1st Air Force One fades away

Locutus

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
The very first Air Force One plane that once shuttled President Eisenhower on cross-country voyages is now abandoned and forgotten in the Arizona desert quietly decomposing under the merciless sun. This may be some kind of metaphor







The aircraft that once spirited President Dwight D. Eisenhower on cross-country voyages now sits in a field that's part of Marana Regional Airport, decaying under the relentless glare of the sun.

The first plane to be designated as Air Force One is fenced off from public viewing - alone and nearly forgotten on a 10-acre parcel.
"I think it's one of these big secrets that, really, few people know that it's out there," said Steve Miller, airport manager. "It's sad that it's just sitting out there, considering its history over the past 70 years."

Marana Regional Airport, which opened in 1943, is on 600 acres. One way it generates revenue is by leasing parcels of that land.
It's home to the derelict former Air Force One: The Columbine II, a Lockheed VC-121 Constellation 48-610, which was built in Burbank, Calif., in 1948. The next year it was converted to carry VIPs and redesignated as a VC-121A.


more


1st Air Force One fades in Marana
 
Blackleaf

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,412
1,668
113
Air Force One costs more than the entire British monarchy does.

It's a perfect example of why Britain should never become a republic.
 
Jonny_C

Jonny_C

Electoral Member
Apr 25, 2013
372
0
16
North Bay, ON
The Painted "Columbine" emblem on the nose looks in remarkably good shape, almost like it had just been painted.

The desert sun should have faded it out by now.
 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,844
93
48
Most Pharaohs' chariots have turned to dust since their day in the sun..
 
#juan

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I remember when the Super Constellation was the latest word in airliners. One of the last great propeller driven airliners, soon to be replaced by the jets, the DC8s and the 707s.
 
Jonny_C

Jonny_C

Electoral Member
Apr 25, 2013
372
0
16
North Bay, ON
#juan said:
I remember when the Super Constellation was the latest word in airliners. One of the last great propeller driven airliners, soon to be replaced by the jets, the DC8s and the 707s.
Click to expand...

I got my first 35mm camera when I was about 16, and some of the first pictures I took were at the Sudbury airport of a Super Connie that was still in regular service with a 2nd-tier airline. It was an impressive plane to get up close to.

Air Canada was still flying some Viscounts at the time.
 
#juan

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Jonny_C said:
I got my first 35mm camera when I was about 16, and some of the first pictures I took were at the Sudbury airport of a Super Connie that was still in regular service with a 2nd-tier airline. It was an impressive plane to get up close to.

Air Canada was still flying some Viscounts at the time.
Click to expand...

I never understood the triple vertical stabilizers on the Connie9. No other airliner at the time had them.

The Viscounts had a long life. They were flying into the 90s. It wouldn't surprise me if a few were still flying somewhere.
 
Jonny_C

Jonny_C

Electoral Member
Apr 25, 2013
372
0
16
North Bay, ON
#juan said:
I never understood the triple vertical stabilizers on the Connie9. No other airliner at the time had them.
Click to expand...

My memory may be inaccurate but I seem to recall that the Super Connie was a very "tall" plane, so off the top of my head I might guess that the triple tail might have served to give enough tailplane area without making the tail too high to fit into the hangars of that time?

It might be interesting to look up.
 
#juan

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Jonny_C said:
My memory may be inaccurate but I seem to recall that the Super Connie was a very "tall" plane, so off the top of my head I might guess that the triple tail might have served to give enough tailplane area without making the tail too high to fit into the hangars of that time?

It might be interesting to look up.
Click to expand...

Your answer sounds pretty reasonable. The B-17 stabilizer was huge by comparison with the three smaller ones on the Super Connie. I will look it up...
 
Jonny_C

Jonny_C

Electoral Member
Apr 25, 2013
372
0
16
North Bay, ON
#juan said:
Your answer sounds pretty reasonable. The B-17 stabilizer was huge by comparison with the three smaller ones on the Super Connie. I will look it up...
Click to expand...

Looks like my guess was right...

Development of the Constellation

The Constellation's wing design was close to that of the P-38 Lightning, differing mostly in scale.[4] The distinctive triple tail kept the aircraft's overall height low enough to fit in existing hangars,[3] while new features included hydraulically boosted controls and a thermal de-icing system used on wing and tail leading edges.[1] The aircraft had a top speed of over 340 mph (550 km/h), faster than that of a Japanese Zero fighter, a cruise speed of 300 mph (480 km/h), and a service ceiling of 24,000 ft (7,300 m).[5]

According to Anthony Sampson in Empires of the Sky, the intricate design may have been undertaken by Lockheed, but the concept, shape, capabilities, appearance and ethos of the Constellation were driven by {Howard} Hughes' intercession during the design process.[6]

(Wikipedia)
 
#juan

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Jonny_C said:
Looks like my guess was right...

Development of the Constellation

The Constellation's wing design was close to that of the P-38 Lightning, differing mostly in scale.[4] The distinctive triple tail kept the aircraft's overall height low enough to fit in existing hangars,[3] while new features included hydraulically boosted controls and a thermal de-icing system used on wing and tail leading edges.[1] The aircraft had a top speed of over 340 mph (550 km/h), faster than that of a Japanese Zero fighter, a cruise speed of 300 mph (480 km/h), and a service ceiling of 24,000 ft (7,300 m).[5]

According to Anthony Sampson in Empires of the Sky, the intricate design may have been undertaken by Lockheed, but the concept, shape, capabilities, appearance and ethos of the Constellation were driven by {Howard} Hughes' intercession during the design process.[6]

(Wikipedia)
Click to expand...
Good post. A lot of information. Thank you.
 
T

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
My very first flight was in 1957, aboard a TWA DC-3. I then transferred to a Super Constellation, and flew into Los Angeles on it. From Los Angeles to San Francisco, I flew on a DC-6.

Coming back, I felw on a DC-6 to Los Angeles, a DC-7 to Albequrque, and a DC-3 to Santa Fe.

On my first round trip, I flew on 4 of the very best of the conventional engine planes. The Super Constellation was developed just before World War II, and a number of them were built for the Navy in particular.

Howard Hughes owned TWA, and he insisted that they purchase a fleet of Super Constellations for all of TWA's long distance flights. He kept TWA flying with them for almost 2 years after the other airlines had switched to jets. The board of directers finally sued him, and forced him out of management, so they could purchase jets.

And yes, the Connnie was very tall for its era, and the triple tails were to give more tailplane surface.

It was a fantastic aircraft, the very best non-jet propeller plane ever made.
 
Jonny_C

Jonny_C

Electoral Member
Apr 25, 2013
372
0
16
North Bay, ON
#juan said:
Good post. A lot of information. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Aircraft have always been a strong interest of mine.

Your mention of the B-17 got me thinking about that plane and others. The B-17 had a huge tail, but it was a taildragger, which lowered the tail considerably when on the ground. The only large WWII era planes that come to mind that had tricycle landing gear were the B-24 Liberator and the B-29 Superfortress. The Liberator had a twin tail, but the Superfortress must have been virtually "un-hangar-able" in its day.

Of course many WWII bombers had a twin tail but I think it had more to do with a clear field of fire directly to the rear for defensive guns in the dorsal position. Single-tail bombers usually had a tail gunner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom