PS: you are missing the stop in Karachi, now in Pakistan. I only saw this because I looked at your map repeatedly while reading the story, to get a feel for each leg of the flight.
Certainly an interesting read. But with a little more historical context, you will find that even as early as the 1930's, the US was worried about dominance in the Pacific. They used the consumer travel market and Pan Am as an excuse to built bases and refueling networks all across the Pacific. Quite good foresight that certainly helped out once WWII broke out. (there's another book with these details but I can't remember the name of it)
Lol that's funny when you read about China building a cruise ship wharf in Vanuatu a few weeks back. No its not for military use at all. :) https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/asia/vanuatu-china-australia-...
Guano Islands Act, Cal Perry, Great White Fleet, Span-Am War.
"Remains" is stretching the point. The original 747 (1975) was 195ft wingspan. Modern 787s are also around 195ft. The 767-200 (1981) is comparable at 156ft.
By weight, the 314 was small by modern standards: 84000 lbs MTOW, less than a 737-200 at 128000 lbs MTOW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker
The plane's also notable for having been one of very few operational flying aircraft carrier types - able to carry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin
It was a big bird for its time. It is a shame that none were preserved, though that isn't much of a surprise because even just one of them would be expensive to store and maintain in a non-flyable state.
And Ed Harris as Jack Poindexter, the veteran radio officer, already retired from field service, volunteering for one last trip (and telling his wife on the phone he'll be late for dinner).
Wikipedia says the registration was NC-18609(A), not NC18602 as in the article. I also noticed that the photo of the first ever Boeing 314 shows registration NC18601, which would make 18602 the second model ever built. Can anyone confirm which registration number is correct?
There seems to be a healthy number of other pilots / aviation enthusiasts here, so I'll ask - did they really use the OVER & OUT in aviation phraseology back then? Modern aviation RT omits these, so I wonder if it is a journalistic addition.
https://www.futilitycloset.com/2018/04/16/podcast-episode-19...
They enabled aircraft to make fuel stops at undeveloped supply caches that happened to have a functioning seaport, but no long runway. This was necessary both because of the scarcity of paved runways at the time, and because the short ranges of the time necessitated multiple fuel stops in order to make long-haul journeys.
Once those necessities faded, both because of the build-out of airstrips worldwide (e.g. paved runways in Sri Lanka) and because of improving aircraft technology (no need to stop in Sumatra on the way from Java to Sri Lanka), there was no reason to go with an aircraft that couldn't land inland and had its aerodynamic properties constrained by the need for seaworthiness.
In the end, it's more practical to deal with the problem of finding an airport (after all, there are a lot of airports) than to solve the other problems of making a large sea plane.
Also read an interview with a pilot that flew Clippers. He said maintence was nightmarish due to salt water. And also being able to land in water sounds good until you factor in weather and the need to eventually dock.
Edit: answering my own question https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24526/has-anyon...
There are still some large sea planes used for fire fighting service and a few airworthy PBY Catalina's.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-415
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_PBY_Catalina
Catalina's were heavily used in WWII for scouting and rescue in the Pacific. There is a partial documentary of some guys flying a Catalina around the world which was cut short when they were forced to abandon it in Saudi Arabia.
https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/history-catalinas/glo...
The development of a system of airports (+ new planes that could fly trans-oceanic flights without stop-overs in far-flung locations).
> The flying boats, travelling at about 200km/h, would take an average of 28 hours to complete the journey, but up to 32 hours nine minutes when winds were unfavorable.
Description of flying those was, they were docile but didn't have power assisted controls. Flying one for 30 hours in shifts even must have been brutal.
Most downvotes I've ever gotten on any comment, iirc.
Thank you for the explanation, tho. It's sure be nicer here if people would do that instead of just drive-by downvoting someone for being a bit over-enthusiastic
/s