DOCSLIB.ORG

Fort Barry Balloon Hangar and Motor Vehicle Sheds Abbreviated Historic Structures Report Fort Barry Balloon Hangar, 1939

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fort Barry Balloon Hangar and Motor Vehicle Sheds Abbreviated Historic Structures Report Fort Barry Balloon Hangar, 1939 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Golden Gate National Recreation Area San Francisco, CA 94123 Fort Barry Balloon Hangar and Motor Vehicle Sheds Abbreviated Historic Structures Report Fort Barry Balloon Hangar, 1939. (PARC, GOGA 32423) Cover Photo: Fort Barry Balloon Han- gar and Motor Vehicle Sheds, 2004. (John Martini) Fort Barry Balloon Hangar and Motor Vehicle Sheds Abbreviated Historic Structures Report Golden Gate National Recreation Area San Francisco, California Produced by the Cultural Resources and Museum Management Division National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Contents Introduction 7 Preparation 7 Relevant Documents 7 Executive Summary 7 Historic Significance 8 World War I and 1920s 8 World War II Era 11 Nike Missile Era 12 Presidio Riding Stables 12 Evaluation Criteria 13 Balloon Hangar 13 Vehicle Sheds 13 Developmental Timeline 15 Developmental History 17 Pre-Hangar Era 17 Balloon Hangar Era 17 Coast Artillery Use 20 Post-War and Cold War Eras 21 Riding Stable Era 25 Physical Description - Balloon Hangar 28 Exterior 28 Foundation 28 Structure 28 Wall Surfaces 28 Roofing 28 Interior 29 Floor 29 Walls 29 Mechanical and Plumbing 29 Physical Description - Motor Vehicle Sheds 30 Structure 30 Roofing 30 Siding 30 Significant Features 32 Bibliography 33 Appendix A Structural Evaluation of Balloon Hangar Architectural Evaluation of Balloon Hangar Cost Estimate - Balloon Hangar Fort Barry Balloon Hangar and Motor Vehicle Sheds, 2004. (John Martini) 6 Balloon Hangar Historic Structures Report Introduction This Abbreviated Historic Structure Report was prepared by the National Park Service (NPS), Division of Cultural Resources and Museum Management (CRMM), Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). Preparation There are four primary sources of research ma- The Historical Architect in charge of the report terials: was Jane Lehman (NPS-CRMM). John Martini, Historical Consultant, conducted the historical 1) The Historic Document Collection of the research. Tennebaum-Manheim Engineers pro- Golden Gate National Recreation Area, located vided the Structural Evaluation, Aviva Litman at the Park Archives and Records Center at the Cleper Architects provided the architectural Presidio of San Francisco; evaluation, and Rudy Carrasquilla Construction Consultant provided the cost estimates. 2) The Historic Document Collection of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area housed Relevant Documents at the Park Archives and Records Center; The Fort Barry Balloon Hangar is one of many cultural resources within the Forts Baker, Barry 3) The Sierra Pacific Area branch of the National and Cronkhite Historic District located within Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Marin Headlands section of the Golden Gate located at San Bruno; and National Recreation Area. The General Manage- ment Plan/Environmental Analysis (GMP, Sep- 4) The Main branch of NARA located in Wash- tember 1980) is the main planning document for ington, D.C. the GGNRA. Executive Summary The 1973 National Register of Historic Places This Historic Structures Report is being pre- form, expanded in 1979, lists the Fort Barry Bal- pared in order to document the existing condi- loon Hangar as a contributing feature to the tions and provide guidance for the maintenance Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite Historic Dis- and preservation of the Fort Barry Balloon Han- trict. When a National Historic Landmark nomi- gar and the adjacent Motor Vehicle Sheds. nation for the Seacoast Fortifications of San Francisco Bay is completed in the near future, the hangar will be listed as a contributing struc- ture. The hangar, building FA-905, is also in- cluded on the List of Classified Structures. Two documents written about the Golden Gate National Recreation Area contain sections about Fort Barry and the Balloon Hangar. The His- toric Resource Study entitled Seacoast Fortifica- tions San Francisco Harbor was written by Erwin Thompson and published by the National Park Service, Denver Service Center, in May 1979. Shortly after this document another Historic Re- source Study, History of Forts Baker, Barry and Cronkhite, was written by Erwin Thompson and published by the Denver Service Center in No- vember 1979. Air Service Recruiting Poster with C-3 Balloon, circa 1920. (NARA) National Park Service 7 Historic Significance The balloon hangar at Fort Barry is a surviving element of the U.S. Army’s brief experimentations with using tethered balloons as part of the nation’s system of coastal defenses. Constructed and abandoned the same year, the structure is the only surviving hangar of its type that actually housed an army balloon, and one of only two examples of its type known to survive in the country. As such, it has a national level of significance for its part in the evolving stories of both coastal defense and military aviation. The U.S. Army began experimenting with using World War I and 1920s lighter-than-air craft during the Civil War when, During World War I, both the Allies and the in 1861 the Union Army contracted with civilian Germans experimented with using balloons in balloon company for relaying signals, spotting combat, both in the familiar “fixed” role of teth- artillery fire and watching enemy troop move- ered spotting platforms and also in the form of ments. An official Air Division was organized in powered dirigibles, which were capable of carry- 1864 as a replacement for the civilian Balloon ing out long-distance bombing sorties. When the Corps, and the division was made part of the United States entered the war in 1917, only three Signal Corps or Signal Service, names that were U.S. balloon companies existed: the 2nd, 14th and used interchangeably from 1864 to 1891. Tethered 24th. General John J. Pershing, realizing the value to the ground and inflated with hydrogen, the of the balloons, repeatedly requested 125 balloon balloons were considered to be less than suc- companies for his Allied Expeditionary Force. cessful in their embryonic role. In 1908, The U.S. However, only 26 companies arrived in France Army’s Board of Ordnance and Fortifications and of these only 17 were sent to the front. 2 authorized $25,000 for the purchase of a diri- gible, and a new Aeronautical Division was cre- The Americans did not have much of their own ated. In August that year, the single hydrogen- equipment, though, and instead adopted the filled airship constituted what would eventually French army’s “Caquot Type R” observation bal- become the US Air Force. Shortly thereafter, the loons. Measuring 92 ft. long and 32 ft. diameter, Division was headquartered at Fort Omaha, Ne- the Type R could stay aloft in winds as high as 70 braska, the home of the Signal Corps School.1 mph. These airships (sometimes derisively called “sausage balloons” because of their bulbous C3 Army Balloon at San Francisco City Hall, circa 1929. (San Francisco Public Library: SFPL AAB-7399) 8 Balloon Hangar Historic Structures Report shape) consisted of a hydrogen-filled body was to identify locations for future hangars and equipped with fins that provided stability in billets, and in a study of existing coastal artillery rough air, and a suspended wicker basket that systems and the nature of the work involved.4 held a two-man crew. Communication between the observers and the ground crew was via a Each company’s equipment consisted of a Type telephone cable spliced onto the mooring line. C-3 tethered observation balloon, a type A-7 Before long, the Americans began manufacturing spherical “free” balloon, a portable hydrogen their own version of the French balloons, which generator, numerous vehicles, mooring winches, the army designated the Type C-3. During 1918- and a maze of ground tackle and rigging equip- 1919, nearly a thousand C-3s were manufactured ment. At this time there were no buildings spe- in the U.S. 3 cifically designed for the balloon companies’ use, either for housing the troops and their equip- The Caquot design proved durable, and the sau- ment or for storing the balloons, so the balloons sage balloons continued to be manufactured up were apparently deflated when not in active ser- through World War II, where they frequently vice. saw use as unmanned “barrage balloons” de- signed to ward off low-flying aircraft. (Only one The 24th was briefly detached to Fort Worden in Caquot Type R / C-3 is known to exist today, and Washington State in May 1920 where they car- is on display at the U.S. Air Force Museum in ried out similar duties planning future balloon Dayton, Ohio.) sites in the Harbor Defenses of Puget Sound. An idea of the amount of equipment allocated to the In 1920 the Air Service decided to dispatch sev- balloon companies is indicated by a report filed eral balloon companies to the Pacific Coast to upon the arrival of the 24th at Fort Worden, carry out experiments with the Coast Artillery in which stated the company’s equipment filled coordinating fire control between aerial observ- eight railroad cars.5 ers and fixed shore batteries. The 14th and 24th companies arrived in San Francisco on April 10, The company returned to San Francisco later 1920, and were assigned respectively to Fort that summer and on November 24, 1920, the Funston in San Francisco and Fort Baker in the Coast Artillery carried out the first balloon-as- Marin Headlands. At the time of its arrival at sisted firings of a major caliber gun battery, Fort Baker, the 24th Company was under the when a crew from the 24th Balloon Company command of First Lieutenant F. J. Durrschmidt, moored at Fort Barry directed the fire of the two Air Service. During their three weeks at San 12-inch guns near Point Bonita at Fort Barry. Ac- Francisco the balloons did little flying. Instead, cording to the Air Service Newsletter: the companies’ mission during this early phase Ft.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Airship Hangars in Canada
    FWS Group Building Large Airship Hangars in Canada Engineering Considerations FWS Group History of Hangar Structures • In 1909, a French airplane pilot crash landed and rolled into a farmer’s cattle pen • He decided to set up shop in this unused shed, later ordering a number of these sheds for further use • The word hangar comes from a northern French dialect, and means "cattle pen" Zeppelin ZR3 approaching Hangar (Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, N.J) FWS Group History of Hangar Structures • A limited number of the over 100 airship hangars built in 19 countries survive today and documentation related to their construction is scarce • With the reinvention of the airship, the hangar needs to follow suit • Borrowing cues from the past and taking advantage of contemporary design and construction techniques FWS Group History of Hangar Structures • One of the first zeppelin sheds in Germany (1909) was a 600 ft x 150 ft x 66 ft steel-lattice structure with light cladding • 1920s saw the construction of parabolic reinforced concrete hangars • Designed by the pioneer of prestressed concrete, Eugene Freyssinet Construction of Former Hangar at Former Hangar at Orly, France Orly, France FWS Group Airship Hangars • “Hangar One” in California is a famous North American hangar that survives today • Over 1000 ft long and 308 ft wide Hangar One , NASA Ames Research Center USS Macon inside “Hangar One” circa 1933 Moffett Field, California FWS Group Airship Hangars • Another famous group of hangars in California are at Tustin • Over 1000 ft long, 300 ft wide and 178 ft high • All-wood design… war time rationing.
    [Show full text]
  • Color Foba Clrv2.Indd
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Fort Baker, Barry and Cronkhite Historic District Marin County, California Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker Golden Gate National Recreation Area Cultural Landscape Report for Fort Baker Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Baker, Barry and Cronkhite Historic District Marin County, California July 2005 Acknowledgements Special thanks to Ric Borjes and Randy Biallas for getting this project underway. Project Team Pacific West Region Office - Seattle Cathy Gilbert Michael Hankinson Amy Hoke Erica Owens Golden Gate National Recreation Area Barbara Judy Jessica Shors Pacific West Region Office - Oakland Kimball Koch Len Warner Acknowledgements The following individuals contributed to this CLR: Golden Gate National Recreation Area Mai-Liis Bartling Stephen Haller Daphne Hatch Nancy Horner Steve Kasierski Diane Nicholson Nick Weeks Melanie Wollenweber Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy Erin Heimbinder John Skibbe Betty Young Golden Gate National Recreation Area Leo Barker Hans Barnaal Kristin Baron Alex Naar Marin Conservation Corp Francis Taroc PacificWest Region Office - Oakland Shaun Provencher Nelson Siefkin Robin Wills Presidio Trust Peter Ehrlich Ben Jones Michael Lamb Table of Contents Table of Contents Acknowledgements List of Figures .................................................................................................................................iii Introduction Management Summary .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mill Valley Air Force Station East Is-Ridgecrest Boulevard, Mount Tarua.Lpais Mill Valley Vicinity .Marin County Califomia
    Mill Valley Air Force Station HABS No. CA-2615 East iS-Ridgecrest Boulevard, Mount Tarua.lpais Mill Valley Vicinity .Marin County califomia PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Buildings Survey National Park Service Western Region Department of the Interior San Francisco, California 94107 HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY MILL VALLEY AIR FORCE STATION HABS No. CA-2615 Location: On the summit of Mount Tamalpais in Marin County, California Off of California State Highway 1 on East Ridg~~rest Boulevard. West of Mill Valley, California. North of San Francisco, California. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: 10.535320.4197 420 10.535000.4197000 I 0.534540.4196680 10.534580.4197000 10.535000.4197260 Present Owner: National Park Service leases the land from the Marin Municipal Water District. Present Occupant: Mostly vacant except for the operations area which is occupied by the Federal Aviation Administration Facility Present Use: Federal Aviation Administration Facility Significance: Mill Valley Air Force Station (MVAFS) played a significant role in the United States Air Defense system during the period of the Cold War. The threat of Soviet nuclear and air force power warranted the construction of early warning radar stations throughout the country. With the opening of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent end to the Cold War, retrospective scholarship has labeled contributing defense systems, such as early warning radar, important features of United States military history. In fact, America's first major construction project as a result of Cold War hostilities was, apparently, the system of early warning radar stations of which Mill Valley Air Force Station was one.
    [Show full text]
  • Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive
    PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, AAA BATTALION HABS CA-2919 HEADQUARTERS FACILITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING HABS CA-2919 (Building 1648) Golden Gate National Recreation Area Langdon Court, east of Battery Godfrey San Francisco San Francisco County California PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA FIELD RECORDS HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY PACIFIC WEST REGIONAL OFFICE National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, AAA BATTALION HEADQUARTERS FACILITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (Building 1648) HABS No. CA-2919 Location: Langdon Court, in the northwest quadrant of the Presidio of San Francisco; approximately 600’ east of Pacific Ocean; San Francisco San Francisco County, California USGS San Francisco North Quadrangle; Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: 4184141 (north), 546035 (east) Present Owner: Golden Gate National Recreation Area National Park Service Present Use: vacant Significance: In 1957, the U.S. Army constructed this utilitarian, one-story, concrete block rectangular building for the 740th Antiaircraft (AAA) Battalion Headquarters, a group that oversaw operations for the Presidio’s Nike missile operations at Battery Caulfield. In 1974, the army remodeled the building for its new tenant, the 902nd Military Intelligence Group of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. Part I. HISTORICAL INFORMATION A. Physical History 1. Dates of Erection: The U.S. Army constructed this building in 1957. 2. Architect: The architect for this building was Corlett & Dewell, Architects and Engineers, 847 Clay Street, San Francisco, CA in coordination with the Army Corp of Engineers. PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO, AAA BATTALION HEADQUARTERS FACILITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING HABS No.
    [Show full text]
  • ILLINOIS HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY U.S. ARMY AIR CORPS HANGAR IL HABS No
    ILLINOIS HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY U.S. ARMY AIR CORPS HANGAR IL HABS No. CK-1996-12 PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION/IDENTIFICATION Location: 6013 South Central Avenue Midway Airport Chicago, Cook County, Illinois Englewood and Berwyn Quadrangles, Illinois - Cook County lITM: 16.436710.4625760 Dates of Construction: 1932-1938 Architects/Engineers/Builders: Construction Division, Office of the Quartermaster, 6th Corps Area, 1819 West Pershing Road, Chicago, Illinois Present Owner: City of Chicago Department of Aviation Chicago, Illinois Present Occupant: Vacant Present Use: Vacant Significance: The U.S. Army Air Corps Hangar is one of a few pre­ World War II buildings remaining at Midway Airport. It is of special interest in that it was designed by the Construction Division of the Quartermaster Corps, which performed military construction activities until transfer of this responsibility to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1941. Originally constructed in 1932 at the then-named Chicago Municipal Airport as a simple utilitarian steel structure, the hangar evolved into a barracks and multi-functional structure for Army use with the construction of three additions. Simple brick additions to the west were completed in 1933 and 1934. In 1938, the east wing was completed, adding a significant architectural character to the structure. This addition was designed in a simplified Art Deco style, with rectilinear, stepped brick massing and linear limestone ornamentation. The hangar represents the era of the 1930s and 1940s, when Chicago Municipal Airport served the needs of civilian and military air transport. After World War II, and following its acquisition by the City of Chicago, the hangar was used principally for storage.
    [Show full text]
  • Deck Runoff NOD, Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards For
    This document is part of Appendix A, Deck Runoff: Nature of Discharge for the “Phase I Final Rule and Technical Development Document of Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS),” published in April 1999. The reference number is EPA-842-R-99-001. Phase I Final Rule and Technical Development Document of Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) Appendix A Deck Runoff: Nature of Discharge April 1999 NATURE OF DISCHARGE REPORT Deck Runoff 1.0 INTRODUCTION The National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 amended Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)) to require that the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop uniform national discharge standards (UNDS) for vessels of the Armed Forces for “...discharges, other than sewage, incidental to normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces, ...” [Section 312(n)(1)]. UNDS is being developed in three phases. The first phase (which this report supports), will determine which discharges will be required to be controlled by marine pollution control devices (MPCDs)—either equipment or management practices. The second phase will develop MPCD performance standards. The final phase will determine the design, construction, installation, and use of MPCDs. A nature of discharge (NOD) report has been prepared for each of the discharges that has been identified as a candidate for regulation under UNDS. The NOD reports were developed based on information obtained from the technical community within the Navy and other branches of the Armed Forces with vessels potentially subject to UNDS, from information available in existing technical reports and documentation, and, when required, from data obtained from discharge samples that were collected under the UNDS program.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Baker History Walk Horseshoe Cove: a Water Haven on San Francisco Bay Bay Area Discovery Museum
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Fort Baker Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Baker History Walk Horseshoe Cove: A Water Haven on San Francisco Bay Bay Area Discovery Museum Fort Baker Cantonment Battery Cavallo tempo rary w ater fron t ro ad Travis Sailing Center U.S. Coast Guard Station BLDG 670 Road Sa tte 679 rl Sommerville ee R o a 6 7 d Horseshoe Cove M Bldg 633 Boat House a r Battery 1 i Marine Railway n BLDG a Yates 410 R o a d d a o R U.S. Coast Guard Wharf e r o o M 5 BLDG 411 BLDG 8 412 eakwater 4 Satterlee Br 3 2 Public Wharf FORT BAKER Lime Point Fog Signal Station Sausalito, CA indicates the direction you should look for this stop. 2 Fort Baker History Walk: Horseshoe Cove Printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks Horseshoe Cove, with its naturally protected shape and location, has long offered respite from strong winds and currents at the Golden Gate. Native Americans found shelter and an excellent food source here, and later, ships discovered a safe harbor during bad weather. Horseshoe Cove played an important role in the San Francisco military defense system and today provides a quiet refuge from the busy San Francisco Bay’s busy water traffic. The Route Length: 1/2-mile Number of stops: 8 Time required: About 45 minutes Access: The route is flat but only partially paved; some surfaces are uneven and not wheelchair accessible. Portable toilets: Toilets are located next to the the fishing pier, at the edge of the waterfront.
    [Show full text]
  • This Year Marks the Parks Conservancy's 25Th Year, and We
    This year marks the Parks Conservancy’s 25th year, and we are very excited to celebrate this significant milestone—a quarter century of supporting these national parks. Together with our public agency partners, the National Park Service and the Presidio Trust, we have collaborated across the Golden Gate National Parks to ensure these treasured places are enjoyed in the present and preserved for the future. Whether a new park bench, a restored trail, a landscape rejuvenated with native plants, the restoration of Crissy Field, or the ongoing transformation of the Presidio from former military post to national park for all, the Parks Conservancy’s achievements have lasting benefits for the natural places and historic landmarks on our doorstep. Our accomplishments result from diligent efforts to connect people to the parks in meaningful ways. We have record numbers of volunteers involved in the parks, innovative and inspiring youth programs at Crissy Field Center and beyond, and unique opportunities for locals and visitors to experience the fascinating history and majestic beauty of these places. Most importantly, we have established a dedicated community of members, donors, volunteers, and friends—people who are invested in the future of our parks. With your support, we contributed more than $10 million in aid to the parks this year. Our cumulative support over 25 years now exceeds $100 million—one of the highest levels of support provided by a nonprofit park partner to a national park in the United States. On this 25th anniversary, we extend our warmest thanks to everyone who has helped us along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • The Efficiency and Effectiveness Task Force
    FINAL REPORT The Efficiency and Effectiveness Task Force of the Marin Coun ty School Districts March 2011 March 2011 http://www.marinschools.org/EfficiencyEffectiveness.htm Committee Members Bruce Abbott, Co-Chair, Trustee, Dixie School District Valerie Pitts, Co-Chair, Superintendent, Larkspur School District Debra Bradley, Superintendent, Sausalito Marin City School District Debbie Butler, Trustee, Novato Unified School District Larry Enos, Superintendent, Bolinas-Stinson Union and Lagunitas School Districts David Hellman, Member, Marin County Board of Education Steve Herzog, Superintendent, Reed Union School District Linda M. Jackson, Trustee, San Rafael Elementary and High School Districts Laurie Kimbrel, Superintendent, Tamalpais Union High School District Karen Maloney, Assistant Superintendent, Marin County Office of Education Susan Markx, Deputy Superintendent, Marin County Office of Education Marilyn Nemzer, Member, Marin County Board of Education Mary Jo Pettegrew, Superintendent, Kentfield School District Stephen Rosenthal, Superintendent, Shoreline Unified and Nicasio School Districts Susan Schmidt, Trustee, Tamalpais Union High School District It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin Table of Contents Executive Summary Page 1 Formation of the Task Force Page 2 Purpose Statement Page 2 History of School Districts in Marin County Page 3 Focus on Shared Services Page 5 Task Force Research Summary Page 5 Recommendations Page 10 Next Steps Page 11 Appendix A: Timeline Appendix A Appendix B: Shared Services by District Appendix B Executive Summary In fall 2009, a group of superintendents and school board trustees came together with the support of the Marin County Office of Education to review potential FINAL opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the public school districts REPORT in Marin.
    [Show full text]
  • Museum Campus
    MUSEUM OF AVIATION CAMPUS MAP AIRCRAFT LOCATOR OUTSIDE EAGLE BUILDING HANGAR ONE SCOTT EXHIBIT HANGAR CENTURY OF FLIGHT HANGAR 478.923.6600 www.MuseumofAviation.org A-10A “THUNDERBOLT II” . OUTSIDE F-102A “DELTA DAGGER” . CENTURY P-51D “MUSTANG” . EAGLE A-26C “INVADER” . OUTSIDE F-105D “THUNDERCHIEF” . .. HANGAR ONE P-51H “MUSTANG” . SCOTT A-37A “DRAGONFLY” . HANGAR ONE F-106 “DELTA DART” . CENTURY PT-17 “KAYDET” . EAGLE AC-130A “SPECTRE” . OUTSIDE F-111E “AARDVARK” . CENTURY PT-19A “CORNELL” . SCOTT AGM-28A “HOUND DOG” . CENTURY F-15A “EAGLE” . EAGLE PT-22 “RECRUIT” . SCOTT AQM-34N “FIREBEE” . HANGAR ONE F-15A “EAGLE” NOSE . CENTURY RB-57A “CANBERRA” . OUTSIDE AQM-34V “FIREBEE II” . HANGAR ONE F-16A “FIGHTING FALCON” . CENTURY RB-69A “NEPTUNE” . OUTSIDE B-17G “FLYING FORTRESS” . SCOTT F-4D “PHANTOM II” . HANGAR ONE RF-101C “VOODOO” . OUTSIDE B-1B “LANCER” . OUTSIDE F-80C “SHOOTING STAR” . SCOTT RQ-4A “GLOBAL HAWK” . CENTURY B-25J “MITCHELL” . SCOTT F-84E “THUNDERJET” . EAGLE S-1C “PITTS SPECIAL” . CENTURY B-29 “SUPERFORTRESS” . SCOTT F-84F “THUNDERSTREAK” . SCOTT SR-71A “BLACKBIRD” . CENTURY B-52D “STRATOFORTRESS” . OUTSIDE F-86D “SABRE” . OUTSIDE T-28A “TROJAN” . SCOTT B-57B “CANBERRA” . SCOTT F-86H “SABRE” . CENTURY T-33A “SHOOTING STAR” . CENTURY BQM-34F “FIREBEE II” . .. CENTURY F-89J “SCORPION” . OUTSIDE T-37B “TWEET” . CENTURY BQM-34A-53 “FIREBEE” . CENTURY CHANUTE GLIDER . EAGLE T-39A “SABRELINER” . OUTSIDE BT-13B “VALIANT” . SCOTT GULFSTREAM II . OUTSIDE T-6G “TEXAN” . EAGLE C-119C “FLYING BOXCAR” . OUTSIDE HH-3E “JOLLY GREEN GIANT” . HANGAR ONE TG-4A . EAGLE C-123 “PROVIDER” . OUTSIDE HH-43F “HUSKIE” . HANGAR ONE TM-61A “MATADOR” .
    [Show full text]
  • Airship Logistics Centres: the 6 Th Mode of Transport
    Presented at the Canadian Transportation Research Forum . Toronto, ON, May 30- June 2, 2010 Published in the 45 th Annual Meeting Proceedings (2010): 413-427. AIRSHIP LOGISTICS CENTRES: THE 6 TH MODE OF TRANSPORT ∗ Blair Sherwood and Barry E. Prentice Introduction Contrary to public perception, airship development did not terminate with the Hindenburg accident, some 83 years ago. Airships have operated continuously since that time, albeit in small numbers, and developers continue to invest in new materials, designs, propulsion and computerized control systems. The major investment gap of the airship industry is ground-based infrastructure. Many industrialized countries retain a legacy of military airship hangars, but Canada has no infrastructure to support the development of an airship industry. Ironically, the country that stands to gain the most from lighter-than- air technology is the least prepared to attract it. Approximately 70 percent of Canada’s surface area is inaccessible most of the year. All-season, low cost airships could open the Canadian hinterland to economic development. Moreover, airships could address growing concerns about Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Airships, which can fly anywhere with minimal infrastructure, are ideal for serving Canada’s vast northern transportation needs. Airships could also be valuable to Canada as a trading nation. As airships get larger, they become more competitive for long distance transport. Like ships of the ocean, airships enjoy increasing economies of size. A doubling of the airship’s dimensions could quadruple its cargo capacity. Once airships are large enough to cross oceans economically, international trade will become their primary market (Prentice et al, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Inventory -- Nomination Form
    Form NO.10-300 (Rev 10-74, NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK Theme: Transportation & Communications UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS INAME HISTORIC Hangar #1, Lakehurst Naval Air Station AND/OR COMMON Lakehurst Naval Air Station [LOCATION STREET & NUMBER County Route 547 -NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT North of Lakehurst . VICINITY OF 2 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE New Jersey 34 Ocean 29 HCLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE 2LDISTRICT X.PUBLIC X_OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE —BOTH _ WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL .—PRIVATE RESIDENCE _SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS _OBJECT —IN PROCESS X-YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED __YES UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —NO •jg_MILITARY —OTHER. [OWNER OF PROPERTY United States Government. Administered By NAME U.S. Department of the Navy, CCaptain G. J. Ketchmark, Commanding Officer), Building 200, Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, New Jersey STREET & NUMBER ____Naval Air Station, Building 200 CITY, TOWN STATE Lakehurst X_ VICINITY OF New Jersev LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE, Ocean County Courthouse REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC STREET & NUMBER CITY, TOWN STATE Tnmg New Jersey REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE None DATE — FEDERAL —STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS CITY. TOWN STATE DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT _DETERIORATED __UNALTERED ^-ORIGINAL SITE XGOOD _RUINS ^.ALTERED _MOVED DATE_____ _FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE Lakehurst Naval Air Station (Naval Air Technical Training Center) presently occupies 7,400 acres of flat lowlands just north of Lakehurst, New Jersey.
    [Show full text]