Private Celebrity Jet Planes
It seems like today the latest craze is to travel by private jet charter. Most celebrities do it, in fact a lot of them even own their own planes. People typically assume that ‘normal’ people can’t afford it but it can actually work out cheaper than normal flying, especially for businesses.
Tom Cruise reportedly owns three private jets so it’s unlikely he will ever be stuck for a lift. Perhaps this is a bit over the top and unnecessary but many businesses choose to send their employees by private jet charter because it actually saves them money in the long term. If you take into consideration the cost of a taxi to the airport, the flight prices, food at the airport and the time you have to pay the employee for, this all adds up. Flying by private jet charter saves so much time which means that employers aren’t paying for so much of their employees’ time.
Stars such as John Travolta have even taken it a step further and have learnt how to fly their own planes. Not content with a Boeing 707, he also has four other jets in his front garden. Whilst not everyone can afford this type of extravagance, a flight on a private jet charter can be a great way to impress potential customers and work colleagues. Being picked up in your very own aeroplane is likely to score points with anyone which means that they are more likely to use your company in the future.
Flying by private jet charter can have many advantages. For example, Simon Cowell prefers this method because he can smoke on his own planes whereas he can’t if he flies on a standard aircraft. Other advantages include the fact that if it is for travel purposes you can even conduct meetings on the planes so you save time when you get to the other side. You are also guaranteed complete privacy which means that all passengers can relax and feel comfortable.
It’s hardly surprising that so many celebrities opt to travel by private jet charter. With such busy schedules waiting around an airport or being stuck in traffic for hours can cause massive problems. However, when flying by a private plane all you need to do is simply tell your chosen company what time you need to be somewhere and the rest will be done for you. Perhaps this is the reason why so many companies now choose to send their employees to meetings and conferences by this method of transport.
Germany’s Air Assault On England - 1914
“Nobody said it will be easy, but I think that this (bombing) campaign can shorten the ground war to a minimum. In fact, there’s a good enough chance that Britain’s public would rise and force its government to the negotiating table”, said a boastful Paul Behncke, Deputy Chief (Konteradmiral) of the German Imperial Navy Staff and one of the most ardent proponents for a saturated air attack on England’s capital, on a July 17th 1914 meeting of the German Army High Command. The Konteradmiral’s remarks were based on his, and other high placed officers inside the armed forces, profound belief in the power of the airship.
<p>Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin is considered by most to be the father of the dirigible. He was the first to take a powered machine to the air when Zeppelin I took off on July 2nd, 1900. Further development on lighter-than-air technology enabled the Count to built additional models, each more advanced than the preceding one. Although designed primarily as a commercial platform, it wasn’t long before the military began to realize the potential of the airship. In early 1909, the Army purchased two (Zeppelin I or Z.I and Z.II) units. Two additional samples were ordered in the fall. Not to be outdone, the Imperial Navy joined the fray and in 1912 ordered its first dirigible.</p>
<p>At the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914, the Imperial German Army possessed 10 operational airships. Nine of them Zeppelins, three of them DELAG units militarized and one Schutte-Lanz. Johann Schutte and Karl Lanz entered the airship-building industry in 1909 and began selling its platforms to the armed forces, mainly the Navy, in 1911. Four of those Zeppelins were assigned to the Western Front while three others took station on Prussia’s eastern frontier. The Navy’s sole sample, L.3, was posted on western Germany (Duren).</p>
<p>The Army was slow at recognizing the true power projection of the Zeppelin. In the beginning of the war, Army’s airships were used more as a low-level platform supporting the infantry crossing into Holland and Belgium. Because of its relative low operational range, British and French troops deployed in the Belgium frontier were able to shoot them down with some ease. In the first five weeks of the conflict, the German army lost 3 dirigibles. Before August ended, one more airship was lost at the Battle of Tannenberg in the eastern front. That left just 4 (3 army, 1 navy) units, including one Schutte-Lanz, available for operations.</p>
<p>That number (4) began to increase steadily after August ended. The Navy was the first to augment its fleet two-fold. On September 1st, the service received the first of the M-class of dirigibles, the L.4. Next January, the L.10 joined the ranks. Not to be outdone on September 3rd, the army placed an order for the newer Zeppelin P-class ship. With a hull of 531 feet, a gas capacity of 1,126,00 cubic feet and the addition of a fourth engine which gave it a top operational speed of 62 mph, the P version was the most advanced airship in the world. Twenty two (22) Ps were purchased. The first to be delivered was the LZ.38, which officially became operational on April 3rd 1915. The rest of the units were incorporated to the service between May and July.</p>
<p>With an increase in fleet size, fleet housing them became a top priority. Since early 1913, the navy and army began selecting locations where to build the huge sheds needed to service the airships. Places such as Nordholz and Cuxhaven, both located in northern Germany, were the first airship bases in Europe. Each of these locations was fitted to house four dirigibles. Other bases included Tondern, Hamburg, Duren and Wittmundhaven. Later on during the war, Namur (Belgium) and The Hague (Holland) were incorporated. The army bases were located at Düsseldorf and Spich (Germany). After August and following the invasion of the Lower Countries, the German army erected several strategically located facilities. Belgium became the center of operations for the army’s fleet. No less than five (Maubeuge, Eterbeek, Berchem Ste. Agathe, Gontrode and Evere) bases were developed with the sole purposes of attacking Britain.</p>
<p>With ships and bases ready to go, the process now shifted to the strategists inside Germany. With most of the airship commanders urging their superiors to unleash their platforms and bomb England, German Kaiser Wilhelm and his advisors, wanting to slip the Western Allies, decided to hold-off the decision until the following summer. Unfortunately for the Kaiser, events on the ground forced his hand.</p>
<p>Lead by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, the British struck first hitting several of the newly constructed sheds. On October 8th, the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) bombed the army complex at Düsseldorf destroying Z.IX. On the 21st of November, the RNAS attacked the main Zeppelin factory at Friedrichshafen causing severe damage to the facility’s production line. A month later, on a clear Christmas Eve afternoon, the British attempted their most daring raid up to date. The target was the newly built Nordholz sheds. Although the attack failed to hit any structure, the German navy was very concerned that if these types of attacks continued, England would eventually be able to destroy their nascent airship fleet before it could mount an offensive operation. Similar concerns were ushered by army officials. The pressure on the Kaiser was too much to bear and on January 15th 1915 he finally gave the go-ahead to bomb much of England. London would be spared for at least a few more months as the Kaiser restricted attacks on the British capital.</p>
more coming soon….
An article by Raul Colon: <a href=”mailto:rcolonfrias@yahoo.com”>rcolonfrias@yahoo.com</a>
What is the Safest Way to Travel? - Planes, Trains or Automobiles
The means that you use for travelling depend on several factors - one of which is safety. However, there are many other things one considers before travelling. The most important among these are the travel budget and also where you want to travel. In case of travelling within the city, trains and automobiles are used. However if you want to go to another city or country, you have the choice of travelling in a plane, train or automobile.
If you compare the three means just from the point of view of safety (leaving out variables such as the destination, distance, budget etc), then planes without a doubt are the safest way to travel. Over the decades, plane safety has considerably increased, and it is now six times better than what it used to be about 20 years ago. These improvements in safety can be credited to the advanced technology, tough competition and strict and regular industry audits and quality control checks. According to the Aviation Authorities, planes are the safest way to travel also because they have the least number of fatalities on per kilometre basis.
In spite of the safety, accidents do occur - but these are rare, and the annual number of deaths in plane accidents has decreased over the past ten years. There are many cases when fatal accidents have occurred and people became frightened of travelling in planes, but at the end of the day, planes still remain the safest means of travelling.
Trains are a convenient way of travelling and transporting goods. The number of accidents involving trains has increased over the past years. The major causes of accidents for trains are derailment, driver’s error, explosions, and collapsing of bridges. One of the important factors contributing to the increasing train accidents is the increased speed of trains.
As compared to planes and trains, automobiles have the greatest statistics for accidents and fatalities all around the world. More than half the car accidents occur due to negligence on the driver’s part. The most common causes of automobile accidents are drug intake, reckless driving and intoxication.
In case of trains and planes, there is less room for any negligence on the driver’s part because it is the driver who is responsible for hundreds of lives. The authorities keep a close check on the driver’s alcohol intake and other health factors. According to research, in the case of plane accidents that have occurred all around the world over the last five decades, 30% of accidents were caused wholly due to pilot error, while all the other accidents were caused due to mechanical, weather or some other condition.
Ultimately, it is not always safety that we think about while travelling. Automobiles are the least safe means of travel, but they are still most widely used. The way people travel depends on their own choice, resources and preferences.
Autopsy Reveals: Pilot Who Flew Plane Into IRS Building Was “Pulverized”
Autopsy Reveals: Pilot Who Flew Plane Into IRS Building Was “Pulverized”
An autopsy report shows that the Austin man who flew his small plane into the side of a building that housed IRS offices was “pulverized” in the fiery crash.
Read more on KWTX-TV Waco
Pilot Training Types And Requirements
Flight schools are places where students get the direction of flight using certified and specialized instructors. These schools train students for the aviation industry. Students come into these schools to make their careers as pilots. The aviation sector is booming if schools are driving demand. Most young people come to these schools to convert their dreams into reality.
The flight schools offer Flight training programs for students. Those who are new or have no knowledge of aviation obtain admission in the pilot training programs as students. After this training, students can participate in the leisure sport of pilot training. After training, these students become eligible for private pilot training. In the private pilot training sessions, pilots learn some tips regarding obtaining a rigorous training of school grounds.
There are so many flight schools around the word. Flight schools work under U.S. rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Some flight schools are specialized in training fixed wing aircraft while others provide training in rotary wing aircraft. Some centers also provide specialized training for flying helicopters.
Some schools also offer training to commercial pilots. These schools offer these training programs with professional and experienced drivers. These courses are a combination of ground training and practical courses.
Some flight schools offer excellent facilities for training pilots in aviation. Some schools also offer scholarships to their students and to provide ease of loans at low interest rates. Thus, these facilities are a great help for those who have not been able to pursue these courses because of funding problems.
I’m An Alien, Let Me Fly The Plane
‘I’m an alien, let me fly the plane’
A passenger was arrested lately for banging on the cockpit door of a flight claiming to be an alien and requesting to fly the plane. The flight was diverted to the nearest airport where the man was arrested. Even after testing, it was discovered that the person was not under the influence to anything, very odd!
Read more on News.com.au Travel
19 Variants of the ‘Man in the Missile’ Starfighter
‘Man on a Missile’, that’s how many Starfighter pilots refer to their experience flying one of the most intriguing aircraft ever developed: the Lockheed F-104. From its conception, the Starfighter was one of the most revolutionizing airplanes in the history of aviation.
Its streamlined, powerful engines and advanced electronic and weapons packages made the F-104 one of the most powerful platforms in the world. Ahead of its time by years, the Starfighter will field many NATO air forces for decades. And although the aircraft did not generate the in-house interest that the United States Air Force envisioned when they first presented the blueprint, the plane did manage to become a standard bear for overseas sales.
There were a total of 19 variants of the Starfighter. Most of them were flown by overseas customers such as Japan, Canada and Italy, which continued to operate the air superiority fighter into the 21st century.
Although several units had longer airframes (by fractions), all 19 versions were similar in their fuselage profile. The F-104 had a length of 55 feet, a wingspan of just 22 feet with a total wing area of 196 square feet, including a part that was enclosed in the fuselage. The wing structure had a very thin low aspect ratio (probably the thinnest wing ever employed) for high speed enhanced performance.
1. F-104A: This is the first production version. Fitted with a General Electric (GE) J79-3A engine capable of generating 14,800 pounds of thrust, the A model could reach speeds upwards of Mach 2. Its operational range was an impressive 1,450 nautical miles with its full complements (2 removable wingtip tanks) of fuel tanks. Armed with the famous M61-A-1 Vulcan Cannon and two, first generation AIM-9B Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, the ‘A’ was a powerful offensive machine. At the heart of the model attacking capability was the sophisticated AN-ASG 14T-1 Fire and Control System. Early units were fitted with downward ejections seats, but in the second delivery batch, those were replaced by the C2 upward platform. The A version also had the distinction of being the first aircraft fitted with the Boundary Layer Control mechanism. One hundred and fifty three (153) F-104As were developed.
2. F-104B: This was a two seated version of the A model. It had the same power plant and overall dimensions. The two main differences were maximum takeoff weight and the Vulcan gun. In the B, top operational weight was slightly lower (23,535 to 24,528). Unlike the early 104s, the B did not incorporate a forward firing gun. It did have the pylons to carry the two Sidewinders and was fitted with the 14T-1 Fire and Control system. Lockheed produced 26 of this type.
3. F-104C: Seventy seven (77) of this all weather fighter-bomber were produced, all for the United States Air Force’s Tactical Air Command. The C model introduced the platform for the first time to a new in-flight refueling system that employed a probe fitted on the left side of the cockpit. Another innovation present in this version was the Blown Flaps (BF) mechanism added to improve the plane’s takeoff capability. A new and improved power plant (J79GE-7) capable of generating upwards of 15,000 pounds of thrust with afterburners was also introduced with this configuration. Total operational range was achieved at 1,640 nautical miles. This particular unit suffered from engine failures that caused the loss of 24 aircraft and nine pilots. Eventually, those problems were resolved and the version remained in service for nearly 35 years.
4. F-104D: Only 24 ‘D’s were ever produced. This version was basically an enhanced ‘C’ unit with some refinements. It had the same engine and navigational system of its predecessor. It’s main different was the absence of the M-61 Gatling Gun.
5. F-104DJ: This unit was an special version developed for the Japanese Air Self Defense Force. It was fitted with the J79GE-11A engine capable of generating 15,800lbs of thrust and no Gatling Gun, this was essentially an upgraded D model. Only 20 units were developed.
6. F-104F: This 30-plane strong batch was developed for the West German Air Force. Its frame was a replica of the DJ’s one. The standard packaged of this version was the same of the Super Starfighter (F-104G).
7. F-104G Super Starfighter: The most produced (1,127 total units) member of the class, the G went on to be the standard bear of the platform. No less than 8 companies (Canadair in Canada, Fiat in Italy, Fokker in the Netherlands, Lockheed in the US, MBB and Messerschmitt in West Germany, Mitsubishi in Japan and SABCA/Fairy in Belgium) participated in the 13 (June 1960 to October 1973) year production run. The Super as many pilots referred to it, was a modified C version with a reinforced frame, larger tail area with a fully powered rudder system. It also had engagement maneuvering flaps with a new avionic package that included the famous Autonetics F15-A North American Search and Raging System (NASRR). The model was powered by a revised J79GE-11A engine capable of generating 15,600 pounds of thrust. Maximum speed was Mach 2.2 with an operational range of 1,628 nm. Another improvement over previous versions was the incorporation of a more advanced navigational system: the Litton LN3. Introduced in the platform for the first time in its history was an internal bombing computer linked to the NASRS and the LN3.
8. RF-104GL: This was the tactical reconnaissance version of the ‘G’ model. It had the same fuselage characteristics of the previous unit, but instead of having its offensive package installed on the nose cone (Vulcan Cannon); this plane carried the highly sensitive KS-67a camera. It was also fitted with a flat sided fixed ventral pods for enhanced stability. One hundred and eighty nine (189) ‘GL’s were built by Fiat, Fokker and Lockheed between 1964 and 1968.
9. TF-104G: Is a common mistake to associate this version with a training platform due to its ‘T’ designation. But in fact, this was a highly regarded two seater tactical attack aircraft similar in its performing envelop to the F-104G. Like the G, it also carried the advanced NASRR and LN3 systems.
10. CF-104: This was a Canadian built version of the ‘G’ model. Internal characteristics and performing profile matched that of the Super Starfighter. They had the same NASRR system. Instead of the Vulcan Cannon, the CF carried the less expensive M61 Gatling Gun. It was powered by a J79OEL-7 engine (15,800lbs of thrust). Two (200) hundreds units were built. All by Canadair.
11. CF-104D: Basically a two seat version of the CF without the M61 gun. Only 38 were developed. Most of them were used as primary trainers.
12. JF-104: This was three unit batch specially modified for NASA and the US Air Force Strategic Air Command. Aside from the inclusion of the NASRR and LN3 systems in a ‘G’ version fuselage, no additional data exists on this platform.
13. F-104J: Another version built exclusively for the Japanese ASDF. A total of 209 units, 206 of them by Mitsubishi, were produced. This particular model is a replica of the ‘G’ model.
14. F-104N: Is another common misconception to believe all attached planes with the N designation have to become a nuclear delivery platform. Such is the case with this version. The 104N was a dedicated research aircraft utilized by NASA to test the limits of air frame endurance at high drag profiles. Because of the nature of the airplane, no weapon system was installed. Only three unites were ever built.
15. NF-104A: As with the 104N, this was test bed plane. But instead of being fielded by NASA, the NF-104A was a US Air Force advanced research units. The one difference between those two test aircrafts was that the A carried a 6,000 pound thrust rocket in the tail end structure. It also had extended wing tips as well as a new reaction jet control mechanism. As before, only three units were built.
16. QF-104A: The Lockheed Company, in conjunction with Sperry Phoenix, modified 24 F-104As as target drones. These target platforms were use between the summer of 1968 to the spring of 1973.
17. XF-104: This is the first platform built. Designed and develop by Lockheed’s famous Skunk Works division, two of this first generation versions were produced. The unit was powered by a non-afterburning Wright XJ-65 engine capable of producing 10,200 pounds of thrust. This power plant gave the XF a top operational speed of Mach 1.78 and a range of 800 nm. Its armament consisted on a M-61 Gatling Gun a K-19 Fire and Control System and the AN-APG34 Radar.
18. YF-104A: Seventeen (17) units were developed. This was basically an XF airframe, although a bit larger (54.77 feet compare to 49.17), with a more powerful engine (J79-GE-3A with 14,800 lbs of thrust). The plane also featured a newly designed supersonic conical inlets first seen in the XF version.
19. F-104S: The ‘S’ model has the distinction of being the last produced version of the Starfighter. These units, totaling 247, were built by Fiat and were intended soley for both, the Italian and Turkish air forces. It was an advanced, multi purpose aircraft capable of acting as an interceptor and/or tactical bombing platform. The interceptor mode carried an R-21G NASARR system and the AIM7 Sparrow II and AIM9 Sidewinder I missile. Its frame dimensions equal that of other F-104s. It had a J79-GE-19 engine (11,800lbs thrust) capable of generating speed upwards to Mach 2.2. Operational range was 1,589 nm. The production run for these units lasted from December 1968 until March 1979. A modernized ‘S’ version was built in October 1979. Only three samples were produced. All featuring an updated weapons package, a Look Down-Shoot Down Radar and the introduction of the Aspide 1A air-to-air missile.
References
Jane’s Aircraft Recognition Guide, Gunter Endres and Mike Gething, HarperCollins, 2002
Skunk Works, Benn R. Rich and Leo Janos, Back Bay Books, 1994
An article by Raul Colon: rcolonfrias@yahoo.com
Review Electric Helicopters
April 7, 2010 by admin
Filed under Aviation, Facts, Flying, Helicopters
If you are searching for a good electric helicopter to fly as a hobbyist, than you will want to review electric helicopter models for amateur use. Some of the things you will want to look for when reading a review electric helicopter are: durability; price; the availability of replacement parts; and of course the size of the aircraft. The reasons these things are important is because every flyer will eventually crash and when you crash your helicopter you will:
- want to be able to easily find replacement parts
- be able to afford those replacement parts
- get your helicopter flying again
- and be able to handle the size of your aircraft more easily
If you are a first-time flyer, than you will want to review electric helicopter models through a variety of websites to choose the one that best suits your interest and experience levels. Here are a few websites to get you started:
Anti-Aircraft Defenses of German U-Boats
March 10, 2010 by admin
Filed under Aviation, Facts, Flying, Helicopters, History, Military, World War II
In the early years of World War II, Germany’s U-Bootwaffes roamed, almost with impunity, the sea trade routes of the Western Allies, engaging and sinking their extremely vital ships at an alarming rate. It wasn’t until the Allies began to implement a sophisticated system of long rage, air patrols over the Atlantic that the tide of the submarine war finally began to turn in their favor.
Because most of Germany’s U-boat force was incapable of prolonged, submerged patrol times, they became easy targets for praying allied medium and heavy bombers covering the North Atlantic.
Engaging and hitting allied patrol airplanes became the sub’s main objective from late 1943 to the end of the war in May ‘45. In an attempt to achieve this task, each boat was fitted with a vast array of defensive weapon systems.
The submarine’s main anti-aircraft weapon was the 2CM Flak Gun. Two basic designs of this uninspired looking but tremendously effective flak system were employed. The first operating 2CM was the No. 30. The thirty was a single barrel weapon with a 360 degree traverse and capable of a two degree depression and 90 degree elevation. It fired a 0.32kg shell capable of reaching distances of up to 12,350 meters. What made this weapon so effective was it impressive cycle rate of 480 rounds per minute.
The second improved version of the 2CM was Flak 38. Similar to the 30 but capable of reaching a cycle rate of 960 rounds per minute, the 38 was arguably the best German, light attack weapon of World War II.
Another light weapon used by U-Boats to fend-off attackers was the 3.7CM M/42 Flak Gun. In the bottom half of the war, most German submarines were fitted with the 42nd platform. It fired a .73Kg shell up to a distance of 15,350m. Maximum firing cycle was 50 rounds per minute.
Those two weapon systems accounted for almost 85 percentage of all hit allied aircraft. Official numbers regarding hit aircraft varies from source to source, but the most reliable figure (coming from British-generated documents released in the mid 1950s) puts the amount at 247 from the spring of 1944 to April 1945.
Although it was not intended as a primary anit-aircraft weapon, the vaunted 8.8CM Schiffskanone Deck Gun was also used in that role, especially towards the end of the war. This remarkable 8.8 gun employed by the German navy was not directly related to the more famous, 8.8 Acht-Acht flack gun utilized by the army as an anti-tank weapon. The CM was purely a naval gun developed in the waning days of World War One.
The gun was mounted on a low box, forward of the conning tower. It could traverse through a field of 360 degrees. Its -4 degrees depressed parameter and 30 degree elevation capacity were two of the most impressive features of this remarkable weapon. The gun fired a 13.7kg high explosive shell at a 700m/sec muzzle velocity. It had a solid impact range of up to 12,350m.
Manned by a three man crew, the CM was a powerful, horizontal weapon that when used against sea-based platforms, it caused heavy damage. As the U-Boats began to sustain alarming losses to Allied preying bombers, German crews commenced utilizing their main armament on incoming enemy aircraft. Although their use on that type of environment wasn’t tested before the war, the gun performed well.
Data on the numbers of downed allied aircraft hit by the 8.8CM is not reliable. But unofficial accounts put the numbers in the low 50s. Much of that amount was accounted for between the autumn of 1944 and the spring of 1945.
Aside from those three defensive weapons, German submarines carried a limited amount of small caliber fire arms including 9mm and 7.62mm hand guns. Nine mm machine guns and some 7.92mm rapid fire rifles. No data on hit aircraft by these weapons are available.
Of course, no weapon can be effective if the enemy isn’t spotted. For long range detection, the U-boats employed the Funkmessorungsgerat (Fu) MO-29 Radar. The MO-29 was used primarily on Type IV boats as well as some Type VIIs. The 29 was simple to utilize thanks to its twin horizontal rows of eight dipoles on the upper front part of the conning tower.
On the top row laid the transmitters and in the lower one, the receivers. An improved version of the 29 was introduced in the summer of 1942. In that version, known as No. 30, the diploes were replaced by a retractable antenna which was housed in a slot in the tower. Although relative powerful for the time, this system barely was able to detect surface vessels because of the low position of it’s mounting in respect to the horizon.
A more complex system, FuMB1 or the ‘Metox’ was introduced in the fall of 1942. This system was utilized in conjunction with a raw, wooden cross antenna strung with copper wire know as the ‘Biscay Cross’. But as with the early Fus platforms, this unit wasn’t that reliable. In fact, a case could be made that their use was highly detrimental to the sub’s survival thanks to the Metox’s volatile emissions which were easily detectable by Allied radars.
By November 1943, the Germans had finally developed what would become the world’s first true, all around naval radar. Born out of desperation, FuMB7 combined Metox and Naxos emissions to give U-boat commanders a first rate, long range detection system. Further enhancements were performed (the FuMB24 and 25) to the base MB7 giving it an extended operational radius.
Aside from the radar, maybe the most ingenious defensive measure used by German submarines was the Focke-Achgelis. The ‘Focke’ was basically a manned rotary glider with a triple blade rotor. It was as simple to operate as it was to assemble. Housed in a storage cylinder on the afterdeck, the Focke was quickly armed and launched. It remained connected to the U-boat by an umbilical cord. From its advantageous position high above the sub (10-12,000 feet), the pilot could spot any target approaching the boat. Unfortunately for the Focke, if the U-boat came under direct attack, there was no time to reel it in, thus the sub cut the cord and left the pilot to defend himself until all was cleared to surface back again.
More effective than the Focke-Achgelis was the Aphrodite. It was a basic devise consisting of a large (one meter diameter) hydrogen-filled balloon from which dangled small strips of metal foil. It was attached to the sub by way of an anchor weight. Its main purpose was to confuse allied aircraft utilizing radar navigational systems.
What Can I Bring On An Airplane?
With security being tightened at the world’s airports due to increased terror threats worldwide, you have probably heard about all of the things that you can’t take on an airplane right now. That may leave you wondering, “What can I bring on an airplane?” Here are a few of the basics:
- All prescription medications. Of course, you will need to store them in a clear plastic bag (along with the original packaging), and check them in at airport security upon arrival at the airport.
- Over-the-counter medications: while you can bring non-prescription drugs on board most planes, they must be carried in clear containers and weight less than three ounces.
- Any liquid or gel item that is purchased at the airport after passing security. While you may not carry and liquid or gel item onto a plane from home, you may purchase it in the airport since it has already been screened by security
- Baby formula and breast milk: it does, however, need to in containers less than three ounces and must be checked at the security checkpoint prior to boarding.
- Solid cosmetics and personal care items such as deodorant, Chap Stick and lipstick. No gels or aerosols though
- Batteries: most batteries are allowed as long as they are already installed in some sort of electronic device. No spares allowed.
Of course the best way to answer the question, “what can I bring on an airplane” is to contact the airline the day you plan to fly to see if there have been any policy changes since you booked your flight.