The snowman vandals must come from a farflung clan. In Canada, southern Ontario was plagued by a series of such incidents in the 1990s. In one case, a cinderblock was suspended on a rope from a road bridge so that it dangled at the height of a locomotive windshield. Fortunately, the first train to encounter it was able to stop in time.

The worst such case happened on November 20, 1994, near Brighton when a diesel-powered Via Rail LRC high speed passenger train ran over a rail that had been placed on the tracks. The rail punctured the locomotive’s fuel tank and broke some electrical cables. The arcing ignited the fuel and the resulting fire destroyed the locomotive and two cars. No reported fatalties, but many injuries.

I’ve also nominated the F-107 and F8U-3 elsewhere.

The F-107 was done in by a budget crunch and Ike’s policy of the most bang for the buck. By the late fifties, the US services had learned that the latter meant nuclear. Thus, the F-105 got the contract. Not to belittle the Thud, but it was a fighter-bomber in the sense that it was a bomber with the speed of a fighter. The F-107 was a fighter in the sense of mixing it up with the other side’s fighters, but it wouldn’t be around a few years later in Vietnam when such a plane was needed. The successes of USAF flyers in F-4s was due to their experience and skill in a plane basically unsuited for that style of fighting. (A plane reportedly forced on the service by McNamara instead of a preferred tactical F-106.)

As for the F8U-3, the USN gave the nod to the F4H because it saw the main mission of its fighters as downing Soviet bombers as far away as possible. As the F-4, Navy Phantoms would also be in the same situation as their USAF counterparts. They also did well all things considered, but it was the F-8 that became known as the MiG Killer. By the way, the USN continued to procure the smaller Crusaders because they were better suited to the smaller Essex carriers, not for their suitability at dogfighting.

The FAA defines a gyrodyne as an aircraft that powers its rotor for landings, take-offs, and low speed flight, but otherwise flies as an autogyro. The first gyrodynes were apparently the Doblhoff WNF342V3 and WNF342V4 prototypes during the WWII; the former was destroyed in a crash, but latter is reportedly in the NASM collection. Later notables include the McDonnell XV-1 (reportedly the first rotorcraft to exceed 200 mph) and the Fairey Rotodyne. Most gyrodynes have resulted from attempts to extent the range of tip-drive helicopters, which tend to be fuel hogs. An notable exception was the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne, which had a turboshaft-powered main rotor, but diverted something like 90% of its power to a pusher tail rotor while in forward flight.

To date, no gyrodyne has entered quantity production, but hope springs eternal, e.g. the Carter Copter.

If the Groen Brothers succeed, they’ll break a losing streak.

Since WW2, the FAA has certified only three gyroplanes: Umbaugh U-18/Air & Space 18A FlyMobil (USA) in 1961, Avian 2/180 (Canada) in 1967, and McCulloch J-2 (USA) around 1969. Now consider the output of these designs:

FlyMobil: 1 U-17 prototype, 2 U-18 prototypes, 5 U-18 pre-production, and 68 18A production (some sources say 110), all by 1966.

2/180: 6, all prototypes or pre-production, last c. 1967.

J-2: 83 production in 1969-1972 and at least 1 earlier prototype.

That amounts to a grand total of 166 or 208; there are unconfirmed accounts of later FlyMobil production on a small scale, but that wouldn’t alter the numbers very much.

Granted, there were some mitigating factors. The FlyMobil was hobbled by a falling out between Umbaugh and Fairchild (who built the prototypes and preproduction machines) and Air & Space’s financial problems. That story might have spooked potential investors in Avian.

But the J-2 is a different story. It was a venture by the McCulloch who made chain saws and moved London Bridge to Arizona. It was marketed at a time when general aviation sales were booming, yet only 83 were built and sold.

The best of luck to the Groens — they’ll need it.

Thanks for posting the link. Left me awestruck.

Saw it Tuesday and Wednesday nights, barely visible to the naked eye. Saw it much better Wednesday night through a 10×30 Little Mak monocular. A patch of fuzzy bluish-white light, like a star seen through a cirrus cloud. Even the modest power of the 10×30 made a lot more stars visible. Too bad I didn’t have a skyglow filter to go with it.

No luck Thursday due to advance clouds of a front rolling in. But there was a nice consolation prize, a bright meteor (from outer space, not Gloster).

Regarding Amy Johnson, Roy Conyers Nesbit presented a convincing explanation of her demise in the book Failed To Return.

As for Amelia Earhart, new clues about her disappearance popped up ever few years. It’s possible that someday those clues might come together in a plausible theory.