Double Bubble

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 11/28/2016 at 09:44 • Filed to: planelopnik

7

16

Boeing KC-97 Stratofreighter.

f86sabre > ttyymmnn 11/28/2016 at 10:08

0

Double bubble. More subtle though.

ttyymmnn > f86sabre 11/28/2016 at 10:11

1

Huh. Never noticed that.

AuthiCooper1300 > ttyymmnn 11/28/2016 at 11:08

2

Suggestion for a future article: the amazing story of how Mr Conroy turned a civilian Stratocruiser into Pregnant Guppy , and later, a proper mil-spec Stratocruiser into Super Guppy.

Talk about vision and entrepreneurship!

ttyymmnn > AuthiCooper1300 11/28/2016 at 11:16

0

Good idea. TDIAH will likely be coming to an end with the new year, and I’ll be turning my efforts into perhaps a weekly post about rare or interesting aircraft.

AuthiCooper1300 > ttyymmnn 11/28/2016 at 11:35

0

I must admit I don’t follow it all the time, but I’ll be sad to see it go. At the same time I understand it is a huge effort to do that every single week!

Looking forward to your single-subject postings.

AuthiCooper1300 > f86sabre 11/28/2016 at 11:38

1

Also:

taken from Wikimedia Commons.

ttyymmnn > AuthiCooper1300 11/28/2016 at 14:30

0

Thanks. I must admit that, as I draw near to the end of two years of making these posts, that I am recycling and fleshing out much of what you are reading now, with some new additions here and there. But writing on a deadline is hard, and December is always a crazy busy time for me. The only thing that really saves my bacon is being able to do future posts (thanks, Kinja!). But do keep an eye out for the new series. I have done some already , and honestly, they are a lot more fun and interesting (at least for me) than the straight history posts. I’ve already got a long list of things to write about, and I may also do some straight history posts where planes played a major role, particularly in war. Military aviation history is really my favorite topic.

Thanks again.

AuthiCooper1300 > ttyymmnn 11/28/2016 at 14:44

0

Thank you so much for the link! I had read some of the newer ones, but I did not know about the old ones.

You are welcome, but it is us who should thank you . Doing the research, writing, looking for suitable images, posting - for free, on top of it – is extremely taxing. Will surely keep an eye on the upcoming stuff.

Interestingly I was going to mention that you should not limit yourself to talk just about an “aircraft type”. There are plenty of interesting aviation anecdotes to be told, and I am certain you must know a bunch of those. Glad to hear you intended to also do precisely that from time to time.

Good show, Mr Ttyymmnn!

ttyymmnn > AuthiCooper1300 11/28/2016 at 14:46

1

Anecdotes? Here’s one of my all-time favorites, which I posted more than three years ago. Damn, was it that long ago?

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/fly-pasts-497272320

Again, thanks for the kind words.

AuthiCooper1300 > ttyymmnn 11/28/2016 at 15:22

0

WOW - some story!

Thank you!

Roundbadge > ttyymmnn 11/28/2016 at 15:33

0

Love the KC-97, also love the 377 Stratocruisers. It’s a shame they couldn’t hang as aviation technology advanced (Guppies excluded).

ttyymmnn > AuthiCooper1300 11/28/2016 at 15:33

0

The F-86 was my first favorite aircraft when I was about 8 years old. And this book, which is really rather small, is worth every bit of the $4.50 selling price. Although I can’t see how any version of this book would be worth over $100, regardless of condition.

ttyymmnn > Roundbadge 11/28/2016 at 15:41

2

It was “old” tech, and really just a stopgap measure until larger, more modern aircraft could be brought online, namely the KC-135. But the KC-97 still held its own. Although, dig the AOA on this Phantom. That’ll give you an idea of just how slow they were going.

This is an interesting shot, too. The A-10 first flew in 1972 (introduced in 1977), and the KC-97 wasn’t retired until 1978.

And this is just a cool shot, gassing up a gaggle of Super Sabres.

I found most of these pics here . It looks like an interesting site.

facw > ttyymmnn 11/28/2016 at 20:05

0

I love that A-10 pick. So weird to have that B-29 based thing refueling a type that is still in service.

I’ll add to that the reason KC-97 wasn’t good enough:

Need more fuel for those eight thirsty engines (plus it may have its gear down as that was the only way to fly slow enough to tank up?)

ttyymmnn > facw 11/28/2016 at 20:55

1

That would be my guess. They would also refuel while flying in a shallow dive (called tobogganing, iirc), so they could refuel at higher speeds. There is an eminently forgettable movie called Bombers B-52 (1957) that I saw the other night (actually, I recorded it and FFed through the cheese to get to the plane footage). The story is total 1950s cornball and Cold War propaganda, but there is some terrific footage of the early production B-52s with the super tall tail (as in the photo you posted). There is a scene where a Buff is in trouble and needs emergency refueling, and there’s footage of the KC-97 scrambling. Average movie, but great footage of 50s-era USAF hardware. Some portions of it are available on YouTube.

Roundbadge > ttyymmnn 11/29/2016 at 09:10

1

I remember reading that the KC-97's top speed was lower than the stall speed of many of the 70's aircraft. It was definitely time for the frame to go...just a shame is all.

I’ve been perusing that site off & on this morning. It’s full of great stuff!