Rupert

A very interesting project. Well posted!

What a wonderful series! Keep it up!! Michael

Now that's telling it as it is!! Or at least is how it should be! It that's truly how it works, I may change my last name to Claus!

Great shots alanpugh!

Great Sydney Scenic shots! And frankly with the temperatures here. a few days in temperate winter would be a huge relief!

WONDERFUL!!! I wish we could have heard the Air Boss on the radio as well. THANKS Frank!!

I don't think anyone is insulted. It's just that we should understand these are two very different aircraft, built for different purposes. H-46 Sea Knights were designed to be deployed off of a ship, landing and traveling on water as needed anywhere in the world. They were also often used as speed boats in the water during the Vietnam War as a way to drop off and pick up troops in waterways deep in the jungles of Vietnam and in nearby countries. I flew many of those missions. H-46s were never deployed to my knowledge anywhere in the midlands of the US. So it makes sense that few other than those who live on the coasts would recognize them. The much more numerous Army H-47 Chinook was hugely seen in the midlands of the US, including having been flown by the Air National Guard. It's not at all surprising that those who don't know otherwise assume that all the twin main rotor choppers of that era were Chinooks. For those who didn't fly or ride in either one, the easiest way to tell the difference is that the Navy/Marine Corps H-46 Sea Knight has a tricycle gear. (Three landing gear struts). The Army H-47 Chinook had a four landing gear stance. And yes, if you're noticing that the designation is a H-46 and the other a H-47 that's because the H-46 Sea Knight preceded the H-47 Chinook.,

OOPS! PhrogPhlyer and also my signature helicopter is the USMC, USN CH-46 Sea Knight. Which is not the USA CH-47 Chinook. Both the H-46 and the H-47 were built by Boeing, back when Boeing was considered a respected aircraft builder. But other than both having twin main rotors, they are not at all the same aircraft.

With that type of fuel tank you best forget the Victory Cigar till you're through taxiing, shutdown, and standing or sitting well clear of the aircraft!

I love this response! It could be applied to many posts on many different sites on a regular basis.

Great series as always Darryl! And yes, that far north it stays light for a hugely long time in July. Michael

Great train shots guys!! The 747 wasn't that bad. But considering the 747 had to actually lift off, it nearly seemed as bad.

One of the stronger memories of my civilian career was of the trips I took to and from Tokyo in "NorthWorst" (As many of us called Northwest Airlines back then), 747S. The Sky Lounge, complete with a baby grand piano and a live piano playing stewardess, plus lots of room to roam around to keep the circulation going in your legs made those trips if not enjoyable, certainly much more comfortable.. Once in Tokyo I'd grab a short hop in a Japanese company's 747, which was configured like a city bus, from Tokyo to Komatsu on the west coast of Japan, for my job. (No I don't remember the name of the local carrier of the "city bus" flights). But they made several round trips per day and evening using a 747. Some people commuted to and from work in that 747 and many even used it to go shopping in Tokyo for food etc.!! Those flights were weight limited, not seat limited. And it wasn't unusual to see people flying while sitting on the floor and in the aisles after the seats were all filled. Great shots and thanks for the reminder Airbasil_1 !!

WONDERFUL VIEW!

GO FOR IT!! I'll do my part using P3D.