dbp@dataio.UUCP (Dave Pellerin) (06/06/85)
>So, while on the subject of beautiful aircraft, what are the net nominations >for "most beautiful aircraft"? > My votes for 'Mostest Niftyest and Beautiful Airplanes'... WWII Hardware: Gotta be the Spitfire! WWI Hardware: Nieuport (I hope I spelled it right!) ...and almost anything else French! Current Military: Who Cares? Commercial: Boeing 747 (Sorry, the Clunkord doesn't look enough like an airplane!) Airplanes That A Guy Like Me Could Own: Falco (Italian designed kit aircraft) Christen Eagle (Biplane) Beauty Is More Than Skin Deep Award: DC-3 or Grummond Goose
kastin@aecom.UUCP (Steven Kastin) (06/23/85)
> >So, while on the subject of beautiful aircraft, what are the net nominations > >for "most beautiful aircraft"? > > > > My votes for 'Mostest Niftyest and Beautiful Airplanes'... > > WWII Hardware: > Gotta be the Spitfire! > > WWI Hardware: > Nieuport (I hope I spelled it right!) > ...and almost anything else French! > > Current Military: > > Who Cares? > > Commercial: > Boeing 747 > (Sorry, the Clunkord doesn't look enough like an airplane!) > > Airplanes That A Guy Like Me Could Own: > > Falco (Italian designed kit aircraft) > Christen Eagle (Biplane) > > Beauty Is More Than Skin Deep Award: > > DC-3 or Grummond Goose > > WHAT??? What do you mean "Who Cares?" for the 'current military' category? These are among the most beautiful aircraft flying! EVER HEAR OF THE SR-71 BLACKBIRD? It is easily the most beautiful thing ever to fly (and that includes birds!) F-16's aren't bad either. Military jet fighters have always been designed to be sleek, and more often than not, excite the imagination (as well as the enemy.) Steve Kastin, AECOM Aerospace Medicine Soceity
dimeo@lymph.DEC (06/24/85)
I vote the B36 as the "most beautiful". Who can forget the magnificent footage in "Strategic Air Command" with Jimmy Stewart. Those scenes are inspiring even today. What made the big bomber so pretty was that it was so huge yet it's lines were graceful. The long, upcurving wings in flight, the smooth lines of the engines and the pencil like fuselage all lended to the picture of ultimate grace. An Albatross on the ground, it was a beauty in flight.
david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler) (06/26/85)
OK, rotorcraft fanatics, time to get your licks in...
MOST HEART-THROBBING ROTORCRAFT: the Huey. No question, with those big
blade turning at over .7 MACH...
MOST BEAUTIFUL ROTORCRAFT: while some might prefer the Sikorsky S-76,
I personally am bats over the Bell 222, no doubt from watching Airwolf
constantly. There's something about the way it looks with retractable
wheels...
On the other hand, I believe the Museum of Modern Art has a Bell 47 in
its permanent collection. The 47 looks like exactly what you expect a
helicopter to look like; probably why it's there. It's also quite
lovely, especially if you like seeing all the tubing in the back.
The only half-nice looking gyroplane I've ever seen is the enclosed
Vancraft; only about 5 of those flying. The Bensen looks like an
office chair with an electric mixer attached.
--
Dave Fiedler
{harpo,astrovax,whuxcc,clyde}!infopro!dave People Phone: (201) 989-0570
USMail: InfoPro Systems, 3108 Route 10, Denville, NJ 07834
Caldwell Tower, this is 16 Lima inbound for Runway 4 with information Idiot...dbp@dataio.UUCP (Dave Pellerin) (06/27/85)
> > EVER HEAR OF THE SR-71 BLACKBIRD? It is easily the most beautiful > > thing ever to fly (and that includes birds!) ..... > > Steve Kastin, > AECOM Aerospace Medicine Soceity Oh, come on - the SR-71 doesn't look like an airplane, it looks like an oil soaked dead duck that just washed up on the beach!! I afraid I'm just a sucker for the bone-jarring sound (feel) of a big radial engine, the broad-shouldered look of a WW2 fighter, the way a real elevator (in the back, thank you!) feels during a full stall... Modern day mega-death aircraft just don't excite me in the same way. Dave Pellerin ...uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!dbp
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (06/28/85)
As beautiful as the P-51 is, and as macho as the DC-6, has anyone ever made a transport as lovely as the 707? There is an airplane with the perfect length fuselage (any version, the short or long), graceful wing and well formed tail. It is by far my favorite large airplane. Story has it that when the 707 was first being demonstrated to airline officials and the Air force, Tex Johnson was making a low pass and rolled the thing. That sold many airlines, right there. Just a story, can any Boeing types verify? Jeff Williams ihnp4!cfiaime
braman@dataio.UUCP (Rick Braman) (07/01/85)
> As beautiful as the P-51 is, and as macho as the DC-6, has anyone > ever made a transport as lovely as the 707? There is an airplane > with the perfect length fuselage (any version, the short or long), > graceful wing and well formed tail. It is by far my favorite large > airplane. > > Story has it that when the 707 was first being demonstrated to airline > officials and the Air force, Tex Johnson was making a low pass and > rolled the thing. That sold many airlines, right there. Just a story, > can any Boeing types verify? > > Jeff Williams > ihnp4!cfiaime I believe that the roll took place during a Seafair hydroplane race in front of thousands of spectators, much to the horror of Boeing officials. I don't recall what happened to Tex, but I'm sure that this one unsanctioned display did more to sell the plane than any other! -- o | " Go catch a thermal! " | | _________oOo_________ x O O x \xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxO Oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ O O OoO uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!braman -- Usenet Rick Braman Data I/O Corp Redmond WA 206-885-5851
ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) (07/02/85)
In article <808@ihnp4.UUCP> cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) writes: >... >Story has it that when the 707 was first being demonstrated to airline >officials and the Air force, Tex Johnson was making a low pass and >rolled the thing. That sold many airlines, right there. Just a story, >can any Boeing types verify? > Jeff Williams > ihnp4!cfiaime I personally saw the 707 do an aileron roll over the southern end of Lake Washington. Since I joined The Boeing Company, I have also seen a few copies of a photograph taken while the 707 was inverted. Some versions of the photo show only the starboard wing and engines, with the lake and shoreline in the background. I've even heard some people suggest that the photo was mounted upside down -- until they look closely at it! TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper (aka Ted Jardine) CFI-ASME/I Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!ted
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (07/10/85)
> I believe that the roll took place during a Seafair hydroplane race in front > of thousands of spectators, much to the horror of Boeing officials. I don't > recall what happened to Tex, but I'm sure that this one unsanctioned display > did more to sell the plane than any other! > Didn't a roll also happen to a TWA 727 on a passanger flight over Lake Erie a couple of years ago? Since I don't enjoy flying (but love airplanes!), I always make it a point to try to get on Boeing craft. I always feel a bit safer knowing that they can do things airliners are not supposed to be able to do. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
freeman@spar.UUCP (Jay Freeman) (07/12/85)
[] In article <172@bcsaic.UUCP> ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine) writes: >>Story has it that when the 707 was first being demonstrated to airline >>officials and the Air force, Tex Johnson was making a low pass and >>rolled the thing. >I personally saw the 707 do an aileron roll over the southern end of Lake >Washington. What happened to Tex Johnson in consequence? -- Jay Reynolds Freeman (Schlumberger Palo Alto Research)(canonical disclaimer)
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (07/15/85)
> > Didn't a roll also happen to a TWA 727 on a passanger flight over Lake Erie > a couple of years ago? In late 1978 (September, October), a TWA 727-100 did indeed do a roll. According to the reports, the Captain ("Hoot" Gibson, by name) may have asked for 1 degree of flaps to lower the deck angle of the aircraft in order to increase aircraft speed. He was up around 39000, which is rather high for a 15 year old 727-100. Anyway, the slats on the wing are supposed to extend with 2 degrees of flap travel. Number 7 (outboard) slat extended, causing the airplane to roll. It was recovered (on instruments) at around 10000 feet, and landed safely in Detroit. The roll was over central Michigan. TWA and Boeing figure that the airplane was overstressed about twice the certification load factors. In addition to damage to the flaps, one landing gear was also damaged. The airplane was ferried to Kansas City for repair or possible salvage. With the exception of the damage noted and repaired in Detroit (missing slat, gear damage), there was no damage at all on the airplane. It is still flying passengers for TWA. Hoot Gibson denies that he asked for a 1 degree flap extension. He no longer flies for TWA. As for flap extension to improve cruise... This works for several airplanes, including the Grumman AA-5 series. We found while flying charter that many times the Tiger flaps would ride "up" several degrees. We would flick the flap switch, extending the flaps so they rode flush with the wing-root fairing. It would gain us almost 3 knots. The Brittian-Norman Islander is another example. The factory was so impressed with the improvement in cruise that it modified ALL Islanders so that the 0 degree flap position is the old 4 degree flap position. jeff williams ihnp4!cfiaime
msw@drux3.UUCP (Mike Walpole) (07/15/85)
> > I believe that the roll took place during a Seafair hydroplane race in front > > of thousands of spectators, much to the horror of Boeing officials. I don't > > recall what happened to Tex, but I'm sure that this one unsanctioned display > > did more to sell the plane than any other! > Didn't a roll also happen to a TWA 727 on a passanger flight over Lake Erie > a couple of years ago? Since I don't enjoy flying (but love airplanes!), I > always make it a point to try to get on Boeing craft. I always feel a bit > safer knowing that they can do things airliners are not supposed to be > able to do. Yes, this did happen, but not on purpose. What happened was that the crew of the 727 used the leading edge slats during their climb. When the slats were retracted at altitude one side did not retract causing the plane to be way out of trim. The plane started to roll and the captain corrected it. The captain and the first officer tried to correct the problem and while they tried the plane started to roll again. This time when they corrected nothing happened and they started doing 4G barrel rolls at 30,000 feet. As they completed the first roll at 16,000 ft. they put the gear out to slow things down with no effect. As they completed the second roll the slat that was stuck parted company with the wing and the pilot was able to regain control. In the ensuing 6G pullout the fuselage was permanently wrinkled at the wing root making the airframe unuseable. After all that the crew landed the plane safely. Mike Walpole ps. I did this from memory. If anyone has additions or corrections please feel free.
fowler@uw-beaver (Rob Fowler) (07/16/85)
Speaking of taking commercial aircraft to their limits, the following was related to me by a Boeing engineer while we were on a DC10. I started the conversation by noting that as we became airborne that the fuselage over the wing flexed to the point that it pinched my arm between the armrest and the cabin wall. That started the war stories. He started with stating that Douglas builds flexible airframes compared to Boeing products. He first informed me that the reason that they have those curtains across the cabin in stretch DC8's is because the fuselage flexes a lot and it wouldn't do to have passengers noticing that the tail is weaving back and forth a couple of inches with respect to the front of the cabin. Then came the Boeing anecdote. One of the first 707's was on a trans-Atlantic run. The captain had gone back to the head to relieve himself when the autopilot tried to commit suicide. The plane went into a shallow but increasingly steeper dive. After quite a few seconds the captain pulls his pants up and works his way hand over hand up to to cockpit to discover the co-pilot trying to regain control from the autopilot. (Don't ask me why this was difficult. It's not my story.) Anyway, by the time they had the controls again they had lost a lot of altitude and were still diving. In a desperate move they did a very high G pullout at very low altitude. Since this may have overstressed the airframe they made an unscheduled stop in Iceland. FAA and Boeing inspectors were flown out and the passengers went on in another plane. The inspection revealed that the pullout had permanently bent the wings up, back, and twisted them. The inspectors decided, however, that it was still airworthy and Pan Am put it back in service with minor repairs. Over the next couple of years this plane started to exhibit much better fuel efficiency than other 707's. Pan Am told Boeing and the latter tried to figure out why. Calculations and wind tunnel simulations on bent and twisted 707 wings revealed nothing. They decided that they had to measure the plane and planned to do so during its next X million mile overhaul. They set up a hanger in Seattle with lots of photogrammetric cameras and other test equipment in anticipation of getting their hands on this wonder. They never did. This plane was the first plane hijacked in the Middle East and was blown up on the runway at Cairo. The engineers never did figure out why that particlar aircraft was so efficient. I have no independent information to either confirm or deny the truth of this tale. Anyone out there ever hear this one before? Oh yeah, watch out for the window seats over the wings on DC10's. It's either perversly amusing or mildly alarming to feel the cabin wall moving in and out as the wings flap when you go through heavy weather. -- Rob Fowler uw-beaver!fowler or fowler@washington.arpa
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/18/85)
> In late 1978 (September, October), a TWA 727-100 did indeed do a roll. > According to the reports, the Captain ("Hoot" Gibson, by name) may have > asked for 1 degree of flaps to lower the deck angle of the aircraft > in order to increase aircraft speed. Actually, the claim was the first notch of flaps, 3%. He, of course, denies this. Boeing actually did some tests and found this does not increase efficiency. > Anyway, the slats on the > wing are supposed to extend with 2 degrees of flap travel. They come out with the first notch, in order to deploy the flaps, you must pull the circuit breaker controlling the slats. > With the exception of the damage noted > and repaired in Detroit (missing slat, gear damage), there was no damage > at all on the airplane. It is still flying passengers for TWA. ALPA is still looking for the slat actuator that they claim failed and caused the problem, in order to vidicate the pilots. -RON