Saturday, September 18, 2010

The "good old days" in the B-36

Thanks to Chet Baffa for the following, with his comment: "...this-makes the C133 seem like a piece of cake!!"


Aircraft Commander 1st Lt. Oliver Hildebrandt, Pilot 1st Lt. Walter Ross, and Co-pilot Captain Wilbur Evans, and a crew of thirteen took off from Carswell AFB in B-36B, 44-92035 of the 26th Bomb Squadron of the 7th Bomb Wing at 5:05 A.M. on November 22,1950. The planned 30-hour training mission consisted of air-to-air gunnery, bombing, simulated radar bombing, and navigational training.

Immediately after take-off, the #4 alternator would not stay in parallel with the other three alternators, so it was taken off-line and de-excited three minutes into the flight. About one minute after the #4 alternator was shut down, flames 8 to 12 feet long erupted from around the air plug of the number-one engine. The left scanner reported the flames to the pilot. Six minutes after take-off, the flight engineer shut down the number-one engine, feathered its propeller, and expended one of its Methyl bromide fire extinguishing bottles.

The mission continued on the power of the remaining five engines. 44-92035 cruised to the gunnery range on Matagorda Island at an altitude of 5,000 feet. It arrived at 7:00 A.M. and the gunners began practicing. Radar Observer S/Sgt. Ray Earl manned the tail turret. The charger for the right gun burned out, so he expended just half of his ammunition. Then the APG-3 radar for the tail turret started acting up, so S/Sgt. Earl secured the set.

Aircraft Commander 1st Lt. Oliver Hildebrandt noted that the vibration from firing the 20mm cannons increased significantly during the fourth gunnery pass. Immediately afterward, radar operator Captain James Yeingst notified Hildebrandt that the APQ-24 radar set blew up and was smoking. Vibration from the firing of the guns was causing shorting between the internal components of the radar. Then the liaison transmitter failed as well.

The cannons in the left forward upper turret and the left rear upper turret stopped firing. The gunners attempted to retract the gun turrets, but the failed turrets would not retract. Gunner S/Sgt. Fred Boyd entered the turret bay, but other problems began to take precedence over the stuck turrets. Boyd was called out of the bay before he could manually crank the turret down.

At 7:31 A.M. the number-three engine suffered an internal failure. The torque pressure fell to zero. The manifold pressure dropped to atmospheric pressure. The fuel flow dropped off, and the flight engineer could not stabilize the engine speed. The pilot shut down the number-three engine and feathered its propeller. The B-36B had only one operating engine on the left wing, so the pilot aborted the remainder of the training mission and set course for Kelly Air Force Base.

Flight engineer Captain Samuel Baker retarded the spark, set the mixture controls to "normal", and set the engine RPMs to 2,500 to increase the power from the remaining engines. Unknown to Captain Baker, the vibration from the guns had disabled the electrical systems controlling the spark settings and fuel mixture. He immediately discovered that the turbo control knobs no longer affected the manifold pressure.

The B-36B could not maintain its airspeed on the power of the four remaining engines. It descended about 1,000 feet and its airspeed bled off to 135 miles per hour. The pilot called for more power. The flight engineer attempted to increase engine speed to 2,650 RPM and enrich the fuel mixture, but got no response from the engines except for severe backfiring. The fuel mixture indicators for all of the engines indicated lean.
The second flight engineer, M/Sgt. Edward Farcas, checked the electrical fuse panel. Although the fuses appeared to be intact, he replaced the master turbo fuse and all of the individual turbo fuses. He noticed that the turbo-amplifiers and mixture amplifiers were all cooler than normal. He climbed into the bomb bay to check the aircraft power panels and fuses, but could not find any problem there.

Kelly Air Force Base had a cloud overcast at just 300 feet and the visibility was restricted to two miles. The weather at Bergstrom Air Force Base not as bad, with scattered clouds at 1,000 feet, broken clouds at 2,000 feet and 10 miles visibility. Carswell Air Force Base was clear with 10 miles visibility, but it was 155 miles farther away than Bergstrom. Air traffic control cleared all airspace below 4,000 feet ahead of the crippled B-36B. Aircraft Commander Hildebrandt was flying on instruments in thick clouds.

The poor weather at Kelly Air Force Base convinced Hildebrandt to change course from Kelly to Carswell Air Force Base, passing by Bergstrom Air Force Base on the way in case the airplane could not make it to Carswell. Bombardier Captain Robert Nelson made two attempts to salvo the 1,500 pounds of practice bombs in the rear bomb bay, but the bomb bay doors would not open by automatic or manual control, or emergency procedure.

There was no way to dump fuel to reduce the weight of the B-36B. The flight engineers resorted to holding down the switches used to prime the fuel system in an attempt to increase fuel flow to the engines. M/Sgt. Edward Farcas held down the prime switches for the number-two and number-four engines while Captain Baker held down the prime switch for the number-five engine and operated the flight engineer's panel. The configuration of the switches did not allow them to prime the number-five engine and the number-six engine at the same time.

The high power demand coupled with the lean fuel mixture made the cylinder head temperatures of the engines climb to 295 degrees C. Flight engineer Baker jockeyed the throttles, decreasing the throttle setting of the engine with the highest cylinder head temperature until another engine grew even hotter. The high temperature caused the gasoline/air mixture in the cylinders to detonate before the pistons reached top dead center, diminishing power and damaging the engines.

Despite the critical situation with the engines, Aircraft Commander Hildebrandt decided to continue past Bergstrom Air Force Base to Carswell. Bergstrom was overcast and its runway was only 6,000 feet long. Carswell offered a much longer runway. By the time the B-36B reached Cleburne , the backfiring on all engines increased in violence. The number-2, number-5, and number-6 engines were running at 70% power and the number-4 engine was producing only 20% power. The airspeed had dropped off to 130 miles per hour.

Aircraft Commander Hildebrandt attempted to restart the number-one engine, the one that had spouted flames on take-off, but fuel was not getting to its induction system. He tried to restart the number-three engine, but could not unfeather the propeller on that engine. As the bomber passed to the west of Cleburne , the right scanner reported dense white smoke, oil, and metal particles coming from the number-five engine.



After a short while the number-five engine lost power, and Aircraft Commander Hildebrandt feathered the propeller on that engine while still twenty-one miles from Carswell Air Force Base. The B-36B could not stay airborne on the power of the three remaining failing engines. It was flying at just 125 miles per hour, seven miles per hour above the stall speed, losing both altitude and airspeed. Howard McCullough and W. Boeten were flying Civil Aeronautics Authority DC-3 N342 near Cleburne . They were notified by Meacham Tower to be on the lookout for 44-92035. They spotted it about five miles south of Cleburne . They observed that the number-one and number-three propellers were feathered and the number-five engine was on fire. They turned to follow the descending bomber. Aircraft Commander Hildebrandt ordered the crew to bail out of the stricken bomber.

Bombardier Captain Robert Nelson had bailed out of airplanes on two previous occasions. He had crash landed twice and ditched once. He was the first man to bail out from the forward crew compartment. He suffered contusions of his lower spine when he landed.

Radar Operator Captain James Yeingst responded to stress with laughter and jokes. He was a bit giddy before the bailout. He was the second man to exit from the forward crew compartment. His parachute streamed after he pulled the rip cord. He passed Captain Nelson going down. Captain Yeingst's parachute mushroomed open just before he hit the ground, but he suffered fatal injuries.

Co-pilot Captain Wilbur Evans was the third man to exit from the forward crew compartment. He had bailed out of airplanes twice before and crash landed several times during WW-II. This time he broke both bones in his lower right leg when he landed.

Navigator Captain Horace Stewart had previously tried to get off flying status because he felt that the B-36 was too dangerous. It is reported that during the hour before bailout, he was tense, nervous, and chain-smoking. He was the fourth man to bail out from the forward crew compartment. He pulled his rip cord right as he exited the forward escape hatch on the left side of the fuselage. His parachute opened and pulled him toward the number three propeller. His head hit the downward pointing blade of the propeller, killing him instantly.

Radio Operator Cpl. Paul Myers followed Captain Stewart out the escape hatch. Myers landed with minor injuries. Flight Engineer M/Sgt. Edward Farcas jumped head first through the exit hatch of the forward crew compartment right after Cpl. Myers. His parachute did not open when he pulled the rip cord. He pulled the parachute out of its pack with his hands and landed with only minor injuries.

Radar Mechanic Robert Gianerakis and Flight Engineer Captain Samuel Baker were the next to escape from the forward compartment. Both landed with only minor injuries. Radio Operator Sgt. Armando Villareal bailed out after Captain Baker. Villareal did not trust his parachute to open, so he pulled the rip cord while he was still in the forward crew compartment. He held his parachute in his arms as he jumped feet first through the escape hatch. Despite his unorthodox method of escape, he landed with only minor injuries.

Pilot 1st Lt. Walter Ross was the next to last to leave the forward compartment. He landed with only minor injuries. Gunner S/Sgt. Andrew Byrne and Radar Observer S/Sgt. Ray Earl were the first two crew members to bail out of the rear crew compartment. Both landed with only minor injuries. Gunner Cpl. Calvin Martin was the third man to exit the rear crew compartment. He was swinging under his parachute as he hit the ground. He broke his right ankle as he landed. He fell backward onto a rock, fracturing his third lumbar vertebra and compressing his tailbone.
Gunner S/Sgt. Ronald Williams followed Cpl. Martin out the rear escape hatch. He landed with only minor injuries. Gunner S/Sgt. Fred Boyd was the last man to exit the rear crew compartment. He called to Aircraft Commander Hildebrandt over the intercom to let him know that everyone had escaped from the aft compartment. When he turned back to the exit hatch, it had fallen shut. He had to open the hatch again to make his escape. He broke the fibula of his left leg when he landed farther to the north than the other crew members.

After S/Sgt. Boyd reported that all other crew members had bailed out of the rear compartment, Aircraft Commander Hildebrandt set the autopilot and jumped clear when the bomber was less than 1,000 feet above the ground. He and nine other crew members escaped from the B-36B with only minor injuries. When McCullough and Boeten in DC-3, N342 saw the parachutes of the escaping crew members, they announced the bail-out on the emergency frequency of 121.25 megacycles.

Each report of Emergency Parachute Jump indicates that the incident occurred 20 miles south southeast of Carswell Air Force Base. The descent of the B-36B was witnessed by Mr. Buck Bell and his wife, who lived about 5 to 7 miles southwest of Crowley , Texas . Mr. Bell saw the crew members parachuting from the bomber, but did not see it hit the ground about one mile north of his house. Mr. James Bandy and his wife were on the road to Cleburne about 4 miles from their house on Route 1 near Joshua when they spotted the B-36B trailing smoke, flying in a nose-high attitude. They saw it hit the ground in a level attitude, raising a cloud of dust.

The B-36B descended straight ahead in a nose-high attitude for a mile after Aircraft Commander Hildebrandt bailed out. It stalled, pitched nose down, and impacted in a terraced field on Less Armstrong's Dairy, 14 miles south of Carswell Air Force Base, 2 miles west of the South leg FTW range, and six miles west of Crowley at 9:50 in the morning. The forward crew compartment separated and folded underneath the rest of the fuselage. The tail section broke off, and the rear crew compartment came away from the mid-fuselage as the wreckage slid 850 feet along the ground and twisted to the right.

The rear sections of the airplane remained largely intact. The elevation at the crash site was approximately 700 feet. Mr. W. Doggett witnessed the bail-out and crash from his home on Route 1 near Joshua. The B-36B impacted about 2-1/2 miles north of his house. He drove to the crash site in his pickup truck and helped the surviving crew members to regroup.

Four minutes after the crash, McCullough and Boeten in DC-3, N342 reported that two Navy aircraft were circling the wreckage. The wreckage smoldered for about eight minutes before a fire broke out in the number-six engine. The 15,000 gallons of remaining fuel consumed the forward fuselage and wings. The civilians and crew members were driven away from the crash site by exploding ammunition and the knowledge of the presence of 1,500 pounds of bombs aboard the airplane.

Read this the next time you think you're having a bad day

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Remarkable New Russian Fighter

I don't know the source of the following text, so can't vouch for it. But the video is "remarkable!"

The red smoke coming from the wingtips is only there to demonstrate to spectators on the ground the direction the plane is actually moving through the air. Normally the smoke wouldn't be there. When the smoke is streaming behind, the airplane is moving fast forward etc. When the airplane is engulfed in smoke, it means the airplane is almost stopped in mid-air.

The maneuverability of this plane is incredible. This plane would be nearly impossible to defeat in a dogfight. Russia may now have the #1 fighter plane in the world...

It is the SU-30MK with Vectored Thrust and Canards.

As you watch this airplane, look at the canards moving along side of, and just below the canopy rail. The "canards" are the small wings forward of the main wings.

The smoke and contrails provide a sense of the actual flight path, sometimes in reverse direction. This video is of an in-flight demonstration flown by the Russian's 30MK fighter aircraft. The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping forward motion in seconds. (full stall). Then it demonstrates an ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute.

These maneuvering capabilities don't exist in any other aircraft in the world today. This aircraft is of concern to U.S and NATO planners. We don't know which nations will soon be flying the SU-30MK, hopefully China isn't one of them.. Friends worked with advanced aircraft flight control systems and concepts for many years as an extension of stability control and means of control.

Canards and vectored thrust were among many concepts examined to extend our fighter aircraft performance. Neither our current or next generation aircraft now poised for funding & production can in any way match the performance of this Russian aircraft.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The Curse of the Cargomaster


Here is the link to John Sotham's article in Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine. http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The-Curse-of-the-Cargomaster.html Pretty good, I thought. My only quibble was with a photo caption that said the high wing/low cargo deck layout came from the C-130. More a case of parallel development. The C-82, C-119 and C-123 already had that.

Thank you, Cal......!!

Be sure to click on the Photo Gallery in the article!!

NOTE: AFTER YOU CLICK ON THE ARTICLE AND READ THROUGH IT, THERE IS A PLACE AT THE BOTTOM TO LEAVE A COMMENT. LET'S LEAVE A RECORD OF PARTICIPATION!

UPDATE 08/28/10: HOORAY for the Commentaters!! THANK YOU, Carl, Brad, Ron, Cal, Rick, Duane, Bill A, Larry, Ralph, Jack S, Tom T, John U, and Terry W, for leaving your comments on the above story in the Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine! Great stories! HOW ABOUT SOME MORE???

Those of you who did read the article, it's worth it to go back and read the Comments added. It really personalizes the original story! Then leave your own Comment!

UPDATE 09/01/10: YOU GUYS ARE AWESOME!! 12 more comments have been added to the article (now totals 26)!! THANK YOU, Mark M, Ray H, Ken D, Dave N, Bob C, Robert H, James A, Don T, Dick Q, Don S, Phil K, and John L!!

You're all enhancing the original story with your personal perspectives! Let's keep it rolling!

By the way, our Chief Idea-man, Rick Spencer, suggested I order a couple hard copies of this issue of the magazine, for Travis and Dover Museum Archives (so I have), AND publish the procedure, so you could order one for yourself if you wish. Here it is:

Back issues are $7.00 each, postpaid. To order, please make your check or money order (in U.S. dollars) payable to the Smithsonian Institution and send your request to:

Air & Space Magazine, 420 Lexington Ave., Suite 2335, New York, NY, 10170, ATTN: Back Issues or call 212-916-1300. For specific questions, please contact James Babcock at babcockj@si.edu

"The Curse of the Cargomaster" article is in the September, 2010, issue.

IMPORTANT NOTE ADDED BY RICK SPENCER:

Crew Members,

I just called and ordered copies of the Smithsonian Magazine; and, if you order now, then you only pay $4.99 with free shipping as that is the price of a current issue.

Cheers, Rick



Sunday, August 22, 2010

August Book of the Month

A Conflict of Visions

by Thomas Sowell

Basic Books, 2007

New York, NY 10016



Introduction


Many of our citizens lament the present lack of serious discussion in the political world that seems only to revolve about partisan venom, character assassinations, and juvenile discourse. They are prone to think such activities are something new to the country; and, that our problems could be solved if only this chattering mob resorted to civil language it would lead to compromise. However, in thinking so, they sorely misread our political history.


Early Political Discussion

Our country’s early political discourse among the populace, the politicians, and the overly partisan newspapers used such highly charged and venomous language that it led to beatings, duels, and the most outrageous of personal attacks. Much to the chagrin of Washington it began during his first term with Jefferson and Madison squaring off against Hamilton leading to the first political parties: Republicans and Federalists divided by their stands on States rights vs. Federal rights. Even so, and different from today, their arguments were motivated by early attempts to construct a framework of governance for a fledgling democratic country that lacked precedent, not necessarily adding to the political power of a party.


Upon assuming the actual governing of our Republic, the Founding Fathers thus left behind them the impeccable manners they had used in dispensing wisdom among themselves to now expressing their beliefs with an unusually savage verbal vehemence. While coming face to face with the realities of their nascent political world, their divisive use of abusive language greatly surpassed that of today’s as it was enhanced by the gloriously richness of the 18th century style of written communication. After all, they were revolutionaries with high energy and with even higher personal philosophical goals that often clashed when practical policy implementation was confronted. It has been thus ever since, and it will be thus as long as we are a democracy. How can it be otherwise? . Compromise is the acceptance of less by each side and is usually twice as costly to those who pay the bill. It also exposes the two sides to political danger or disgrace, so gridlock becomes less painful and less costly. In turn, that may be more productive.


The Two Visions


In order for one to better understand this never ending struggle of political ideas one need only to read A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell. Here the story of the two controversial and opposing visions of governing that revolves around generations of ethical and ideological political disputes is told. Dr. Sowell has written a classic with remarkable insight by framing the discussion as a ‘constrained’ or an ‘unconstrained’ vision of the people who are to be governed by those who govern. His arguments are persuasively outlined, clearly detailed, and fundamentally appropriate in today’s political environment. These visions have troublesome communications, as there are few commonalities, so participants tend to talk past one another. There is little or no room for compromise.


Dr. Sowell uses the human nature of man, such as man’s ultimate potential and ultimate limitations, as the framework for his analysis. The dynamism of a capitalistic democracy that is ever changing, that embraces free speech, and that is governed as a republic suggests a forced end to the controversy by one side or the other to be the end of our personal liberties. Despotism would rise as the victor.


This basic conflict about governance has been the fuel for the best of mankind and the worst; and, it is at the forefront of our democratic world that struggles to govern mainly through political parties. However, the folly of the argument for our country lies in the fact that the Constitution is largely one of a constrained view of the people to be governed. There should be no argument as our Founders’ goal was to construct a governance system that allowed man his individual freedom to be all that he can be. As you will see, that is far different than the unconstrained view of Progressives.


The Unconstrained Vision


The tradition inherent to the unconstrained view is the conviction that immoral or foolish choices explain the evils of the world and that wiser social policies are the solution to create a more humane society. In other words, the social engineering that seems to come naturally to academics, journalists, and Progressive politicians as they deem themselves wiser then the individual to make decisions about how one should live. They believe that a larger, centrally controlled apparatus is better for the individual than the individual is for himself. It is always found in fascism, communism, and socialism. In fact, it is the central theme for each of these and the end result has always been a disaster for those subjected to it, and seldom bloodless. It is the false promise of a utopia failed.


The present administration has ushered into our society some of the most radical social changes the country has ever experienced while acting within their unconstrained view of those they govern. Progressives have been largely guided by concepts that revolve around intentions and using words such as sincerity, commitment, and dedication all leading to the social justice they desire, usually the controlled conduct of our personal and economic lives. They create social contrivances through their artificial logic without regard to the unpleasant side effects that deceptive reasoning always produces. Their unconstrained view of governing largely rejects the doctrine of American exceptionalism and its values of self-reliance. It thusly rejects one’s own private stock of reasoning for guidance to his life’s concerns. They are viewed as the Liberals/Progressives among us.


The Constrained Vision


Turning to this vision, and as Sowell points out, those favoring the constrained vision put little faith in those deliberately designed social processes touted by the unconstrained vision since there is so little faith that any set of decision-makers could cope with the enormous complexities of designing an appropriate system of morality or politics for governance. In fact, the constrained vision does not envision any man-made social contrivance that would encompass the values and be more worthy than those that have historically evolved with their systemic order and without a deliberate design.


The constrained vision sees freedom as finite and that government power is accumulated at the expense of private freedom. Hayek, Smith, Hamilton, Burke, and our Founders were proponents of the constrained vision of governance for those to be governed and thus it became the basis for our Constitution. Those who value free trade, limited government, rational decision-making, are Constitutionalists, and believe that the bigger the government, the less free the society, make-up the present day body of citizens favoring a constrained view of governance. They are viewed as the Conservatives among us.


The Disease of Progressivism


As opposed to the unconstrained view, the constrained view accepts its citizen’s own private stock of reasoning as appropriate guidance for life’s concerns. That was the basis for our revolution, for our Constitution, and for our nation’s guidance until the Progressive era began at the turn of the 20th century. However, Europe has long been infected with ‘the disease of progressivism’ in the form of socialism but is now running from it, just as we seem to be embracing it. Central planning has never been the American way and it remains to be seen if out citizenry accepts it as a way of life.


The Conflict of Visions


The embittered politics engendered by these visions has reigned unabated and presently pervades all branches of our government. As Sowell states, “These are not merely differences of visions, but conflicts of vision.” That is why there is little compromise and may never be. Sowell opines that the moral impulse driving each vision cannot be jettisoned for the sake of winning, without making the victory meaningless. The acceptance of the best paradigm for the governing to govern has always been a fight to the finish, and a mean fight it is. But, in the long run of history, that may be in the best interest of the governed if they are engaged as well.


For those readers wanting a better understanding of the political conflict raging among us and between our two party system, I know of no better writing than A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggle, by Thomas Sowell. Your effort will be well rewarded and your mind may be set more at ease, or it may not! Enjoy.


Richard Spencer

39th ATS, Dover AFB,

1962-1965

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Reunion Survey Results

45% FINAL RESPONSE
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR FEEDBACK!!

Our survey request went out to 160 active e-mail addresses on our list, and 72 of you completed the questionnaire!

Here are the final results in answer to question #1: If you attended the Reunion in Dover on 7-8 May 2010, rate your satisfaction with the Reunion in general. 7 of the 72 who responded did not attend. 90.5% of those who did, said they were "Very Satisfied." 8% said they were "Satisfied."

We had one unidentifiable respondent who checked "Very Dissatisfied" (entered on 6/28 @ 9:28 am). While I'm reporting it as checked, I am suspicious that the boxes checked were not intended. Every item rating was checked "Very Dissatisfied," but all of the comments entered on that form were positive - none negative?! For example, under the question about the Souvenir Cap, the rating was checked "Very Dissatisfied," but the comment entered was "Nice touch."

On the questionnaire, you will remember we listed 24 different features of the Reunion of the three main segments, Friday Event, Saturday Event, and Reunion Follow-up. I will publish details of your responses, including Additional Comments volunteered in the near future.....stay tuned!

Results on other questions follow:

6. At this point, what is your interest level in coming to another reunion?

75% Strong Interest
23% Mild Interest
2% No Interest

7. On the Next Reunion issue, it's been proposed that considering our advancing seniority, we plan in terms of alternating years with "mini" and "maxi" reunions, as long as someone will organize them, e.g. in 2011, have a low key, one night dinner, mostly for local people near Dover, then in 2012, another full-blown weekend like 2010. What do you think?

63% Great Idea!
17% Don't care....
1% Bad idea.
19% For better idea, see below...(all comments you submitted for this item)

1 Make sure to announce low key dates for those of us who might make the effort to attend from outside the KDOV area.

2 There were a lot of people there that I did not know.

3 Not necessarily better, but perhaps a little less often, despite our aging population.

4 How about scheduling the Reunion annually with the stipulation that if "X" number of paid reservations are not received by "Y" date a "low key" version will be held with a cut off of "Z" number of registrants.

5 Doesn't matter to me. If I'm able I plan to attend them all regardless.

6 Great idea, however will try to attend the mini.

7 I'll probably attend whatever happens.

8 Continue having low key dinners but with a similar format.

9 I would enjoy just the Friday night "crew meetings" every year or two. They are easier to plan and more laid back.

10 Mini reunions for areas of the country, i.e Dover, Florida. etc.

11 Having them too often will lose impact

12 Sure, Lets go for it.


8. Some have requested that reunion attendees in photos on our publicly accessible blog be identified...

1% I would object to my name appearing with my photo on the blog.

0% I object to my photo appearing on the blog, even without my name.

99% I have no problem with any of that, enjoy the photos, and favor photos with names (SEE PREVIOUS PHOTO ALBUMS PUBLISHED NOW SHOWING NAMES IDENTIFIED)

If you have any questions or comments on these results, please enter Comments below on the blog, or e-mail them to me at rehanson342@me. com

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Smithsonian Article

Look for John Sotham's article about the C-133 in the September issue of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine. On the news stand in late Aug. He focuses on the crash record, but I tried to give him good information about other activities. He also bought my book.

Cal Taylor

Monday, July 19, 2010

Military Tribute

Thanks to Rick Spencer for the following link to a Gene Simmons Military Tribute on YouTube! (click on red label)

Monday, July 5, 2010

Bonus Reunion Photos

After combing through my collection, I identified the following 18 photos that I thought I had posted earlier, but hadn't. So this completes the sharing of my 122 photos. My next post will begin with the ones Bob Maguire took at the May, 2010, Reunion.

The survey results on the question about identifying individuals in photos were overwhelmingly in favor. In response to this proposition: "Some have requested that reunion attendees in photos on our publicly accessible blog be identified.... " 98.5% of respondents (66 people) checked the statement: "I have no problem with any of that, enjoy the photos, and favor photos with names." Only one person checked the statement: "I would object to my name appearing with my photo on the blog."

So I will respect that person's preference, but will now endeavor to begin identifying others. But I can only identify those I personally know, or those where I can read name tags. So I will invite you to help me. Please send me an e-mail with names, and describe what photo (in which Photo file), and which person in the photo.


If at any time, YOU see your name with a photo on this blog, and object to it, please let me know ASAP, and I can delete it!

This is Photo File #7 Bonus:

Charlie Feathers & Ralph Neumeister

Jim Dugar watching video from 8 mm movie of '64 Olympics in Tokyo which he witnessed first-hand

Sandy Sandstrom (standing front)

George Edlin & Chet Baffa

Sharon Ruskiewicz & John Apelt




Vince Gullo (standing left) & ?

George McDuffy & ?

Linda & George Edlin

Marilyn & Ted Feindt

Col. Edwards (l), ? at podium, Rick Spencer (r)

Vince Gullo

Erich Hausner

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Happy Birthday, America!

Thanks to Art Szmuriga for the great flag photo!!

BE SAFE!KEEP THE FAITH!!

42% of Reunion Surveys Completed!

THANK YOU!!

Our survey request went out to 160 active e-mail addresses on our list, and 67 of you have completed the questionnaire!

Of the responses so far, here are the results in answer to question #1: If you attended the Reunion in Dover on 7-8 May 2010, rate your satisfaction with the Reunion in general. 7 of the 67 who responded did not attend. 90% of those who did, said they were "Very Satisfied." 9% said they were "Satisfied."

We now have one unidentifiable respondent who checked "Very Dissatisfied" (entered on 6/28 @ 9:28 am). While I'm reporting it as checked, I am suspicious that the boxes checked were not intended. Every item rating was checked "Very Dissatisfied," but all of the comments entered on that form were positive - none negative?! For example, under the question about the Souvenir Cap, the rating was checked "Very Dissatisfied," but the comment entered was "Nice touch."

Now here are the final Reunion Photos from my collection, Photo File #7:

George McDuffy & David Abrams

Yours truly, Dick Hanson, Navigator, 1st ATS, '62-'65

BUT FEAR NOT!! I have a lot more Reunion photos to share. Thanks to Bob Maguire, who has been a very busy photographer. He provided me with three disks full of photos......not only from the last Reunion this year, but also from the 2007 and 2003 Reunions. So, STAY TUNED TO THIS BLOG!! I'll be sharing them with you a batch at a time for a couple more months.

Meanwhile, if you've missed any of the 104 Dover Reunion photos previously posted, or just want to view them again, click on the following:

Friday Sample: So It Has Begun!!

Saturday Sample: Happy People!

Click on: Reunion Photo File #3

Click on: Reunion Photo File #4

Click on: Reunion Photo File #5


Click on: Reunion Photo File #6

Monday, June 28, 2010

Rick Spencer Published Again!

Our 133 Crew Colleague, part time Reunion Program emcee, and Book of the Month Reviewer, Rick Spencer, is periodically published by the Caesar Rodney Institute. Here is the opening to his latest:
Unfunded Liabilities:
A Solution

by Richard L. Spencer, Ph.D.


The Legacy of Unfunded Liabilities

As the premise for this short analysis of unfunded liabilities, I shall use the figures put forth by President Fisher of the Dallas Federal Reserve in a recent interview at the Wall Street Journal. His office has estimated the present value of the unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security alone to be in excess of $99 trillion or about seven times our current GDP. Fisher lamented that our political leaders have “dug a very deep hole” for the country.

Most economists agree and believe that we are positioned at a crossroad concerning our country‟s financial future, as there is no reasonable expectation that we can tax, grow, or borrow our way out of such a crushing, unfunded debt. It is a lethal picture of delusion and idealism that knows no boundaries and recognizes no financial realities. Hauser‟s Law states that federal tax receipts always fall short of 20% of GDP. That alone makes any suggestion these programs can be fiscally supported divorced from the totality of fiscal prudence. The U.S. has entered into a Faustian model of debt, dependency, and default. It is Ponzi on steroids and the country is the victim!

To read the full article in The Caesar Rodney Institute's Town Square forum, click on:
CRI: Unfunded Liabilities

Or to read another version in The Canada Free Press, click on:
CFP: Unfunded Liabilities

Then respond to Rick's challenge at the end, by posting a Comment below, or with an e-mail to: samspencer@mchsi.com