Heavy Metal

[amazinblue82]

Alleged to be at Union Pacific shops in Cheyenne, WY, but I cannot confirm this. No year given either. That's a big one hanging there.

The crane is horizontal (left to right) full width of pic, the track is "in & out" (toward you/away from you) of the plane of the photo on steel beams

 

[amazinblue82]

Sante Fe shops, Topeka, Kansas, 1943.

(Whiting brand) 80 ton crane (locomotive size unknown, two different engines shown), lifting enginse to replace the drive wheels.

source: Topeka, Kansas. Wheeling an engine in the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad locomotive shops

 

[3175375]

Wow:

Lockheed CL-1201 - Wikipedia

Only a concept aircraft thought up at Lockheed. The CL-1201 would of been a monster flying aircraft carrier of the skies. Nuclear powered, Span of 1,120 feet (341m), weight 11.85 million pounds/5375 metric tonnes. And carrying up to 22 F-4 Phantom II under its wings. Imagine having this flying in the skies.

(Update) This aircraft would of have nuclear ICBM onboard, lasers to shoot down incoming threats and would be VTOL capable .

 

[3175375]

One of the enormous single-piece castings from the US Alcoa 50,000 ton press in the US. It is one of the largest single castings ever made, and contains the pressure cylinders at the top of the press. Note the person on the right for scale. This press, which is still in use today, stamps aircraft components. It is so powerful that if it was flipped upside down it could lift an Iowa-class battleship. The Air Force's 50,000 Ton Press - PlaneHistoria

 

[amazinblue82]

Wow:

Lockheed CL-1201 - Wikipedia

Only a concept aircraft thought up at Lockheed. The CL-1201 would of been a monster flying aircraft carrier of the skies. Nuclear powered, Span of 1,120 feet (341m), weight 11.85 million pounds/5375 metric tonnes. And carrying up to 22 F-4 Phantom II under its wings. Imagine having this flying in the skies.

(Update) This aircraft would of have nuclear ICBM onboard, lasers to shoot down incoming threats and would be VTOL capable .

View attachment 651707

View attachment 651708

oh my....



source: Never Built: CL-1201 – Found And Explained

almost everything you'd wanna know about this concept. why, even if one wanted, you couldnt build it today. Let alone 50-60 years ago.

 

[Old Mike]

Wow:

Lockheed CL-1201 - Wikipedia

Only a concept aircraft thought up at Lockheed. The CL-1201 would of been a monster flying aircraft carrier of the skies. Nuclear powered, Span of 1,120 feet (341m), weight 11.85 million pounds/5375 metric tonnes. And carrying up to 22 F-4 Phantom II under its wings. Imagine having this flying in the skies.

(Update) This aircraft would of have nuclear ICBM onboard, lasers to shoot down incoming threats and would be VTOL capable .

View attachment 651707

View attachment 651708

Not sure I’d want to be in the cockpit of one of those F-4s

 

[3175375]

Not sure I’d want to be in the cockpit of one of those F-4s

The aircraft reminded me of the Statolaunch system. I was working in Mojave, CA. When the hangar was being constructed. It’s operational now.

Scaled Composites Stratolaunch - Wikipedia

 

[3175375]

The Martin P6M Seamaster was a experimental strategic bomber/ Flying boat. Almost entering service with the US navy with only 12 SeaMasters being built, the program was cancelled in favour of the Polaris submarine-Launched ballistic missile (SBLM). The remaining aircraft was used as a high speed minelayer.


Martin P6M SeaMaster - Wikipedia

 

[3175375]

The Martin P6M Seamaster was a experimental strategic bomber/ Flying boat. Almost entering service with the US navy with only 12 SeaMasters being built, the program was cancelled in favour of the Polaris submarine-Launched ballistic missile (SBLM). The remaining aircraft was used as a high speed minelayer.


Martin P6M SeaMaster - Wikipedia
View attachment 653466View attachment 653467

Here’s a link to a short video:



Quite impressive and I have always enjoyed seaplanes.

 

[3175375]

Interesting ..

This source called one of these planes a "spotted cow". Same thing? UK designation?

Description of usage same as you said. Didnt see/notice on "why" the polka dotss?

sources: 42-3441 / Patches II aka The Spotted Cow | B-17 Bomber Flying Fortress – The Queen Of The Skies, What is the story about this B-17

B-17
View attachment 649905

---

---

---

This one referred to a B-24

source: File:First Sergeant B-24D Assembly Ship or Judas Goat.jpg - Wikipedia
View attachment 649906

Another:

 

[67newport]

 

[67newport]

150 ton canal trimmer used on the Grand Coulee Dam irrigation project. The truck was owned and operated by Catlow Transport out of Spokane, Washington.

 

[amazinblue82]

100 years of Kenworth

Ca. 1920's - Kenworth catered to the special needs of Western truckers, who faced longer hauls, steeper grades, and more primitive roads than their eastern counterparts. Kenworth built its trucks to suite local demands with great payloads, higher speeds, and better durability. This led to the development of a "Western Truck for Western Work" different than those manufactured in the East, according to the OEM.

---

Ca. 1933 - Kenworth stated it was the first American truck manufacturer to install diesel engines as standard equipment. The first diesel was built for Valley Motor Express in California, and had a small HA-4 Cummins engine—100 hp.

 

[amazinblue82]

150 ton canal trimmer used on the Grand Coulee Dam irrigation project. The truck was owned and operated by Catlow Transport out of Spokane, Washington.

I had NO idea what this was.

Apparently, its a MUST have piece of machinery when one is constucting "canals" (that you will eventually pave/concrete) to support water movement (irrigation, bypasses, etc).

I have no construction skills, but I can see why it would be necessary to have a rather precisely prepped/graded/shaped surface of a large/deep water canal. Both as a construction shape, and then whatever surface put on it to make it last a century.

Anyway, this is alleged to be a construction photo of the "trimmer" used on irrigation canals connected to Grand Coulee dam construction.

Here are other examples of "trimmers" in action:

 

[3175375]

Back to the F-11B, F-14 and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, I received a couple of emails from gents that I worked with regarding the initial flight tests of the Phoenix on the A-3 testbed (I spent quite a bit of time on that aircraft).

Here’s the YouTube link:

Also, here’s an email describing that first fitment on the A-3:

Here is a little tidbit not known outside of those of us who were there.

During the launch prep of the first active AIM-54, missile s/n G-4, we had done multiple flights and launches while at Point Mugu carrying G2.

Day of event, A3A 135427 was towed into the revetments at Mugu. We checked out the airplane and systems, and they brought the missile out with great fanfare. White coated guys loaded the missile onto the LH launcher, we did not have the RH launcher installed, and they took a bzillion pictures, execs in suits and many white coat guys. No electrical power allowed by Navy safety on the airplane.

Finally most of the lookee loos left, and those of us in the brown coveralls went back in to do final prep. I dont remember who it was, Div 21 guy Frank Crawford I think, noticed that the white coat guys had not lowered the umbilical electrical connection and the positive launch pin . Of course not as there was no power on the airplane. Navy only dealt with loading the missile.

So we applied power and he lowered the umbilical.....and no PLP dropped into missile. Could see the bottom of the pin above the missile upper surface.

Holy batshit, if they launched with that we would have goten a sand seeker with no rocket ignition!

Multiple tries resulted in no joy, electrical and coolant umbilicals worked up and down but no PLP.

Meantime, P2 carrying targets are airbourne, chase are airbourne, photo ships are airbourne and our pilots are walking towards the airplane.

Launcher guys determied that the linkage driving the PLP has separated internally in the launcher. What can we do???

So we literally chew a hole in the top of the launcher, limited tools available in the revetments and limited space above the launcher and the pylon, pretty ragged hole. Abut 1.5 inch diameter with very ragged edges.

One of the guys lowers the umbilicals, and then we remove power and reduce ambient noise to minimum, use a stubby screwdriver into the hole and punch the PLP down until several people hear the pip pin balls on the PLP click into the missile. We apply a piece of duct tape over the hole and continue on.

Next day in Culver City we remove the launcher and next time we see it there is a removable plate over the top of the internal mechanisms with no discussion.

Little known back stories that make flight test work.

Flipping awesome that this has been captured!

 

[amazinblue82]

Ignore the click-bait hyperbole in title.

Still interesting tho. 10 mins. of radial aircraft engine start-ups.

Is it just me, or do all these old radials run like crap (sputter, smoke, hard to start, catch fire, etc., ) until like at 1/3 full throttle/warmed up?

long thread here but short answer seems ,"they always have been that way, even when new"

 

[3175375]

Many were asking how the XF8U-3 Crusader III would land (and take off) with such enormous ventral fins, well this picture shows the fins stowed horizontally, this is how. And some will note from a post made on this page earlier today the initial (it didn't enter production like this) F-14 Mockup had a similar situation as well.

Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III a supersonic air superiority fighter designed to succeed the F-8 Crusader and as a competitor to the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II.

First flight of the Crusader III was June 2nd, 1958, she was designed for blazing fast speeds up to Mach 2.7 however the prototypes only ever reached Mach 2.39. A point in this aircraft's favor in competing with the F-4 was that the XF8U-3 could out maneuver the F-4 and NASA pilots routinely defeated F-4's in mock dogfights. Points in the Phantom II's favor were a much larger payload and the fact that the F-4 was also capable of the ground attack mission, the Crusader III was not. Furthermore the Phantom had a Radar Intercept Officer to guide the AIM-7 Sparrow missiles, this was often overwhelming for the single pilot of the Crusader III. Alas the XF8U-3 was not to be and sadly all 5 aircraft built were scrapped.

 

[3175375]

Back to the F-11B, F-14 and the AIM-54 Phoenix missile, I received a couple of emails from gents that I worked with regarding the initial flight tests of the Phoenix on the A-3 testbed (I spent quite a bit of time on that aircraft).

Here’s the YouTube link:

Also, here’s an email describing that first fitment on the A-3:

Here is a little tidbit not known outside of those of us who were there.

During the launch prep of the first active AIM-54, missile s/n G-4, we had done multiple flights and launches while at Point Mugu carrying G2.

Day of event, A3A 135427 was towed into the revetments at Mugu. We checked out the airplane and systems, and they brought the missile out with great fanfare. White coated guys loaded the missile onto the LH launcher, we did not have the RH launcher installed, and they took a bzillion pictures, execs in suits and many white coat guys. No electrical power allowed by Navy safety on the airplane.

Finally most of the lookee loos left, and those of us in the brown coveralls went back in to do final prep. I dont remember who it was, Div 21 guy Frank Crawford I think, noticed that the white coat guys had not lowered the umbilical electrical connection and the positive launch pin . Of course not as there was no power on the airplane. Navy only dealt with loading the missile.

So we applied power and he lowered the umbilical.....and no PLP dropped into missile. Could see the bottom of the pin above the missile upper surface.

Holy batshit, if they launched with that we would have goten a sand seeker with no rocket ignition!

Multiple tries resulted in no joy, electrical and coolant umbilicals worked up and down but no PLP.

Meantime, P2 carrying targets are airbourne, chase are airbourne, photo ships are airbourne and our pilots are walking towards the airplane.

Launcher guys determied that the linkage driving the PLP has separated internally in the launcher. What can we do???

So we literally chew a hole in the top of the launcher, limited tools available in the revetments and limited space above the launcher and the pylon, pretty ragged hole. Abut 1.5 inch diameter with very ragged edges.

One of the guys lowers the umbilicals, and then we remove power and reduce ambient noise to minimum, use a stubby screwdriver into the hole and punch the PLP down until several people hear the pip pin balls on the PLP click into the missile. We apply a piece of duct tape over the hole and continue on.

Next day in Culver City we remove the launcher and next time we see it there is a removable plate over the top of the internal mechanisms with no discussion.

Little known back stories that make flight test work.

Flipping awesome that this has been captured!

Here’s some more of the backstory from a gent who retired about the time I started at Hughes in 1985, Chuck Stuart:

Enjoyed Mike’s account of all the drama associated with the first Phoenix launch from the A3. I was at real time telemetry on San Nicholas Island. Don’t recall knowing of all the trouble getting the missile armed (which turned out to be pretty much an Achilles heel of the Phoenix throughout its life).

Interestingly, within the last year I came across an article on the internet about the illicit smuggling of parts for the F-14 to Iran, an ongoing problem since the downfall of the Iran government that acquired the F-14/Phoenix long ago. The article included this photo with no identification of the parts pictured:

The device on the right with the ring thru one end is a pull pin actuating tool for engaging and testing the arming device in a Phoenix Missile. It simulates the action of the launcher arming mechanism on the aircraft ----- the problem Mike told about solving before the first Phoenix launch.



When the mechanism was inserted into the missile and the small balls on the end “locked” into place by the center pin, the mechanism in the missile could be pulled up (happened by design when ejection occurred) to arm the rocket motor. There was a two-step process in the missile, electrical contacts for the igniter signal and physical alignment between the igniter and the rocket motor.



The live missiles were checked out on an experimental station in Bldg 49, Pt. Mugu. The missile was bolted down so if the rocket motor was ignited, supposedly it would not go anywhere. There was a blast panel in the door aft of the missile. I heard the instructions were “cover your ears” if it ignited accidentally.

So anyway during final checkout of the missile, one could measure continuity thru the igniter (advisedly with a current limiting measurement device) by gently pulling up the activation pin with the tool in the photo above until the electrical contacts were made but the physical alignment of the ignition path had not occurred. I do not know if this partial activation was by design or someone found out that it would work. I personally never did this test and rest assured, I did not volunteer for it.

Chuck Stuart

 

[3175375]

Lifted from Facebook.
I worked with a gent, who had become my mentor, who worked on the MA-1 radar. It evolved into the AWG-9 weapons system for the F-111B and eventually the F-14 Tomcat.

He had told me that the MA-1 was a good radar, when it worked. It had a LOT of separate boxes. Even more than the F-14.
I remember alert barns at Oxnard Air Force Base in the 60’s. I don’t remember if they housed F-106s or 102s, but the barns still exist and were shown in the movie ‘Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang’ or ‘Flubber’.

Anyway, the F-106 is big, almost as big as an F-105 Thunderchief.

Sixes over Garrison Dam in 1981.

The F-106 Delta Dart was America's last purpose-built fighter-interceptor. Powered by a Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet engine with afterburner capability, the "Six" carried two AIM-4 Falcon missiles along with a single AIR-2A Genie nuclear air-to-air rocket. Some aircraft in the American fleet were modified to carry the M61 Vulcan rotary cannon in place of the Genie after the Project Six Shooter modification.

The mission of the F-106 was to intercept any Soviet bombers during a war. Operating in conjunction with the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) interceptor control system, and using its Hughes MA-1 Fire Control System, the aircraft could actually be flown automatically via computer for much of it's interceptor mission. A pilot only being needed for take-off and landing (unless something went wrong with flight automation, and there were difficulties with the MA-1 system early in the program).

Sixes were found in North Dakota with the 460th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Grand Forks AFB from 1971 to 1974, but served longer with the 5th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Minot AFB from 1960 to 1985.

Today, an F-106 static display can be found at Minot AFB, but it is inaccessible to the general public. Another is found at the Dakota Air Territory Museum in Minot, while a recently-restored F-106 in 5th FIS colors (and background) can be found at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona.

#ColdWarHistory

 

[amazinblue82]

Lifted from Facebook.
I worked with a gent, who had become my mentor, who worked on the MA-1 radar. It evolved into the AWG-9 weapons system for the F-111B and eventually the F-14 Tomcat.

He had told me that the MA-1 was a good radar, when it worked. It had a LOT of separate boxes. Even more than the F-14.
I remember alert barns at Oxnard Air Force Base in the 60’s. I don’t remember if they housed F-106s or 102s, but the barns still exist and were shown in the movie ‘Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang’ or ‘Flubber’.

Anyway, the F-106 is big, almost as big as an F-105 Thunderchief.

View attachment 654988
Sixes over Garrison Dam in 1981.

The F-106 Delta Dart was America's last purpose-built fighter-interceptor. Powered by a Pratt & Whitney J75 turbojet engine with afterburner capability, the "Six" carried two AIM-4 Falcon missiles along with a single AIR-2A Genie nuclear air-to-air rocket. Some aircraft in the American fleet were modified to carry the M61 Vulcan rotary cannon in place of the Genie after the Project Six Shooter modification.

The mission of the F-106 was to intercept any Soviet bombers during a war. Operating in conjunction with the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) interceptor control system, and using its Hughes MA-1 Fire Control System, the aircraft could actually be flown automatically via computer for much of it's interceptor mission. A pilot only being needed for take-off and landing (unless something went wrong with flight automation, and there were difficulties with the MA-1 system early in the program).

Sixes were found in North Dakota with the 460th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Grand Forks AFB from 1971 to 1974, but served longer with the 5th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Minot AFB from 1960 to 1985.

Today, an F-106 static display can be found at Minot AFB, but it is inaccessible to the general public. Another is found at the Dakota Air Territory Museum in Minot, while a recently-restored F-106 in 5th FIS colors (and background) can be found at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona.

#ColdWarHistory

I gotta admit I never knew much about the F-106. One of the best planes I never built a model of as a kid may have had something to do with it.

source: Convair F-106 Delta Dart - Wikipedia

---

---

Many sources indicate as you did .. its was quite an aircraft. This five min. vid below summarized some key points for me (or others like me who arent familiar with it).