Heavy Metal

[amazinblue82]

wingtip engines, may have been fast, but bet it was sluggish handling. kinda like our B-58_Hustler, a b-52 competitor. here in 1956. we retired it in 1970 after building 116 copies. Guess we didnt like delta-wing designs that much. Actually we fell in love with missiles in the 60's and that obsoleted performance advantages of certain planes.(Think Gary Powers and U

B-58A) 3-view line drawing of the Convair B-58 Hustler

Crew: Three
Length: 96 ft 10 in (29.51 m) [104]
Wingspan: 56 ft 9 in (17.30 m) [104]
Height: 29 ft 11 in (9.12 m)
Wing area: 1,542 sq ft (143.3 m2)
Aspect ratio: 2.09
Airfoil: root: NACA 0003.46; tip: NACA 0004.08
Empty weight: 55,560 lb (25,202 kg)
Gross weight: 67,871 lb (30,786 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 176,890 lb (80,236 kg)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: CD0.0068
Frontal area: 10.49 sq ft (0.975 m2)
Powerplant: 4 × General Electric J79-GE-5A afterburning turbojet, 10,400 lbf (46 kN) thrust each dry, 15,000 lbf (67 kN) with afterburner

Performance

Maximum speed: 1,146 kn (1,319 mph, 2,122 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Cruise speed: 530 kn (610 mph, 980 km/h)
Range: 4,100 nmi (4,700 mi, 7,600 km)
Combat range: 1,740 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
Service ceiling: 63,400 ft (19,300 m)
Rate of climb: 17,400 ft/min (88 m/s) at gross weight[106]
Lift-to-drag: 11.3 (subsonic, "clean configuration")
Wing loading: 44 lb/sq ft (210 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.919
Armament

Guns: 1× 20 mm T171 cannon
Bombs: 1× Mark 39 or B53 or 4× B43 or B61 nuclear bombs;
maximum weapons load was 19,450 pounds (8,820 kg)

Avionics

AN/APB-2 Bombing radar
AN/APN-110 Doppler navigational radar, (part of Sperry AN/ASQ-42 Navigation & Bombing System)
AN/APN-170 Terrain-following radar
AN/APR-12 Radar warning receiver
Hughes Aircraft AN/APQ-69 podded Side looking airborne radar (mounted on RB-58A)
Goodyear AN/APS-73 podded synthetic aperture radar (mounted on RB-58A)

18 minutes of relevant video​

 

[3175375]

The Convair Supersonic Command Transport project, launched in 1958, aimed to convert standard, mass-produced F-106 Delta Dart interceptors into small, four-passenger aircraft designed for the rapid transport of command staff during emergencies, getting them to their destination in the shortest possible time.

 

[amazinblue82]

that delta dart was a bad a**.. didnt know much about it. never built one as a model either. just a tad young around 1960. first one i recalll builing was the f105 Starfighter about 1964..

lhttps://youtu.be/nCYSR0wjGX8?si=oK2mp24qu8yVo_v6

 

[3175375]

that delta dart was a bad a**.. didnt know much about it. never built one as a model either. just a tad young around 1960. first one i recalll builing was the f105 Starfighter about 1964..

lhttps://youtu.be/nCYSR0wjGX8?si=oK2mp24qu8yVo_v6

The F-106 - successor to the F-102 was a monster. That jet had the predecessor, weapons systems wise (MA-1), of the system that was in the F-14 Tomcat (AWG-9). I worked with guys that worked on both.

F-106 Delta Dart Automatic Flight Control System

 

[3175375]

Some of you may already know about the MiG-21F-13 in U.S. service, but for those who don’t:
Have Doughnut was a secret U.S. program conducted in 1967 to test a captured MiG-21 that the United States obtained through Israel. The aircraft, redesignated YF-110, was flown at Groom Lake to assess its performance against American fighters. The project revealed key strengths and weaknesses of the MiG-21 and exposed gaps in U.S. air-combat training. Its findings helped shape more advanced fighter-training programs, including what later became the Navy’s Topgun school.

 

[amazinblue82]

Mig's are kicka** planes versus any plane of comparable eras. im talking about pure airmanship and not just technology progression.

E.O.D. , gimme an f-22 anyday over anything in existance now

 

[3175375]

Mig's are kicka** planes versus any plane of comparable eras. im talking about pure airmanship and not just technology progression.

E.O.D. , gimme an f-22 anyday over anything in existance now

View attachment 742830

I worked with a gentleman who had been involved in the development of the mission computer for the F-22 and he stated that the equipment was so reliable that the government reluctantly had to continue funding a sustaining engineering effort because the equipment just wasn’t failing. It’s too bad that we didn’t build more of them.

Many aircraft can’t brag about reliability.

 

[3175375]

Due to the many articles written about the American Lockheed A-12 Oxcart and SR-71 Blackbird, you might get the impression that while the Americans made superlative Spy Planes out of Soviet supplied titanium, the Soviets themselves couldn't manage to make their own aircraft out of titanium to complete.



The story isn't that clear-cut. The odd thing was that the Soviets DID manage to make a superlative aircraft of their own out of titanium . But it was intended for an entirely different mission.



The Sukhoi T-4, also known as Project 100 or the 'Sotka', was an intended Mach 3 capable strategic bomber. Making it's first flight in 1972, 8 years after it's American counterpart, the North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie's own first flight and long after the XB-70 was cancelled, the Sukhoi T-4 seemed a belated attempt at something that the Americans have given up on.



In the event, the high cost of the T-4 crashed directly with the Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-23 Flogger which was a then new fighter that was deemed to be a more important requirement, not to mention a much cheaper one, to the Soviet bureaucracy and that sealed the fate of the T-4.



Intended for Mach 3 speeds, the aircraft didn't even manage Mach 2 on it test flights. The only thing superlative about it was the fact that it was made out of expensive titanium.

Sukhoi T-4 - Wikipedia

 

[3175375]

Perrier-Cadillac 41-75 tank engine was one of the most unusual and ambitious armored vehicle powerplants ever built — a remarkable fusion of luxury automobile engineering and military necessity. Developed during the Second World War by Cadillac and the French engineer Jean Perrier, this engine was conceived to power experimental and prototype tanks and armored vehicles, combining the refinement of Cadillac’s automotive V8s with the robust performance demanded by military service. Its name, “41-75,” referred to its design origins in Cadillac’s 1941 engines and its intended use in 75mm gun-equipped tanks.

At its core, the Perrier-Cadillac 41-75 was based on Cadillac’s proven 346-cubic-inch (5.7-liter) L-head V8 engine, an engine well-known for its smoothness and reliability in civilian vehicles like the Cadillac Series 62 and LaSalle. For the tank project, two of these V8 engines were paired together on a common crankcase — similar in concept to Chrysler’s later A57 Multibank or GMC’s Twin Six designs. The result was a compact 16-cylinder “twin-engine” arrangement that could deliver roughly 250 to 300 horsepower, depending on tuning, with a broad torque curve suited to the heavy loads and variable speeds of armored vehicles.

Engineer Jean Perrier’s innovation lay in the way the two engines were synchronized and coupled through a shared gearbox and clutch system, allowing both to drive a single output shaft. This made the design more efficient and easier to service in the field compared to some other multi-engine tank powerplants of the time. Cooling and lubrication were extensively upgraded, and the engines were adapted to run on lower-grade military fuels without sacrificing reliability. The result was a power unit that retained Cadillac’s characteristic smooth operation while being rugged enough for the battlefield.

The Perrier-Cadillac 41-75 engine was tested in experimental armored vehicles and influenced later powertrains used in light tanks and armored cars.

 

[3175375]

The Piasecki YH 16 Transporter was an American experimental heavy lift helicopter developed in the early 1950s. Its tandem rotor layout and twin R 2800 engines made it one of the largest and fastest helicopters of its era.

Piasecki H-16 Transporter - Wikipedia

 

[amazinblue82]

The Piasecki H-16, the largest helicopter in the world in 1953, had a 82ft rotor diameter and could lift 14,000 lb.

The story behind the Piasecki H-16 'Transporter' tandem helicopter

General characteristics

• Crew: 3 (2 pilots and flight engineer
• Capacity: 47 troops or 38 stretchers and 5 attendants
• Length: 77 ft 7 in (23.65 m)
• Height: 25 ft 0 in (7.62 m)
• Empty weight: 25,450 lb (11,544 kg)
• Gross weight: 45,700 lb (20,729 kg)
• Powerplant: 2 × Allison T56-A-5 turboshafts, 2,100 shp (1,600 kW) each
• Main rotor diameter: 2 × 82 ft (25 m)
• Main rotor area: 10,562 sq ft (981.2 m2)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 156 mph (251 km/h, 136 kn)
• Cruise speed: 125 mph (201 km/h, 109 kn)
• Range: 216 mi (348 km, 188 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 15,600 ft (4,800 m)

general characteristics​

• Crew: 3 (2 pilots and flight engineer
• Capacity: 47 troops or 38 stretchers and 5 attendants
• Length: 77 ft 7 in (23.65 m)
• Height: 25 ft 0 in (7.62 m)
• Empty weight: 25,450 lb (11,544 kg)
• Gross weight: 45,700 lb (20,729 kg)
• Powerplant: 2 × Allison T56-A-5 turboshafts, 2,100 shp (1,600 kW) each
• Main rotor diameter: 2 × 82 ft (25 m)
• Main rotor area: 10,562 sq ft (981.2 m2)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 156 mph (251 km/h, 136 kn)
• Cruise speed: 125 mph (201 km/h, 109 kn)
• Range: 216 mi (348 km, 188 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 15,600 ft (4,800 m)

​

only made two, not certain any remain

 

[3175375]

The USS Shangri-La (CV-38) had an interesting first on 15 November 1944. The carrier tested the launch and recovery of a PBJ fitted with a catapult bridle and an arrestor hook to judge its suitability for carrier operations. The Navy version of the B-25, the PBJ Mitchell, was launched with a catapult and landed aboard ship 17 times over two days. This was a significant improvement over the last time a Mitchell operated on a carrier: the Doolittle Raid in 1942.



At that time, the B-25 had to be stripped down and take off without a catapult, and it couldn't land aboard ship, which is why the mission included the plan to land in China (though an earlier launch than planned meant most of them crash-landed or ditched). Coincidentally, to keep the launch location secret, President Franklin D. Roosevelt told reporters in a press conference after the raid that the bombers had come from the mythical land of Shangri-La (from the novel Lost Horizon).



The PBJ trials on the USS Shangri-La showed the Mitchell could indeed operate from an Essex-class carrier. The Navy concluded that although the experiment proved feasible, no further deployment of Mitchell‑type medium bombers aboard carriers would be pursued. By that point in the war, strategic developments like the capture of Saipan and Tinian for B-29 bases, and the growing dominance of carrier‑borne fighters and attack aircraft in the Pacific, made the deployment of such large medium bombers from carriers unnecessary.



It was a full day of testing on the Shangi-La that day, as the ship was also putting an F7F Tigercat through sea trials as well as testing a P-51 Mustang fitted with an arrestor hook, which was fittingly known as Project Seahorse.

I got to see a PBJ being restored at the Camarillo, California CAF Squadron. It appears that they are offering rides.

North American PBJ Mitchell - CAF SoCal

 

[amazinblue82]

don't follow you chief .... what was (is) your involvement with these planes?

aside: i sure hope we get to the bottom of what happened in Louisville?

View attachment 742024
https://www.tmz.com/2025/11/06/new-kentucky-ups-plane left engine is clearly off the plane and that ain't supposed to be able to happen. design of the spar always bugged me, but it seemed robust/well tested.

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2025/11/06/white-paper-the-dc-10-and-md-11-engine, i'd feel better able to control for this IF this was a tragically misapplied mechanical procedure versus a bad design issue.

View attachment 742027

The latter might cause existing planes (or ones with similar engine mounting) to never fly again -- without remediation which would be expensive.

God bless those people.

0h shooot. NTSB found the broken part. the thing (lug assembly) holding engine to the wing broke. fatigue cracking evidence. it was gonna crash. this plane cant take off with one wing engine.

MSN. picture 3 starts the action. engine separates and flips backward over the wing on fire.
https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...h-investigation-report-from-ntsb/87370335007/335007/

shoot. weve seen this before: killed 273 people in Chicago in 1979

American Airlines Flight 191 - Wikipedia

 

[3175375]

The image shows the island superstructure of the future aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) being lifted into place at Newport News Shipbuilding. Draped with red, white, and blue ceremonial bunting, the completed island block is hoisted by the shipyard’s massive gantry crane. The structure features the carrier’s number “79” on its side and contains the bridge, flight-deck control stations, and radar platforms. Below, shipyard crews and equipment prepare the deck to receive the island, marking a major construction milestone known as the “island landing.”

 

[amazinblue82]

The image shows the island superstructure of the future aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) being lifted into place at Newport News Shipbuilding. Draped with red, white, and blue ceremonial bunting, the completed island block is hoisted by the shipyard’s massive gantry crane. The structure features the carrier’s number “79” on its side and contains the bridge, flight-deck control stations, and radar platforms. Below, shipyard crews and equipment prepare the deck to receive the island, marking a major construction milestone known as the “island landing.”

View attachment 745172

588 tons they say. Whole boat weight over 100,000 tons.

How the new flattop John F. Kennedy got its island.

 

[amazinblue82]

Private Chinese company (think SpaceX in USA) trying to land and recapture/reuse their booster. It did not work (yesterday)and some are celebratind the failure (i.e., as is us vs, Chinese).

Fact is they (chinese) have embraced the new economics of space travel. We (society) cannot afford to exploit space the way USA and Russia did 50. Yeah we went to then/other planets but we both spent a sh*tload of money by Not reusing stuff. Observers theorize all that spending influenced collapse of Soviet Union.

in this thread we have called out, for example, SpaceX catching and reusing their boosters, mass producing their
Raptor engines, lauching with rapidity, etc., Boil all that down, the new ecomics that can emerge fron the economic model are gonna be in the $$ trillions (satellites, mining, nationalism, space tourism, technology spin offs, governments still kickin in startup investment etc.,). Somebody is gonnna make a ton of money and its cats like Elon Musk.

Voyager 1 and 2 still alive!!!! 38,000 mph!
Voyager 1 and 2 still alive!!!! 38,000 mph!

me? i wont live long enough to see it all happen - but my kids/grandkids will. thats why some my trust fund money bets is in these future space industries today. its like if one invested in auto industry in 1900. companies came and went, but the industry (maufacturers, suppliers, oil, steel, etc., ) boomed overall for 120 years. I hope my small-time prescience in space will make $$millions for my estate one day.

i happen to like the Chinese failures because of learning it gives them. they will keep trying and that pushes the innovative Americans to get better faster. Humans on Mars? Wrong focus to me - send a smart machine and figure out how to make money in space. WAVE THE FLAG at the Brinks truck carrying my estate in 100 years.

The Future of the Space Economy | Atlas Institute for International Affairs

Keep failing China!

 

[3175375]

View attachment 745293
Private Chinese company (think SpaceX in USA) trying to land and recapture/reuse their booster. It did not work (yesterday)and some are celebratind the failure (i.e., as is us vs, Chinese).

Fact is they (chinese) have embraced the new economics of space travel. We (society) cannot afford to exploit space the way USA and Russia did 50. Yeah we went to then/other planets but we both spent a sh*tload of money by Not reusing stuff. Observers theorize all that spending influenced collapse of Soviet Union.

in this thread we have called out, for example, SpaceX catching and reusing their boosters, mass producing their
Raptor engines, lauching with rapidity, etc., Boil all that down, the new ecomics that can emerge fron the economic model are gonna be in the $$ trillions (satellites, mining, nationalism, space tourism, technology spin offs, governments still kickin in startup investment etc.,). Somebody is gonnna make a ton of money and its cats like Elon Musk.

Voyager 1 and 2 still alive!!!! 38,000 mph!
Voyager 1 and 2 still alive!!!! 38,000 mph!

me? i wont live long enough to see it all happen - but my kids/grandkids will. thats why some my trust fund money bets is in these future space industries today. its like if one invested in auto industry in 1900. companies came and went, but the industry (maufacturers, suppliers, oil, steel, etc., ) boomed overall for 120 years. I hope my small-time prescience in space will make $$millions for my estate one day.

i happen to like the Chinese failures because of learning it gives them. they will keep trying and that pushes the innovative Americans to get better faster. Humans on Mars? Wrong focus to me - send a smart machine and figure out how to make money in space. WAVE THE FLAG at the Brinks truck carrying my estate in 100 years.

The Future of the Space Economy | Atlas Institute for International Affairs
View attachment 745298
Keep failing China!

China will succeed. They are totally driven to success, at our expense. They will steal from everyone for their benefit.

 

[amazinblue82]

they dont play fair.. ample evidence of that and i dont condone that. my comments more directed at a economic philosophy of reuse.

i am sure SpaceX and Blue Origins are protecting what they know how to do (i e.,reusing boosters, engines, etc.,) from competitive encroachment from anybod.

there must be more know-how to catch a booster.- prprietary technical stufff somebody has to figure out how to do better or more reliably.

https://youtu.be/pAPt5vbr-YU?si=Y6q52_NGbo9MRQM

i hope its its clear they both know how the "space game" is best played nowadays and in the future. with trillions of dollars at stake, unscrupulous people/countries will always emerge, not to mention nationalism (e.g., who gets men to mars first).

 

[3175375]

they dont play fair.. ample evidence of that and i dont condone that. my comments more directed at a economic philosophy of reuse.

i am sure SpaceX and Blue Origins are protecting what they know how to do (i e.,reusing boosters, engines, etc.,) from competitive encroachment from anybod.

there must be more know-how to catch a booster.- prprietary technical stufff somebody has to figure out how to do better or more reliably.

https://youtu.be/pAPt5vbr-YU?si=Y6q52_NGbo9MRQM

i hope its its clear they both know how the "space game" is best played nowadays and in the future. with trillions of dollars at stake, unscrupulous people/countries will always emerge, not to mention nationalism (e.g., who gets men to mars first).

There was software that the company that I worked for for over 30 years, that was export controlled. Humans were involved in limiting the escape of algorithms, data, programming etc and just with that point, there’s always going to be an escape.

 

[3175375]

This is the T249 Vigilante, which carries the largest Gatling gun ever made - a 37 mm, six-barrel rotary cannon that can fire 3,000 rounds per minute. Each round is almost half a meter long, tipped with a projectile that weighs twice as much as the A-10's 30 mm

T249 Vigilante - Wikipedia