August 28, 2010
Name This Mystery Ship III
Again, no clues, no hints. Winner gets a post of their very own!
C'mon folks, let's not let flatdarkmars have all the fun!
Posted by: Wonderduck at
08:38 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm pretty sure it isn't American, because the US never used "dazzle" paint on their carriers. I'm working on it as being British.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 28, 2010 09:11 PM (+rSRq)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 28, 2010 09:15 PM (+rSRq)
3
I will neither confirm nor deny your working theory, Steven, but I do want to point out that the US Navy did use "dazzle" paint on their CVs... for example, the
Essex-class
Hornet.
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 28, 2010 09:17 PM (ODvBe)
4
...and I see you found that out on your own as I was typing. Heh.
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 28, 2010 09:18 PM (ODvBe)
Posted by: Siergen at August 28, 2010 11:10 PM (WLKpA)
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 28, 2010 11:30 PM (ODvBe)
7
I seem to have outsmarted myself.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 29, 2010 12:33 AM (+rSRq)
8
When I was in Air Force intel school, they gave us a mnemonic for a method of IDing ships. Similar to the WEFT method for aircraft recognition (wings-engine-fuselage-tail), it gave you the main features to look for and compare when trying to ID the target.
I'm pretty sure that the ship mnemonic was MAST. However, I'm damned if I can remember what all the letters stood for... Main hull-Armament-Superstructure and T____? I haven't been able to find the MAST method on the internet either.
Like Steven, I first checked the escort carriers, but that overhang at the stern and the size/shape of the island didn't match. I then checked the US light carriers; these looked similar in overall size, but again the shape of the stern was wrong.
Then I checked the aircraft on the aft flight deck. Those sure looked like roundels on the wings, and the US Navy started painting the bottoms of their carrier planes dark blue fairly soon after Midway, as I recall. That led me to the Brits.
Posted by: Siergen at August 29, 2010 01:26 AM (WLKpA)
9
Damn Siergen beat me to it, I recognised HMS Unicorn straight away. She was built as a maintenance carrier but ended up being the inspiration for the colossus and majestic class light carriers, some of which were still in use in the 90's
Posted by: Andy Janes at August 29, 2010 02:50 PM (vdxg1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 24, 2010
USS Shaw
Like the USS
Hammann, there was nothing particular special about the USS
Shaw (DD-373). Just one destroyer in a fleet with dozens similar to her, really.
Laid down in 1934 as the tenth of the
Mahan-class of destroyers, she weighed in around 1500 tons. Armed with five 5"/38 guns and a whopping 12 torpedo tubes, there was no question that she was quite able to fight other ships her size, and with a top speed of 35kts she could outrun many of the ships she couldn't stand toe-to-toe with. None of these numbers, however, made her different than any other destroyer in the US Navy. She joined the Pacific fleet in 1940 after her shakedown cruise, training and overhaul. In November of 1941, she found herself at Pearl Harbor, in a floating drydock for the sort of repairs that any ship needs after a while.
It wasn't until December 7th, 1941 that she became famous, thanks to one picture. The
Shaw, hit by three bombs probably meant for the USS
Nevada,
was set ablaze. While the crew attempted to extinguish the fires, it
was quickly realized that the attempt was doomed to failure and abandon
ship was called at 0925. Five minutes later, her forward magazines exploded.
After seeing this photograph, one could be excused for thinking that the
Shaw was destroyed, in much the same way as the USS
Arizona. Indeed, for some 30 years I just assumed that was the case. In fact, it wasn't.
The explosion severed the
Shaw's bow completely and to be honest, fairly neatly... at least as far as that sort of thing goes. It also sank the floating drydock she was in (
YFD-2, in case you were wondering), which went a long way towards extinguishing her fires.
If you'll direct your attention towards the top of this picture, you'll see just how dramatically she was truncated... as if an axe amputated everything forward of her bridge structure. If you look at the bottom of the picture, you'll see the
Cassin and the
Downes just forward of the battleship
Pennsylvania. In fact,
the sole Pearl Harbor survivor I've met served on the
Downes. But I digress.
Someone had the bright idea that the
Shaw, bifurcated though she was, could be repaired. Refloated, fitted with a wooden bow and fixed up enough to be able to sail on her own, she steamed off to San Francisco. There, she was "
placed under the anchor" and refit with a replacement bow.
By the end of August, 1942, 68 years ago, the USS
Shaw returned to Pearl Harbor, a ship whole again. She served through the rest of the war in the Pacific, making her presence felt at Guadalcanal, Cape Gloucester, Saipan, and Luzon. She was decommissioned on October 2nd, 1945 and stricken from the Navy List two days later. She was scrapped in 1946, ending what could only be called an
eventful life.
USS Shaw, 1945
Again, congrats to flatdarkmars for being the first to guess the
Shaw's identity. Per his request, there will be another mystery coming soon!
Posted by: Wonderduck at
09:49 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 5 kb.
1
At that point in the war, they were willing to jump through hoops to save any hull that could be saved, just because they were desperately short.
A ship damaged that badly in 1944 they would have written off in an instant. But by that point brand new destroyers were pouring off the blocks in the US at a rate of dozens per month.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 24, 2010 11:38 PM (+rSRq)
2
The US probably also still had the drydock capacity to do the installation and repairs at that time. In 1944, US drydocks would have been crowded to capacity both with American and Allied ships needing overhaul and repairs.
Of course, we are talking about a US that in 1941, before it entered the war, laid down 85 destroyers, taking an average of 6 months to complete each one (And depending on which yard you are talking about, a destroyer would be completed in 4 months.). That is slightly under half the destroyers built by Japan between 1921 and 1945.
What really mystifies me is why Cassin and Downes had their machinery reused in new hulls. I can understand reusing the reduction gears, but the rest of the engineering plant would not have been identical to what the likely hulls would have been designed for.
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at August 25, 2010 10:57 AM (f834w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 23, 2010
Name This Mystery Ship II
Once again, no clues or hints. Leave your guess in the comments. The first to give the correct answer will win a post on a topic of your choice!
And, for the record, I won't write about religion, politics or pr0n (though anime ecchi is okay). Anything else is free game!
Posted by: Wonderduck at
08:08 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.
1
USS Shaw, DD-373. Well, most of her, anyway!
Next!
Posted by: flatdarkmars at August 24, 2010 12:49 AM (zxqxC)
2
I know it's got to happen, but it's always sad to see pictures of great old fighting ships being prepared for salvage.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 24, 2010 10:20 AM (+rSRq)
3
>"I know it's got to happen, but it's always sad to see pictures of great old fighting ships being prepared for salvage."
Very true, although in this particular picture she's actually preparing for re-construction after being grievously wounded at Pearl.
It took me a while to get this one; I couldn't figure out what *type* of ship it was supposed to be, but I kept thinking it looks sort of like a destroyer but with a strange, crude bow and no forward superstructure. It took me a while to convince myself that the simplest explanation was actually the correct one. Based on the shape of the funnels, I started looking for records of Mahan-class destroyers that had been severely damaged (at first I was thinking rammed or torpedoed), and that's how I came across the Shaw. In hindsight, I remember having read about the Shaw's destruction, but had not realized the extent of the efforts made to salvage her. So I enjoyed this challenge because I learned something new in the process of figuring out the answer.
Posted by: flatdarkmars at August 24, 2010 10:37 AM (zxqxC)
4
Gee...Someone should make you try to ID a photo of HMS Zubian...
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at August 24, 2010 03:57 PM (f834w)
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 24, 2010 05:12 PM (ODvBe)
6
Where was this photo taken?
Posted by: Vaucanson's Duck at August 25, 2010 09:24 AM (XVJDy)
7
Vauc, that was taken at Pearl Harbor, or so the original caption says.
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 25, 2010 01:41 PM (OS+Cr)
Posted by: Vaucanson's Duck at August 25, 2010 05:55 PM (XVJDy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 21, 2010
USS Hammann
The life of a destroyer is never a glamorous one. Big enough to be a target but small enough to easily die, the destroyer's main job is to protect bigger, more important, ships from those that would attempt to harm them.
The USS
Hammann (DD-412) was the fourth of the
Sims-class of destroyers, commissioned in 1939. 2200 tons at full load, her twin screws could push her 348 foot length through the water at 35kts. She was armed with four 5"/38 guns and eight torpedo tubes, a common enough armament for a pre-war destroyer. She also carried a few .50cal machineguns. In comparison to what DDs would carry just a few years later, that seems a light load of weapons, but nobody really knew the threat aircraft posed at the time.
The
Hammann was to be blessed (or cursed) with an active, but short, life. She was assigned to Task Force 17 and served as the plane guard destroyer for the USS
Lexington at the Battle of the Coral Sea. She also collected many of her crew when the time came to evacuate the carrier.
The Hammann backs away, decks crowded with Lexington crew.
The Lex explodes. The Hammann's bow is to the left, the arrow points to the USS Yorktown.
After the Coral Sea, the
Hammann escorted the damaged USS
Yorktown in her dash back to Pearl Harbor. While the
Yorktown underwent a crash repair program,
Hammann replenished in preparation for the Battle of Midway.
We all know what happened there. The hastily repaired
Yorktown took three bombs and two torpedoes and ended up dead in the water. Again the
Hammann rescued survivors from an abandoned carrier, this time transferring them to a larger ship. On June 6th, 1942, the destroyer pulled alongside the
Yorktown to provide power, hoses and pumping for firefighting efforts. While alongside, the Japanese submarine
I-168, taking advantage of lousy acoustic conditions, slipped inside the destroyer screen surrounding the crippled carrier and loosed four torpedoes at her. One missed. Two went beneath the destroyer, striking the carrier. And one slammed into the side of the
Hammann. Her back broken, the
Hammann jackknifed and sank in four minutes.
The Hammann's stern portion goes down
Most of her crew ended up in the water, surprised but alive. The destroyer, however, seemed to have other plans for her men. Shortly after she went down, a massive underwater explosion occurred when her depth charges detonated. This is somewhat odd, as the man in charge of them says that they had been safed. Some have said that her boilers exploded. Either way, the concussion from the explosion snuffed out the lives of 80 of her 192 crew.
There was nothing particularly special about the USS
Hammann. Just another destroyer in a fleet that had dozens... hundreds... of them. But circumstances put her alongside the first two American carriers lost during WWII, and nothing but horrible luck made her the first American loss at the Battle of Midway. She earned two battle stars for her service, and her captain, Commander Arnold True, was awarded the Navy Cross for his work at Midway.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
09:50 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 5 kb.
1
As can be said about many of her counterparts: "A great ship."
Raise a glass for her.
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at August 21, 2010 11:25 PM (OQ3pW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 20, 2010
Name This Mystery Ship
No hints, no clues save one: she came to a tragic end.
The first person to guess correctly will win a post on a topic of their choice. Leave your guess in the comments!
UPDATE: Reader flatdarkmars wins the contest, and has requested another "name that ship/plane/waffleiron/whatever" post. Look for that to come soon!
Posted by: Wonderduck at
09:31 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ship recognition is not my strong suit. I was going to guess the USS Hammann, but the port holes in the bow look wrong. How about the USS Warrington DD-383?
Posted by: Siergen at August 21, 2010 12:05 AM (jMQcx)
2
That's certainly a strange configuration for a ship. But it's a bit hard to tell for sure because I'm having a hard time telling what's the ship, and what's on the shore behind it.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 21, 2010 12:37 AM (+rSRq)
3
Siergen got it right the first time. DD-412 Hammann. Fourth picture from the top:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/412.htm
Posted by: flatdarkmars at August 21, 2010 01:27 AM (zxqxC)
4
Really? What happened to the row of portholes on the bow, halfway between the waterline and the main deck?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Hammann_DD-412_completed_1939.jpg
Did they weld the port holes over later on?
Now as to that "a topic of their choice", you'll write a post about
anything? I'll have to ponder that a bit. With great power, comes great responsibility...
Posted by: Siergen at August 21, 2010 11:59 AM (jMQcx)
5
D'oh! I just realized that flatdarkmars is the one who said my first guess was right, not Wonderduck. I think I may need to get new reading glasses...
Posted by: Siergen at August 21, 2010 04:19 PM (jMQcx)
6
Siergen: that would be my guess. Given that US Navy did the same to other ships in the early days of Big Mistake #2, it would hard to imagine her not receiving the modification.
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at August 21, 2010 11:12 PM (OQ3pW)
7
The 'snake-skin' type paint scheme was a bit unusual for US ships even during WW2, but there is a photo of a destroyer with similar paint scheme in Richard Frank's Guadacanal.
C.T.
Posted by: cxt217 at August 21, 2010 11:15 PM (OQ3pW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 09, 2010
Two (Er... THREE!) More Texan Pics
Since I find myself at a loss for things to expound about, I figured I'd throw up another couple of pictures from my trip to Courtesy Aircraft. Like this one:
It's almost like the manufacturers knew that, one day, someone would come along and want a place to put a rubber duck on the side of their plane. Oh sure, they may say it's for entering or exiting the cockpit, but I think we know better...
Another picture of radial sculpture. I have to admit though... I'm somewhat confused about why there's a penny wired into the engine:
I'm sure it's not a coincidence that the hole in the nut is exactly the right size for a penny. It's also not just a one-off, since the engine on the other Texan had the same arrangement. I just can't, for the life of me, figure out why it's there. Not that I'm an engine mechanic or anything, because I'm not. Ah well, perhaps we'll never find out. Lends an air of mystery to the whole thing.
Posted by: Wonderduck at
10:59 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Haha.. found
this on Google about the penny.
Posted by: pxcasey at August 09, 2010 11:47 PM (lN7Wq)
2
I had a lot time in both the AC130 & AC47 while in the USAF, hearing any of the big piston Pratts & Wrights could shake your fillings lose on run-up.
Posted by: vonKrag at August 10, 2010 09:04 PM (VGXAE)
3
The rubber duck is a nice touch
Posted by: digicolleen at August 12, 2010 10:27 AM (DUCCO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 07, 2010
Wonderduck Pays Courtesy A Call
You may remember back about a week or so ago, I mentioned in
a comment to reader
Will that the Duckford Airport was home to a warbird restoration shop. It turns out that isn't quite the case, as I got the "restoration" part incorrect. Instead,
Courtesy Aircraft is a seller of classic warbirds
and modern planes as well... and I was exchanging e-mails with them. After three back-and-forths, I was told I could stop in any time during business hours to look around. How cool is that?
It was a sunny afternoon as I pulled into the small parking lot next to Courtesy's hangar at the Airport. I met Darcy, Courtesy's Marketing Director, and learned what I had feared: they were actually quite busy. Turns out they had a few customers in town after their appearance at EAA AirVenture, which is good! It did mean, however, that they couldn't spare anybody to escort me around the flightline. I could stick around the hangar, I just couldn't go onto the taxiway... security, y'know. I knew, and approved, even though it meant I couldn't get any closer than this to some juicy-looking aircraft:
Two T-6 Texans, just ahead of a pair of T-28 Trojans. I gather that the high-visibility yellow-painted T-6 won a restoration award at Oshkosh sometime recently, in fact. Still, the limitation didn't mean that there wasn't anything I could get close to...
more...
Posted by: Wonderduck at
10:01 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 754 words, total size 6 kb.
1
I've read a lot of stories about pilots who saw a new model plane, and said something to the effect of "If it looks fast, it'll be fast." That ain't necessarily true; the Brewster Buffalo actually had clean lines, but it wasn't a good aircraft.
Anyway, though, when I see a DC-3, I can't help but admirre the clean shape of the fusilage. Or the way the engine cowlings merge into the wing. I do think the DC-3 is one of the prettiest planes of that era, not to mention being the best single aircraft design of all time. (Them's my opinion.)
Is there any other aircraft that's been in operational use for 80 years? (well, the B-52 is getting close to that...)
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 08, 2010 01:59 AM (+rSRq)
2
Wow!
It is nice to see a DC-3 that runs, and likely runs on a semi-regular basis, as well as being in such good shape.
The Henry Ford Museum has a
DC-3 (it was right next to Lindbergh's <i>Spirit of St. Louis</i>, last time I visited...more than a decade ago). But that one likely hasn't left the ground (under its own power) in years.
Posted by: karrde at August 08, 2010 07:45 AM (Ujx+u)
3
That question intrigued me, so I went looking for an answer.
The Boeing 727 is nearing 50 years in operation, and the Piper Cherokee is past that. The Beechcraft Bonanza began to be built in 1947 and is still being made today. Cessna began construction of the 172 in 1956.
The Bonanza, by virtue of the fact that it has already gone 63 years in production, will probably hit 80 years easy. The other two civilian planes, too. The 727 probably won't, at least as far as fleet service goes (there'll always be some third-world airline that has a frankenplane 727 running somewhere).
But that's about all I could find: rare company indeed.
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 08, 2010 07:58 AM (iJfPN)
4
Best I can come up with is the
AN-2, which has been in production since '48 (now under license to the PRC); on the civilian side there's the
Beech Staggerwing (in production between '33 and '49), though that's probably stretching what you meant.
The B-52, A-4, T-38 and C-130 are all mid- to late- 50s vintage designs still in service (though the A-4 was retired from US service in '03).
Great pictures, Wonderduck.
Posted by: JP Gibb at August 08, 2010 08:27 AM (S3r8/)
5
Very cool; I really do need to visit the aircraft museum right next to my work...
Posted by: GreyDuck at August 08, 2010 09:50 AM (7lMXI)
6
En-Vee, amigo. I trust you'll visit again when they aren't so busy and bring a report of that visit also...
Posted by: The Old Man at August 10, 2010 07:46 AM (+LRPE)
7
I worked at the Atlanta airport in the mid 70's loading cargo for Kennworthy air. They had a mixed bag of DC-3,DC-6 and C-46s they loaded for other freight services. The most unusual was the Carvair a converted DC-4 for passengers and or cars,it looked like a small 747 with props. Another rather interesting aircraft was the CL-44,a large and somewhat slick turboprop. The one aircraft I most wanted to see up close was the Connie but one never arrive when I was there.
Posted by: bouff at August 11, 2010 11:28 PM (f3+Qa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 06, 2010
Teaser
Just a teaser for the post I'll be putting up on Saturday...
It's a Notazero!
UPDATE: Pete Z reminds me that a T-6 makes an appearance in
Yokohama Kaidashi Kiko, too:
Posted by: Wonderduck at
08:35 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ah, that brings back memories.... My dad and I used to camp out at the Oshkosh fly-in each summer. The warbirds were one of my favorite parts of the show, and eventually I could tell the difference between a
T-6 and an SNJ just by the sound.
It's been years since I last went to a fly-in. Maybe next year...
Posted by: Siergen at August 06, 2010 08:47 PM (jMQcx)
2
That is a pretty plane.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 06, 2010 10:26 PM (+rSRq)
3
I entertained a thought you might want to write about YKK where Texan plays a prominent role.
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at August 07, 2010 08:06 PM (/ppBw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 02, 2010
AirFest 2010: Thunderbirds, Run 'Em Up!
(continued from the first post)
Even though I knew I was in a great position, I didn't realize until just a few minutes ago really
how good it was. Here, take a look at this:
Obviously the duck isn't to scale, but that really does clear up where I was located: just over a half-mile from the end of the runway. About 100 people and myself were lined up on the east side of 251, down to about where that farm area starts. I couldn't have planned it better if I had tried... and the best part is, I DIDN'T plan it, it just worked out that way. Should have brought some sunscreen, but such is the price of spontaneity.
When I arrived, there were some acrobatic planes doing their thing. Then they finished up, and we waited for the main event to begin. And waited. And waited. I figure that the big dark cloud moving NW to SE over the airport had something to do with the delay As we were waiting, an older man and his wife pulled in. They'd driven up from Peoria, nearly four hours, to catch the show. "Your timing is great, they should be starting any minute!" No sooner had I said that when a roar came from airfield; not one of high-performance engines, but of thousands of people cheering. THEN came the loud whistling scream of six Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engines, followed closely by a cloud of white smoke and...
...The Diamond roared by. Actually, this isn't quite The Diamond yet, as #4 is still getting into position, but it soon would be. While I, and everybody else, were agog watching The Diamond fly overhead, the two Solos, #5 and #6, took off and went dead vertical, gone from view in an instant. Meanwhile, the four planes of The Diamond changed shape...
...and went by in the "Close Follow" formation, which transitioned back to The Diamond over the airfield. As soon as they cleared, #6 whipped by over my head for a knife-edge pass of the crowd. Alas, that picture is nothing but a faintly Falcon-shaped blur as he went by too fast for my camera to adjust focus. However, the lead solo, #5, was coming right towards us in a level slow roll, followed by a rapid climb-out to his right, smoke streaming all the way.
Around here, I lost track of what maneuver is which... and I don't really care. Onwards for the
really cool pictures!
more...
Posted by: Wonderduck at
09:00 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 967 words, total size 7 kb.
1
A profound thanks go out to the Thunderbirds for their performance...
more than a few times I simply geeked out and watched instead of taking
pictures. If you get a chance to see them, or the Blue Angels, or the
Red Arrows, or the Snowbirds, or Blue Impulse, or any other flight team,
take the time to do so.
But not the Italians.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at August 02, 2010 11:50 PM (+rSRq)
2
A few years ago I drove up to Seattle with the family to check out the Boeing Museum of Flight. We were totally unaware that the Blue Angels were scheduled to do a show in Seattle that weekend, and they were using the Boeing runway as their staging point. So after a wonderful few hours in the museum we come out to find the parking lot adjoining the runway overflowing with people, and the Blue Angels just taxing out for takeoff, maybe 200 feet away from us. Needless to say, we did not hop into our car and drive off.
The show itself was centered on the water a mile or so off, with a hill blocking our view, so we didn't get to see the most spectacular stuff, but the activity on and around the runway was more than interesting enough. In particular, six hornets thundering down the runway on afterburner right in front of us where we could feel the roar and see the shockwaves forming in their exhaust was pretty thrilling. Unfortunately they did not do the JATO takeoff of the C-130 for some reason.
The famous picture of a Blue Angel Hornet flying low to the water, with the shockwave reaching to the surface as it passes nearby boats was taken at this performance, we could just BARELY see that portion of the show and we could see the spray but not the aircraft at that point.
Posted by: David at August 03, 2010 11:23 AM (oyblT)
3
In 2002 Ukrainians killed more than Italians in Rammstein (85 vs 67).
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at August 03, 2010 11:36 AM (/ppBw)
Posted by: Ed Hering at August 03, 2010 04:36 PM (gLbEB)
5
David, the reason you didn't see Fat Albert do a JATO takeoff is because the US military has been running out of JATO units for a while. In fact, the last use of them was a 2009 Blue Angels show... after that, they were all used up.
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 03, 2010 05:07 PM (iJfPN)
6
Here's a link about JATO's end: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=9
Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at August 03, 2010 09:39 PM (/ppBw)
7
Good info, but that probably wasn't the reason in my case, as it was in either 2006 or 2007 that we saw things, and certainly everyone in the crowd around seemed to expect it. I suspect that they either had some last minute issue, or simply decided that since the show proper was out over the water and the crowd around the airfield was more or less impromptu that it wasn't part of the schedule for that particular show.
Posted by: David at August 04, 2010 05:35 PM (oyblT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 01, 2010
AirFest 2010: Eagles, Spooks, Warthogs and Hornets, Oh My!
I had an ulterior motive for purchasing
my new digital camera when I did. Y'see, I knew that this was the weekend for the
Chicago-Duckford International Airport's annual airshow, named
AirFest. And I planned, as I
always have before, to stand in the field behind Pond Central and take pictures of the USAF
Thunderbirds, this year's featured performers, as they went by overhead.
See, Pond Central is right at the edge of their performance cylinder, about two miles or so from the airport, so when they extend out from the runway they tend to fly right over my living room... literally. However, they're usually the only performers who get that close, so on AirFest weekend I make a small change to my routine. Instead of going to my usual grocery store, I head to a smaller, dingier place that has the advantage of being about a half-mile from the airport. I've not usually gotten good pictures of the "supporting acts" from this location, but there's always a first time, right? When I get to the store, there's no sound at all coming from the skies, so I head inside and do my shopping. $70 later (and I forgot to get batteries, darnit!) I emerge from the Hilander and push my cart back to the DuckMobile. As I unlock the Official Car of The Pond, I hear a strange, almost spooky, howling moan coming from the direction of the airport and getting louder. Just as I look up, one hand unlocking the car door and the other frantically trying to dig my camera out of my pocket, the first of the jet performers, the F-15E of the US Air Force's
Strike Eagle Demo Team screamed right overhead and low, rolled hard left and dashed away for what I assume was to be a high-speed "sneak" pass of the runway. I quickly threw my comestibles into the back seat, moved my car about 100 feet west (no cars parking there), and waited for the moaning howl to come back. And then it did.
He played around for a little bit, including one absolutely brilliant zoom for the skies that I couldn't get a picture of because the sun was too bright, then disappeared. Content that I got at least one good picture, I got back into the DuckMobile... and then scrambled out again, because I heard a rumbling roar coming from behind me.
I've never seen a F-4 Phantom II in the flesh before! This one is from the Air Force's
Air Combat Command "Heritage Flight". A triumph of thrust over aerodynamics, the Phantom was called a number of derogatory names over the years, such as "Double Ugly", "Flying Brick" and "Iron Sled." The Luftwaffe gave it the best nicknames, though:
Luftverteidigungsdiesel ("Air Defense Diesel") and
Eisenschwein ("Iron Pig"). Strangely though, I found it to be much more graceful in flight than the Strike Eagle.
And then something happened that blew my mind.
more...
Posted by: Wonderduck at
12:46 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 997 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Sounds like you had a good show!
Do you mean you've never seen a flying F-4 or never seen an F-4 at all? I thought they were pretty common in aviation museums.
The only time I've heard a sonic boom from an aircraft in the flesh was when I watched one of the shuttles come in for a landing at KSC. They've got a distinctive double boom without any engine sounds... The old IMAX movie featuring the shuttle (just looked it up: The Dream Is Alive) has a good recording of it, though you'll need the monstrous subwoofers of a real IMAX theatre to reproduce them well, but still recognizable on my laserdisc edition.
Posted by: Kayle at August 01, 2010 03:37 AM (q0jjs)
2
Kayle, I've never seen a Phantom II in the flesh, period. They are common at aviation museums, but the few that I've been to didn't have one.
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 01, 2010 08:51 AM (iJfPN)
3
I
LOVE the Heritage Flights, one of the best PR ideas the USAF has had. I had the distinct pleasure of seeing two shows in '08: Wings Over Pittsburgh had an F-16 and an F-22 (it was supposed to be a P-47 and the Raptor, but bad weather delayed the Jug), but
Oceana was a bit better...
And this year we're (supposed to be) getting the FA.2 Harrier!
Posted by: JP Gibb at August 01, 2010 10:41 AM (S3r8/)
4
We regularly get Hornets, Super Hornets, and Harriers flying in and out of Mesa-Gateway about a mile from my house. My parents live under the southeast end of the runway and every once in a while the Harrier jocks get frisky at treetop level after takeoff.
Now that I think about it, we regularly get C-17s, F-5s in aggressor paint, KC-135s doing touch-and-goes, and the occasional A-4 (there's some kind of commercial training outfit that uses them at the airport). There's are a F-104 and T-33 parked in a hangar as well. I've seen the 104 rolled out like they were checking the engine, but that's about it. I'd love to see it fly overhead one of these days.
Posted by: Will at August 01, 2010 10:35 PM (+tm6w)
5
Will, not to play one-upsmanship with you, but O'Hare airport in Chicago has an ANG base on the premises. Of course, it's very hard to train in the airspace of Chicago, so there's an auxiliary base here in Duckford. It's a common sight to see KC-135s and Hercs milling around the airspace of the city.
What isn't common, but does happen every now and again, is the sight of a MiG-17. Turns out that there's a well-respected
warbird restoration shop here in town on the far side of the airport from Pond Central, and one of the things they did recently (I assume for a collector) was a MiG-17. They appear to have taken their aircraft to Oshkosh this year, though.
Posted by: Wonderduck at August 01, 2010 11:57 PM (iJfPN)
6
Nice pics, havent done any airshows this year, too damn busy most weekends (last sunday was the
war and peace show too)
Posted by: Andy Janes at August 02, 2010 01:16 PM (uHTeu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
71kb generated in CPU 0.0257, elapsed 0.1605 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.1425 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.