Your favorite YouTube videos?

mikeandgerry wrote:

wsherrick wrote: I had the good fortune of working on this locomotive back in the late 1980's when it was still in service on the Norfolk Southern.

What an incredible honor.

The video was amazing. It is an impressive locomotive. My wife heard the video from the upstairs and came running down to see it.

How does that locomotive compare in power with a current freight diesel we might see in service now in the northeast? I guessed that it would require three diesels to pull that line of cars.

wsherrick wrote:They also cost less to run and maintain and produced more productivity per train mile than the diesels they were compared against.

coaledsweat wrote:The drives take a pounding and require frequent rebuilds, kind of expensive to maintain.

They also cost less to run and maintain and produced more productivity per train mile than the diesels they were compared against.

spc wrote:Crazy bike skills.

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?vi ... bf6b5&sp=1

mikeandgerry wrote:

coaledsweat wrote:The drives take a pounding and require frequent rebuilds, kind of expensive to maintain.

The original author, wsherrick, said the opposite:

They also cost less to run and maintain and produced more productivity per train mile than the diesels they were compared against.

I think you two had better hash it out.

mikeandgerry wrote:

coaledsweat wrote:The drives take a pounding and require frequent rebuilds, kind of expensive to maintain.

The original author, wsherrick, said the opposite:

They also cost less to run and maintain and produced more productivity per train mile than the diesels they were compared against.

I think you two had better hash it out.

Diesel locomotives require considerably less maintenance than steam, with a corresponding reduction in the number of personnel needed to keep the fleet in service. The best steam locomotives spent an average of three to five days per month in the shop for routine maintenance and running repairs.[citation needed] Heavy overhauls were frequent, often involving removal of the boiler from the frame for major repairs. In contrast, a typical diesel locomotive requires no more than eight to ten hours of maintenance per month.[citation needed] and may run for many years between heavy overhauls.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factshee ... restal.asp
The initial sea-born landings on 30 October 1963 were made into a 40-knot wind. Altogether, the crew successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds. At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet, about twice the aircraft's wing span! The Navy was delighted to discover that even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet for takeoff and 460 feet for landing roll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Credible_Sport
The Credible Sport concept called for modified C-130 Hercules cargo planes to land in the Amjadien (soccer) Stadium across the street from the American Embassy in Tehran and airlift out the rescued hostages. The aircraft would then be flown to and landed on an aircraft carrier for immediate medical treatment of injured hostages. Three MC-130 Combat Talon crews (all Eagle Claw veterans) were assigned to fly the three aircraft drawn from the 463rd Military Airlift Wing, with the concept plan calling for the mission to originate in the United States, reaching Iran by five in flight refuelings.

Richard S. wrote:Some of my favorite feture the swiss army knife of airplanes in the starring role:
C130 landing AND taking off from the USS Forrestall:

coaledsweat wrote:If they were cheaper to run, why did they disappear in a decade when the diesel electric was perfected?

mikeandgerry wrote:

coaledsweat wrote:If they were cheaper to run, why did they disappear in a decade when the diesel electric was perfected?

So why are we burning coal, again?