Cool airplane photo thread

Burbank airport and a Boeing 247 in 1933
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Two-bladed props?


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

Me, 1969….

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I like pictures like that remind me just how big fighters are. Looks like you could almost stand up in the intake. Somehow my mind always assumes they are the same size as a Cessna, not 20 times (or closer to 40 if its a F-111) bigger.

 

I"m assuming early on...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Burbank is/was a great airport to fly in to and out of. Upon landing the pilots would use lots of reverse thrust and braking, then 30sec after turning off the runway you were at the gate. Alaska would use the aft air-stair to offload so quick deplane for passengers in the back.

 

The reverse rake of the windshield gives it away as an early 247 as well as the two bladed props. Old 247 pilots said that reverse rake could build up a huge eyebrow of ice in the right kind of weather conditions.

 

Variable pitch props, so pretty advanced for the 30s, even if only two blades.

 

That reverse rake never made any sense to me. What was it supposed to accomplish?


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

It was meant to keep the lighted instrument panel from reflecting in the windshield at night.

 

Saw Fred Murrin's F.I 102/17 replica in the mix. Fred originally had an 80 hp Le Rhône 9C in her before upgrading to a 120 hp 9J. Have seen Fred fly her several times at WPAFB fly-ins,

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I tried those goggles once. Put them on and someone used a camera with flash bulb right in front of my face. Never saw any light, it was that fast closing.

 

How'd they work?
Instant screen darkening? Shutters?
I assume you can reverse them as quickly?

 

An old person's recall but reminds me of 1962....a former patient of the wife, (recently deceased) was a retire USAF Maj. Gen. who was a B-52 pilot when US went to Defcon 2....he was flying at the positive-control turnaround point when , Krushchev announced that the operational R-12 missiles would be dismantled. He said at the time that he thought they would be given the go for a bombing run. I don't think we at the time fully understood how close we were to all out nuclear war. The US at that time had over 5 Giga tons of nuclear weapons in the air or ready for launch.

Judging from the psychological meltdown of a significant percentage of the US population over COVID, how would we react today to a replay of Oct.-Nov. 1962? At that time, SAC had deployed nuclear loaded bombers to many civilian airports and I don't remember any "freak out".

 

Fred- Think it was shutters, but not sure.

 

They are electro switched polarisers triggered by a photosensor. Other prototypes had mechanical shutters apparently.

http://www.flightgear.dk/flash.htm

very ingenious.
M

 

Modern welding masks do the same and is very cheap.

Like clear glass until you strike an arc.

Night vision equipment has similar function.

 

And people thought hiding under our desks was going to make a difference.

Kind of like masks and covid.

 

Exactly! The "flash goggle" photo jogged my memory that Oct-Nov. 2022 is the 60th anniversary of "missile crisis" and how close we were to nuclear devastation. At the time, I lived 9 mi from ground zero of US Capitol.

IIRC, at the time, the US gov't and press made the withdrawal of Soviet missiles as a big win for Kennedy and the US and humiliation of Krushchev. We didn't know at the time that the withdrawal was based on the US removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy and pledge to not invade Cuba. IMO, fair trade to avoid nuclear was but at the time, when "Cold War" was intense, if that deal had been made public, the repercussions would have been bad.

 

To say nothing of the 4 Soviet Boomers in the vicinity of Cuba that had been given permission to fire at their discretion prior to leaving Mother Russia.

But those are stories for another thread.

 

"And people thought hiding under our desks was going to make a difference."
****
(Last off topic) I was in third grade when "Duck and Cover" film and hiding under desks was in vogue. At the same time, film of latest atmospheric nuclear tests, destroying buildings, ships, etc. were running on nightly news. Even at a young age, I thought how stupid it was to think that a wooden desk was protection.

 

Most casualties and damage from a nuclear explosion are from the Mach Y Stem, so a desk actually did provide quite a bit of protection from falling and blowing debris.

 

Correct, Terry. It would depend on where you were and if you were at the outer fringe of the blast, a desk could very well save you from some hard lumps. If you aren't injured or killed by the blast and you are subjected to the dust that will fall, that is what you must protect yourself from because that is carrying the particles of radiation.