> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of ANDY HOLT
> Sent: 26 June 2015 08:54
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: XH558 - was Re: using new technology etc
>
> From my local paper:
>
On 2015-06-26 12:47 AM, Robert Ollerton wrote:
From memory, so please forgive a mistake or two: The TB-49 Wings would Yaw
(side to side motion) while in flight, sometimes just enough to make the
crew seasick, sometimes enough to be dangerous when in formation with other
aircraft and always unab
>From my local paper:
The last flying Vulcan bomber will be flying over the (non flying) Vulcan at
Southend Airport on Sunday. It doesn't get much better than TWO Vulcans
together - it's unique in fact - the Southend Vulcan bomber will be overflown
by XH558 (the last flying Vulcan) in a tribute
>From memory, so please forgive a mistake or two: The TB-49 Wings would Yaw
(side to side motion) while in flight, sometimes just enough to make the
crew seasick, sometimes enough to be dangerous when in formation with other
aircraft and always unable to stay on track to be a useful bomber. I
rec
- Original Message -
From: "William Donzelli"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts"
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: XH558 - was Re: using new technology
etc
Don't forget Cromemco:
I think we can forget Cromemco.
T
Here's the picture if anyone's interested; it turns out that the issue is
from 1993:
http://wildflower.diablonet.net/~scaron/aerialBA23.jpg
This may have actually been a University operated project; I don't believe
it's actually a military aircraft ... but I see at least one BA23 in the
cabin :O
I have a National Geographic somewhere on my shelf that has an article
about remote sensing and I vividly recall at least one interior shot of the
U.S. government aircraft used to gather the imagery for the article; it was
fitted with a bunch of operator workstations for the folks operating the
var
> Don't forget Cromemco:
I think we can forget Cromemco.
The original poster wanted examples of minis "setup and used on one".
I doubt a Cromemco would survive long in flight service. This is why I
also pointed out "combat service", as opposed to being part of a test
set in an air and power condi
> They were probably Rolms, which were very much based of the Nova
> architecture (compatible to the Nova 2, maybe?). I do not think Data
> General actually made any milspec machines.
I don't know that they were _using_ milspec machines. I'll have to ask
him next time I talk to him.
De
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Dennis Boone wrote:
>
>> Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if any minicomputers
>> (DEC PDP-8s or 11s, DG Novæ, HP 21XXs, et cetera) were ever used on
>> aircraft? Not transported by one, but I mean setup and used on one.
>
> A friend of mine worke
They were probably Rolms, which were very much based of the Nova
architecture (compatible to the Nova 2, maybe?). I do not think Data
General actually made any milspec machines.
--
Will
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Dennis Boone wrote:
> > Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if
> Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if any minicomputers
> (DEC PDP-8s or 11s, DG Novæ, HP 21XXs, et cetera) were ever used on
> aircraft? Not transported by one, but I mean setup and used on one.
A friend of mine worked for DoE in Nevada. They used to fly minis on
helicopters
On Fri, 6/19/15, William Donzelli wrote:
> DEC architecture machines were in the serious minority when it came to
> military computers in combat service.
It turns out that was partly by design. Recently I was reading an
interview with Ken Olsen that I hadn't seen before. In it he was
saying tha
- Original Message -
From: "William Donzelli"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts"
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: XH558 - was Re: using new technology
etc
Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone
know if any minicomputer
Ack! You're right. For some reason I was thinking about the System/3 and put
that down instead.
TTFN - Guy
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 4:10 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
>
> On thinking more - could you mean System/7? That would make sense, and
> it was a Boca Raton machine as well.
>
> --
> Will, w
On thinking more - could you mean System/7? That would make sense, and
it was a Boca Raton machine as well.
--
Will, who would like an S/7
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-Jun-19, at 9:07 AM, Christian Gau
I can not think of a worse computer to do radar data analysis. Do you
mean System/360?
Still, Boca Raton was a S/3 stronghold.
--
Will
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-Jun-19, at 9:07 AM, Christian Gauger
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
>
> On 2015-Jun-19, at 9:07 AM, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove wrote:
>>
>> Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if any minicomputers
>> (DEC PDP-8s or 11s, DG Novæ, HP 21XXs, et cetera) were ever used on
>> aircraft? Not transported b
On 2015-Jun-19, at 9:07 AM, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove wrote:
>
> Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if any minicomputers
> (DEC PDP-8s or 11s, DG Novæ, HP 21XXs, et cetera) were ever used on
> aircraft? Not transported by one, but I mean setup and used on one.
Another example of sh
On 2015-Jun-19, at 9:07 AM, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove wrote:
>
> Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if any minicomputers
> (DEC PDP-8s or 11s, DG Novæ, HP 21XXs, et cetera) were ever used on
> aircraft? Not transported by one, but I mean setup and used on one.
On 2015-Jun-19, at 1
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Dave G4UGM wrote:
>
> I believe that the NERC for whom I used to work had PDP/11's on ships.
I don’t know that one. But I do know that RC25 support in RSTS/E was driven by
a large Navy order for PDP-11 systems running RSTS/E on RC25 drives, for use
aboard ship
> It's a fair bet that some military computers using the PDP/11 architecture
> were used … probably on AEW, AWACS, and maritime patrol planes.
I think they were IBM based (4pi?). The disk drives were ruggedized 2314s.
--
Will
> Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if any minicomputers
> (DEC PDP-8s or 11s, DG Novæ, HP 21XXs, et cetera) were ever used on
> aircraft? Not transported by one, but I mean setup and used on one.
DEC architecture machines were in the serious minority when it came to
military compu
p.org] On Behalf Of ANDY
> HOLT
> Sent: 19 June 2015 20:12
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: XH558 - was Re: using new technology etc
>
> >>>>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Christian Gauger-Cosgrove"
>
>
> Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if any minicomputers
> (DEC PDP-8s or 11s, DG Novæ, HP 21XXs, et cetera) were ever used on
> aircraft? Not transported by one, but I mean setup and used on one.
>
>
> Not finding it easy to get a definitive answer but
>
> It's a fair
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Gauger-Cosgrove"
Is the Lancaster at Duxford the other flightworthy one? I can't recall.
No
Bringing this topic full circle, does anyone know if any minicomputers
(DEC PDP-8s or 11s, DG Novæ, HP 21XXs, et cetera) were ever used on
air
On 2015-06-19 3:05 PM, geneb wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Toby Thain wrote:
"in 1949 the Air Force ordered all the flying wings destroyed, all
the jigs and tools destroyed, every trace of the flying wing
eradicated. A few years later even the engineering drawings were all
destroyed by new Nort
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Toby Thain wrote:
"in 1949 the Air Force ordered all the flying wings destroyed, all the jigs
and tools destroyed, every trace of the flying wing eradicated. A few years
later even the engineering drawings were all destroyed by new Northrop
management."
I don't know w
There were so many neat war plane designs of the 50s and 60s that never
made it to volume production ... the BAC TSR-2, the Avro Canada Arrow ...
we have our share here in the USA as well i.e. the NAA XB-70 Valkyrie and
XF-108 Rapier... It's funny; it's the ones that were never produced in
volume t
On 2015-06-19 1:19 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
On 2015-Jun-19, at 5:26 AM, Peter Cetinski wrote:
On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:50 AM, jwsmobile wrote:
The closest I came to an aircraft in this class was an almost on a Concorde
Ticket in the late 70's when an upgrade to first class could get you near to
On 2015-Jun-19, at 5:26 AM, Peter Cetinski wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:50 AM, jwsmobile wrote:
>>
>> The closest I came to an aircraft in this class was an almost on a Concorde
>> Ticket in the late 70's when an upgrade to first class could get you near to
>> the Concorde fare, and then on
On 19 June 2015 at 10:58, ANDY HOLT wrote:
> At RAF Duxford (less than an hours drive from my home) you can see
> Concorde*, a SR-71, a Lancaster, a Vulcan**, one of the only two remaining
> TSR-2s***, a Bf109 and many many more.
>
Is the Lancaster at Duxford the other flightworthy one? I can
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, ANDY HOLT wrote:
I expect that quite a lot of Bf109s are currently being made
airworthy in time for the75th anniversary of AdlerTag … it quite
surprised me that there were more flyable than I might have guessed, but
none in the possession of the RAF or the Confedera
I was born too late to see the SR-71 fly. I could still see a U-2 fly
though (those are also neat planes). There's so many cool planes, and
so little time to experience them all. (SR-71/A-12, U-2, B-52, CF-105,
Avro Lancaster, Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane, Messerschmitt
Bf 109, Avro
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von : captainkirk...@gmail.com
..snipped...
North American P-51 Mustang, Junkers Ju 52... and that list is
..snipped...
If the lowly JU52 really fancies you, then you can visit my place, where said
airplane passes multiple times a day during summer season...
The BA Concordes at Heathrow lived in a hanger at the eastern end of
the main runway.
The perimiter road intersected the main runway so the bit with the
hanger was to the left and the main runway to the right.
No fences no gates.
The Concordes would be towed by the usual tug to and from the t
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Peter
> Cetinski
> Sent: 19 June 2015 13:26
> To: jwsm...@jwsss.com; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: XH558 - was Re: using new technology etc
>
&
> On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:50 AM, jwsmobile wrote:
>
> The closest I came to an aircraft in this class was an almost on a Concorde
> Ticket in the late 70's when an upgrade to first class could get you near to
> the Concorde fare, and then on a visit in the 90's I got to see one take off
> like
On 6/19/2015 4:24 AM, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove wrote:
I don't think any of the SR-71s do flying demos, do they?
NASA attempted to keep one airframe (don't recall which one) flying for
research. The effort didn't last long, however.
I got involved in an interesting way. A friend who sold
On 18 June 2015 at 10:33, Sean Caron wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> I'm guessing by the CLLI code in your sig, you're maybe close to St.
> Catharines, ON, CA?
>
Close; actually, I'm in Stoney Creek/Hamilton, ON, CA.
> If that's true, I just wanted to let you know that - IIRC - there is a
> SR-71 on s
Hi Christian,
I'm guessing by the CLLI code in your sig, you're maybe close to St.
Catharines, ON, CA?
If that's true, I just wanted to let you know that - IIRC - there is a
SR-71 on static display within a car trip of your location in Kalamazoo, MI
at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo. It's actually a B-mod
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Peter Cetinski wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 18, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Peter Cetinski wrote:
>>>
>
My son is stationed at Beale AFB (where the SR-71s were originally based)
and 7963 is on static
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Peter Cetinski wrote:
>>
>>> My son is stationed at Beale AFB (where the SR-71s were originally based)
>>> and 7963 is on static display there. I've been up to it (you can actually
>>> *touch* it
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Peter Cetinski wrote:
>
>>>
>> My son is stationed at Beale AFB (where the SR-71s were originally based)
>> and 7963 is on static display there. I've been up to it (you can actually
>> *touch* it!) They are wicked cool looking and *big*. They also have a
>>
>>
> My son is stationed at Beale AFB (where the SR-71s were originally based) and
> 7963 is on static display there. I've been up to it (you can actually
> *touch* it!) They are wicked cool looking and *big*. They also have a
> static display of the drone which could be launched from the b
> On Jun 18, 2015, at 8:54 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Christian Gauger-Cosgrove"
>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:58 AM
> Subject: XH558 - was Re: using new technology etc
>
>
>> On 18 June 2015 a
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Gauger-Cosgrove"
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts"
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:58 AM
Subject: XH558 - was Re: using new technology etc
On 18 June 2015 at 06:06, Pete Turnbull
> wrote:
I'd have directed you to
http://w
On 18/06/2015 14:58, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove wrote:
Did you get a chance to see both of the flightworthy Lancasters together
last year? I didn't since I'm not in the UK and the time that FM213 was
over in the UK intersected with my university terms.
Sadly not, I've only ever seen one at a ti
48 matches
Mail list logo
