3175375
Senior Member
Camarillo, CA CAF has a C-46, tagged as the China Doll.
These were used to fly over the Burma hump. Apparently the C-47 couldn’t do it.
Heavy Metal
- Thread starter amazinblue82
- Start date
These were used to fly over the Burma hump. Apparently the C-47 couldn’t do it.
I knew we had the AC-130 here.
Heavy Metal, Deadly AC-130 Gunship in Action Firing All Its Cannons
Lockheed AC-130 - Wikipedia
Last edited:
The C-46 was a much larger plane than the C-47. If you've ever had the chance to stand between the two of them it's very apparent! I had the opportunity at an Air Show in Shafter, California well over 20 years ago.
Didnt know this about one of our best known WWII Heavy Metal planes.
After WWII, thousands (some say of 15,000 of them) of B-24's were scrapped. Why? Once source said, (1) End of their service lfe . i.e., obsolete, (2) Too expensive to maintain, and (3) we needed the aluminum for newer planes.
Summary below of many sources: Why did they destroy most of the B-24 airplanes after WW2?
"As many people have pointed out, the USAAF didn’t need them. Front line strength shrank to a target of only 70 bomber groups after the beginning of rearmament in 1948. This target could be met without even returning all wartime B-29 production to service, never mind older, smaller bombers.
B-24s were slow, couldn’t fly high enough, had an inadequate bomb load, and were not well loved by their crews. Operating costs of the cargo version were not particularly competitive even compared to transport variants of the Lancaster, a hair-raising story in its own right. Compared to the DC-4, it was no contest at all.
All the stuff below is factual. We DID scrap thousands of B-24's.
Source: B24 Liberator Information
Photos from the B-24 Liberator (many other WWII birds were here too) scrapping and melting project at the Kingman Army Air Field boneyard in Arizona circa 1945.
Airframes and engines after removal, but before the "guillotine".
The guillotine, a sharpened metal slab on a crane to reduce size of plane in a few "chops" to fit into a smelting furnace ....
..before going into the aluminum melter ...
to be turned into "ingots" to be turned into new planes/other aluminum equipment
After WWII, thousands (some say of 15,000 of them) of B-24's were scrapped. Why? Once source said, (1) End of their service lfe . i.e., obsolete, (2) Too expensive to maintain, and (3) we needed the aluminum for newer planes.
Summary below of many sources: Why did they destroy most of the B-24 airplanes after WW2?
"As many people have pointed out, the USAAF didn’t need them. Front line strength shrank to a target of only 70 bomber groups after the beginning of rearmament in 1948. This target could be met without even returning all wartime B-29 production to service, never mind older, smaller bombers.
B-24s were slow, couldn’t fly high enough, had an inadequate bomb load, and were not well loved by their crews. Operating costs of the cargo version were not particularly competitive even compared to transport variants of the Lancaster, a hair-raising story in its own right. Compared to the DC-4, it was no contest at all.
All the stuff below is factual. We DID scrap thousands of B-24's.
Source: B24 Liberator Information
Photos from the B-24 Liberator (many other WWII birds were here too) scrapping and melting project at the Kingman Army Air Field boneyard in Arizona circa 1945.
Airframes and engines after removal, but before the "guillotine".
The guillotine, a sharpened metal slab on a crane to reduce size of plane in a few "chops" to fit into a smelting furnace ....
..before going into the aluminum melter ...
to be turned into "ingots" to be turned into new planes/other aluminum equipment
Last edited:
Last edited:
B-24s were slow, couldn’t fly high enough, had an inadequate bomb load, and were not well loved by their crews.
In order, bullshit, truth, bullshit, truth. The B-24 was faster that then 17, did not fly as high, carried a heavier bomb load, and because of it's flying capabilities, was not loved by its crews as the 17 was. As one pilot said in a Jablonsky book: "You flew the B-17, but drove the B-24."
Most surplus WWII war machines were scrapped after the war.
In order, bullshit, truth, bullshit, truth. The B-24 was faster that then 17, did not fly as high, carried a heavier bomb load, and because of it's flying capabilities, was not loved by its crews as the 17 was. As one pilot said in a Jablonsky book: "You flew the B-17, but drove the B-24."
Most surplus WWII war machines were scrapped after the war.
Here are some pictures I found that my dad had. As I was unpacking books in moving I came across his history of the 73rd Bomb Wing. In it I found the following pictures; I know nothing about them as he's been dead since 1984 so I can't ask. He was a Specialist on several engines, including the 3350 of the B-29 and 4360 of the B-50. During the Korean War he was stationed in Long Beach, CA, working on T-29s that were being used for Navigator training. It was then that he fell off the wing of the 50 and broke his leg.
I asked him what he did, as it was a compound fracture. He said, "I loosened by boot, pushed the bone back in, laced it back up and climbed back up to the engine." To my great incredulous response he replied, "Son, there was a war on. I wasn't in it, but the men training were going to be. I couldn't say, 'Sorry guys, I broke my leg.' I returned to my job and finished it." I learned this when I asked him why eh walked with a limp?
Anyway, enjoy the pics.
I asked him what he did, as it was a compound fracture. He said, "I loosened by boot, pushed the bone back in, laced it back up and climbed back up to the engine." To my great incredulous response he replied, "Son, there was a war on. I wasn't in it, but the men training were going to be. I couldn't say, 'Sorry guys, I broke my leg.' I returned to my job and finished it." I learned this when I asked him why eh walked with a limp?
Anyway, enjoy the pics.
3175375
Senior Member
At one point, the F-15 Eagle shared its production line with the older F-4 Phantoms at McDonnells' factory at St. Louis, Missouri. Two greats together under one roof, eh!
Credit: Air Power
Credit: Air Power
3175375
Senior Member
So long, Tres Huevos, the Vomit Comet.
We are now in the fifth month of USAF E-3 Sentry retirements and number eight has been flown to Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ for divestment. That leaves four more flights to the Boneyard this fiscal year, which concludes next month. Congress authorized the retirement of thirteen aircraft this year, with an addition two being used for training only. Aircraft 71-1407 will be the last aircraft divested and has been used for parts for a few years now. She will be reconditioned and moved near Wing headquarters some time in the next few years as a static display.
That leaves 16 total aircraft in active inventory until the Boeing E-7 starts coming online, which is not expected to start flying until 2027 and initial operating capability in the 2030s. I am not aware of any E-3s currently slated for static display anywhere else at this time, including the NMUSAF.
Here, E-3 Sentry 79-0003 climbs out of Tinker AFB on a warm August morning, headed to the 309th AMARG at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ.
We are now in the fifth month of USAF E-3 Sentry retirements and number eight has been flown to Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ for divestment. That leaves four more flights to the Boneyard this fiscal year, which concludes next month. Congress authorized the retirement of thirteen aircraft this year, with an addition two being used for training only. Aircraft 71-1407 will be the last aircraft divested and has been used for parts for a few years now. She will be reconditioned and moved near Wing headquarters some time in the next few years as a static display.
That leaves 16 total aircraft in active inventory until the Boeing E-7 starts coming online, which is not expected to start flying until 2027 and initial operating capability in the 2030s. I am not aware of any E-3s currently slated for static display anywhere else at this time, including the NMUSAF.
Here, E-3 Sentry 79-0003 climbs out of Tinker AFB on a warm August morning, headed to the 309th AMARG at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ.
3175375
Senior Member
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) transit the Atlantic Ocean, marking the first time a Ford-class and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier operated together underway, 4 June 2020.
(Note: all F-18s, except for the E-2s and helicopters)
(Note: all F-18s, except for the E-2s and helicopters)
US still dominates with the depth of its technologic might, but other global carriers are fairly substantial pieces of heavy metal.
Nimittz (11 boats) vs. Ford (currenly only one boat).
The two biggest, most powerful aircraft carriers in the world. Ever. Nuclear powered, neither one needs to refuel for 20 years. Several billion dollars per ship, they are magnificent, devestating machines humans ever created.
short vid comparies the two boats.
Ford. one of one currently.
Nimittz (11 boats) vs. Ford (currenly only one boat).
The two biggest, most powerful aircraft carriers in the world. Ever. Nuclear powered, neither one needs to refuel for 20 years. Several billion dollars per ship, they are magnificent, devestating machines humans ever created.
short vid comparies the two boats.
Ford. one of one currently.
3175375
Senior Member
The comparison chart needs to have a multiplier on it for the number of each type of carrier. This added would clearly show our huge advantage over other countries.
Looking at the US Wasp class, I didn't realize we had any straight deck carries in service anymore.
apparently ... Wasp-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia. Its a carrier in the broadest sense I guess, for VTO craft (no catapault/hook system) it seems.
"The Wasp class is a class of landing helicopter dock (LHD) amphibious assault ships operated by the United States Navy.
Based on the Tarawa class, with modifications to operate more advanced aircraft and landing craft, the Wasp class is capable of transporting almost the full strength of a United States Marine Corps Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), and landing them in hostile territory via landing craft or helicopters as well as providing air support via AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft or F-35B Lightning II stealth strike-fighters.
All Wasp-class ships were built by Ingalls Shipbuilding, at Pascagoula, Mississippi, with the lead ship, USS Wasp, commissioned on 29 July 1989.
Eight Wasp-class ships were built, and as of April 2021, seven are in active service, as USS Bonhomme Richard was seriously damaged by fire on 12 July 2020, and subsequently decommissioned in April 2021."
second pic I posted in #2,071 above. I wanted to get home from work and search to see it wasn't shopped.
Looked like a Nimitz or Ford-class carrier "burning rubber" in a full speed turn at sea. Thing is leaning (listing) and turning in a tight radius around its bow. Twenty foot high pile of foam behind it too.
I do not know ships. I do surmise, however, for a HUGE boat to do what this carrier is doing, its gotta be FAST (30 knots) and POWERFUL (260,000 hp). Oh, a real good rudder system I guess too.
You be the judge. 100,000 ton sum-gun sure looks like its drifiting like a Honda tuner at the racetrack
Looked like a Nimitz or Ford-class carrier "burning rubber" in a full speed turn at sea. Thing is leaning (listing) and turning in a tight radius around its bow. Twenty foot high pile of foam behind it too.
I do not know ships. I do surmise, however, for a HUGE boat to do what this carrier is doing, its gotta be FAST (30 knots) and POWERFUL (260,000 hp). Oh, a real good rudder system I guess too.
You be the judge. 100,000 ton sum-gun sure looks like its drifiting like a Honda tuner at the racetrack
Last edited:
SS United States, awaiting reuse that may NOT ever come. 
One of the few ocean liners of the last of the era still afloat (jets basically put the transoceanic liners out of the mainstream travel business, except for leisure cruising that of course remains today).
Think Queen Mary in San Diego, the SS Rotterdam in the Netherlands - both no longer sailing but have found alternative, docked usages as attractions (museums, hotels, etc.).
The SS United States, longer than the Titanic, is STILL the fastest ocean liner ever [44 mph 38 knots, its shape was honed in wind tunnels, smokestacks are shaped like airfoils and exhaust opening is covered, etc.,] Atlantic crossing in 1952) is clearly in roughest cosmetic shape.
Still asserted to be structurally sound despite looking the worse for wear, it is parked (berthed) in Philadelphia PA on the Delaware River.
sources: SS United States - Wikipedia, Fast Facts — SS United States Conservancy!
1950's, retired in 1969. No wood in the entire ship when built. Stripped to its bare interior superstructure walls now.
Today
First-class lounge, now and before. Circular feature is the dance floor, and notice the ceiling design.
18 Min. Vid if you want a current tour, some background, ki and source of photos from when in service and now.
One of the few ocean liners of the last of the era still afloat (jets basically put the transoceanic liners out of the mainstream travel business, except for leisure cruising that of course remains today).
Think Queen Mary in San Diego, the SS Rotterdam in the Netherlands - both no longer sailing but have found alternative, docked usages as attractions (museums, hotels, etc.).
The SS United States, longer than the Titanic, is STILL the fastest ocean liner ever [44 mph 38 knots, its shape was honed in wind tunnels, smokestacks are shaped like airfoils and exhaust opening is covered, etc.,] Atlantic crossing in 1952) is clearly in roughest cosmetic shape.
Still asserted to be structurally sound despite looking the worse for wear, it is parked (berthed) in Philadelphia PA on the Delaware River.
sources: SS United States - Wikipedia, Fast Facts — SS United States Conservancy!
1950's, retired in 1969. No wood in the entire ship when built. Stripped to its bare interior superstructure walls now.
Today
First-class lounge, now and before. Circular feature is the dance floor, and notice the ceiling design.
18 Min. Vid if you want a current tour, some background, ki and source of photos from when in service and now.
Last edited:
3175375
Senior Member
1950: Air Force detachable fuselage transport XC-120, built by Fairchild, completed its maiden flight. The Fairchild XC-120 Packplane was an American experimental modular aircraft first flown in 1950. It was developed from the company's C-119 Flying Boxcar and was unique in the unconventional use of removable cargo pods that were attached below the fuselage, instead of possessing an internal cargo compartment.
Fairchild XC-120 Packplane - Wikipedia
Fairchild XC-120 Packplane - Wikipedia
Come up indrectly in another thread. Photos of Vintage Auto Dealerships, Repair Shops, and Gas Stations
A small section of the 3.5M sq ft that was Us Air Force Plant 31 at Willow Run Miichigan. Ford built it, sold it to US Govt who promptly built and airport on the site, , leased it back from feds, and pumped out B-24's at a rate if 1 every18 minutes.
Willow Run - Wikipedia
AFter the war, Kaiser took it over, then a few years later GM bought it and built Corvairs and Hydramatic transmissions. GM goes bankrupt in 2009, rids itself of the "white elephants) (e.g., Buick City, Framingham, Pontiac complex, etc) that stayed in the "Old" GM.
The Yankee Air Museum was one of organizations that inherited part of the site, occupying a piece of the OLD bomber plant that wasnt torn down. Worth a visit for the locals, or if you find yourself (and even your family) on I-94 west of Detroit.
A small section of the 3.5M sq ft that was Us Air Force Plant 31 at Willow Run Miichigan. Ford built it, sold it to US Govt who promptly built and airport on the site, , leased it back from feds, and pumped out B-24's at a rate if 1 every18 minutes.
Willow Run - Wikipedia
AFter the war, Kaiser took it over, then a few years later GM bought it and built Corvairs and Hydramatic transmissions. GM goes bankrupt in 2009, rids itself of the "white elephants) (e.g., Buick City, Framingham, Pontiac complex, etc) that stayed in the "Old" GM.
The Yankee Air Museum was one of organizations that inherited part of the site, occupying a piece of the OLD bomber plant that wasnt torn down. Worth a visit for the locals, or if you find yourself (and even your family) on I-94 west of Detroit.
Last edited:
Like a wrecking ball. No, not her. The one I grew up with. Er. .. the one on the right
Seriously, the wrecking ball, for building demolition, kinda passé now.
Holiday call with my mid-30's daughters, conversation veered to a tear down I took them to 30 years ago. Why that?
Backdrop, I mentioned "wrecking ball", they both went "huh, you mean Miley's song", I go "huh", you mean 'Hannah Montana?" "Yeah, but Dad you gotta see the video ..."
Damn, some stuff ya can't unsee. Odd entertainer, that Cyrus child .. guess whatever sells
The wrecking ball I grew up watching was the 10K lb, steel ball swung by a crane to knock down a building. My Dad taking me to sites to watch the action over 50 years ago. Me taking my kids 30 years ago.
I found, and still do find it, fascinating. Turns out I may not be imagining the "disappearance' of the wrecking ball.
Long reach excavators, environmental issues, controlled implosions for really tall (25+ stories) structures, etc., and so yes the ball, a demolition staple of the 20th century, may be gone in a decade.
sources: The Rise and Fall of the Wrecking Ball. Wrecking ball - Wikipedia
Nowadays?
Get a few long-armed, Heavy Metal Liebherr's or Cat's, with some gnarly "hands" (claws, jack hammers, etc.), and take it down a bite at a time. Haul it away
btw, you got something 25+ stories tall, can't implode it, WAY too tall to use ground-based excavators?
AXA Tower, Singapore, 2022. Bolt cranes to it, climb it, and then take it down ONE floor at a time.
Seriously, the wrecking ball, for building demolition, kinda passé now.
Holiday call with my mid-30's daughters, conversation veered to a tear down I took them to 30 years ago. Why that?
Backdrop, I mentioned "wrecking ball", they both went "huh, you mean Miley's song", I go "huh", you mean 'Hannah Montana?" "Yeah, but Dad you gotta see the video ..."
Damn, some stuff ya can't unsee. Odd entertainer, that Cyrus child .. guess whatever sells
The wrecking ball I grew up watching was the 10K lb, steel ball swung by a crane to knock down a building. My Dad taking me to sites to watch the action over 50 years ago. Me taking my kids 30 years ago.
I found, and still do find it, fascinating. Turns out I may not be imagining the "disappearance' of the wrecking ball.
Long reach excavators, environmental issues, controlled implosions for really tall (25+ stories) structures, etc., and so yes the ball, a demolition staple of the 20th century, may be gone in a decade.
sources: The Rise and Fall of the Wrecking Ball. Wrecking ball - Wikipedia
Nowadays?
Get a few long-armed, Heavy Metal Liebherr's or Cat's, with some gnarly "hands" (claws, jack hammers, etc.), and take it down a bite at a time. Haul it away
btw, you got something 25+ stories tall, can't implode it, WAY too tall to use ground-based excavators?
AXA Tower, Singapore, 2022. Bolt cranes to it, climb it, and then take it down ONE floor at a time.
Last edited:
