quote:

The Flugschiff ("flying ship"), as it was called, was launched for its first test flight on 12 July 1929,[8] with a crew of 14.[1] To satisfy skeptics, on its 70th test flight on 21 October there were 169 on board of which 150 were passengers (mostly production workers and their families, and a few journalists), ten were aircrew and nine were stowaways.[1][8] The flight set a new world record for the number of people carried on a single flight, a record that would stand for 20 years.[9] After a takeoff run of 50 seconds[8] the Do X slowly climbed to an altitude of 200 m (660 ft). Passengers were asked to crowd together on one side or the other to help make turns.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Airbus is the most boring name possible for an aeroplane company.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Airbus is the most boring name possible for an aeroplane company.

Theris posted:

It's a travesty considering the legendary names among its predecessor companies.

meltie posted:

Huh, this reminds me, it looks like (actual ex-B-52 pilot and now cargo pilot) Major Kong stopped posting to his blog on dailykos last year. Anyone know where he went to?

ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

To add an extra wrinkle, Hawkers real name would be Sopwith if it wasn't for these unfair things called bankruptcy.

And then really North American shouldy-would be Fokker and Fokker would be the Nationalised Union of Fokker Factories, aka the Fokker United Constructions Komplex

BalloonFish posted:

The mock-up used green-on-black CRTs and looked incredibly 70s.

Theris posted:

I need pictures/video of this immediately and Google is failing me.

Edit: Found some!

BalloonFish posted:

BalloonFish posted:

Cactus Ghost posted:

that was what struck me the most about the 747 flight deck at the Hiller museum. just every fuckin surface that one of three crewmembers could see and reach had a gauge, light, switch, or circuit breaker on it

MrYenko posted:

lol

You should google B-36 flight deck photos.

Jets are simple.

Blue Footed Booby posted:

That third pic is the reactor engineer's station, for the version that carried a nuke plant.

Phanatic posted:

I wonder if that guy went through power school or if the Navy told the USAF “gently caress you, train him your own damned self”

MrYenko posted:

lol

You should google B-36 flight deck photos.

Jets are simple.

Sagebrush posted:

reminder that the B-36 was 40% jet

Phanatic posted:

I wonder if that guy went through power school or if the Navy told the USAF “gently caress you, train him your own damned self”

ET_375 posted:

There's a guy on youtube building a replica B36, starting with the cockpit/engineers station: https://www.youtube.com/@B36HPeacemaker/videos

Sagebrush posted:

why?

I get it when it's something like that blue Bugatti that crashed, where it's a unique artifact that doesn't exist anywhere. But there are real B-36s out there still.

hobbesmaster posted:

They should build an XC-99



It seems really weird for a one off plane to be built, the Air Force to say they didn’t really need a cargo plane that big and then use it operationally for a decade anyways. But the late 40s/50s were weird.

wiki posted:

The aircraft had continued to suffer additional corrosion during its years in Texas and was found to be in worse condition than expected, with the restoration task being beyond the resources of the museum in a realistic time scale. Some major components such as the wing spar would need to be completely replaced

quote:

Deterioration of the airframe due to the high magnesium content was beyond local abilities to address.

Hadlock posted:

From Wikipedia about the xc-99

Coming from a saltwater boating background, what kind of corrosion issues are they dealing with for aluminum? Galvanic between the spars and rivets, due to condensation/rainwater? Or what? Generally on a boat it's assumed that anything aluminum will survive the life of the boat (typically calculated for 20 years but frequently 30-40 years, in particular the structural bits like the boom and mast)

Elviscat posted:

I'm not much of a boater, but I'd bet those are all monolithic pieces, and anodized, not lots of uncoated little through holes where saltwater will concentrate and go to work.

Most aluminum alloys, if not specifically prepared for the environment, will turn to goo in the presence of saltwater eventually, even things like the Navy's Al hull Littoral Combat Ships, which are cathodically protected, has massive corrosion/pitting issues.

Elviscat posted:

I'm not much of a boater, but I'd bet those are all monolithic pieces, and anodized, not lots of uncoated little through holes where saltwater will concentrate and go to work.

Most aluminum alloys, if not specifically prepared for the environment, will turn to goo in the presence of saltwater eventually, even things like the Navy's Al hull Littoral Combat Ships, which are cathodically protected, has massive corrosion/pitting issues.

Hadlock posted:

Generally on a boat it's assumed that anything aluminum will survive the life of the boat (typically calculated for 20 years but frequently 30-40 years, in particular the structural bits like the boom and mast)

Hadlock posted:

Yeah we're over here trying to decide what to call them now with inflation since "bust out another thousand" just doesn't have the same impact it once did. Boatt is a strong contender

hobbesmaster posted:

They should build an XC-99



It seems really weird for a one off plane to be built, the Air Force to say they didn’t really need a cargo plane that big and then use it operationally for a decade anyways. But the late 40s/50s were weird.

BalloonFish posted:

Reminds me of the problems they had in the Berlin Airlift when one of the things being flown in in bulk was salt. If it was carried in a C-47 or C-54 and there was a spillage (or worse, one of the sacks split and dumped its contents) the plane would have to be withdrawn from service to be cleaned and inspected and have its control cables (running under the cabin floor) replaced. These could/would rust very rapidly if salt got to them, and some aircraft had to be written off entirely with salt corrosion to their frames.

Short Sunderland flying boats were brought in and specialised in salt transport. Their frames - both the material and the coating - were designed to resist saltwater corrosion but their main advantage was that they were two-level and high-winged, so all the control wires ran at the top of the fuselage not the bottom, so the salt could be safely transported in the lower hull and any spill wouldn't affect them.

Once winter came and the Sunderlands couldn't operate because the lakes had frozen, they used Lancastrians and Halifaxes with panniers to keep the salt away from critical parts and Yorks which were also high-winged (and which the RAF essentially saw as disposable since they already had corrosion issues)