Some excellent info about the plane here: http://www.aviation-history.com/convair/b58.html
(Written on 11/22/2014)(Permalink)
The pod on the belly carried fuel and a "nuclear device." It had a 1,500 mile combat radius "at cruise altitude", which was reduced to about 950 miles for low altitude missions. It was capable of being refueled in-flight, so the range could be extended tremendously. For instance, in 1963, a B-58 flew the longest supersonic distance. It went from Tokyo to London, a distance of 8,028 miles, in 8 hours, 35 minutes, 20.4 seconds, averaging 938 mph. Obviously, it could not have done this without aerial refueling. As far as I know, this is still the record for a long-distance supersonic flight.
(Written on 11/22/2014)(Permalink)
I was based at Lincoln AFB from '62 to '65. They had KC-97s and B-47s there, along with the Atlas "F" missile squadron I was with. I remember seeing a Hustler landing there one fine day. I think the entire contingent of flight crews, and about 90% of the rest of the base personnel, turned out to look at it from as close as they could get (not very!), and to watch as it took off. The pilot gave a little bit of a show when he took off - steep climb out, hard turn back, and a low high-speed flyby, rocking his wings as he blasted past the tower in full afterburner at what was probably 400 kts! Woo-hoo! We were all jumping up and down, screaming at the top of our lungs like a bunch of high school kids at a football game!
(Written on 11/21/2014)(Permalink)
A classic case of the "tail shaking the dog." The analysts want to increase their profits, so they make comments disguised as "questions" to try to force companies, Delta in this case, to follow the line they want to see to increase their short-term profits. Their attitude is one of "profits now, and tomorrow can take care of itself." Their whole operating philosophy is short-sighted and narrow-minded. Unfortunately, too many unknowledgeable small investors listen to them and run scared to remove their money from the company being criticized. This makes the analysts' comments a self-fulfilling prophecy, and damages the company in the long run. Good for Delta in standing up to these Wall Street churls.
(Written on 10/25/2014)(Permalink)
"Other uses"? Like what?
(Written on 08/29/2014)(Permalink)
There have been instances when model aircraft have struck bystanders, and any claims were handles by the insurance provided by the insurance provided by the owner's membership in the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics). See http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/membership/overview.aspx Labeling model aircraft such as these as "drones" is ridiculous: they are built and operated with a completely different purpose in mind than the true commercial-purposed drones. And yes, I am aware that there are those who misuse model aircraft in one manner or another. Certainly they should be subject to the law as it exists. It's not necessary to completely rewrite the appropriate sections of the FAA regulations to tar all remotely controlled aircraft with the same gooey brush!
(Written on 08/29/2014)(Permalink)
Or give everyone on board a ham sandwich? If someone doesn't want to eat it, then "I'm sorry, but your ticket price will be refunded - right after the FBI finishes interviewing you."
(Written on 08/29/2014)(Permalink)
I can't wait to see Fifi and Doc flying together in formation! That would be so cool...
(Written on 08/08/2014)(Permalink)
The point was made long ago. Let it go.
(Written on 08/08/2014)(Permalink)
Login
Your browser is unsupported. upgrade your browser |