2 Disparate But Essential Skills

In the 1880s, as the world was getting ready for electricity, there was a tremendous technological battle going on. Should direct current be used as a standard, or alternating current?

Just saw a good movie detailing this battle, called The Current War. With hindsight, it seems obvious who the winner should have been, and it was the eventual winner – alternating current (for reasons brought out in the movie).

But the movie highlights the battle between direct current’s proponent, Thomas Edison, and alternating current, championed by both George Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla.

From what I know of the rivalry it was factual so what I didn’t know I will assume to be factual.

The Quest for the Perfect Selfie

Lake Louise in an October Afternoon

A few days ago at Lake Louise, Banff National Park, we rented a canoe to explore the placid (and cold) waters. The mornings would be cold – usually 22 degrees F, and you could see the water starting to crystallize into ice. By afternoon the outside temp was around freezing.

The water is turquoise from the glacier-fed waters – with the pulverized rock – as the glacier slowly made its way to the water.

Having been there over the decades twice – but in the summer – I believe October is the best time to visit.

The summer hordes are gone, the air is crisp, and the hotels start their off season rates. By winter temps can drop to -40F.

More than Puzzle Solving

I have always believed that the world has had very few true geniuses. My definition of a genius has been one who changes the world in a fundamental way, often against the thinking of the society at the time.

Sir Isaac Newton. For his laws of motion. Albert Einstein, of course.  Wolfgang Mozart, who started composing at age 5, and whose compositions are still enjoyed over 200 years later.

There is a component of perseverance and lots of work to change the world. I read somewhere that Thomas Edison tried 1,000 different ways to make the incandescent light bulb until hitting the right formula.

“Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.

Great accomplishments depend not so much on ingenuity as on hard work. This is a saying of the American inventor Thomas Edison.”

Cutaway Thursday: Tyrrell P34

It doesn’t have to be an airplane does it? Nope (Imma hired gun pen here so I’m generously provided with a LOT of rope with which to hang myself latitude).

Probably one of my favorite F1 cars aside from Senna’s legandary and 1988 season dominating McClaren MP4/4 and the technologically revolutionary Williams FW15C.

More on the Tyrrell P34 from Wikipedia:

When unveiled, the cover was peeled away from the back forward and the collective gasps from the world’s press said it all. Along with theBrabham BT46B “Fancar” developed in 1978, the six-wheeled Tyrrell was one of the two most radical entries ever to succeed in Formula One (F1) competition, and has specifically been called the most recognizable design in the history of world motorsports.^[1]

It first ran in the Spanish GP in 1976, and proved to be very competitive. Both Jody Scheckter and Patrick Depailler were able to produce solid results with the car, but while Depailler praised the car continually, Scheckter realised it would only be temporarily competitive. The specialGoodyear tyres were not being developed enough by the end of the season.

The P34’s golden moment came in the Swedish Grand Prix. Scheckter and Depailler finished first and second, and to date Scheckter is the only driver ever to win a race in a six-wheeled car. He left the team at the end of the season, insisting that the six-wheeler was “a piece of junk!”^[2]

For 1977, Scheckter was replaced by the Swede Ronnie Peterson, and the P34 was redesigned around cleaner aerodynamics. The P34B was wider and heavier than before, and, although Peterson was able to string some promising results from the P34B, as was Depailler, it was clear the car was not as good as before, mostly due to the tyre manufacturer’s failure to properly develop the small front tyres. The added weight of the front suspension system is also cited as a reason for ending the project. Tyrrell even tried a “wide track” P34B to improve its handling, but this put the front wheels out from behind the nose fairings and reduced the aerodynamic gains from having four small front wheels. Thus, the P34 was abandoned for 1978, and a truly remarkable chapter in F1 history was over.

More recently the P34 has been a popular sight at historic racing events, proving competitive once more. This was made possible when the Avon tyre company agreed to manufacture bespoke 10-inch tyres for Simon Bull, the owner of chassis No. 6. In 1999 and 2000 the resurrected P34 competed at a number of British and European circuits as an entrant in the FIA Thoroughbred Grand Prix series. Driven by Martin Stretton, the car won the TGP series outright in 2000, the sister car repeating that success in 2008 in the hands of Mauro Pane; this example is today part of a private collection in Italy. Stretton also achieved numerous Pole Positions and class wins at the Grand Prix Historique de Monaco. The P34 has also been seen a number of times at the Goodwood Festival of Speed.

So here ya go:

An interesting car with a uniquely chequered history but why the 4 front tyres? Let the website for the car, Project-34, tell you:

Derek set to work on designing a car to replace the successful, but rapidly ageing Tyrrell 007. He calculated that they needed the equivalent of a gain of 50hp on the competition in order to leap frog the other teams, since almost everyone was running the same engine the gain would have to be made elsewhere in the design. After a few weeks of research he presented his concept to Ken Tyrrell in August 1974. A concept that drew on the experience of those years spent working on the four wheel drive, Gas-Turbine cars, for there, on the piece of paper presented to Ken was sketched an F1 car with six wheel’s ! Two regular sized wheels at the rear and four small 10″ wheels at the front. Derek explained the reasoning behind his concept to Ken.

The theory was that exposed tyres cause lift, and the bigger they are, the greater the lift they will produce, standard four wheel F1 cars counter act this effect by the use of more wing at the front, since the six wheel concept would greatly reduce the lift effect generated by the front wheels it would not need to run large amounts of front wing thus it should have a straight line speed advantage.

An interesting car with an interesting history and there’s one for sale and if you have to ask for how much, you can’t afford it.

Iron Birds

Static test airframes, or more commonly called, “iron birds” are partially built, non-flying airframes or old formerly flying airframes that are used by agencies and manufacterers to test either the strength of than airframe, various design components or aircraft subsystems (avionics, flight control, engines, etc).

The iron birds used for strength testing are typically full scale representations of the aircraft that are rigged to gaint gantry cranes with weights and strain gauges attached. See the pic:

Lockheed’s F-35 test airframe installed on gantry cranes with strain gauges.

Once installed on the cranes the airframe is literally pulled and pushed to properly simulate all the aerodynamic forces that the aircraft will encounter throughout it’s flying career.  Often the iron birds are tested till destruction.

This is a VC-10 undergoing wing fatigue testing. Note the bending wing.

Some iron birds are formerly flying airframes that have accumulated too many flying hours and are no longer consider safe to fly. These aircraft are typically stripped of most equipment (engines mostly) and used to test various aircraft subsystems in support of other programs.

This NASA’s F-8 Crusader iron bird that was used to test software for NASA’s Digital Fly-By-Wire program in the 1960s,

 

As the latest example of NASA’s iron bird, this is an F/A-18 Hornet used by NASA to support many of the F/A-18 test programs.

Iron birds aren’t limited to NASA. The US military also used them for the same purposes.

This B-2 at the National Museum of the USAF was never an actual flying airframe. This “aircraft” appropriately named “Fire and Ice”was used for fatgiue and climatic testing.

A close up of “Fire and Ice’s” nose gear door.

You can learn more about that particular aircraft here.

As an aside, old airframes are also typically used as maintaince trainers in the military. These are called ground instructional airframes:

 

 

Infographic: Maersk Triple-E Class

The Maersk Triple-E is the newest class of container ships. First built and delivered in 2013 (the first example being named the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller) there are 20 total units planned (as of January this year, there are 7 units) with planned complete production in June 2015.

In the hull, there’s some interesting technology (from Wikipedia):

One of the class’s main design features are the dual 32-megawatt (43,000 hp) ultra-long stroke two-stroke diesel engines, driving two propellers at a design speed of 19 knots (35 km/h; 22 mph). Slower than its predecessors, this class uses a strategy known as slow steaming, which is expected to lower fuel consumption by 37% and carbon dioxide emissions per container by 50%

Maersk Triples-Es are designed to be the world’s most efficient container ships by virtue of their hull and how they’re operated:

Unlike conventional single-engined container ships, the new class of ships has a twin-skeg design: It has twin diesel engines, each driving a separate propeller. Usually, a single engine is more efficient;^[10] but using two propellers allows a better distribution of pressure, increasing propeller efficiency more than the disadvantage of using two engines.^[19]

The engines have waste heat recovery (WHR) systems; these are also used in 20 other Mærsk vessels including the eight E-class ships. The name “Triple E class” highlights three design principles: “Economy of scale, energy efficient and environmentally improved“.^[20]

The twin-skeg principle also means that the engines can be lower and further back, allowing more room for cargo. Maersk requires ultra-long stroke two-stroke engines running at 80 rpm (versus 90 rpm in the E class);^[21] but this requires more propeller area for the same effect, and such a combination is only possible with two propellers due to the shallow water depth of the desired route.^[11][11][22]

A slower speed of 19 knots is targeted as the optimum, compared to the 23–26 knots of similar ships.^[11] The top speed would be 25 knots, but steaming at 20 knots would reduce fuel consumption by 37%, and at 17.5 knots fuel consumption would be halved.^[23] These slower speeds would add 2–6 days to journey times.^[24][25]

The various environmental features are expected to cost $30 million per ship, of which the WHR is to cost $10 million.^[10]Carbon dioxideemissions, per container, are expected to be 50% lower than emissions by typical ships on the Asia-Europe route^[26] and 20% lower than Emma Maersk.^[27] These are the most efficient containerships in the world, per TEU. A Cradle-to-cradle design principle was used to improve scrapping when the ships end their life.^[28]

As noted in the infographic the transit from the China to Europe takes 20 days. Maersk is hoping the increased fuel efficiency will offset the increased transit times.

You can learn more at Maersk’s Flickr site and at the Triple-E’s website.

It’s going to be interesting to see how these vessels will change the current maritime security environment.

Aeroflot Postcards

English Russia recently posted some postcards from the former Soviet state-owned airline, Aeroflot. Click the picture for the airplane’s wikipedia page.

Enjoy:

A model of the Tupelov TU-204

Yakovlov Yak-42 “Clobber”

Yakovlev Yak-40 “Codling”

Ilyushin IL-62 “Classic”

Ilyushin IL-76 “Candid”

Ilyushin IL-86 “Camber.”

Another view of the IL-86.

Kamov Ka-26 Hoodlum.

Kamov Ka-32 “Helix”

Let L410 Turbolet

Mil Mi-6 “Hook”

Mil Mi-8 “Hip.”

Antonov An-28

Mil Mi-10 “Harke.”

Tupelov Tu-134

Tupelov Tu-154

Blogging Centurion

No, not this one:

Or even this one:

In my mind it’s somewhat more analogous to this:

Centurion patch.

At least I’d like to think so.

100 traps aboard the boat is a career milestone in NAVAIR. Patches are handed out to commemorate every 100 landings. Given that traps (landings for you non-aviator-ish people) are the most demanding task in all of aviation this is by no means a small feat. It’s not unusual for pilots and crews to log hundreds and even 1,000 (I do recall seeing a 2,000 somewheres) traps over a career. Case in point. Maybe 1,00 isn’t so common anymore is post-cold war NAVAIR but still.

Here’s the trap from the jet.

Here’s the trap from the “not so” cheap seats…who wants to play PLAT LSO? 🙂

I’m getting to the point…

I noticed a few days ago that I reached the 100 post here. Since I missed my “blogo-versary” I’d figured I take this time to first thank xbradtc for handing me a set of keys (and now I’m posting there too!). I didn’t think I do THIS much blogging but still. My goal was to write about things I’ve always wanted to see posts on so…here I am.

My co-bloggers here are freaking awesome people with a wealth of knowledge, experience, and blogging talent. I’m blessed to be a part of this group.

Finally, I’d like to thank all the readers and commenter. Hell, I’m just a pilot dude with attitude (pun kinda,kinda not intended), a brain and a computer hoping to contribute something to the conversation. All of you readers and commenter keep me motivated to keep putting out content.

Another thing I’d like to mention. The commenters here have SO much expertise on things I just usually read about. That’s been the biggest reward for me is to talk to you all that have the proverbial “t-shirt to prove it.” I’m honored and humbled that you take the time to read and/or comment.

So here’s to all of you and the Blogfather of course:

…for strength.

and hopefully 100 more:

Thank you all again so much.t

What’s wrong with this picture?

Need to liven it up a little here, by the time most of you read this it is Monday.

Bonus points for naming where this photo is taken. Believe it or not, yours truly nailed where it was at first glance but had to look long and hard to see the obvious wrongness. Duh.

(Monday update) Will post the answers on Wednesday.

Soviet Aggressor Program

Most readers will already be familiar with the famed US Navy “graduate level” ACM program, TOPGUN (yeah, that’s one word, all caps) and the USAF’s Fighter Weapons School and the Red Flag exercises. During the Cold War did the Soviet Air Force have a similar program. That’s indeed the case and that the topic of this post.

Due to very poor showing of Soviet built aircraft in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Soviet Union began a program generally known with the Soviet Air Force as The Center for Flight Personnel. The Center was located in Turkmenistan at an airbase called Maryy-1 (Maryy is pronounced “Marie).

Located at this base is a unit known as the 1521st Airbase unit. The 1521st consisted of 3 squadrons, 2 that would be considered “aggressor” units both flying the MiG-29 and an additional unit that operated the La-17 drone for target practice for the visiting Soviet Air Force units.

The squadrons of the 1521st was formed in 1974 and flew the MiG-21bis. Pilots for these squadrons contained a higher number of highly experienced pilots (distinctions of combat pilot experience in Soviet forces at the time were known as “First Class” and “Sniper” level pilots). These units had a higher proportion of these highly experienced pilot when compared to regular Soviet Air Force units.

Generally, the syllabus used by the units at Maryy-1 consisted of 5 parts:

-assessment of individual pilot skills.

-low level flying over the area’s featureless terrain for aircrew familiarization.

-ACM and QRA performance assessment.

-tactical excerises involving multiple aircraft.

-live missile launch and gunnery.

It should be noted that the Soviet Air Force had no TACTS system with which to provide real-time monitoring of aircraft involved in ACM (such as that used by the USAF and US Navy). All training was monitored in real time over the radio using a GCI from the 1521st and another controller from the visiting unit.

Soviet Air Force regiments’ results reflected on it’s graded readiness level and as expected getting a perfect score in the evaluation was very difficult.

The 1st Squadron of the 1521st initially flew the MiG-21bis and then the MiG-29 Fulcrum-C. The tips of the horizontal stabilator and the wingtips were painted yellow, with a black outline, to make the aircraft look like the F-15 Eagle. To keep up that appearance, angled black converging in a black and yellow chevron were applied aft of the cockpit. Sharkmouth markings were also added to aircraft based on ground crew preference.

The 1st Squadron markings consisted of saber-toothed Tiger with a winged number “1.” The current status of this squadron is not known.

The 2nd Squadron of the 1521st first flew the MiG-23MLD. There were plans to reequip the squadron with the Su-27 Flanker but instead received high-time MiG-29 airframes. These aircraft also featured sharkmouth markings with other marking consisting of a “sour-faced” hornet superimposed on a red lightning bolt with the letters “AM” (aviabaza Maryy, airbase Marie) above it.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 2nd Squadron’s aircraft were transferred to the Kazakstan Air Force.

There really isn’t a lot of open-source information, either from books or the DTIC publication database. According to these sources there isn’t even references to these squadrons in Soviet defense publications.

Back To The Secondary Index