Funding the past and future of flight

George Hare — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:14:33 GMT

Well done. So pleased that someone has realised how important the contributions were by the WW11 aviation members.

Funding the past and future of flight

Taos, NM — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:59:17 GMT

I believe the first photo is a P40 "Warhawk", not Tomahawk?

Funding the past and future of flight

John C. Hudson — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:34:40 GMT

The fighter is a P-40 Warhawk. Not a Tomahawk!

Funding the past and future of flight

Author Chris Eldridge — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:49:39 GMT

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.

Funding the past and future of flight

Todd, Billerica, MA — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:40:28 GMT

Good to see he still wishes to invest in commercial space.

Funding the past and future of flight

Jeremy Shupe, Layton, Utah — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:46:02 GMT

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.

Funding the past and future of flight

E, Camarillo, Ca — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:50:32 GMT

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.

Funding the past and future of flight

David Stever, Cochituate, Massachusetts — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:39:35 GMT

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.

Funding the past and future of flight

steve smyth — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:29:13 GMT

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!!!

Funding the past and future of flight

GLHZ — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:32:00 GMT

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.]

Funding the past and future of flight

Rob - Seattleish — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:42:48 GMT

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:) )

Funding the past and future of flight

Rob _ Seattle — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:17:05 GMT

"The British Commonwealth and Soviet air forces used the name Tomahawk for models equivalent to the P-40B and P-40C..."

Funding the past and future of flight

Gary, FL — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:41:07 GMT

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.).

Funding the past and future of flight

Chris Eldridge, HBG PA — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:02:00 GMT

:)... 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!

Funding the past and future of flight

Falls Church, VA — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:05:26 GMT

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.

Funding the past and future of flight

Tom Meyer, Longmont, CO — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:58:11 GMT

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.

Funding the past and future of flight

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:33:27 GMT

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?

Funding the past and future of flight

Pete, Sheffield, UK — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:14:30 GMT

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!

Funding the past and future of flight

steve smyth — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:33:35 GMT

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.

Funding the past and future of flight

C Eldridge — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:35:54 GMT

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.?.

Funding the past and future of flight

steve smyth — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:06:55 GMT

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...