Yes, It’s a B-23 Dragon. I think it’s being lying semi-derelict in the US for a number of years. I’d love to see it flying again.
As a matter of interest, do the CAF still allow the B-17 to do that one main wheel up/one main wheel down touch and go? It always looked a bit dodgy to me.
Thanks – I’ll stick to the thumbnails for the moment.
There are some wooden wind tunnel models on display, including a whole array of shapes used to determine the ideal shape eventually called Concorde.
There are also some wind tunnels on display plus myriad intruments, test equipment, simulator parts, a couple of drones, some jet engines – even adding machines and calculators.
Thank you.
I have noticed in the past that others have posted bigger pictures straight to their thread. However, I’m happy to post “thumbnails” and leave viewers the option to enlarge them if they want to.
Seems to have worked OK.
How do I make them bigger?
I was there that day and it was definitely 1987.
I’ve seriously considered switching to acrylics but I have to admit to being a bit of a “Humbrol” man. Probably due to my early days of modelling in the 60s and 70s.
An air pump which supplies a continuous supply of compressed air to run your airbrush. They can be purchased from around £50 and can go up to £1,000 plus (depending on how sophisticated you want to get). They are definitely the way to go if you want to get serious about airbrushing.
Why not go onto the Revell or Badger web sites. You will find lots of helpful advice on their airbrush products.
As far as my situation is concened, my lack of skill with an airbrush is entirely down to me. I guess I’m just not meticulous enough with masking etc.
I’ve been attempting to learn to use an airbrush for over 20 years. I always get disheartened and revert to brush painting.
Has anyone used one of these new Aztec type airbrushes and are they easier to use than the Badger 250?
Challenger and Columbia were both lost so the survivors are Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour. Of course, Enterprise still exists as a museum piece.
A number of airfields around the world are designated as emergency landing fields for Shuttles – the most important ones are Lajes in the Azores, Torrejon in Spain and there is also one in West Africa (Gambia?). The expected scenario is an abort in the climb to orbit as the Shuttle heads out over the Atlantic so that is why these primary diversionary sites exist in those locations. In reality, as the Challenger and Columbia accidents showed, a Shuttle accident tends to be catastrophic, resulting in total destruction of the vehicle and the diversionary sites are largely academic.
As for Homer and Buzz Aldrin, I don’t recall seeing that episode. In reality, the only pre-Shuttle era astronauts who flew on earlier generation American spacecraft (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) and on the Shuttle were John Glenn (Mercury), John Young (Gemini and Apollo), Jack Lousma (Apollo – Skylab) and Owen Garriott (Apollo – Skylab). A number of astronauts who joined NASA in the 1960s expecting to fly to the moon decided to stay in the agency even when the moon landings and follow up missions were cancelled. These guys were obviously very patient, some having to wait 14 to 15 years before making their first space flights (Storey Musgrave, Gordon Fullerton and Bob Crippen for example).
099 (Challenger) was never intended to fly in space – and was retrospectively given a c/n when it was selected over Enterprise for refurbishment into a space going Shuttle. Up until that point, it was usually referred to as “The Shuttle STA” (STA stands for Static Test Article). The STA was used to ensure that connections, weights, and pad and Vehicle Assembly Building compatibility was sorted before the final design of “real” Shuttles were completed. It was also suspended in a vibration test rig where launch vibration and resonances were tested on the structure. Ironic as Challenger was destroyed when these launch stresses were exceeded.
I don’t want to deviate the thread too far from the discussion on the B-17D but for the record, the Space Shuttle fleet was/is as follows:
Challenger c/n OV-99
Enterprise c/n OV-101
Columbia c/n OV-102
Discovery c/n OV-103
Atlantis c/n OV-104
Endeavour c/n OV-105
Enterprise was used as a glide test aircraft in 1977, being launched from the back of NASA’s Boeing 747. It was intended that she would be refurbished and used for actual spaceflight. However, it was decided that the static test machine (orginally given the c/n STA – 099) would be easier and cheaper to convert and so this was the route taken. STA-099 became OV-099 Challenger. Enterprise was allocated to the Smithsonian in the early 1980s although she was loaned back to NASA after the Challenger accident to be used in runway barrier tests, which were conducted at Dulles Airport.
The Shuttles are not “registered” as such – the numbers quoted above are c/n’s (or probably more accurately) NASA fleet numbers.
Thank you.
Yes, I remembered seeing it in Aviation News when it made its last RAE flights.
Was that the one purchased by Court Line. They bought a Beverley in 1973/74 with a view to using it to ferry spare Rolls Royce RB211 engines around. Even to me as a teenager at the time this scheme sounded a little “half assed”. It was never put to the test as Court Line went bust in August 1974.
I think Farnborough must surely rank as the oldest continuously operating airfield. The site of the present airfield was being used for tethered balloon and kite flying before the end of the 19th century and heavier than air flying began in 1908 – and hasn’t stopped since.
Sad to hear this.
I read “The Whitley Boys” a year or two ago and found it most informative.