Well, all I have to say is… [to a slow, mournful dirge]

Happy Birthday…
Happy Birthday…
May the Cities in your wake
Burn like the candles on your Cake,

Happy Birthday…
Happy Birthday…
Hear the Women wail & weep…
kill them all, but save the sheep,

Happy Birthday…
Happy Birthday…
We like Children, Yes we do…
Baked or Broiled or in the Stew,

Happy Birthday…
Happy Birthday…

Note on the (old) comment on crew numbers of EF-18G “Growler” vs EA-6B Prowler:
1. As noted, the third ECMO was always a part-time ECMO with navigation duties.

2. After its late-1980s upgrades, the Prowler normally flew with only 1 pilot, 1 part-time ECMO/Nav, and 1 full-time ECMO… the 4th seat being empty due to the improvements in computerized autonomic jamming capabilities.

3. The latest upgrade version, which is what will go in the EF-18G, was supposed to reduce the required ECMO to 1, with the second purely for navigation duties and back-up ECMO, since the Prowler had not had its navigation avionics upgraded to current standards. The Super Hornet, however (including the Growler), has a full GPS etc. navigation suite, and there is no longer a need for the ECMO to provide this function. Therefore, having only one ECMO will not be a problem.

Note: For most of the 1970s, all of the 1980s & part of the 1990s, the USAF relied on the EF-111A Raven for its “Strike-package ECM”… which had only ONE ECMO… it wasn’t a problem for the USAF then… why would it be a problem now? BTW, the Raven used the same ECM system as the Prowler… just modified for more computer-controlled functions and to fit the different airframe.

The Nimitz class IS capable of carrying 95 aircraft, it is just that it can only effectively operate 75-80 before deck crowding begins to interfere with movements. They currently operate only ~65, not due to aircraft size, but to budget restrictions that have removed the S-3 squadron, and only provide enough F-18s (of both types) for 4 squadrons (there used to be 5 fighter and attack squadrons on USN supercarriers).

If the rule is 1 aircraft per thousand tons, how did the USN converted Essex CVs carry 60 F-8/A-7/A-4/A-3/S-2 aircraft on 42,000 tons max displacement?

The main controlling factor on “how many aircraft/thousand tons” is the balance of the design… is it purely a floating hangar, repair shops, & flight deck like the US ships, does it carry more SAMs & ASW systems like the CdG, or is it mainly a missile-carrier with a secondary air capability like the USSR Kiev class (25-30 aircraft on over 45,000 tons)?

The 1/1,000 tons “rule” seems to be mainly for mid-range sized ships with a mix of systems, like the CdG.

Patents do NOT mean that something has deen actually built… or even “designed”!

They are purely to protect the inventor’s rights to his basic idea.

As late as 1948, inventors in the electronics field were complaining about their developments having been already patented by Nikola Tesla. He patented the concept of “doping” pure metals with specific contaminents to create specialized “variable resistors” before 1915… the first transistor (which is covered by that patent) was not made until the 1940s. He also got patents on broadcasting pictures by radio decades before the first TV transmission, and also on many other things that the industry still can’t actually do yet.

That there are patents on file for this idea is not surprising, and neither are the shapes in the concept illustrations. After all, the basic aerodynamic requirements of high altitude, hypersonic flight were firmly established by the mid-1960s, and there are only so many ways to satisfy them!

There are also patents on file, and still in effect, for things that have been proved to be physically impossible to build (they violate basic physical laws), so don’t take patents as being “proof” of the existence of anything.

I just checked with my brother who lives in Reno, and found out that there are no actual museums there… although there are, as posted above, vintage aircraft here and there.

The Reno Air Racing Foundation is trying to re-establish an Air Race Museum, their site is: http://www.rarf.org/

This is a good site to find air shows:
http://www.deltaweb.co.uk/index.htm

😮
CAUTION… i HAVE REMOVED THE AIRSHOW INFO BECAUSE THAT WAS FOR MARCH… sorry for the bad info, I don’t know what I was thinking… maybe I wasn’t! 🙁

There are NO airshows in the general area of Reno during April… which is when you said you would be there, right?

Super Etendard: max take-off 12,000 kg (26,455 lb)

Looks like Sao Paulo only operated aircraft under 13,500 kg (~30,000 lb).

Edisonone, whose version of history are you reading?

The only reason that Japan was the “Guinea Pig” (as you put it) rather than Germany, was that by the time the first A-bomb was ready to be tested (July 1945), Germany had already surrendered!!!

Japan was still fighting, and showed little sign of being ready to surrender Unconditionally as Germany had. It was believed that the only other way to get Japan to do this was to invade their home islands, with the loss of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives on both sides!

Racism, and German vs Japanese “Guinea Pigs” had absolutely nothing to do with it!!!

What we know now, and our leaders knew then, is that Japan had wanted to negotiate for a Conditional surrender… in which they could demand concessions in return for ending the war. Whether we were right in refusing this is a point that can be reasonably discussed, but the simple fact is that using those 2 A-bombs actually killed (including all of the long-term deaths) far fewer Japanese than a full invasion would have.

Far more Japanese civilians were killed in the fire-bombing raids on Tokyo than by all A-bomb-related deaths combined. German cities were also fire-bombed (Dresden as one example) so don’t think there was any preferential treatment there, either.