One of Our Nuclear Bombers Has Gone Missing

Avro Vulcan - Capable of  Carrying a 21,000 Pound Bombload - or Nukes

In 2016, I related how I was impressed when I saw an Avro Vulcan flying at the Edwards Air Force Base Air Show in 1979. There is more to the Vulcan story, however. Just as one went missing in the James Bond movie, Thunderball, one went missing while on a real mission. This happened in the only conflict in which Vulcans were used against targets with live ammunition. The story has not been well known, for obvious reasons.

In 1982, Argentina decided to take the Falkland Islands from Britain. Beset by domestic problems and knowing of upcoming British military spending cuts, the Argentines bet they could succeed. However, Margaret Thatcher was not made of sugar candy. The British soon sent a task force south. To conserve their naval resources, they refitted six Vulcan bombers to attack Argentine targets in the Falklands; principally Stanley Airport. Stanley Airport was a facility capable of supporting Argentine air attacks against the British fleet.

The bombing missions were made from Ascension Island in the South Atlantic. Each mission required 11 aerial refuelings. On one of these missions, a Vulcan's refueling probe broke while returning from the Falkands. The pilot and crew were faced with the unpleasant choice of ditching in the ocean (shades of Thunderball!) or of making it to the nearest land, which was Brazil. After some drama, the Vulcan landed in Rio de Janeiro with no fuel to spare. Brazil, which was neutral, promptly interned both the crew and the British nuclear bomber. The United States also got dragged into the situation since it had secretly supplied the British with anti-radar missles, one of which was still attached to the bomber when it landed.

To make an intriguing story shorter, after many negotiations, the Brazilians eventually released both crew and bomber back to Britain. They kept the American missile and the British agreed to supply quite a few helicpter parts to Brazil. The whole story is related in the video below. Somehow, I don't think we will see a movie entitled "Locked up in a Brazilian Prison!"

Falcon H, Bubba

Liftoff is 5:26 into the Video - They're Going to Make Space Exciting Again!

When I was just a boy, we went to the Moon. Shortly after I graduated from high school, we went to the Moon for the (until sometime in the future) last time. I vividly recall the moment that Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. That was nearly 45 years ago. Almost a Half Century. On occasion, I wonder if we have peaked and are on a long, slow decline like that which resulted in the demise of the Roman Empire. Even to this day, the Saturn V Rocket remains the most powerful launch vehicle that mankind has ever produced. At launch, it put out just under 8 million pounds of thrust and put as much as 310,000 pounds into low Earth orbit. In the times since before any of my children were born, newsworthy space travel consisted of Space Shuttle explosions.

However, events such as yesterday's SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch give me hope that our greatest times may still lie ahead. While the Falcon Heavy has less than half the payload of the Saturn V, it is a major step back into the Future. SpaceX is a company that I've never worked for, though I worked in what is now their Hawthorne facility when Northrop produced 747 structure there and I also worked for Rocketdyne when they were designing the Space Shuttle engines. John Glenn was a part of our extended family and my father worked on the Saturn V for Boeing. I pay a lot of attention to what goes on with humanity's reach into space. You might say it's in my blood.

The movie, "The Right Stuff" had a phrase spoken when someone did well. I recall it as "Fuckin A, Bubba!" Well, now we can say "Falcon H, Bubba." It may be more polite, but it is entirely accurate and we can all look forward to seeing what comes next. I know that SpaceX is planning a larger rocket, known as the "BFR." I won't speculate on what BFR might be an acronym for, but I'll guess it is in the same spirit as the bubba comments in "The Right Stuff." When the BFR launches, we will finally go beyond what we accomplished with the Saturn V back in 1967.

Yup, perhaps our best days DO lie ahead, though probably none of our astronauts that went to the Moon will see mankind first set foot on Mars.

Balance and Power

Dallas Museum of Flight Supports the Popular Image of the Wrights and Their Cycling Company

This post is, more or less, a book review. Recently I read again about the effort that the Wright Brothers expended in order to make the first sustained human controlled flight in history. This book, by David McCullough, entitled "The Wright Brothers, recounts their journey. My loyal reader may recall the Wright Brothers as bicycle mechanics, but that serves only to minimize their accomplishments. In truth, their accomplishments were made possible by their cycling background, combined with the love of reading instilled in them by their parents. McCullough makes this point, but fails to emphasize some of the groundbreaking accomplishments these two brothers from Dayton, Ohio accomplished.

• As cyclists, they realized that proper balance was essential to controlled flight. Any cyclist knows that balance is a prerequisite to movement. The Wrights realized early on that balance was even trickier for powered flight than it was for cycling.
• Their learning led them to absorb virtually every book written on human flight. One of their sources was Samual Langley, the head of the Smithsonian Institution and an erstwhile competitor to be first in flight with his "Aerodrome." More on this later.
• They realized that scientific research, whether peer reviewed or not, was sadly lacking. One example was the absence of any serious research into the principles behind propeller operation despite their having been used in ships for a half century. They had to develop the principles themselves. They achieved far better efficiency than the best ship propellers of the time.
• Similarly, stability and control laws were lacking; this led them to build their own, homemade wind tunnel. One of their first conclusions is that the big problem in flight was the learning of how to control the aircraft, not in the basic principles.
• The Wrights were far more than sinple mechanics. According to McCullough, before the turn of the century, they were turning out close to 200 machines a year when they started working on building a flying machine. The photos above make it look like they were a couple of country hicks working with tools one might have seen in the American Revolution. They don't look like an outfit that had a wind tunnel in the back room.
• As they developed the scientific principles needed for flight, they asked all the auto manufacturers of the day to provide them with an engine. They asked for an engine that could develop at least 8Hp and weighed less than 200Lb. Nobody offered to meet their specifications. So they put one of their employees, Charlie Taylor to work. He built one that weighed 150Lb and put out 12Hp. Score another for the cyclists. For comparison, the 1912 Model T engine weighed around 300Lb without transmission and put out 20Hp.
• Their choice of Kill Devil Hill was also not accidental. They researched all the potential

  

  From Wikipedia

  locales, looking for one that was relatively unpopulated, with consistent wind, and with lots of level and hilly locales for launch/recovery sites.
• Somewhat strangely, considering the almost instant spread of news today, the first accurate eyewitness account of the Wright Brothers flights didn't come out until January 1905; more than a year after their first flight. The publication: "Gleanings in Bee Culture."
• The editor of the first accurate article on human flight (the same "Bee Culture" guy) sent a copy to Scientific American with an offer of free republication. Far from taking him up on the offer, Scientific American ignored it and, instead, a full year later, ridiculed the notion that the Wrights were capable of something they'd been doing for over two years. Wilbur Wright opined: "If they will not take our word and the word of many witnesses, ... we do not think they will be convinced until they see a flight with their own eyes." By that time, the Wrights were negotiating the sale of the Wright Flyer III to the French Government after receiving no interest from the US Government. Three years later, they were making their famous flight over the Statue of Liberty.
• Oddly, even long after this, in 1928, the Smithsonian turned down a Wright offer to donate the original Flyer. Instead, the Smithsonian falsely claimed that Langley produced the first machine capable of flight. They even had Glenn Curtiss modify it so it COULD fly. As a result, the original Wright Flyer was sent to England to reside in the London Science Museum. It stayed there until after Orville's death in 1948. I guess we're lucky it wasn't hit by the Germans in the Blitz.

I guess the US Government has reconsidered. After the Flyer went to England, the Smithsonian board recanted their denial of the Wrights being the first to fly. Perhaps final vindication came in 1969 when a piece of the original Wright Flyer went to the Moon with Neil Armstrong. One Giant Step indeed!

Nuclear Bombers Invade California!

Avro Vulcan Turns Over Edwards Air Force Base

Last summer, I spent some time digitizing old slides. Amongst them, were some in which RAF Vulcan bombers came and were part of the 1979 Edwards Air Force Base Air Show. For those that don't remember the Vulcan, it was Britain's last nuclear bomber. It starred as such in the James Bond thriller; Thunderball.

While I didn't think to ask at the time, I suspect that this Vulcan had no nukes on board for the air show demonstrations. Still, who says the last time the British invaded the US was during the War of 1812? PERHAPS, they were demonstrating that we should not take the movie "Canadian Bacon" to heart and mess with their Canadian colony, er, Commonwealth Partner. Is "Commonwealth Partner" the right term? We've shown the Queen's Canadian Flag on this blog before. Actually, I believe the Commonwealth has "members." Some of the members, such as Canada, are "Realms." Realms have kings or queens, with Elizabeth being the Queen of Canada. There was a minor brouhaha when Charles married Camilla, but the Canadians were ultimately OK with it since they were both too old to have more kids. And the Canadians think OUR system is odd!

Sadly, the last Vulcan flight was in October 2015. The only time the type was used in real anger was during the Falklands war, where they were used to attack ground targets as the longest range bombing missions in history at that time. That was later surpassed in Desert Storm by B-52 aircraft.

Redemption

From My Post, "Still Unloved"

Some know that I worked at Northrop for many years. Nearly 25 years ago, Northrop lost the "ATF" fighter competition to a combination of what is now Lockheed Martin and Boeing. I watched Dick Cheney make the announcement at 1:20 PM on April 23, 1991, live on CNN. It really hurt a lot. We put up signs around the area that said "Will Design the World's Most Advanced Fighter Jet for Food."

Today, we were redeemed.

News announcement in the Seattle Times, HERE. The LA Times announced it HERE. This is the largest contract award in at least a decade and perhaps in a generation.

In contrast to 1991, I did not see anything on CNN about the award, and even HLN had Nancy Grace on.

While I feel badly for Boeing, redemption is sweet. Jack Northrop and TV Jones are probably both smiling from their graves.

25 Years From Flight to Flight

Yesterday marked Canada Day and the first flight of the Bell Helicopter 525 Relentless in Amarillo, Texas. I do not know if this was coincidence or intent. I was fortunate to work on that program for much of its early development, though I was unable to see its first flight in person. It was one of the few “completely brand new” developments that most engineers get to see in their careers nowadays. It was a collaboration of the Bell sites in Texas and in Canada, as well as many suppliers. The first flight is shown below.

A while back I got to see “my own” previous first flight of a “completely brand new” aircraft. It was the YF-23 Black Widow II. It’s first flight will be 25 years ago next month (August 27). Its first flight is shown below. The quality isn’t as good since it was my own video shot at the event at Edwards AFB. Less than a year later, we had signs up around our area saying “will design the world’s most advanced fighter jet for food.” I pray the Bell 525 works out a lot better. Only time will tell. 

Passing of an Era

Thomas Victor Jones, with YF-17 Model before it Evolved into the F-18

As is always the case, the end of a year is marked by news agencies summarizing notable people who passed away during the year. Among these articles reviewing 2014, there is at least one giant name missing; Thomas Victor Jones. You see, Tom Jones was the last of a breed in the aerospace industry that we are not likely to see again in our time. Some might not think that a bad thing, but it also probably means less future innovation in that same industry. The photo, above, comes from the LA Times Obituary. Perhaps it is ironic that Ralph Vartebedian wrote it - Ralph was a thorn in Jones's side for many years.

Northrop F-5 at Boeing Museum

In the first half century of aviation, most companies funded a major portion of new aircraft from their own resources. Northrop Corporation was one such. When I started work there, Jack Northrop was still alive, though frail. The CEO was Tom Jones. He made his name by pushing for the T-38 and F-5, aircraft that are still in service today more than 50 years later. He also pushed to get Northrop into the unmanned aircraft business. The mostly Northrop-funded YF-17 later developed into the F/A-18 on his watch and is still being built. It was a point of pride at Northrop that almost ALL the company facilities were company owned. More commonly, the US Government owned large aircraft facilities. Northrop was different under Jones. We purchased license plate holders that said: "Northrop Aircraft Division, a Good Place to Work" at the company store.

Less well known is that Northrop, again under Tom’s watch, played a major role in funding and supporting Boeing (his son just passed away as noted HERE) in the development of the original 747. I’ve been told that Northrop built and owned many of the original tools for that aircraft until Boeing later purchased them back. Certainly, Jones’s support of stealth research and guidance systems directly led to Northrop’s B-2, Peacekeeper missile and YF-23, and there is much more.

It was the F-20 that truly showed him as having the spirit of a Mississippi river boat gambler. It also led to his downfall. For those not familiar with the F-20, it started life as the “F-5G.” The F-5G was Northrop’s response to a Carter Administration initiative to have US companies privately develop fighters for export to friendly countries that were outside the NATO/Israel umbrella. Well, to make a long story short, Northrop spent $1.25 billion of its own money only to find its potential market completely undercut by that same US Government. It then got to spend hundreds of millions more on the ATF competition. Jones went away from Northrop and the last Mississippi river boat gambler was gone by 1990. You can read the whole, sordid story, HERE. Not long after he left, the City of Hawthorne renamed "Thomas Victor Jones Park" to "Holly Park." Sheesh.

Unlike Jack Northrop, who was pretty much despondent when the US killed off his flying wings and ordered them cut up, Tom Jones went into an elegant retirement. He founded Moraga Vineyards around his mansion in Bel Air, California. Moraga is the most expensive vineyard property on the planet. In 2013, he sold the place to Rupert Murdoch (yes, THAT Murdoch) and remained in the house itself until his death in early 2014. We will not see his like again soon. Perhaps it is fitting that the Moraga property once belonged to Victor Fleming who directed “Gone With the Wind.” Maybe Jones was a bit inspired by Rhett Butler.

From the Moraga site, a Low Key Note of Tom's

Bike Parking at DFW Airport

It is Illegal to Ride Your Bike DIRECTLY to the Terminal - UNLESS You are Strong and Very Fast! From Google Maps
It Doesn't Help that All Exits are Off the Left Side of the Road

Since airlines have us travelling lighter recently by means of charging us to bring along "excess" luggage, bicycles and/or transit have become a possibility for those of us that travel by air. The TRE commuter rail comes fairly close to the airport from those living in either Fort Worth or Dallas. Just make sure you don't travel on a Sunday since the TRE takes Sundays off. If you are coming from Dallas and points east, there IS a DART bus (Route 408) that runs to the Remote South parking lot. Soon, there'll be light rail that you MAY be able to bring your bike on. We'll know after it starts up - partly it'll depend on where you get dropped off and what security decides.



TRE Centreport Has a Shuttle to Remote South. Remote South is as Close to the Terminal as You Can Get With a Bike

What's more, despite complete ignoring of bikes by DFW Airport and places that COULD provide low cost, secure bike parking, people DO ride their bikes to the airport. I suspect these are mostly people that work at the airport, though some of the bikes are a lot nicer than I'd want to leave at an airport remote lot. Definitely Remote South is where most cyclists park. They park at the "official parking lot fence for bikes since we don't really think about people that come here by bike" place.

Bicycle Parking Facilities at DFW Airport - Remote South
You'll Note the Motorcycle Parks Inside the Fence With the Other Motorists

Remote South Bike Parking Looking North Toward the Airport

What would I recommend for LONG TERM bike parking? Well, if I had to do it, I'd park at Bell Helicopter (a known, fairly secure place for bikes to park) or at another secure location within walking distance of the TRE (either Hurst Station or Centreport). Then I'd take the TRE and the shuttle in to the terminal. If I were just going for the day, I'd lock up at Remote South and take that shuttle in. Neither DART option would help me at all since DART only works for those coming from Dallas County, "Where the East Begins!"

If I were going to do it more frequently, I'd see if I couldn't cut a deal with one of the nearby hotels. Keep in mind that it only costs $25 for me to get from home to the DFW Airport by taxi.
 

Still Unloved

First Prototype of Northrop YF-5A on Display at Seattle's Museum of Flight

Recently, I was reminded of a story that’s little known in American aviation. It’s the story of the Northrop F-5. In many ways, it’s a story of success despite the “big guys.” You see, the F-5 is a plane the US didn’t want.

"On Loan" - a California Plane in a Seattle Museum

In the 1950’s, Air Force (and Stuart Symington) killed the flying wing, soon thereafter, Jack Northrop left the management of the Northrop Corporation and Thomas Victor Jones took over. Jones was the CEO when I went to work for Northrop and Jack was retired. One of the things the new management pushed was the development of an aircraft that was MUCH lighter, cheaper, and arguably BETTER than the heavy “Century” series of the time – IMO, Jones had a temperment not far different than Jack Northrop combined with a Mississippi river boat gambler. The result was the N156. This aircraft ultimately developed into the T-38 supersonic trainer and the F-5 lightweight fighter. In further developments that I won’t try to go into in this post, later evolved into the F/A-18 and the Iranian “Saeqeh” of today. It ALMOST became the F-20 Tigershark and the F-18L, the last attempts by any US corporation to develop an advanced aircraft privately.

The US Air Force favored the T-38 as a low-cost supersonic trainer, but turned its nose up at the idea of a fighter that could operate at FAR lower cost and FAR higher readiness at the cost of the ultimate bit of performance. The US Navy thought better of such a concept for their “Escort carriers,” but escort carriers were about to vanish and soon the “lightweight fighter” became the illegitimate child nobody wanted to claim. Fortunately, some realized that parts of the world might want a fighter that required less maintenance and the F-5 was born when Kennedy was president. The first ones were known as the “YF-5A.”

Ultimately, more than 3800 T-38 and F-5 aircraft were produced, though the US Air Force never became a significant operator of the F-5, using them only to simulate enemy aircraft in their “Aggressor” squadrons. Thirty years after the last F-5 aircraft were produced, 25 countries still operate them including countries such as Switzerland. Even the US Air Force still operates the T-38 as its primary supersonic training aircraft and will do so until the aircraft approaches 80 years of service. T-38 aircraft are operated at Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls (site of the HH100), among other places. The surviving prototype F-5, the YF-5A, was displayed for a while in the Air Force Museum annex. Some websites claim it is still there. However, I was surprised and heartened to see it in a prominent place in Seattle at the Museum of Flight (MOF). The display indicated it was “on loan” from the US AirForce Museum. I guess the Air Force still doesn’t really want the F-5 enough to keep it on display at its own locale unless under some disguise.

While the YF-5A itself never had any Seattle connection I know of, Jack Northrop DID have same. You see, a previous Northrop Corporation (Avion) was owned by Boeing and the MOF does mention these. In corporate rearrangements, Jack was told he’d have to relocate to Wichita. His response was, well, impolite and soon Jack didn’t work for Boeing any more. The MOF doesn’t talk about THAT aspect of the connection. Nowadays, a LATER Northrop Grumman company is based in places OTHER than Wichita, and it ALSO had and has many connections with Boeing. Again, a future post…



NORAIR Became "Northrop Aircraft Division - A Good Place to Work. Now on Display at the Seattle Museum of Flight

 

Vehicle or Not

According to Wikipedia, the Bicycle Pedal Boat is a Vehicle

There’s a bit of confusion about vehicles and vehicular operation around the internet. I suspect some of the confusion results from a fondness for bicycle-specific facilities that reduce the stress level of people on bikes. The confusion is made worse by our legal system. In most states, bicycles are considered as vehicles, though in some, they are called “devices” that are supposed to operate as IF they were vehicles. Why do I bring this up now, my loyal reader might wonder? Well, it is because I saw the bicycle pedal boat at the top of this post. That CERTAINLY wouldn't qualify as a vehicle, would it?

Vehicular Operation of a Motorcycle - Darn Good Bike Handling Skills, Too!

So I went to one of my favorite sources. I was surprised to find that my own thoughts that a vehicle is a wheeled conveyance are WRONG! According to Wikipedia, a vehicle is any “mobile machine that transports passengers or cargo. Most often, vehicles are manufactured, such as bicycles, cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, trains, ships, boats and aircraft.”

Yet Another Vehicle - Lockheed P-80 at Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, California

Hmm, so that means that the only way you can AVOID vehicular operation of a bike is to walk it. It also means that a horse isn’t a vehicle, though the rider is supposed to follow vehicular rules. And that, really is what things are about. Our road system works, more or less, because people follow rules. It’s why we “stay right” (in the USA) and why people aren’t supposed to crash into those in front of them. Still, I never really thought of a bicycle pedal boat as a vehicle before.


No Vehicles in this Photo, Though Dorothy is Teaching these Children About Operating Them

Vehicle Surrounded by "Non Vehicles"

No Vehicles in This Shot from Keller, Texas, Though They're Following the Rules of the Road

 

Inspired by Scott

On occasion before, I have admitted to aviation inspiration in my cycling, such as here, here, and here. In my last cycling commute, on April 5th, I took my cycling commute inspiration from another source; a fellow University of Washington alum. Scott Crossfield.

Scott appeared in a supporting role in "The Right Stuff" as a "civilian pilot" of the D558-2 that was the first plane to exceed Mach 2. Less well known was his attitude towards flight that was demonstrated in his role as chief contractor test pilot in the X-15 program. Scott endured much in that program, including a vehicle that exploded under him, and another that broke as he performed an emergency landing. Even so, in his last X-15 flight, he followed orders and did not exceed Mach 3 or climb into space. Watch the embedded video starting 46 minutes and 50 seconds in and for the following minute.

That example was my inspiration for my commute on April 5th. I went in and came home. No close calls, no "death on my left," no attempts to advocate cycling by exaggerating its danger (no links for this one, but I'm sure my loyal reader can think of many such sites and organizations). Simply getting the job done.

Thanks, Scott. UW Aero Class of 1947. Watch starting at about 46 minutes and 50 seconds in to the video. The entire show is, IMO, worth watching but that segment contains Scott's recollections and attitude. Simply getting the job done. So now we can move on to new topics...

Scott Crossfield Gets the Job Done Starting at 46:50

 

RIP Bomber Pilot

B-24, From Wikipedia

George McGovern passed away this weekend. Besides his notable life achievements that I will not attempt to recount here, he was the very first person I voted for in a Presidential election. As I recall, I think I was the only one in my ROTC detachment to vote for him. Later, for some of the same reasons that I've been tempted to sport a "Don't blame me, I voted for McCain" button, I actually DID have a "Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern" button during the ugly aftermath that led to Nixon resigning in disgrace.

George was one of a class that we are not likely to see again in our lifetimes. Many bicycle posts suggest "tailwinds." Tailwinds mean even more to an aviator.

Oldfool Leads to the Lost Ark

It's strange how sometimes we pick up stuff from the Internet that the authors never intended. A recent post on the excellent blog "Oldfool" is a case in point. You see, it led me to find out where one of the largest treasure troves of Southern California and, indeed United States aviation history has wound up. In fact, a modern day "Ark of the Covenant" to an aeronautical engineer such as myself.

The trail started here. Within that post, was the comment

"...college at the Northrup institute of Technology in Inglewood, California."

That comment caused me to reflect on my own association with Northrop University, where I co-taught a composites design course for a number of years. I still remember the photo of Jack Northrop in the library. THAT caused me to peruse Wikipedia, where I found what I already knew: Northrop University was no more. My recollection varied from Wikipedia a bit, with the law school playing a more prominent role in my memory about the downward spiral, but basically, the place went kaput as described here.

Still, the Wikipedia article raised a question: "What happened to the aviation collections?" Specifically the "American Hall of Aviation" and the "David Hatfield" collection. It seems to me that the vanishing of collections with a half million pieces would leave a trace somewhere. A half million pieces of aviation history. GONE! It was like the mystery of the Ark of the Covenant, as popularized by a movie, entitled "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Like an Internet version of Indiana Jones, I started to search on the topic. It was pretty quick that I discovered that Northrop University has more or less been taken over by a pretty good Charter High School. On their web site, there was nary a word about what happened to either the American Hall of Aviation OR the David Hatfield Collection. Hmm.

Northrop Institute of Technology, Transformed into a Very Good Charter High School - Via Google Streetview

Looking futher, the trail led to a former Lockheed employee by the name of Carol Osborne. Due to her interest in the whole thing, she inherited some of the artifacts and was named as the executor of the collection.

Carol Osborne, Surrounded by Amelia Earheart's Sister and Bobbi Trout. In 1987 Via 2009 Airport Journals

It happened this way: from "Airport Journals"

Although Northrop University campus still exists, its doors were closed in 2003. Many of the historical pieces that were located in the library are now in storage and owned by the Museum of Flight or Osborne. The AHAH library was legendary to aviation and Hollywood.

Prof. Hatfield had a passion for aviation history and had already authored 12 books, from mythology to his "Pioneers of Aviation: A Photo-Biography" series. By the 1980s, Hatfield was producing a series of videotapes called the "History of Flight," chronicling the subject from ancient times to the exploration of space, all for the purpose of educating young people and future generations. He was amazed with the new technology. When Hatfield passed away at the age of 77, he left behind his aviation history and videotaping equipment to an astonished Carol Osborne. It changed her life.

Besides uncounted thousands of photos, the collections included interviews with over 450 aviation pioneers before their passing. Over a dozen had their licenses signed by Orville Wright. Yes, THAT Wright brother. It is an irreplaceable collection. Video interviews with the pioneers at the very beginning of aviation. Mostly, these are people connected with Southern California.

The question remains, however, "what happened to all this stuff?"

The "Airport Journals" article offered a clue. Namely, the "Museum of Flight." But WHICH Museum of Flight. I first went to the logical ones in Southern California, but found no joy there. I saw a few mentions of the collection, but nothing about where it resided.

Almost by chance, I happened upon a Southern California website that provided insight into the mystery. Here, it stated:

Carol Osborne explains that, as Dr. Hatfield's Executor, she only dealt with his personal property.

The large Northrop University / American Hall of Aviation History collection went first to Santa Monica 'Museum of Flying' and then to Seattle 'Museum of Flight'.

I don't understand why our local Southern California aviation history is in a truck cargo container, un inventoried after years. It should be here, in our area, where we will take care of it and display it.

The similarity with the movie became obvious. Hence the video clip below, though instead of the "government guy," we could substitute the "Boeing Museum Guy" instead.

Still, there is hope for the aviation legacy of California, hidden away in a Seattle museum. From the "MUSEUM OF FLIGHT" web pages, we find references to both collections, though neither is available to the general public. Specifically, the links are below:

THE HATFIELD COLLECTION
&
MORE, DISGUISED AS NORTHROP and other DOCUMENTS

Seems Like Yesterday

This morning, as did many of you, I heard the news broadcast about the safe arrival back on earth of the final flight of the final Space Shuttle. In contrast to past manned space programs, nothing is ready to take the Shuttle's place. In a real sense, as a nation, the US has moved back from its leading position in aerospace. I don't know that's necessarily bad, but hitching rides with the Russians was not something I expected back in the beginning.

You see, unlike most reading this, I was privileged to witness one of the very first public events involving the shuttle. In my very first job after college, in my third month working as an engineer on rocket engines (no "rocket scientist" jokes, please!) at Rocketdyne, we were all invited to see the very first shuttle. It was called Enterprise, in honor of the Star Trek television series. According to Wikipedia, the roll out was on Friday, September 17, 1976. I don't remember if that was right (seems to me we got to go on Saturday), but I do remember it was clear and warm at Palmdale, and traffic was slow.

It was the first of many new aircraft unveilings I was to attend, and it remains the second most memorable of them all. It seems like yesterday. In reality, it is another time and place, far, far away. The company that built the shuttles no longer exists. Aerospace, while still active in Southern California, is no longer the big economic driver it once was. Still, it was great to get to see the shuttle fly one last time, before it goes to a museum. I, for one, hope we see such things again in our lifetime.

Enterprise Returns to Earth - Photo from Wikipedia

The Trip of the Last Incredible

From the Boeing website "newairplane.com"

The pace and nature of technological innovation has shifted in our society. The production of ever-more wonderful aircraft has slowed dramatically during my lifetime. Innovation is measured more often in what engineers can make electrons do rather than in faster-stronger-higher aircraft. All of my children were born after our species last set foot on the moon. Still, over 50 years after the start of the jet age, Boeing is the largest American exporter, though competitors are nipping at it around the edges.

Boeing bills this as the roll-out of "The Next Incredible," but I think that, in reality, it is "The Last Incredible." Still, if you have never watched the roll-out of a major new aircraft, you might want to consider the live webcast that will be here. I previously posted on the first flight of the new 747 cargo version here.

One by one, the original incredibles are passing from our eyes. My mother-in-law was an "incredible." However, the 747, "Queen of the Skies" has one last act to play out. If you have never watched an aircraft roll out event, you might want to consider this. There will certainly be more new aircraft rolled out in the future, but perhaps none with the grandeur of this one.

HH100 Report - Sheppard AFB

Entry to Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls Texas, on HH100 Day

Last year, I really didn't have much of anything to say about the "Hotter 'N Hell 100" rally, as noted here. This year, it seems things are quite different. So different, in fact, that I shall divvy up the HH100 into several reports. First up, this year, rather than riding the whole hundred again in frigid sub-100 conditions, I decided to take the shortcut from Hell's Gate and include Sheppard AFB in my itinerary. It was a good choice. If you ride the full 100 miles, you'd miss this and it is not something you really want to miss. It is included in all the other ride distances.

By the way, some of you may not know, but the Air Force is the most enlightened and sensible of the Armed Forces. Even those that come from the Marines will admit there's compelling logic about an Armed Service that keeps the enlisted men on base while sending the officers out to fight.

Right Inside the Sheppard AFB Gate, You are Greeted by the Iconic Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. The Last of These Rolled off the Production Line in 1962

Turn Right and You'll See Sheppard Planes on Display, Including an All-Time Favorite, the Northrop T-38. Including F-5 Models, Over 3500 were Built.

They Also Have Other Planes on Display

Look in Front of the C-130 Hercules and You'll See Ladies in Pink with Wings on Their Backs. They Were a Favorite With the USAF Personnel

As You Can See, We Were Allowed Good Views of the Planes, and Flight Crew Answered Questions, as About this A-10 Warthog

Continuing Along, Past an F-111 Display, We Were About to See the Treat for the Day

We Got to Run a Friendly Gauntlet of Cheering Sheppard Airmen Who Were as Enthusiastic as it Looks

A LONG Gauntlet!

At Sheppard, as Elsewhere, the Water Tower
Lets You Know the Next Landmark in Advance

Getting Better

Instructors Explain Extreme Stopping to Student

Some posts turn out differently than expected. This is one such. I went to Traffic 101 in Dallas today. This makes my third T101. Originally, I intended to discuss how BikeDFW has sharpened their Traffic 101 course, and how I find it interesting that the students are mostly women. Instead, it's about what they don't tell you about Bike Ed, and what it has to offer someone who knows how to handle their bike in traffic, as well as someone that understands how their bike works. The US Military and civilian aerospace both embrace what that is. In short, it's training for the emergency that may never happen. It's why my oldest daughter did her first Autocrosses while she was on her learner's permit, why my middle daughter got taken to a snowy parking lot in Colorado, and why I'm getting a tetanus shot this year (the track requires it).

Traffic 101 is oriented toward an inexperienced rider, but part of it that isn't well publicized are the bike drills. Some of these are the bike equivalent of learning to operate a motor vehicle under extreme conditions; resulting in the student better understanding what their vehicle can do. As in the case of high performance driving of a Jaguar or Alfa Romeo, this should not be done on public roads. Conveniently, bikes are different, and a reasonably sized parking lot suits them much better than Texas Motor Speedway.

If Those Guys Weren't Around, This Student Would be About to Fall Over as His Bike Stops Moving

Pretty much anybody likely to read this blog knows how to stop their bike. BikeEd students, however, learn how to stop their bikes a few feet quicker. If they're smart students, they practice many elements of quickly stopping to help out their muscle memory. It may never matter, but once in a rare while, stopping two feet quicker can be the difference between a close call and serious injury - or worse. The quick stop drill is one that I am unwilling to do on my own. My commute is made with clipless pedals and I find that I will often fall over at the conclusion of a quick stop. If I have to make that kind of stop in the real world, I will gladly accept falling over if it means I avoid a collision. I don't care if you are someone that wants to ride vehicularly in traffic or only on recreational bike paths. Someday you may need to stop a couple of feet quicker. Quick stop can do that and it's a hard thing to learn on your own, no matter how long you've been riding. If you're reading this blog, you're worth saving.

She's Starting to "Get It." With Practice, She'll Be Able to Hit that Inside Marker and Maybe a Bit More

 A second drill that is inadvisable to practice on the street is the instant turn. The instant turn is a maneuver designed to give you an option on how to deal with that Escalade that just made a right turn in front of you besides going underneath it. Again, there's a very good chance it'll never happen, but if it does, someone who performs an instant turn in an emergency might be able to just have a close call. This IS a drill I do on my own, using empty parking lots. If I ever need to do it for real, I do not want to have to THINK about how to deal with the emergency. BikeEd will show the principle, but the student has to make the decision to practice, practice, practice. You don't get that from regular riding. If you're reading this blog, you're worth saving.

One last word on the instant turn. In his book, Effective Cycling, John Forester writes:

You can't safely learn the instant turn on the road, and you will never do it right without practice. ... The only time I was hit was before I learned the instant turn. A car coming the other way turned into a wide driveway. I managed to get into the driveway, but couldn't turn sharply enough to outdistance the car.

Like Forester or hate him, he has credibility when it comes to a statement like that above.

There are a number of other drills as well, but most of them will do no more than teach you how to get a bit more out of your bike, and maybe avoid flats. Those have the ancillary benefit of allowing you to get more out of your cycling, but the ones above may save your life. Even if they don't, knowing you are prepared will improve your confidence on the road just a little bit. If you're reading this blog, you're worth it.

Actually, the Bike Drills are Also Fun. In a Way, it's Like a School Bike Rodeo for Grownups

BikeEd is Alive in Dallas. Thanks, Gail & Richard!

On this blog, I've often stated that bicycling is safe and fun. Well, it is, and that's true even if you never learn this stuff. Aviation is also safe. Partly that's because they practice for emergencies to make it even safer. Conveniently, bike emergencies are usually less dramatic than aircraft ones, but the principle is exactly the same.

You Practice so All the Passengers Come Home Alive! From Wikipedia

Carbon Corrosion

Corroded Statue of Liberty - from Wikipedia

Y'all know what corrosion is. In regular steel, it's referred to as "rust." Aluminum tends to turn to a whitish powder. Zinc is used as an anode to keep boat components from corroding.

Corrosion is not necessarily a BAD thing. It is galvanic corrosion that makes a battery work. Still, you do not want to try to use your expensive bike components to power your headlight.

Enough of that, what about corrosion and composites, you might ask? I'd respond it is a reasonable question, given the title of this post. Well, there's good news and bad news. The first, is that your new carbon bike will NOT corrode away any time soon. In point of fact, it is THE most "noble" material used in bicycle construction. It is even more stable than gold. You see, materials are susceptible to galvanic corrosion in the presence of a conductor and a more noble material. If you look at the figure below, you'll see that carbon is at the very top (I did not include materials such as gold which are only slightly worse than carbon). The "steel is real" crowd will be relieved to see that their bike material of choice IS, in fact, better than aluminium. Bringing up the bottom are things like zinc and magnesium. As I recall, a couple of years ago, Colnago built a bike with a Magnesium frame. Just because you CAN do something does NOT mean it is a good idea.

The Further Down the Scale, the Easier Carbon Will Make it Rot!

The BAD news is that your carbon won't rot away in front of your eyes, but those expensive aluminum and magnesium components ARE at risk. If, for example, you have an aluminum frame and a carbon seat post, for example, the potential exists for corrosion of the frame due to that contact. You have risk for corrosion to those cool dropouts that hold your wheel to your carbon fork.

Lest you think this is overdramatic, back when the F/A-18 fighter went into service, one went into the drink. They fished it out a couple of weeks later and the aluminum was basically GONE.

There are a couple of approaches to avoid trouble. First, avoid "intimate" contact between the carbon and metal that is more reactive than stainless steel. A rubber pad would suffice, or a swatch of fiberglass. Undamaged (no scratches or rock chips) paint and primer. Even WAX. Yay, WAX! Just keep the two apart so they can't pretend to be a battery cell. Hopefully, your bike manufacturer took this precaution in things like gluing the fork ends into the carbon. If not, you're still left with the second strategy.

The second strategy is to KEEP THINGS CLEAN AND DRY. Dirt and moisture in combination really get the galvanic action going. If it's dry, there is no medium for the electrons to zip around in. On the other hand, if you leave it out in a damp garage next to the pool chlorine tablets, you will have interesting things happening before you know it. Especially, if you have a cyclocross bike such as I do, do not wait a week before cleaning after a race.

Anyway, I don't think I have to tell you how to look for corrosion in the metal. You'll detect IT pretty easily. Clean it away until you get down to sound metal. Reprime and repaint. When you are out of sound metal, it's time for a visit to your LBS. Remember, keep that puppy clean and dry - and ESPECIALLY watch that carbon seatpost in that aluminum frame! Ham should be happy with THIS post. His carbon frame may outlast his grandchildren's grandchildren if he's lucky. They'll just have to replace the metal bits as they rot away.

I don't know if y'all can take a log of comfort in it, but I've now had Buddy for over a year and there is still sound aluminum in the frame, though I haven't attempted to remove the seatpost recently. Hmm...

A Carbon Seatpost In an Aluminum Frame is Not the Best Galvanic Combination

The Ti Rails are Not a Likely Problem