Message from discussion
The Swiss & Guns - Proven Success!
From: Billy Beck <w...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: The Swiss & Guns - Proven Success!
Date: 2000/11/21
Message-ID: <3a1afb96.20077941@news.mindspring.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 696358893
Approved: tskirvin+...@killfile.org
X-Mail-Path: amber.crhc.uiuc.edu!alpha.math.uiuc.edu!rutgers.edu!maynard.mail.mindspring.net!slb50-mspg.atl.mindspring.net!n...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net
References: <3a039453.653549@nntp.usit.net> <8u6sdp$kka$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8ufbea$msh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8uhqb8$msv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8ui05j$rqu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a0d8798.9594293@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <8uppff$ktp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8us165$egs$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8uujfd$hs6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8uv250$v70$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8v1pav$7oi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a16ff26.11441294@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <8vco20$ho8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a1ab40b.1760152@news.mindspring.com> <8vepsl$811$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.0a.b9
X-Original-Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:16:48 GMT
X-Group-Homepage: <URL:http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/hpo/>
X-Server-Date: 21 Nov 2000 23:10:12 GMT
X-Original-To: humanities-philosophy-objectiv...@moderators.isc.org
X-Modbot: Mackie the HPO ModBot <tskir...@killfile.org>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@killfile.org
Processed-By: Mackie the HPO ModBot <tskir...@killfile.org>
X-Submissions-To: tskirvin+...@killfile.org
X-Original-Path: not-for-mail
X-Trace: hatchetman.killfile.org 974848246 26172 198.88.183.210 (21 Nov 2000 23:10:46 GMT)
Organization: VeriMod (<URL:http://www.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/verimod/>)
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP humanities.philosophy.objectivism iD8DBQE6GwD16ocVLX0FGHsRAjQgAKCG8UQPBVlim+pIum0icU7GeQU2FgCePCWI Y2wys0o1t2xnIG9Gie+rXF4= =dYDZ
X-Organization: VektorGraf
Reply-To: w...@mindspring.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Nov 2000 23:10:46 GMT
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
"J. Kendrick McPeters" <mcpet...@usit.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>
>> I simply adore the Boeing B-47 Stratojet. To begin with, I
>> maintain that it is the most beautiful warplane ever built, bar none.
>> ("I think that I shall never see... nacelles as sweet as those on
>> thee...") That airplane, in terms of sheer style in aviation, is the
>> single most finely distilled expression of its time, and so cleanly
>> American in the expression (no matter the Nazi scientists' seminal
>> contribution of swept-wing research during World War II) that it
>> transcends its military and technical import all the way out the
>> iconic. It stands as signal event on the cusp of an era.
>
>In a similar vein, I adore the XB-70, which has to be the most beautiful
>bomber never put into production.
You know, I've never been able to find the beauty in the
Valkyrie. That thing was a sensational bite of technology, but I put
it in the same class as the '52 in terms of aesthetic: it's far too
hard-edged - what I've referred to as an "austere elegance" in
aircraft design - to catch my eye with the look.
There is something about this that was once captured by a Soviet
designer when he said that fighter design should have halted with the
F-86 and MiG-15. He's highlighting a period after which the
serendipity of aesthetics in aircraft design was nearly wiped out by
sheer brutal function. Traces of it lingered on, and even down to the
present day. (Me? I'm in love with the look of the F-4 Phantom II
and the F-105 Thunderchief. Call me crazy.) However, there was once
a time during which function was still comfortable within a *look*
that held the tasteful eye, and it ended on the turn of the Century
Series fighters and the closing half of the Golden Age of aviation in
America. The explosion of technology outstripped that serendipity,
and we'll never see it again.
> If the B-47 was the harbinger of the
>Jet Age, the XB-70 was the harbinger of the stillborne Supersonic Age.
That's right. Certainly as regards large aircraft.
>It was truly an amazing plane, especially considering that it was
>designed for mass production and, for instance, made minimal use of
>titanium, unlike the SR-71.
>Speaking of the Blackbird, isn't it true that the Soviet SAMs were never
>quite able to reach out and touch it? If so, then the reason given for
>cancelling the Valkyrie doesn't really hold water, does it?
The theoretical argument still rages in some quarters, and it's
never been tested in battle. Some contend that later generation SAMs
were up to it, and that, if SR-71 keeps seeing occasional restoration
to service, its day will come.
I've always thought that the impact of the Powers U-2 shootdown
on the XB-70 program was a result of headless panic, and that it was
cynical rationale for chopping a program whose detractors didn't have
the nerve to confront it in any other way. This isn't to say I'm
convinced that the aircraft could have hacked the bomber role, but
we'll never know and it didn't get a fair chance. On the other hand,
some enthusiasts adance compelling arguments that it could have stood
the same mission evolution we've seen in the B-52, replete with
fantasies of camouflage-schemed B-70B Valkyries sporting re-fueling
booms, FLIR systems for low-level penetration, and PAVE-TACK munitions
guidance.
I don't know. It was an amazing aircraft. It might have been.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
|
