Actually that article is the tldr of this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Long-Way-Home-Ed-Dover/dp/061521472X

The short version is: plane in Australia, WWII starts, Pacific Ocean dangerous because Japanese, crew takes plane West to New York with adventures on the way.

It’s really worth the read when you get time.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=369667

Someone else posted 14 years ago regarding this crash. Apparently, according to this thread, there is a book out there with an entire section dedicated to it

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1875671110/qid=1134990003/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-1953406-3948125?s=books&v=glance&n=283155****

EDIT: aviation-safety has an entry on this - https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19760919-0

EDIT 2: I found a DIFFERENT book on Google Books that might have some information, but I don't read Turkish, on page 125 - https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=t96VDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA238&ots=EJMGyXaBNa&dq=TC-JBH&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q=TC-JBH&f=false - I used https://translate.yandex.com/ to translate that page and it seems to be talking about the same flight

EDIT 3: The book I linked mentions a newspaper article on the crash, I tracked down the original newspaper archives from the 23rd of September 1976 and there looks to be a front page blurb as well as a much larger section about the crash. Again, all in Turkish - http://gazetearsivi.milliyet.com.tr/Arsiv/1976/09/23

On page 1 is a short section on the crash, which (I think) is continued on page 7. There is also an obituary for the pilot on page 10...

I made an account there since you can only view the larger scans once you do that and it looks to be legit. You have to view the site in Internet Explorer though, Chrome doesn't work since it blocks flash and you have to add it specially to work. Here is a screenshot of a section of the larger article, it looks to not be in a good enough condition for automatic translation, sorry.

EDIT 4

Final edit, I found a way to download the scans directly from the site (my computer science degree apparently isn't worthless haha). Linked below.

Album with the relevant sections of page 1 and page 7 - page 7 might have irrelevant extra stuff, and https://translate.yandex.com/ actually translated a good chunk of it if you want to try.

Screenshot of how many tabs of research I had up when I finally finished

Reading the pilots obituary made me feel... weird. So I'm going to stop now, that and I don't actually know where else to go from here. Good luck with your search for information :)

Christ, the guy even wrote a whole book about this.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XGS9TJG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Also, why do people always quote that RAND study? China is never going to put hundreds of Su-35s in the air to act as fodder to attrite away F-22s.

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_am#Downturn it was a twenty year decline starting with the oil crisis in the 70's compounded by a depressed market for air travel, the Lockerbie bombing, and general corporate mismanagement and inability to change with the times. I'm sure there are dozens of articles on this topic in airline trade journals as well. A cursory Google search brings up:

A first person account by a worker for the company

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-davey/orphaned-by-job-loss-pan_b_458442.html

A news story talking about the inherent difficulties facing the airline industry with examples from Pan Am

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/airline-decline-flying-high-reached-lows/story?id=9832262

A documentary on PBS about the company

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/companies/panam.html

A book written on the topic

http://www.amazon.com/Skygods-The-Fall-Pan-Am/dp/0615611834

A senior theses on the subject

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=cmc_theses&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.hk%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DPan%2BAmerican%2BWorld%2BAirways%2Bdecline%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D7%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CGUQFjAG%26url%3D%2568%2574%2574%2570%253a%252f%252f%2573%2563%2568%256f%256c%2561%2572%2573%2568%2569%2570%252e%2563%256c%2561%2572%2565%256d%256f%256e%2574%252e%2565%2564%2575%252f%2563%2567%2569%252f%2576%2569%2565%2577%2563%256f%256e%2574%2565%256e%2574%252e%2563%2567%2569%253f%2561%2572%2574%2569%2563%256c%2565%253d%2531%2530%2538%2538%2526%2563%256f%256e%2574%2565%2578%2574%253d%2563%256d%2563%255f%2574%2568%2565%2573%2565%2573%26ei%3DdZ5gUpCcEOL-iwLzlYGoCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGidTcpVhfHq9I8kmL8IVtPttUE8Q#search=%22Pan%20American%20World%20Airways%20decline%22

Clive Irving narrates this tale and that of a subsequent fly past in his book Wide Body.

A very conservative pilot was assigned to fly another Boeing aircraft (the 747?) across the Atlantic years later. One of the Boeing engineers instructing the pilot could not resist asking him not to do a barrel roll. Irving notes that the pilot looked stunned and offended "as if he had been called a communist".

US Amazon store: https://www.amazon.com/Aircraft-Pioneering-Failures-Multimillion-Disasters/dp/0760767424/ref=sr_1_35?crid=15SKPYC597K3U&keywords=jim+winchester&qid=1570381766&sprefix=jim+win%2Caps%2C347&sr=8-35

UK Amazon Store: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Worlds-Worst-Aircraft-Pioneering-Multimillion/dp/1840137525/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=jim+winchester+worst&qid=1570381815&sr=8-1

Also, anyone on this sub have any other book recommendations?

I'm firmly in line with what Sandberg wrote in "Safe is not an option".

It cheap and well worth the read.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L3PI102

Absolutely! One of the pilots wrote a book on this trip. Well worth the read!

https://www.amazon.com/Long-Way-Home-Ed-Dover/dp/061521472X/ref=oosr

Rehashing of an old idea see: Deltoid Pumpkinseed

There is also a pretty cool pool toy based on this principal as well: Pool Toy Video , I have one of these its pretty surreal to watch it "fly" underwater with such high horizontal speed driven completely by buoyancy.

Not sure how efficient this design will be with such small wings and it didn't look like the body was a lifting body shape but the pics could be misleading.

You can read about this project in the book, "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed". It's quite interesting. Since this project, several lighter-than-air hybrids like this have flown with varying degrees of success. As far as I know, this was the first hybrid airship design.

https://www.amazon.com/Deltoid-Pumpkin-Seed-John-McPhee/dp/0374516359

Air Disaster: The Propeller Age by Macarthur Job is an excellent, inexpensive read (the author was an aviation expert who had been involved in the field for 60 years in all sorts of roles) and makes the case (not online) that the Hammarskjöld crash was straightforward pilot misjudgement ...

Lol.. the true geek. Fetching that book made me realize that I have the geekiest book collection ever. I only own a couple of dozen books, and the ones that aren't programming textbooks are the Hitchhiker's guide, The Batman Handbook, Pocket Ref, a haynes manual for an apollo rocket, and a small pile of essential guides to star wars. I might not own as many geeky books as some, but of those that I do own, 100% of them are geeky ass books, ugh...

I just came across a very nicely written book about the Moon Project, with a lot of interesting facts and also nice pictures. http://www.amazon.com/NASA-Apollo-11-Insight-Hardware/dp/1844256839
It is written almost in a magazine style, easy to read and a perfect introduction into a lot of aspects from rocket, to guidance, the lunar module and the space suits.
NASA landed 6 times on the Moon and collect hundred of pounds of rocks, more than 400000 people took part in various parts of the projects, with a lot of private companies participating.
It is going on the gift-idea list for everybody from 10 years old til grandpa.

Have you read the Haynes Space Shuttle Manual?. Its amazing what the initial plan for the shuttle was, two reusable craft strapped to each other one going into orbit and the other being a booster stage. Cost was a major limiting factor. They had a choice between a cheap design and expensive launches or an expensive design and cheap launches, unfortunately we ended up with expensive design and launches.

It's a little beyond my expertise to measure the danger level in a particular plan, what I could say is that the launch was a much, much riskier time for the shuttle than landing, with one notable exception in 2003. But Columbia's disintegration on re-entry stemmed from damage it sustained on liftoff. The design of the shuttle, particularly of the various forms of thermal protection systems (TPS: tiles, blankets, reinforced carbon-carbon) made re-entry from low-earth orbit based speeds as safe as it could, but the pressure generated from compressing the air in front of the body of the shuttle so rapidly meant there was little to no margin for error in the TPS on re-entry -- any hole, tear, imperfection could magnify danger to the point where the shuttle could be (and in that one instance, was) destroyed.

The wings actually have no purpose during launch, though, and the shuttle comes back with very little fuel (by design, they used all the SSME fuel at launch, and nearly all the OMS fuel on-orbit and for de-orbit). A smaller version of the shuttle could have flown without those big delta wings (and will, check out Sierra Nevada's DreamChaser spacecraft). The big wings were dictated by an Air Force requirement: 1,000 mile cross range capability. By design, the shuttle could launch south out of Vandenberg Air Force Base in California into a polar orbit, deploy a sensitive payload in space over Russia, then return and land in California, all in one orbit. The only problem is that the earth is spinning underneath the shuttle while it's doing that; one orbit later, California has moved a significant distance to the east!

So the 1,000 mile cross range meant that the shuttle could make its re-entry and steer/glide itself all the way back to California, counteracting the distance imparted by the rotation of earth itself. In reality, the shuttles never flew polar orbits from California, and the wings were really only used during the shuttle big S-turns to bleed off speed on approach, if I remember correctly.

But what you're mentioning above about the axis of entry; the shuttle was designed to re-enter from LEO speeds, and could not have survived a deep-space (or even far earth orbit / lunar orbit) re-entry, as the thermal systems would not have been up to the task of handling the additional heat generated by re-entry.

If you have some loose change in your pocket and want to learn a LOT more about the design, construction and operation of the Space Shuttle system, check out this book Probably the thickest, most dense scientific/engineering overview of the whole process from beginning to operation.

NASA's own "Wings In Orbit" is also an amazing book (I'm lucky enough to have a hardcover version of it) that's available for free online as a series of downloadable PDFs. While it's not quite as in-depth as the Jenkins book, it'll definitely give you a great picture of the Shuttle and how it works.

And finally, and slightly more tongue in cheek, the Hayes repair manual people licensed their automotive repair book style for this Space Shuttle Owners Manual which is another phenomenal book on the Shuttle.

The Long Way Home was pretty good.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Way-Home-Dover/dp/061521472X

There's a book about it
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L3PI102/

I recently picked up a used copy of this one and it's a pretty good overview of how turbine engines work: www.amazon.com/Development-Jet-Turbine-Aero-Engines/dp/1852605863

Here's a good place to start online.
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsref-toc.html

Here's a documentary NASA made toward the end of the program.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvaG0xDdP8g

Here are a couple of books that might help as well.
https://www.amazon.com/NASA-Space-Shuttle-Manual-Construction/dp/1844258661/

https://www.amazon.com/Space-Shuttle-Operators-Manual-Revised/dp/0345341813/

Hi, I'm Theo! $4.97 worth of WWI Pilot Memoirs?

Wide-Body: The Triumph of the 747 is a great read and has a lot of the engineering they had to figure out, from engine power to flutter during flight testing. Most of it covers the 747, there's a few chapters about the 707 too.

There's a book by John McPhee, The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed, about a group with big dreams for a craft like this in the seventies. I recommend it, though like a lot of McPhee's books, it left me with a strong "so, what the hell happened to this idea?" feeling at the end.

Guess this is part of the answer.

The article says California Clipper, but it was the Pacific Clipper. You can read about it in Ed Dover's book, Long Way Home. It was temporarily named the California Clipper while the original California Clipper was being moved.

buddy of mine was just telling me about "Skygods"

http://www.amazon.com/Skygods-Fall-Pan-Robert-Gandt/dp/0615611834

anyone read it? he said it was a great look at the dawn of the jet age/post ww2

I recommend books such as Back To The Drawing Board, The World’s Worst Aircraft, The World’s Strangest Aircraft, and The Wrong Stuff.

How deep do you really want to go? Prouty's book, Helicopter Aerodynamics, is probably the best out there.

It's from the book-with-DVD Project 262 by Wolf Czaia, test pilot of the early replicas.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D4ZYEV4/

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1937994619/

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0760346836/

For those who can’t afford the plane...

(Grumman Mallard)[Grumman Mallard: The Enduring Classic https://www.amazon.com/dp/1896941443/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_jHu6Cb7E26QGD]

https://vimeo.com/32642328

http://www.amazon.com/Skygods-The-Fall-Pan-Am/dp/0615611834

So, like Mac Job"s Air Disaster series of books then?

Soviet and Russian Ekranoplans by Yefim Gordon and Sergey Komissarov.

Don't forget a few commercial manuals as well.

Also because when they were building the LEM they needed to reduce mass as much as possible. They took out everything they didn't need: no chairs for example; smaller windows (as glass was heavier than the normal material for the ship). Having a thin layer of insulation was less massive than a thicker plating.

Source: Apollo 11 'Manual' a book on the history of the Apollo missions.

avengingturnip: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

For reference, this anomalous explosion has been studied before.

http://www.amazon.com/Downing-TWA-Flight-800/dp/0821758292

For reference, this anomalous explosion has been studied before.

http://www.amazon.com/Downing-TWA-Flight-800/dp/0821758292

I have had A History of Aerodynamics and Its Impact on Flying Machines by John Anderson in my queue for a while now. One of these days I'll get around to it.


What Engineers Know and How They Know It is another I'm curious about but may not get around to.


I've been working on October Sky--formerly known in print as Rocket Boys-- by Homer Hickam Jr lately. It's alright. I get a little distracted and put it down quite often. The A Song of Ice and Fire series was more captivating, but that's not surprising.

I really enjoyed this book. It covers a few case studies of engineers solving problems with varying degrees of help from science/theory.

>Rocket development does not occur in straight lines of progression, it occurs in crooked lines. Taking just the Starship development, we are already more than a month beyond the first hop of Starhopper as announced by Elon.

No one is claiming that it does. Overall development has moved to the left compared to the version based on carbon fiber, and SpaceX has many excellent, highly-motivated engineers who work quite hard - Musk thinks they've solved the vibration issue; they tested again last night, looking for extremes in operating conditions, and found no surprises.

>The Raptor has proven more challenging than thought to perfect. There is a reason why developing the most powerful rocket engine is hard and SpaceX is figuring it out.

Most powerful based on what criterion? Thrust? BE-4 beats them there. Specific impulse? The RS-25 is well beyond Raptor. Raptor is ahead of the RD-180 in engine pressure, but that hardly makes it 'the most powerful rocket engine.'

>And, Starship is chocked full of innovative firsts. It reminds me much of the Space Shuttle in its firsts. And, many of those firsts will take much longer to perfect for human rated space flight. For example, like the Space Shuttle, there is no launch abort system and a unique, never done before, reentry system. To haul people, Starship will have to be tested to close to airliner levels of safety, or each passenger will be a test subject just like the Space Shuttle.

I'm not reminded of the Shuttle at all - one, Starship doesn't have the silly design choice of having the upper stage on the side of the main booster as compared to on top. Two, it doesn't have to satisfy political stakeholders, and thus use solid rockets that cannot be turned off (not exactly the best case for a crew, eh?). Three, it doesn't have the numerous conflicting design choices that guaranteed it would be expensive to operate, no matter what NASA thought beforehand. And I disagree entirely that Starship will have to have airline levels of safety. Dictate that from the outset, and you're almost guaranteed to kill commercial manned spaceflight in general (not just Starship but for Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, and so on). Read up on the history of aircraft and compare where manned spaceflight is now, and you'll find that at this point people were taking many more risks (and learning substantially more) than we are today, for the most part. Safety uber alles guarantees spaceflight will be much more expensive than it has to, will be delayed even more, and in the end be less safe (because you're learning less from flown hardware) - witness the debacle that is the SLS.

You may find the book Safe Is Not An Option good reading for a discussion on safety.