ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Funding the past and future of flight

Posted: Monday, June 09, 2008 6:41 PM by Alan Boyle


Alan Boyle / msnbc.com
Software billionaire Paul Allen takes journalists and VIPs on a
tour of the Flying Heritage Collection on Friday. The plane with
the painted teeth is a Curtiss P-40C ground attack fighter.

Software billionaire Paul Allen has unveiled a new museum that recognizes milestones in the history of flight - including an episode in which he himself played a role: the flights of the SpaceShipOne rocket plane.

Although Allen's Flying Heritage Collection focuses on the fliers of the past, the longtime airplane buff is still looking forward as well as backward. In an exclusive interview, he hinted that he's considering at least one more pioneering aerospace venture.

Allen holds the No. 11 spot on Forbes' list of the richest Americans by virtue of his role in starting up Microsoft (which, ahem, is a partner in the msnbc.com joint venture). But more recently the 55-year-old Seattle native has become as famous for how he's using his billions: as the owner of the Seattle Seahawks, Portland Trail Blazers and Seattle Sounders, for example ... as an investor in entertainment ventures such as Dreamworks and Vulcan Productions ... as the benefactor behind the Experience Music Project and Science Fiction Museum and myriad other civic projects.

But you can't help but get the impression that aerospace has a special place in Allen's psyche. His $25 million-plus investment made it possible for Scaled Composites founder Burt Rutan to create SpaceShipOne - which led to winning the $10 million Ansari X Prize and gaining what could amount to a $25 million licensing deal with British billionaire Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic tourist venture.

Through the years, Allen also has spent millions to acquire and refurbish vintage aircraft from the heyday of military aviation - including America's Curtiss Jenny, Britain's Spitfire, Japan's Zero and Germany's Messerschmitt Bf 109. Now Allen has a venue worthy of the collection.

After sitting for years in Arlington, Wash., the restored planes that make up the Flying Heritage Collection have been moved down to a refurbished 51,000-square-foot hangar at Everett's Paine Field - and on Friday, the facility finally opened its doors to the public. Spokesman Roger van Oosten said Allen spent $5.2 million to renovate the hangar, with $2.2 million of that cost reimbursed by Snohomish County. Allen is to pay the county $370,000 per year for 10 years for leasing the hangar, van Oosten said.

D-Day remembered
At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, Allen noted that the opening came on the 64th anniversary of D-Day. He recalled that his own father took part in the Normandy Invasion, protected in part by the innovations in aviation that gave the Allies air superiority on that day.

"When I look at the planes in this collection, I think of the people who worked under extreme pressure to find ways to advance the technologies of flight," Allen said. "I think of the nights they couldn't sleep, the problems they had to overcome, the failures they endured on the way to ultimate success. The Flying Heritage Collection is a tribute not just to pilots, but to all the technicialns and dreamers who said we can do better, and did."

During an impromptu tour, Allen said one of the most beautiful warplanes was a P-51D Mustang - which is painted as it was during World War II, right down to the nine swastikas that stood for the American pilot's "kills." The pilot behind those downings, retired Air Force Capt. Harrison "Bud" Tordoff, flew in from Minnesota for the opening.

"It's nice to see a piece of history that you were associated with preserved," said Tordoff, now 85.

The P-51D - and yet another World War II plane, the P-47 Thunderbolt - are both due to rise into the air once again on Saturday when the Flying Heritage Collection kicks off a series of every-other-week flyarounds for historic planes (weather permitting, of course).

That's one of the big attractions of the museum: The public will actually get to see some of the planes (though not all of them) in operation. "Our goal is to restore these planes, to preserve them in authentic flying condition and share them with the public for generations to come," Allen said.

Odd rockets
Among the oddest planes in the hangar are three Nazi aircraft that most surely will not be flown. One is a V-1 buzzbomb, the unmanned "cruise missile" that terrorized London in the latter days of the war. Another is a piloted version of the V-1, which was never flown in combat. Adrian Hunt, the collection's executive director, told me that putting a pilot in the V-1 turned out to be a terrible idea.

"The theory is that you open the cockpit and you jump out just when you're getting close to the target," he said. "There's a slight design fault there. Once you open the cockpit, that's the intake for the rocket - and it tends to suck in things, including people. That could be a problem."


Aaron Blank / Flying Heritage Collection
The Me-163 Komet rocket plane has been called the
"deadliest plane ever built," but it also served as an
antecedent to the SpaceShipOne rocket plane.

Then there's the Me-163 Komet rocket plane, a snub-nosed craft that was designed to fly for just eight minutes, shooting up and diving down to buzz Allied bombers. The plane entered action too late to have any impact on the war, and in retrospect it looks like another bad idea from the Luftwaffe. On the Defense Tech Web log, David Hambling calls it the "deadliest plane ever built" - for its pilots, that is, not for its foes.

Despite all that, the Komet left its mark on aviation technology: Allen called it "an antecedent to the SpaceShipOne project," along with the rocket planes of the 1950s and 1960s, of course. A video next to the Nazi rocket plane replays the SpaceShipOne flights, and Hunt said the collection may soon offer an even more substantial reminder of the Allen-financed team's achievements.

"The main focus of this exhibit is the technological change in the middle of the 20th century, but obviously it gave rise to things afterward," Hunt said as he stood by the trio of Nazi rocketships. "So we're probably going to have on display a replica of SpaceShipOne, because these things ultimately gave rise to SpaceShipOne."

The actual SpaceShipOne craft is hanging in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, but this replica - one of several created in the wake of the rocketplane's flights - is the next best thing. It's currently on display a few miles south on Interstate 5, at Seattle's Museum of Flight, but will take its place in the collection as early as this summer, Hunt said.

One-on-one with Paul Allen
The Komet and SpaceShipOne were much on my mind when I sat down for a couple of minutes one-on-one with Allen. He preferred to talk about the legacy of past flights, but couldn't resist slipping in a reference to a venture that is apparently not yet ready for prime time. Here's a transcript: 

Cosmic Log: I wanted to ask you about linking the SpaceShipOne experience with the Flying Heritage Collection. How tickled are you to have the Komet rocket plane here?

Allen: Extremely. It’s such a rare airplane, and the fact that we were able to pull off a trade with the museum in the U.K., to bring that here for the area people to see – that was just an amazing, fortuitous event.

I got to see pilots fly SpaceShipOne, and anytime you fly a rocket straight up, those pilots are incredibly brave. Of course, with the technology in World War II, when rocketry was in its infancy, the idea that you’d be able to create an actual functional fighter plane that would attack Allied bomber formations – that’s just amazing. It’s a small little airplane, if you go in and see it. It’s a tiny plane, but it had a couple of 30mm cannon, and there were no Allied planes that could catch it.

Q: Do you feel as if there are modern analogs to the people who had such a part in influencing aerospace in the mid-20th century? Who would we look toward for the next generation of flying heritage?

A: I think that’s a great point. The team that did SpaceShipOne at Scaled Composites, that Burt Rutan led, that was only roughly 25 people. So yes, there are people today who are innovating in every area of aerospace, whether they’re at Scaled Composites; or Elon Musk, somebody who’s doing a private rocket; or Richard Branson, who is working with Scaled Composites on SpaceShipTwo to have tickets for private spaceflights available. There’s a tremendous amount of innovation, and that’s just in private sector. Obviously NASA continues to do many great things as well.

Q: You had such a role in getting SpaceShipOne off the ground, are you looking at other ways to continue that moving to that goal, or are you taking a continuing role in what Burt and Sir Richard are doing?

A: No, they’ve licensed our technology, and they’re working on the SpaceShipTwo commercial, private, ticketed flight effort.

We’re looking at at least one other thing now, but there’s nothing to announce today.

Q: But the important thing is that you’re keeping your hand in.

A: Yeah, I think that we had such tremendous success with SpaceShipOne, and that was such an incredible experience. For a kid who grew up in north Seattle and used to build plastic rockets in the basement, paint them and everything, to be part of a private space effort that was the first to get a man up there twice in two weeks and win the X Prize - that was just really rewarding.

Update for 11:45 a.m. ET June 10: I originally mentioned that the V-1 terrorized London during the blitz, but a commenter points out that the period known as the Blitz lasted only until May 1941. London later suffered additional waves of aerial attacks - this Wikipedia article lists the "Baedeker Blitz," the "Baby Blitz" and finally the V-weapons offensive. I've amended this item to reflect the correction. Thanks for setting me straight, Jeremy!

Some commenters are saying that the plane pictured with Paul Allen at the top of this item is a Warhawk rather than a Tomahawk. All I can go with is the information I've been provided, as well as evidence that the P-40 line included Tomahawks as well as Warhawks (and Kittyhawks, by the way). But I know better than to argue with airplane buffs, so I've removed the Tomahawk reference in the caption - and I'll leave it to the commenters to thrash it out.

Update for 1 p.m. ET June 11: I rephrased the first paragraph of this item, as well as later references, to make absolutely clear that the collection will include a replica of SpaceShipOne, but not the real thing. I also fixed a typo that referred to the collection as the "Flight Heritage Collection."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Well done. So pleased that someone has realised how important the contributions were by the WW11 aviation members.
I believe the first photo is a P40 "Warhawk", not Tomahawk?
The fighter is a P-40 Warhawk. Not a Tomahawk!

Have always been facinated with aviation history and was a contributing member of the New Air & Space Museum at Dulles.  There's just something about it!

A P-51, eh??  I'm a F4U fan myself and although a Navy Plane has some inherent disadvantages, I do think it's been a toss up between the two as to which is best.  As a military history buff and yet a peace activist, I have often wondered why people are so fascinated with weapons.  To me its because of some deeper and inherent interest in true functionality, not because we are all "killers" and want of destruction.  It's because such weapons (and much more benign things like race cars and extreme camping/climbing gear) are PURPOSE BUILT... dedicated machines that truly excel at what they were meant to do.  The fact that they're for war isn't what attracts us.  It's their embodiment of serious thought and functionality that is so enticing but which is lacking in every other part of our everyday humdrum society.  Would a tank, for instance, sport a false hood scoop and spoilers? I think not!  Our clamor or aesthetics is the opposite, a false desire geared more for displaying our affluence in a class based system than a true call for the effective application of design.  When we begin to ask, what makes one weapon system any better than any other, we begin to see the need for an overall doctrine to help govern all aspects of the design process.  We also begin to see the need for "set requirements" that aren't just "glossed over" if something doesn't look quite right.

When society finally puts the utter power of analytical design to its full use... in EVERY aspect of our lives, there is truly nothing we could not do and nothing that could ever stop us! Our battle is with time, not with each other.

Good to see he still wishes to invest in commercial space.
Correction: "The Blitz" refers to the early Luftwaffe campaign to destroy the RAF.  It ended in May 1941.  The V-1 did not enter service until March 1945.
I thinnk its pretty safe to say that we should be grateful for people like Paul Allen and Richard Branson.  These are the types of people that truly want to see the human species acheive something bigger, better, and truly special.  They are the innovators of the world we live in, and they strive to instill that passion into the rest of us to do great things.  With people like them around there will be no limit to what we can acheive.
Wow!  Paul Allen without his beard?  I didn't even recognize him!  God bless him and his money, and the good works that he is doing with it.
Good Grief!
I just read more from above.
Now Paul Allen wants to identify another Nazi rocket gadget with his efforts.
Hasn't anyone ever read the nightmares of Von Braun in his dotage?
He terrorized and killed people to get better rockets to play with...and died with that nightmare running in full technicolor through his twisted Nazi Gourd.
Why on Earth would anyone wish to identify their effort with those of History's Psychotics?
GEEZ!!!

This is the kind of stupid article we get when you send a reporter with no aviation knowledge at all to do a story like this. MSNBC has or had an aviation section, I'm sure the guys there were paid to write about aviation. Why weren't they used for this story? Would have been better, more accurate, and not refered to the P-40 Fighter as the "Attack Plane"....

[Alan adds: OK, I'm referring to the P-40 as a fighter plane, on the condition that you'll defend me from the other airplane buffs who will write in complaining that the P-40 was an unsuccessful fighter and was mostly used as a ground attack plane ... or that it was really a fighter bomber. As you can see, I already need help with the folks who insist this was a Warhawk rather than a Tomahawk.]

quick link:

http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html

Mr. Allen's Flying Heritage Museum is at the same airfield where the 'ME-262 Project' is producing 'replicas' (might even be some availible still for purchase:)  )
"The British Commonwealth and Soviet air forces used the name Tomahawk for models equivalent to the P-40B and P-40C..."
The P-40 'Warhawk' ('Flying Tiger') was classed as a 'pursuit fighter' (hence the 'P' designator), but was widely used in ground attack as well as air attack and defense. See the excellent book 'Into the Teeth of the Tiger' by Donald Lopes (not only a P-40 pilot w/ the Flying Tigers in China w/ the American Volunteer Group w/ Gen Claire Chennault, but also associated with the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.).
:)... I guess if anything, the P-40 paints probably one of the most IMPORTANT lessons in all of history, whether it be in war or otherwise (well, at least it was part of it).  You see, no matter where we turn in the pages of history, we always find situations where some SUPER WEAPON like the Zero, Bismarck, the Soviet or Persian armies, or some un-imaginably difficult task needed to be accomplished with what outwardly seemed so little to work with.  Like yeah... I'd want to be fighting a Zero in a P40 as much as I'd wish to attack the Bismarck in a Kayak, right? Well, there's actually a vet that comes into our shop who was a member of the Flying Tigers... Need I say more?

The depth of the lesson here is that literally no matter what the odds seem to be there is seemingly ALWAYS A WAY to even or BEAT them!!  That's the real rub!  The depth of ingenuity and insightfulness of our race and what we have to work with has shown time over that nothing is impossible... No mountain too tall.    

In the case of the vaunted Zero, it was simply a change in tactics.  Against the Soviet Army (given such overwhelming numbers), we began to tap into the analytical design process to come up with equipment like sub munitions, the A-10 Thunderbolt, the Apache helicopter, and the MLRS rocket system.  Do you see the point here?  None of these weapon systems used magic or some unknown technology to even the playing field, they just used what was available IN THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY.  Designs... ANY DESIGN must be specifically dedicated to the task it is meant to face and the operating conditions it can expect if it is to succeed...  a balancing act that trades one virtue for another, carefully tuning the exact shape of the design for a very specific role.  There would be no A-10, in other words, if the Russians built more fighters than tanks.  

Just look at lowly Sweden... Their STOL JAS-39 is literally the best fighter in the world, because they were the only ones who realized that even when faced with a nuclear attack by an army 400 times larger, the only planes to fight another day will be the ones park under a tarp on a country road, not sitting waiting to be destroyed at known airfields.  Their "dispersal strategy" is another perfect example of what is possible no matter what the odds and how specialized given designs can be to operate in those conditions.

When we believe things are impossible we fail.  But when we open our imaginations to even the most absurd ideas (the tail first on an airplane... a straight wing in an era of jet fighters...) we can easily find a way!
The P-40C Tomahawk Description is correct.  Why you ask?  The Warhawk was the name the United States Army Air Corps adopted for all models. However, this particular airframe was produced for the British and then sent to the Soviet Union.  The British Commonwealth and Soviet air forces used the name Tomahawk for models equivalent to the P-40B and P-40C, and the name Kittyhawk for models equivalent to the P-40D and all later variants.  So, even though the item is painted in USAAC markings, it was originally a British then Soviet Tomahawk model.
The Warhawk was a later version of the P-40 (P-40N).  The Tomahawk was the P-40B and C and the Kittyhawk was the P-40E.
Steve, almost every satellite launcher also started as a ballistic missile weapon or is heavily based on one (the Delta series began with the Thor IRBM...and who does not see the irony in the fact that the Russians now sell us engines for the Atlas?). The only difference is that none of them have ever been fired in anger.

Do you want to reject all that derived technology becasue of its less than squeaky clean roots?

Indeed, Von Braun and his fellow engineers made a point of surrendering to the Allies because they knew the US would treat they fairly well in exchange for their expertise, while the Soviets would make their lives, um, extremely difficult, and STILL use what they knew. (Google 'Operation Paperclip')

Isn't there a paralell today in Western fears that a shrinking Russian space program (which seems somewhat on the rebound now) would mean unemployed Russian rocket engineers who might take their expertise to the highest bidder...some of whom might be countries with which we have an adversarial realationship?
Me163 was as dangerous as hell, but the biggest 'killer' fighter was the F100 - killed more US and 'friendly' air forces' pilots than an other!
Frank...yes, I think rocketry should be dropped like a hot potato...not just because of the evil connection, but because they are totally useless in space exploration...those who are still developing 1950s tech knew it then, but what else could they do?
The need to play rockets is stronger than the need to explore space, I guess.
To my knowledge, Von Braun was briefly arressted after the very first V-2 test when he said, yeah... it worked but fell on the wrong planet.  Meaning his intentions for rocketry was to shoot for higher goals than of war.  He was arrested by the SS because such a statement meant that he wasn't giving "his all" to the war effort.  Maybe a topic of debate here might be whether or not the military's investment in extremely high technology is having the same effect on spurring such inovation as it once obviously did.  In other words, the F-22 Raptor (a dinosaur indeed) took 18 years from first flight of the prototype to service.  In contrast, Airbus in particular, has introduced two major new airliners that seem to be pressing the tech envelope far faster... The competition for heavy lift boosters which the military really has no use for has driven robust designs like the Ariane V.  Even small private business jets sell more airframes than most fighter planes.  Thus, it seems to me that for the first time, innovation is being more driven by the private sector than from military demand.  It may not have passed it in everyway, but as the New Boeing Dreamliner and the even better Airbus A350 XWB shows, composite airframes and other superhot engines are pushing more of the envelope than fighters.  I'm not sure any scientist can be easily forgiven for helping contribute to the military machine and the killing of other fellow humans, but I think this would have been inevitable...  Our warlike ways may be the only thing that saves our planet if an asteroid is on a colision course.  Hopefully we are at a time where we can see the benefits of much more robust civilian aerospace industries and instead of the government investing 20 billion in bomber development, spend it instead to develop the next Mach 6 SST able to also be the primary fly-back stage of some future orbiter.?.  
apologists for psycho killers...that'll get us off this rock for sure...
would you kill people you neither know nor hate in any way just to play rockets?
lotsa folks do.
besides, as mentioned, rockets are useless as space vehicles...and fighter planes, in case nobody's noticed that yet...
blah...blah...blah...nowhere fast is us...


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1125836

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google