde go out of service? As I recall they found that the aircraft was far more vulnerable to debris than most passenger planes.
 
OM NOM NOM NOM

/required
 
What a load of bullshit. If it was the fault of Continental or one of their employees, then why did the Concorde go out of service? As I recall they found that the aircraft was far more vulnerable to debris than most passenger planes.

The market for the concorde dried up due to the crash, 9/11, and the drop in the economy.
 
Is it just me, and it can be just me, or do Italian and French courts always have to find someone to blame for accidents?
The headline does seem very partisan, to be sure.
The detail of the ruling is very strange; Continental has only been fined 200,000 euro and are to pay Air France 1 million euro compensation.

It is almost symbolic, considering the losses to Air France of reputation, revenues, life?s of the crew, the aircraft itself, etc. I wonder if there is a civil suit going on as well? :?

* * *

I stumbled across an old WW2 movie on TV this evening, directed by Howard Hawkes, which I had never seem before called Air Force (1943) IMDB

IMDB Website said:
The Mary Ann, a B-17 Flying Fortress, takes off from California for Hawaii on a routine training flight on December 6, 1941. En route, they learn of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Subsequently the crew mans the Mary Ann through action at Wake Island, the Philippines, and the Battle of the Coral Sea.

It is a feel good, propaganda type film, understandable considering when it was made so soon after Pearl Harbour. Worth a watch, if you have never seen it!

:)
 
The headline does seem very partisan, to be sure.
The detail of the ruling is very strange; Continental has only been fined 200,000 euro and are to pay Air France 1 million euro compensation.

It is almost symbolic, considering the losses to Air France of reputation, revenues, life?s of the crew, the aircraft itself, etc. I wonder if there is a civil suit going on as well? :?

Not to mention that three of the Concorde's designers who were also on trial for bad design were acquitted.
 
Well the Concorde's design was a far less direct cause of the crash than the maintenance of Continental's aircraft was. Planes by their nature are fragile, and every single one can be brought down from some small event. That is only more of a reason to take great care of each plane. Having parts falling off them is inexcusable.
 
Inexcusable? More like unavoidable. Parts will fall off. They'll fall off F1 cars, battle tanks, fighter jets, airplanes, Jacko, your tooth brush, your house, etc. Stuff falls apart sometimes. Yes proper maintenance can make these times few and far between. I don't know enough about this case to say whether it was "just a part falling off" or poor maintenance but to say that parts falling off is inexcusable is close to naive.
 
Top