Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines

[Dr Sardonicus]

The Hercules Transport cargo plane, the C-130, a prop plane, is an old workhorse of the USAF. Its adaptation as "flying artillery" which may fairly be described as "bristling with guns," is designated as the AC-130. It is a successor to "Puff the Magic Dragon" used in the Vietnam War.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

The Hercules Transport cargo plane, the C-130, a prop plane, is an old workhorse of the USAF. Its adaptation as "flying artillery" which may fairly be described as "bristling with guns," is designated as the AC-130. It is a successor to "Puff the Magic Dragon" used in the Vietnam War.

Something similar is used by NOAA scientists to fly into hurricanes. Those are turbo-props. These planes would need to be really tough to take this kind of pounding repeatedly.

I am old enough to remember hearing about "Puff." If memory serves, the NVA and VC, both a.k.a. "Charlie," were rather afraid of them. My eldest brother was in the USAF at the time, stationed at Da Nang, and told me just a little about them in later years.

Originally Posted by uncwilly

The H in the UH-1 is because it is a Helicopter. HH is a Search and Rescue Helicopter. AH, Attack, etc

H in the chart does not specifically say helicopter. However, I will take your word for it.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by storm5510

H in the chart does not specifically say helicopter. However, I will take your word for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_U...m#Vehicle_type
It does in the vehicle type section.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by storm5510

Something similar is used by NOAA scientists to fly into hurricanes. Those are turbo-props. These planes would need to be really tough to take this kind of pounding repeatedly.

The NOAA uses two Lockheed WP-3D Orion planes, the only two of these extensively modified P-3 Orion planes in existence.

The USAF's 53^rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, AKA "the Hurricane Hunters," use adapted C-130's, the Lockheed WC-130J "Weatherbird."

[storm5510]

An Airbus A380 landing in a stiff crosswind in London. Whoever was at the controls really knew what they were doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jn1xCjqCFE

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by storm5510

An Airbus A380 landing in a stiff crosswind in London. Whoever was at the controls really knew what they were doing.

I have been in a small plane (4 seats) and a large plane (150+) during landings with crosswinds. Neither were that strong. During the landing with the larger plane, passengers were unsettled when the plane touched down. Once the plane touches down, the ground and the wheels control things. The straightening out tends to startle the passengers. I rather enjoyed it, physics at work.

I was just near a major airport (one on this list) in the last hour and the fire/rescue brigade rolled out and were waiting for an incoming plane. Once it landed, all of the equipment went back the garage. I have seen them practice there, but never an actual incident.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

I have been in a small plane (4 seats) and a large plane (150+) during landings with crosswinds. Neither were that strong. During the landing with the larger plane, passengers were unsettled when the plane touched down. Once the plane touches down, the ground and the wheels control things. The straightening out tends to startle the passengers. I rather enjoyed it, physics at work.

I was just near a major airport (one on this list) in the last hour and the fire/rescue brigade rolled out and were waiting for an incoming plane. Once it landed, all of the equipment went back the garage. I have seen them practice there, but never an actual incident.

I once took a Heathrow - Glasgow shuttle where the plane came in at an angle of around 30 degrees to the runway, the cross-wind being so strong. The pilot flipped it round at the last moment.

We landed with a hell of thump, followed by a substantial thump, followed by a significant thump and then slowed to a stop.

The elderly guy sitting next to me said that was the worst landing he had experienced since coming down in Norway in (I think) 1943.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by storm5510

An Airbus A380 landing in a stiff crosswind in London. Whoever was at the controls really knew what they were doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jn1xCjqCFE

"And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, Mother Nature shows who's really in charge, as we experience the sensation of a million pounds of commercial airliner with 500 of us sitting inside, being blown around like a leaf..."

[storm5510]

The pilot in the A380 was experienced enough that he knew not to use the rudder any more than necessary. There is a limit to how much side-pressure the vertical part of the tail can take. More modern planes now have rudder-ratio. Basically, the faster they go, the less rudder movement can be obtained from the same movement of the pedals up front.

I remember watching a documentary about a plane which was flying in the wake-turbulence of a 747 which had taken off in front of him. The copilot worked the rudder pedals so hard, back and forth, that the vertical stabilizer separated from the plane. The plane crashed in NYC. This was about six weeks after 9/11. Everyone thought it was another terrorist plot, until the vertical stabilizer was found in a river several miles away. The mounts were broken.

When the NTSB looked at the flight data, it displayed how rapidly the copilot was working the rudder from side-to-side. Pilots had been taught to do this in their training if they were in heavy turbulence. This procedure went out the window in a hurry. A test was done to see how much pressure the mounts could take before failing. They broke just above 13,000 PSI. I suspect this event probably started the rudder-ratio research.

I have never been on a plane of any type. I imagine my deep interest comes from family members being in the USAF, and its predecessor, during WWII and Vietnam. There is a small airport near the community I live in. Every Labor Day Weekend, they will give rides to anyone wanting to go. Believe me when I say that I have been more than tempted many times.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by storm5510

...The plane crashed in NYC...They broke just above 13,000 PSI...

I went back and re-watched this story. The location was Rockaway, (Queens). The test pressure exceeded 200,000 PSI. The mounts were a thick carbon fiber and glass laminate. Sorry...

[storm5510]

I just read an Indonesian Boeing 737 is missing. About 50 were on board. I imagine there will be many followups. The 737 series has been Boeing's "lemon" for a long time.