Archive for The Motor Forum talking cars since 2006
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Photography
SpecB

The Henry Ford

I am not going to post all of the pictures from my recent USA trip but here are some of my favorites: -







Matt

Love this one.

SpecB

I think that one is the very favourite of mine as well.
Boxer6

Matt wrote:
Love this one.



Moi aussi.

For some reason, as soon as I saw it I was strongly reminded of Thunderbirds!!!    
TimR

That looks lovely.

Great place to go and chill out looking at old machinery.

Maybe they could rename it The Henry Ford Clinic.
DradusContact

Apart from being very striking, is there something special about that plane, did it set some sort of record?

Its beautiful anyway, imagine trying to keep that clean when it was flying!
SpecB

DradusContact wrote:
Apart from being very striking, is there something special about that plane, did it set some sort of record?

Its beautiful anyway, imagine trying to keep that clean when it was flying!


It's a DC-3 or "Dakota" - one of the first mass produced planes that kick-started the era of regular flights.  I think that one has done the most hours of any DC-3, notching up about 18,500 hours in the air.  It is owned by Northwest Airlines who are now part of Delta and was the airline I flew with incidentally - although it was on an A330 which is somewhat more modern!  
TimR

SpecB wrote:
 I think that one has done the most hours of any DC-3, notching up about 18,500 hours in the air.


Surely it's cheating by being in the air 24/7?
SpecB

TimR wrote:
SpecB wrote:
 I think that one has done the most hours of any DC-3, notching up about 18,500 hours in the air.


Surely it's cheating by being in the air 24/7?


I don't know how long it has been at the museum!
DaveGibson

SpecB wrote:
.......  I think that one has done the most hours of any DC-3, notching up about 18,500 hours in the air. ...........

I would expect it's done rather more than 18K hours. Typically, an airliner, of that period, would do about 3K hours per year. Since it is now perhaps 70 years old, it's more likely that it did 180K hours.
SpecB

DaveGibson wrote:
SpecB wrote:
.......  I think that one has done the most hours of any DC-3, notching up about 18,500 hours in the air. ...........

I would expect it's done rather more than 18K hours. Typically, an airliner, of that period, would do about 3K hours per year. Since it is now perhaps 70 years old, it's more likely that it did 180K hours.


We were both wrong.  There were that many displays it is hard to remember everything.

http://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/heroes/entrepreneurs/dc3.asp

It had spent more time aloft than any other plane in history when it was donated in '75.
DaveGibson

Just under 2500 hours per year of service. Its use probably tailed off in its later years and it has spent about half its life in the museum.
DradusContact

Its so lovely to look at though.  Not like the ugly things we fly in now.  I think the last truly beautiful airliner where the comets of the 60's.
TimR

DradusContact wrote:
Its so lovely to look at though.  Not like the ugly things we fly in now.  I think the last truly beautiful airliner where the comets of the 60's.


Beautiful to look at but not so great if you were in one that fell out of the sky

My mum told me that her Dad had considered a job offer from Australia in the 1950s but they would've had to fly out there on a Comet and that was enough to stop them going.

There's a Comet at East Fortune Air Museum but I expect it's a bit upstaged by the Vulcan and Concorde.
Boxer6

TimR wrote:
.........

There's a Comet at East Fortune Air Museum but I expect it's a bit upstaged by the Vulcan and Concorde.


Having missed out on the Forum trip there, I really will have to make it over there sometime soon.
TimR

I've been twice in the last 10 years and it's definitely worth a trip.

One time they had the maintenance hangar open and we just wandered in at which point my dad started chatting to the old boys rebuilding from scratch (it appeared) a Bristol Blenheim - the plane, obviously.
Thought we were going to be there for days
DradusContact

They fixed the problem with the comet though.  If it didnt happen to that plane it would of happened to the next one, it was a learning curve.  Boeing and the like simply learnt from out mistakes.
TimR

I know. Otherwise we wouldn't have Nimrods.

Funnily enough I've just read 'No Highway' by Nevil Shute.
It deals with exactly what afflicted the Comet but was written in 1948
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I don't agree that post-Comet airliners are less attractive. That would rule out Concorde, which has to be the most beautiful of all. And I reckon the 707 is the perfect iteration of the swept-back, underwing engine look. And the 747 400 has a galleon-like grace that most widebodies lack, again because of the sweep of the wings, and the winglets on the ends.
DaveGibson

To my mind, the VC10, with the engines at the back and its clean engine-free wings, was better looking than the 707 but I agree that Concorde was the best.
DradusContact

Of course concorde is a big exception.

I'm talking about 747,'s 767's etc.  Theyre just not pretty.  Function over form all the way.
TimR

I think standard 747s have a certain something about them, especially in a nice 1970s colour scheme - usually predominantly white with the bit in front of the windscreen painted black.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

So do I, they get away from the tube-with-wings look of planes like the A330/340.
TimR

You wouldn't believe that I've spent the last 10 minutes or so trying to find a decent online photo of an early 747 in that kind of colour scheme and I can't find one in colour.

They all seem to be taken from the ground with the aircraft in nose-up stance with the wheels just off the deck
DradusContact

I must admit, this is quite a nice image:

Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I see what you mean! However, this merits inclusion anyway:
DradusContact

Must be a photoshop?
Boxer6

DradusContact wrote:
Must be a photoshop?


Not necessarily - I'd really love it not to be!!!
TimR

It's probably just perspective. There's nothing on the ground in the photo to give you any impression of the angle so although it looks like 90 degrees it isn't.
DradusContact

I suppose the fact you can read the signs next to the runway suggest its not that steep.
woof woof

Even with a long lens surely another plane shouldn't be that close to one taking off? Photoshop?
DradusContact

Thats true, where was the guy with the camera waiting?
TimR

Perhaps it was taken by Superman?
woof woof

Lets not be sexist Tim, Superperson.
TimR

Well remember there was a Superwoman as well so maybe the photo was taken by him (DCs question remember) but Superwoman was holding onto his ankles - or something - so he didn't fall as he held the camera
woof woof

"...but Superwoman was holding onto his ankles..."

That is an interesting image Tim but a more interesting one would be superwoman holding onto her own ankles.

I'm not too sure where the camera might be.
TimR

woof woof wrote:

That is an interesting image Tim but a more interesting one would be superwoman holding onto her own ankles.

I'm not too sure where the camera might be.


Well, under those circumstances I'm sure we could rely on Superman to operate the camera.
woof woof

I'm sure he'd have something in his hands.
DradusContact

Maybe they used this?

http://www.guzer.com/videos/familyguy_wonderwoman.php
Big TC

How did this thread go from a superb pic of a 747 taking off, to a thinly-veiled description of kinky sex between a super hero and a super herione, whilst being photographed by them? Huh?

(LOL anyway!)
DaveGibson

Well, let me see if I can get back to the 747. What fascinates me is the amount the wings are bowed upwards, which illustrates the way they flex under load.

As an aside, some years ago, when Boeing had engine supply problems, the unfinished aircraft had to be parked with concrete blocks mounted in place of the missing engines to ensure that the wings adopted the correct shape.
DradusContact

Its quite worrying i always think when you see the wings flexing as you fly, the tolerance on them is quite amazing though, during testing they flex them up so theyre practically 45' from the planes body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I like the 777 300 as well: the extra fuselage length avoids the usual widebody chubbiness, and I also like the sharp cut-off at the back of the fuselage, and the B52-style tail fin:
TimR

It's ok but the front looks weak - as it does on most new airliners.

It probably needs something like a proper nose - nothing extreme, 747esque would do - to give a bit more visual drama to the cockpit area.

How big is the 777 relative to a 747?
DaveGibson

TimR wrote:
........ How big is the 777 relative to a 747?

The 777 is about 10ft longer than a typical 747 with a 5ft greater wingspan than the earlier models but the 747-400 wingspan is about 10ft greater than the 777. Its seating capacity is slightly less than a typical 747 but it does depend on the configuration. At its maximum the 747 could hold 100 or more extra passengers.
TimR

It hides its size well then.

I would've said that was about the same size as a normal airbus.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

TimR wrote:
I would've said that was about the same size as a normal airbus.

I thought that until I was catching a flight on an A340, and there was a 777 at the next gate. Made the A340 look like a first generation narrow-body in comparison.
TimR

Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote:
....a first generation narrow-body.....


I had one of those once.

I've settled into the 2nd generation wide-body now
Scouse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X_7Xt2ga-s&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Check out the wing flex of the jumbo in the 3rd clip
SpecB

I'm going to have a heart attack over your constantly changing sig pics.  

My wife is now seriously suspicious of this forum though.
Boxer6

SpecB wrote:
I'm going to have a heart attack over your constantly changing sig pics.  

My wife is now seriously suspicious of this forum though.


Just take her to a meet, Mark - kill or cure doncha know!!!    
Boxer6

Another one of the 777, courtesy of airliners.net

DaveGibson

That picture makes you realise why they keep private planes away from 'heavies'.
SpecB

DaveGibson wrote:
That picture makes you realise why they keep private planes away from 'heavies'.


They even have to account for small jets - especially those with T-tail configurations such as the MD-80 and Fokkers.  737 is susceptible to wake turbulence too.
       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Photography
Page 1 of 1