
A Plane That Accidentally Circumnavigated the World (2014) - kenneth
https://medium.com/lapsed-historian/the-long-way-round-the-plane-that-accidentally-circumnavigated-the-world-c04ca734c6bb
======
alexhutcheson
I made a map that shows all the stops:
[https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1v33AaNDltEQmHGiP29...](https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1v33AaNDltEQmHGiP29YHB74qDMw&ll=2.5211563821917347%2C83.94117359999996&z=2)

~~~
205guy
Thank you! I'm always amazed at stories that lack the proper illustration,
usually a map. Quite an omission for a story all about flying over land and
water. I suppose they're harder for the authors to make than just using stock
photos.

PS: you are missing the stop in Karachi, now in Pakistan. I only saw this
because I looked at your map repeatedly while reading the story, to get a feel
for each leg of the flight.

~~~
alexhutcheson
Thanks for pointing that out - fixed!

------
esaym
Similar articles have been posted before. All of them are based on the book
"The Long Way Home". I bought it for my 88 year old grandfather last
Christmas. He power read through the thing in a couple of hours and handed it
back to me, telling me to read it too.

Certainly an interesting read. But with a little more historical context, you
will find that even as early as the 1930's, the US was worried about dominance
in the Pacific. They used the consumer travel market and Pan Am as an excuse
to built bases and refueling networks all across the Pacific. Quite good
foresight that certainly helped out once WWII broke out. (there's another book
with these details but I can't remember the name of it)

~~~
protomyth
For an early history of Pan Am and the Pacific check "China Clipper: The Age
of the Great Flying Boats" by Robert Gandt. It’s second half is pretty much
Pan Am only.

~~~
ghaff
Also An American Saga: Juan Trippe and his PanAm empire. Talks a lot about
building Pacific refueling stops like at Wake.

------
tlb
"...with a wingspan of over 150ft, the Boeing 314 was (and remains) one of the
largest aircraft ever to take to the sky"

"Remains" is stretching the point. The original 747 (1975) was 195ft wingspan.
Modern 787s are also around 195ft. The 767-200 (1981) is comparable at 156ft.

By weight, the 314 was small by modern standards: 84000 lbs MTOW, less than a
737-200 at 128000 lbs MTOW.

~~~
ansible
True.

It was a big bird for its time. It is a shame that none were preserved, though
that isn't much of a surprise because even just one of them would be expensive
to store and maintain in a non-flyable state.

~~~
NegativeLatency
There is a full size mockup though:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper#Surviving_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper#Surviving_aircraft)

~~~
gambiting
"full size" doesn't include the wings, sadly - just the interior and main
hull.

------
8_hours_ago
Previous discussions:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10804868](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10804868)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15537891](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15537891)

------
ocdtrekkie
Have the movie rights been sold yet? I can totally see this movie in my head
already.

~~~
corywright
Perfect for Tom Hanks.

~~~
dahauns
With Ron Howard directing.

And Ed Harris as Jack Poindexter, the veteran radio officer, already retired
from field service, volunteering for one last trip (and telling his wife on
the phone he'll be late for dinner).

------
peterburkimsher
It's a long, but exhilarating read. My grandpa told stories of his wartime
flying experience, including stealing a plane to go to a party at another RAF
base where Clark Gable was attending. Some things sound exaggerated, but it's
an impressive story nonetheless. I'd really like to see it turned into a film.

Wikipedia says the registration was NC-18609(A), not NC18602 as in the
article. I also noticed that the photo of the first ever Boeing 314 shows
registration NC18601, which would make 18602 the second model ever built. Can
anyone confirm which registration number is correct?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Clipper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Clipper)

------
clon
Wonderful story!

There seems to be a healthy number of other pilots / aviation enthusiasts
here, so I'll ask - did they really use the OVER & OUT in aviation phraseology
back then? Modern aviation RT omits these, so I wonder if it is a journalistic
addition.

~~~
sehugg
FWIW, Apollo astronauts used "over" and "out" independently (never in
conjunction) which is still the protocol for maritime radio:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedure_word](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedure_word)

------
elihu
Whatever happened to large sea planes? I imagine they were phased out because
they were too expensive, unsafe, or for some other logistical reason, but it
seems like they would still be practical for some purposes.

~~~
sjm-lbm
There's probabally other limitations, but as I understand it one of the
limiting factors is takeoff and landing speed. Even on a good day and in a
still harbor, water is pretty bumpy, which means you need to be out of it at a
pretty low speed. This leads to all sorts of tradeoffs elsewhere in the
airplane design (mostly, again - as I understand it, in wing design) that
hamper the airplane in other ways.

In the end, it's more practical to deal with the problem of finding an airport
(after all, there are a lot of airports) than to solve the other problems of
making a large sea plane.

~~~
Gibbon1
Low take off speed means you need a lower wing loading and that limits your
max speed and ultimate range. Perversely higher landing speeds are safer to
boot.

Also read an interview with a pilot that flew Clippers. He said maintence was
nightmarish due to salt water. And also being able to land in water sounds
good until you factor in weather and the need to eventually dock.

------
overcast
Fun fact, also the same plane(China Clipper) that Indiana Jones took in
Raiders of the Lost Ark from San Francisco to the Philippines.

------
imglorp
I'll also link my favorite podcast who just did a piece on this. They probably
have some different details and anecdotes than OP article.

[https://www.futilitycloset.com/2018/04/16/podcast-
episode-19...](https://www.futilitycloset.com/2018/04/16/podcast-
episode-196-the-long-way-home/)

------
thedrbrian
There’s also a plane tales by Captain Nick from the APG that talks about the
same trip [http://airlinepilotguy.com/no-distant-
lands/](http://airlinepilotguy.com/no-distant-lands/)

------
Twirrim
That was a fascinating read. Thanks for sharing!

~~~
toss1
Came to say exactly that

~~~
lisper
The way to do this on HN is simply to upvote the story. Comments should be
substantive. Otherwise we'd be overrun by "me to" comments.

~~~
toss1
It was so good I thought I'd make an exception and do both

Most downvotes I've ever gotten on any comment, iirc.

Thank you for the explanation, tho. It's sure be nicer here if people would do
that instead of just drive-by downvoting someone for being a bit over-
enthusiastic

~~~
lisper
Oh, it's definitely OK to explain a downvote. In fact, it's little bit rude to
downvote without giving an explanation. But a comment that says nothing but
"What a great article!" just invites an endless chain of "Yeah, I thought so
too", "Me too", "Me three" comments. Soon HN would become indistinguishable
from Reddit.

