|
|
Post by Gene on May 30, 2018 8:15:02 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 18, 2018 4:55:58 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 19, 2018 5:03:33 GMT 9
about 5min. in is a C 54 crash supposedly associated with area 51... 1955 i think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 19, 2018 5:19:08 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 31, 2018 0:36:46 GMT 9
this is good...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 3, 2018 0:55:05 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Aug 3, 2018 2:01:04 GMT 9
Nice video Gene. I was allowed to take part in many briefings at WPAFB conducted by major airframe developers. The C-130 is the only cargo plane which was designed for short field TO and Landings. In fact at McChord they had an assault landing strip between main runway and taxiway. I rode along on a few of the short strip TO and landings and I can tell you the slam it down short assault field landing are hard on the airframe, especially the humane one. All AF cargo planes were spec'd out for short field operations, even the C-5 and C-17. But the toll on the airframe was harsh. Both C-5 and C-17 were limited to total number of those operations as it really had the threat of structural damage. So they both were short field TO and Landed as part of pre-production testing, but never had real life missions to use short field, unpaved runways. The A400 Airbus also was briefed to WPAFB. They describe the ability to use the Short/unprepared field operation as an emergency operation, it too would suffer fatigue from the operation. The C-5, C17 and A400 all have one common area that suffers from structural cracks from high G landings. The high T-tail. Slamming them down on harsh High landings can cause enough damage that they don't do them in standard missions. The A400 also has extended engine mounting, the engine extends out in front of wing. Hash landings can cause structural damage as the engines are not metal, but composite materials. The A400 has been one of the worst development projects in aviation history. Even after 4 year delays in production, the engines have been cause of groundings in RAF airframes. I guess some small military units needed something larger than C-130 and smaller than C-17. But the C-17 took place of the C-141 which was between C-5 and C-130. The C-130 J was a upsize to C-130 A-H with extended length and bigger engines to carry more cargo longer distances. The A400 was partially mission requirements, but mostly EU Political directions. Europe can't also buy USAF Aircraft when they have their own subsidized company Airbus. Lorin
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 5, 2018 0:34:29 GMT 9
look what just popped up... good to see some of my stuff here...
|
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator 
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,445 
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Aug 5, 2018 1:51:14 GMT 9
Gene, when I put that slideshow together I knew some of the photo's were done by you. Got some off the internet, some USAF pic's, and a few of my own. I also did a slideshow on SAC and USAFE which are also on youtube.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 5, 2018 3:18:36 GMT 9
look what just popped up... good to see some of my stuff here... |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 3, 2018 3:30:30 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 3, 2018 5:02:52 GMT 9
Thanks Gene The B-58 shared one big disadvantage with the F-4. It's exhaust smoke would make it easy for interceptor/fighters to locate and follow it. When the F-4G Wild Weasel was designed as a spin off of F-4E it had newer smoke free engines to counter that disadvantage. I can remember as a boy out plowing fields that we would get surprised by two different Air Force aircraft. The B-58 from Bunker Hill IN and the B47 from Lockbourne (Rickenbacker). The were both doing low altitude missions over central Ohio
Lorin |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 3, 2018 8:23:50 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 5, 2018 6:41:26 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 7, 2018 14:25:01 GMT 9
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 7, 2018 22:23:03 GMT 9
Gene, I haven't responded much this week, but have enjoyed your posts. While at Tyndall in about 1968-69 we had a British Royal Air Force team come to Tyndall and fly along with us and they had a Vulcan bomber which they used as target for the fighters. They had two Lightning fighters which were pretty good, probably equal to F-101, F-102. But no threat to the six. I worked debriefing at the time while my hearing recovered. I got to know several of the enlisted members of team and Tyndall gave them an NCO welcome. That meant the base provided a few kegs of beer and a ton of food. My brother Tom and his police partner were visiting from Columbus OH and I had them join us at the party. I had to work as bartender for most of party. After I got off, I joined them and the RAF guys opened a keg of brandy about 11PM. So here are a bunch of RAF/US NCO's getting tanked with brandy shooters and draft beer. I stayed pretty sober as I had to work next morning. Well club closed at midnight on weekday so several of them convinced me to drive them down to beaches. I also tended bar at a few clubs so My brother, his partner Danny and 4 RAF guys and I went after hours bar hopping. I finally got them back to base about 4am, I had to be at work at 0730. Good memories Lorin |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 10, 2018 0:39:18 GMT 9
back in the '80's we had a vulcan at tcm... it parked on B 9...right in front of my aps. bldg. it was a wicked sight... memories are what we live for... keep them safe and enjoy them..  |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Sept 10, 2018 0:46:04 GMT 9
not home made...
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 10, 2018 2:48:04 GMT 9
Gene, That is one of the best dual display I have seen, and with commercially available models. I wonder how much they cost? Lorin |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 25, 2019 5:35:41 GMT 9
|
|
