No clue why this is on the HN homepage, but I love aviation museums. It is so difficult to feel scale with aircraft due to the fact that most of the images are of them flying and so there is no context. Seeing them in person can really help put them in perspective.
>It is so difficult to feel scale with aircraft due to the fact that most of the images are of them flying and so there is no context. Seeing them in person can really help put them in perspective.
100% this. I got to ride in Vera, one of two airworthy Avro Lancasters, a few years ago, and I was shocked how small and cramped it was. The C-130 Hercules, far from the largest military transport today, feels luxurious and roomy by comparison. And that was the RAF's premier bomber, among the heaviest bomb loads.
And likewise, the comparison between a P-47 and a Bf 109 is not something you can really appreciate until you see them side by side. I would not have wanted to go to war in that cramped metal sarcophagus of a Messershmitt.
> Avro Lancasters, a few years ago, and I was shocked how small and cramped it was.
Two things about that. Firstly I agree inside they are tiny and having the clamber over the wing spar as a 6ft chunky man wasn't easy.
Some time ago I saw a photograph of an RAF Tornado on the ground next to a Lancaster and was shocked how big the modern aircraft are, especially compared to what was a heavy bomber. I can't find that photo, but this gives some idea.
If you like this, strongly recommend you check out the National Museum of the US Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. They have everything you can imagine. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/
I also suggest the italian air force museum near Rome.
https://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/home/storia-e-tradizione/m...
(use italian version for the virtual tour, in the english version it's broken, typical italian public administration website, sorry folks).
I wonder which planes from that era are "nice to fly" by modern standards. As a point of reference, the Cessna 172 trainer originates from the C170 which was designed right after World War 2. It's an extremely forgiving and well designed plane.
It's a pity that clean sheet designs of airplanes made from composites (most famously your Diamonds and Cirruses) are dreadfully expensive to maintain relative to the old school aluminium frame designs. The composite (carbon fiber polymers) airframes have way better aerodynamic characteristics and benefit a lot more from the past 50 years of aerodynamic advances. Though given the fact that modern EVs have very aerodynamic external aluminium shells, I wonder if some of the limitations of shaping aluminium into complex aerodynamic shapes have been resolved (composites are much simpler to shape, they are basically fabric version of 3D printing).
No clue why this is on the HN homepage, but I love aviation museums. It is so difficult to feel scale with aircraft due to the fact that most of the images are of them flying and so there is no context. Seeing them in person can really help put them in perspective.
>It is so difficult to feel scale with aircraft due to the fact that most of the images are of them flying and so there is no context. Seeing them in person can really help put them in perspective.
100% this. I got to ride in Vera, one of two airworthy Avro Lancasters, a few years ago, and I was shocked how small and cramped it was. The C-130 Hercules, far from the largest military transport today, feels luxurious and roomy by comparison. And that was the RAF's premier bomber, among the heaviest bomb loads.
And likewise, the comparison between a P-47 and a Bf 109 is not something you can really appreciate until you see them side by side. I would not have wanted to go to war in that cramped metal sarcophagus of a Messershmitt.
> Avro Lancasters, a few years ago, and I was shocked how small and cramped it was.
Two things about that. Firstly I agree inside they are tiny and having the clamber over the wing spar as a 6ft chunky man wasn't easy.
Some time ago I saw a photograph of an RAF Tornado on the ground next to a Lancaster and was shocked how big the modern aircraft are, especially compared to what was a heavy bomber. I can't find that photo, but this gives some idea.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/P9CWD2/dambusters-617sqn-617-squad...
If you like this, strongly recommend you check out the National Museum of the US Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. They have everything you can imagine. https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/
I also suggest the italian air force museum near Rome. https://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/home/storia-e-tradizione/m... (use italian version for the virtual tour, in the english version it's broken, typical italian public administration website, sorry folks).
just the amount of change for ww2 alone is amazing, having moved from biplanes to jets in such a short period of time.
I wonder which planes from that era are "nice to fly" by modern standards. As a point of reference, the Cessna 172 trainer originates from the C170 which was designed right after World War 2. It's an extremely forgiving and well designed plane.
People like to say that the tech industry is young but most don't realize that general aviation is only a few steps removed from the early days of Wright Brothers and their contemporaries like Dumont and Blériot. It's mostly civil aviation and military-adjacent aircrafts like the X experimentals that are truly pushing the boundaries.
It's a pity that clean sheet designs of airplanes made from composites (most famously your Diamonds and Cirruses) are dreadfully expensive to maintain relative to the old school aluminium frame designs. The composite (carbon fiber polymers) airframes have way better aerodynamic characteristics and benefit a lot more from the past 50 years of aerodynamic advances. Though given the fact that modern EVs have very aerodynamic external aluminium shells, I wonder if some of the limitations of shaping aluminium into complex aerodynamic shapes have been resolved (composites are much simpler to shape, they are basically fabric version of 3D printing).