Cool Fast Prototype Service photos

A few nice rapid prototype service images I found:

Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center: main hall panorama (SR-71, Space Shuttle, et al)
rapid prototype service

Image by Chris Devers
See more photos of this, and the Wikipedia article.

Details, quoting from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird:

No reconnaissance aircraft in history has operated globally in more hostile airspace or with such complete impunity than the SR-71, the world’s fastest jet-propelled aircraft. The Blackbird’s performance and operational achievements placed it at the pinnacle of aviation technology developments during the Cold War.

This Blackbird accrued about 2,800 hours of flight time during 24 years of active service with the U.S. Air Force. On its last flight, March 6, 1990, Lt. Col. Ed Yielding and Lt. Col. Joseph Vida set a speed record by flying from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., in 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 20 seconds, averaging 3,418 kilometers (2,124 miles) per hour. At the flight’s conclusion, they landed at Washington-Dulles International Airport and turned the airplane over to the Smithsonian.

Transferred from the United States Air Force.

Manufacturer:
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation

Designer:
Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson

Date:
1964

Country of Origin:
United States of America

Dimensions:
Overall: 18ft 5 15/16in. x 55ft 7in. x 107ft 5in., 169998.5lb. (5.638m x 16.942m x 32.741m, 77110.8kg)
Other: 18ft 5 15/16in. x 107ft 5in. x 55ft 7in. (5.638m x 32.741m x 16.942m)

Materials:
Titanium

Physical Description:
Twin-engine, two-seat, supersonic strategic reconnaissance aircraft; airframe constructed largley of titanium and its alloys; vertical tail fins are constructed of a composite (laminated plastic-type material) to reduce radar cross-section; Pratt and Whitney J58 (JT11D-20B) turbojet engines feature large inlet shock cones.

• • • • •

See more photos of this, and the Wikipedia article.

Details, quoting from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Space Shuttle Enterprise:

Manufacturer:
Rockwell International Corporation

Country of Origin:
United States of America

Dimensions:
Overall: 57 ft. tall x 122 ft. long x 78 ft. wing span, 150,000 lb.
(1737.36 x 3718.57 x 2377.44cm, 68039.6kg)

Materials:
Aluminum airframe and body with some fiberglass features; payload bay doors are graphite epoxy composite; thermal tiles are simulated (polyurethane foam) except for test samples of actual tiles and thermal blankets.

The first Space Shuttle orbiter, "Enterprise," is a full-scale test vehicle used for flights in the atmosphere and tests on the ground; it is not equipped for spaceflight. Although the airframe and flight control elements are like those of the Shuttles flown in space, this vehicle has no propulsion system and only simulated thermal tiles because these features were not needed for atmospheric and ground tests. "Enterprise" was rolled out at Rockwell International’s assembly facility in Palmdale, California, in 1976. In 1977, it entered service for a nine-month-long approach-and-landing test flight program. Thereafter it was used for vibration tests and fit checks at NASA centers, and it also appeared in the 1983 Paris Air Show and the 1984 World’s Fair in New Orleans. In 1985, NASA transferred "Enterprise" to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum.

Transferred from National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Marine Week Boston, 2010: Bell-Boeing MV-22B Osprey garbled camera shot: “More Fonzie, less helicopter”
rapid prototype service

Image by Chris Devers
Posted via email to ☛ HoloChromaCinePhotoRamaScope‽: http://cdevers.posterous.com/false-color-osprey-on-boston-common.

Pictures kept coming out like this until, Fonzie-stylee, I gave the camera a good solid whack on the side. Yes, that really fixed it.

• • • • •

Pasted from Wikipedia: Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey

• • • • •

The Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey is a multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

The V-22 originated from the U.S. Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. It was developed jointly by the Bell Helicopter, and Boeing Helicopters team, known as Bell Boeing, which produce the aircraft.[4] The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began years of flight testing and design alterations.

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007. The Osprey’s other operator, the U.S. Air Force fielded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Contents

1 Development
•• 1.1 Early development
•• 1.2 Flight testing and design changes
•• 1.3 Controversy
•• 1.4 Recent development
2 Design
3 Operational history
•• 3.1 US Marine Corps
•• 3.2 US Air Force
•• 3.3 Potential operators
4 Variants
5 Operators
6 Notable accidents
7 Specifications (MV-22B)
8 Notable appearances in media
9 See also
10 References
11 External links

Development

Early development

The failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 demonstrated to the United States military a need[5] for "a new type of aircraft, that could not only take off and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, and do so at speed."[6] The U.S. Department of Defense began the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army leadership. Later the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps took the lead.[7][8] The JVX combined requirements from the Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[9][10] A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in December 1982 for JVX preliminary design work. Interest in the program was expressed by Aérospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol, Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. The DoD pushed for contractors to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing Vertol. The Bell Boeing team submitted a proposal for a enlarged version of the Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. This was the only proposal received and a preliminary design contract was awarded on 26 April 1983.[11][12]

The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15 January 1985; by March that same year the first six prototypes were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded to deal with the project workload.[13][14] Work has been split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors, drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs final assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and flight controls.[4][15] The USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the Air Force variant received CV-22; reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Ospreys from having a conflicting designation with aircraft carriers (CV).[16] Full-scale development of the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[2] On 3 May 1986 the Bell-Boeing partnership was awarded a .714 billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the Navy, thus at this point the project had acquisition plans with all four arms of the U.S. military.[17]

The first V-22 was rolled out with significant media attention in May 1988.[18][19] However the project suffered several political blows. Firstly in the same year, the Army left the program, citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate aviation programs.[20] The project also faced considerable dialogue in the Senate, surviving two votes that both could have resulted in cancellation.[21][22] Despite the Senate’s decision, the Department of Defense instructed the Navy not to spend more money on the Osprey.[23] At the same time, the Bush administration sought the cancellation of the project.[23]

Flight testing and design changes

The first of six MV-22 prototypes first flew on 19 March 1989 in the helicopter mode,[24] and on 14 September 1989 as a fixed-wing plane.[25] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Osprey’s first Sea Trials on the USS Wasp in December 1990.[26] However, the fourth and fifth prototypes crashed in 1991-92.[27] Flight tests were resumed in August 1993 after changes were incorporated in the prototypes.[2] From October 1992 until April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V-22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture and reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the B-model.[28]

Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the first pre-production V-22 was delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The first EMD flight took place on 5 February 1997. The first of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the program’s second Sea Trials, this time from the USS Saipan in January 1999.[2] During external load testing in April 1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the M777 howitzer.[29] In 2000, Boeing announced that the V-22 would be fitted with a nose-mounted GAU-19 Gatling gun,[30] but the GAU-19 gun was later canceled.[31]

In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a total of 19 Marines, and the production was again halted while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[32] The V-22 completed its final operational evaluation in June 2005. The evaluation was deemed successful; events included long range deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations. The problems identified in various accidents had been addressed.[33]

Controversy

The V-22’s development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[34] When the development budget, first planned for .5 billion in 1986, increased to a projected billion in 1988, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to zero out its funding. He was eventually overruled by Congress.[32] As of 2008, billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another .2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]

The V-22 squadron’s former commander at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Lt. Colonel Odin Lieberman, was relieved of duty in 2001 after allegations that he instructed his unit that they needed to falsify maintenance records to make the plane appear more reliable.[2][35] Three officers were later implicated in the falsification scandal.[34]

The aircraft is incapable of autorotation, and is therefore unable to land safely in helicopter mode if both engines fail. A director of the Pentagon’s testing office in 2005 said that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable". But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[31] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines, as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both proprotors.[36] While vortex ring state (VRS) contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, the aircraft is less susceptible to the condition than conventional helicopters and recovers more quickly.[5] The Marines now train new pilots in the recognition of and recovery from VRS and have instituted operational envelope limits and instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS conditions.[32][37]

It was planned in 2000 to equip all V-22s with a nose-mounted Gatling gun, to provide "the V-22 with a strong defensive firepower capability to greatly increase the aircraft’s survivability in hostile actions."[30] The nose gun project was canceled however, leading to criticism by retired Marine Corps Commandant General James L. Jones, who is not satisfied with the current V-22 armament.[31] A belly-mounted turret was later installed on some of the first V-22s sent to the War in Afghanistan in 2009.[38]

With the first combat deployment of the MV-22 in October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the aircraft as unsafe, overpriced, and completely inadequate.[31] The Marine Corps, however, responded with the assertion that much of the article’s data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reflected expectations that ran too high for any new field of aircraft.[39]

Recent development

On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved full-rate production for the V-22.[40] The plan is to boost production from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned, 360 are for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force at an average cost of 0 million per aircraft, including development costs.[2] The V-22 had an incremental flyaway cost of million per aircraft in 2007,[3] but the Navy hopes to shave about million off that cost after a five-year production contract starts in 2008.[41]

The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, Texas will design a new integrated avionics processor to resolve electronics obsolescence issues and add new network capabilities.[42]

Design

The Osprey is the world’s first production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine, and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is classified as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[43] For takeoff and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical (rotors horizontal). Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90° in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal flight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-efficient, higher-speed turboprop airplane. STOL rolling-takeoff and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted forward up to 45°. For compact storage and transport, the V-22’s wing rotates to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage. The proprotors can also fold in a sequence taking 90 seconds.[44]

Most Osprey missions will use fixed wing flight 75 percent or more of the time, reducing wear and tear on the aircraft and reducing operational costs.[45] This fixed wing flight is higher than typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-of-sight communications and so improved command and control.[2] Boeing has stated the V-22 design loses 10% of its vertical lift over a Tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airflow resistance due to the wings, but that the Tiltrotor design has better short takeoff and landing performance.[46]

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs) and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), allowing the pilots to display a variety of images including: digimaps centered or decentered on current position, FLIR imagery, primary flight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The flight director panel of the Cockpit Management System (CMS) allows for fully-coupled (aka: autopilot) functions which will take the aircraft from forward flight into a 50-foot hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[47] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[48]

The V-22 is a fly-by-wire aircraft with triple-redundant flight control systems.[49] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90° the flight computers command the aircraft to fly like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With the nacelles in airplane mode (0°) the flaperons, rudder, and elevator fly the aircraft like an airplane. This is a gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater effect of the airplane-mode control surfaces.[50] The nacelles can rotate past vertical to 97.5° for rearward flight.[51][52]

The Osprey can be armed with one M240 7.62x51mm NATO (.308 in caliber) or M2 .50 in caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun on the loading ramp, that can be fired rearward when the ramp is lowered. A GAU-19 three-barrel .50 in gatling gun mounted below the V-22’s nose has also been studied for future upgrade.[31][53] BAE Systems developed a remotely operated turreted weapons system for the V-22,[54] which was installed on half of the first V-22s deployed to Afghanistan in 2009.[38] The 7.62 mm belly gun turret is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets with a separate pod using color television and forward looking infrared imagery.

U.S. Naval Air Systems Command is working on upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots (460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph), increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet (3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300 m), and increase lift performance.[55]

Operational history

US Marine Corps

Marine Corps crew training on the Osprey has been conducted by VMMT-204 since March 2000. On 3 June 2005, the Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263), stood down to begin the process of transitioning to the MV-22 Osprey.[56] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General Amos, commander of the II MEF, accepted the delivery of the first fleet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March 2006 as the first MV-22 squadron and was redesignated VMM-263. On 31 August 2006, VMM-162 (the former HMM-162) followed suit. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[57]

The Osprey has been replacing existing CH-46 Sea Knight squadrons.[58] The MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] On 10 July 2007 an MV-22 Osprey landed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, HMS Illustrious in the Atlantic Ocean. This marked the first time a V-22 had landed on any non-U.S. vessel.[59]

On 13 April 2007, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that it would be sending ten V-22 aircraft to Iraq, the Osprey’s first combat deployment. Marine Corps Commandant, General James Conway, indicated that over 150 Marines would accompany the Osprey set for September deployment to Al-Asad Airfield.[60][61] On 17 September 2007, ten MV-22Bs of VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard the USS Wasp. The decision to use a ship rather than use the Osprey’s self-deployment capability was made because of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the availability of the USS Wasp.[62]

The Osprey has provided support in Iraq, racking up some 2,000 flight hours over three months with a mission capable availability rate of 68.1% as of late-January 2008.[63] They are primarily used in Iraq’s western Anbar province for routine cargo and troop movements, and also for riskier "aero-scout" missions. General David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to fly around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007 to visit troops.[64] Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama also flew in Ospreys during his high profile 2008 tour of Iraq.[65]

The only major problem has been obtaining the necessary spare parts to maintain the aircraft.[66] The V-22 had flown 3,000 sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq as of July 2008.[67] USMC leadership expect to deploy MV-22s to Afghanistan in 2009.[66][68] General George J. Trautman, III praised the increased range of the V-22 over the legacy helicopters in Iraq and said that "it turned his battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode Island."[69]

Naval Air Systems Command has devised a temporary fix for sailors to place portable heat shields under Osprey engines to prevent damage to the decks of some of the Navy’s smaller amphibious ships, but they determined that a long term solution to the problem would require these decks be redesigned with heat resistant deck coatings, passive thermal barriers and changes in ship structure in order to operate V-22s and F-35Bs.[70]

A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they managed to successfully complete all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo.[71] That study also concluded that the "deployments confirmed that the V-22’s enhanced speed and range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy helicopters it is replacing".[71]

The MV-22 saw its first offensive combat mission, Operation Cobra’s Anger on 4 December 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt communication and supply lines of the Taliban.[38] In January 2010 the MV-22 Osprey is being sent to Haiti as part of Operation Unified Response relief efforts after the earthquake there. This will be the first use the Marine V-22 in a humanitarian mission.[72]

US Air Force

The Air Force’s first operational CV-22 Osprey was delivered to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006. This and subsequent aircraft will become part of the 58th SOW’s fleet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew members for special operations use.[73] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 in a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[74]

The US Air Force’s first operational deployment of the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November 2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s flew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-flight refueling.[5] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on 16 March 2009, with six of its planned nine CV-22s operational.[75]

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of humanitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[76] In November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV-22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[77]

The first possible combat loss of an Osprey occurred on 9 April, 2010, as a CV-22 went down near Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, killing four.[78][79]

Potential operators

In 1999 the V-22 was studied for use in the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy,[80] it has been raised several times as a candidate for the role of Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC).[81]

Israel had shown interest in the purchase of MV-22s, but no order was placed.[82][83] Flightglobal reported in late 2009 that Israel has decided to wait for the CH-53K instead.[84]

The V-22 Osprey is a candidate for the Norwegian All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopter (NAWSARH) that is planned to replace the Westland Sea King Mk.43B of the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 2015.[85] The other candidates for the NAWSARH contract of 10-12 helicopters are AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, Eurocopter EC225, NHIndustries NH90 and Sikorsky S-92.[86]

Bell Boeing has made an unsolicited offer of the V-22 for US Army medical evacuation needs.[87] However the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency issued a report that said that a common helicopter design would be needed for both combat recovery and medical evacuation and that the V-22 would not be suitable for recovery missions because of the difficulty of hoist operations and lack of self-defense capabilities.[88]

The US Navy remains a potential user of the V-22, but its role and mission with the Navy remains unclear. The latest proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22 in the fleet logistics role. The V-22 would have the advantage of being able to land on and support non-carriers with rapid delivery of supplies and people between the ships of a taskforce or to ships on patrol beyond helicopter range.[89] Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute has suggested V-22s for use in combat search and rescue and Marine One VIP transport, which also need replacement aircraft.[90]

Variants

V-22A 
•• Pre-production full-scale development aircraft used for flight testing. These are unofficially considered A-variants after 1993 redesign.[91]

HV-22 
•• The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval of special warfare teams along with fleet logistic support transport. However, it chose the MH-60S for this role in 1992.[92]

SV-22 
•• The proposed anti-submarine warfare Navy variant. The Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[93]

MV-22B 
•• Basic U.S. Marine Corps transport; original requirement for 552 (now 360). The Marine Corps is the lead service in the development of the V-22 Osprey. The Marine Corps variant, the MV-22B, is an assault transport for troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or from expeditionary airfields ashore. It is replacing the Marine Corps’ CH-46E[57] and CH-53D.[94]

CV-22B 
•• Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It will conduct long-range, special operations missions, and is equipped with extra fuel tanks and terrain-following radar.[95][96]

Operators

 United States

United States Air Force

•• 8th Special Operations Squadron (8 SOS) at Hurlburt Field, Florida
•• 71st Special Operations Squadron (71 SOS) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico
•• 20th Special Operations Squadron (20 SOS) at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico

United States Marine Corps

•• VMM-161
•• VMM-162
•• VMM-261
•• VMM-263
•• VMM-264
•• VMM-266
•• VMM-365
•• VMMT-204 – Training squadron
•• VMX-22 – Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron

Notable accidents

Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22 Osprey

From 1991 to 2000 there were four significant crashes, and a total of 30 fatalities, during testing.[32] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had one possible combat loss due to an unknown cause, no losses due to accidents, and seven other notable, but minor, incidents.

• On 11 June 1991, a mis-wired flight control system led to two minor injuries when the left nacelle struck the ground while the aircraft was hovering 15 feet (4.6 m) in the air, causing it to bounce and catch fire.[97]

• On 20 July 1992, a leaking gearbox led to a fire in the right nacelle, causing the aircraft to drop into the Potomac River in front of an audience of Congressmen and other government officials at Quantico, killing all seven on board and grounding the aircraft for 11 months.[98]

• On 8 April 2000, a V-22 loaded with Marines to simulate a rescue, attempted to land at Marana Northwest Regional Airport in Arizona, stalled when its right rotor entered vortex ring state, rolled over, crashed, and exploded, killing all 19 on board.[37]

• On 11 December 2000, after a catastrophic hydraulic leak and subsequent software instrument failure, a V-22 fell 1,600 feet (490 m) into a forest in Jacksonville, North Carolina, killing all four aboard. This caused the Marine Corps to ground their fleet of eight V-22s, the second grounding that year.[99][100]

Specifications (MV-22B)

Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[101] Naval Air Systems Command,[102] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[95] Norton,[103] and Bell[104]

General characteristics

Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two flight engineers)
Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of cargo (dual hook)
Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)
Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)
Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)
Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)
Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)
Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)
Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
Powerplant:Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 250 knots (460 km/h, 290 mph) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[105]
Cruise speed: 241 knots (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (with auxiliary internal fuel tanks)
Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

Armament

• 1× M240 machine gun on ramp, optional

Notable appearances in media

Main article: Aircraft in fiction#V-22 Osprey

See also

Elizabeth A. Okoreeh-Baah, USMC – first female to pilot a V-22 Osprey

Related development

Bell XV-15[106]
Bell/Agusta BA609
Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

Comparable aircraft

Canadair CL-84
LTV XC-142

Related lists

List of military aircraft of the United States
List of VTOL aircraft

References

Bibliography

• Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. "Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)". Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Schiffer Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-7643-1204-9.
• Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: V-22 Osprey

Official Boeing V-22 site
Official Bell V-22 site
V-22 Osprey web, and www.history.navy.mil/planes/v-22.html
CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site
www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22.htm
www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/
Onward and Upward
"Flight of the Osprey", US Navy video of V-22 operations

San Diego, CA
rapid prototype service

Image by Herb@Victoria
Balboa Park Botanical Building – Staghorn Fern – Alfred D. Robinson (1867-1942), founder and president of the San Diego Floral Society, suggested the construction of a lath house as a feature of the Panama-California Exposition, which was to open in the City of San Diego on January 1, 1915. The idea was not part of plans prepared by landscape architect John C. Olmsted and architect Bertram Goodhue, primary designers of the Exposition as it was first envisioned. However, the idea caught on. Olmsted and San Diego architect Irving Gill, who was supposed to assist Goodhue, expressed their approval. The form the lath house was to take was not clear. It was thought a trellis-like arbor could be situated in a canyon, but thoughts and lath house grew larger. It was, as Robinson wrote, a dream:

Where was I? Ten minutes earlier I had thirsted for green meadows and trees in a sun-baked land, now I had entered the garden of Eden. Palms and ferns and flowering plants and vines on all sides, sending out their delicate scents upon the night air to mingle with the odor of the moist earth and recent rain, a draught as intoxicating as champagne. I opened my mouth and drew in a long breath with a sigh of supreme satisfaction, then turned to my friend with a look of almost stupid inquiry. He understood and said, "Let’s get seats and I will explain."

We were in the largest lath house ever projected as a pleasure resort. Where the band played and we sat was a great central dome, 500 feet in diameter, arched over by a domed roof rising fifty feet in the air. Up its supporting columns ran choice vines, jasmines of such sweet savor, begonias and tecomas of gaudy hue and the curious Dutchman’s pipe. Palms from many lands and of many forms lined the borders and were in beds here and there while begonias and other foliage plants nestled at their feet. In the air hung orchids with their strangely beautiful blossoms.

From this central court ran out six great arms or aisles and in each were gathered and growing in graceful harmony a great family of plants. There were thousands and thousands of varieties and each was plainly labeled. The lighting had been carefully planned so as not to strike the eye offensively and the whole effect was absolutely entrancing.

Neither Olmsted nor Gill stayed with the Exposition long enough to see plans for the lath house brought to fruition. They retired from the scene, one after the other, in disagreement with ideas and policies that were being promulgated by Director-General of the Exposition D. C. Collier, Director of Works Frank P. Allen, Jr., and architect Goodhue. These new ideas led to the construction of the Panama-California Exposition on the level central mesa of Balboa Park rather than on uneven land at the southern border.

Although information is scarce about steps that led to the Botanical Building as it materialized, a drawing survives showing how Carleton M. Winslow, Goodhue’s architect on site, thought the building should look. His sketch shows a massive 600 feet square by 100 feet high structure with an ornate Spanish-Renaissance front and lateral wings which appears to have relegated the use of lath to a minor place. Band concerts were to take place in a central court. In front of this grandiose monument a long oblong pool extended south toward the main east-west avenue on which most of the exhibit buildings were to be placed.

Though Winslow created the drawing, Goodhue was the controlling mind behind it. For it was Goodhue’s idea to lay out the buildings in a straight east-west line that would be broken by major and minor north-south axes and softened by an arcade that ran from building to building. Not only was Goodhue an incorrigible romantic who had succumbed to the charm of Spanish-Colonial buildings in Old Mexico, he was also haunted by images of reflecting pools he had seen on a trip to Persia in 1902. He had already laid out similar pools on the grounds of the Gillespie mansion in Santa Barbara and he would do so again in his Spanish-Colonial design for the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

For reasons lost to posterity, Goodhue, Winslow and Allen changed the appearance of the Botanical Building from a Spanish-Renaissance palace to the simplified and functional shape that now appears. In his book, The Architecture and Gardens of the San Diego Exposition, Winslow claimed he was responsible for the design and Thomas P. Hunter, who was also the engineer for the Cabrillo Bridge, solved structural problems. As controlling architect, Goodhue was in charge of execution. Regardless of who conceived the ideas, he got the credit for designing the buildings. This is standard architectural practice as the firm, rather than the individual, still gets credit and applause.

Many writers have speculated about a prototype for the Botanical Building. It was not the first large lath enclosure built in the United States as there was a lath structure at the Henry E. Huntington Garden in San Marino, California. The building resembles the Umbracle, or shady garden structure, designed by Josep Fontsere i Mestre and put up for the Universal Exposition of 1888 in Barcelona, Spain. This elongated building uses louvers (laths) in a generous manner to shade subtropical plants. Entrances, however, are at the ends of the building, iron columns inside hold up the roof, and the louvers are shaped into half arcs which meet at the top. As the exterior is hidden by plants, it is impossible to see the building as a whole. Unlike San Diego’s Botanical Building, its inside is its most distinguished aspect. Visitors can sit on wrought-iron settees while they contemplate the scenery. One would like to think that someone in San Diego knew of its existence. Until this can be established, the resemblance between the two buildings must be set down as coincidental.

Newspaper reports indicate that excavations for the building in San Diego began in August 1913,11 By November 1913, steel had arrived. Newspapers do not indicate if the steel came from the Kahn Company, the company that had supplied steel for Cabrillo Bridge. In July 1914, the San Diego Sun reported the building was complete, well in advance of the January 1, 1915 opening, so plants could be placed inside. Director of Works Allen, who was acclaimed as an expert in economy and efficiency, was in charge of construction. Billed as "the largest lath house in the world," its measurements were 250 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 60 feet tall, somewhat smaller than the 600 feet square, 100 feet high building proposed in 1912.

The building had three names. Its unofficial name, which was soon discarded, was Horticultural Building, its official name was Botanical Building, and its popular name was Lath Palace. Its rounded forms are what critics call soft and feminine. When opened in 1915, a series of white stucco arches ran the full length of the front, suggesting a lower story. Five arches, forming an entrance, projected forward in the middle. Two of these arches, on left and right sides, were topped by octagonal Persian-style domes. These served as entrances while intervening arches were enclosed by glass panes separated into panels by horizontal and vertical sash The glass panes were later replaced by redwood dowels that let in light while offering seclusion in the manner of harems in Moslem countries. This departure from original specifications probably occurred during a sweeping renovation in 1957-59. Aesthetic loss was negligible.

The upper central section is marked off from the barrel vaults of side wings by a large arch enclosing straight vertical laths which is surmounted by a dome on which stands a small open cupola that provides a unifying grace note. There is a congruity of form and scale between center dome and side vaults. Steel trusses in vaults and dome support 70,000 feet of redwood lath, which is curved to conform to the shape of the building. The color of the redwood was as the name indicates.

In 1915 the interior held a number of palms, bamboos, banana trees, and Aralia elegantissima and Aralia chabrierii that Superintendent of Landscaping Paul Thiene had prepared for transplanting from park nurseries beginning in 1912. The majority of plants grew from subsoil and were not potted. Linnets, thrushes and canaries inhabited bird cages secreted among the larger plants. The plants were watered by hand or by overhead pipes equipped with spray nozzles. A problem, not evident in 1915, was the rapid growth of bamboo, Ficus pandurata and Aracuaria bidwillii under the vaults and a single Cocos plumosa palm under the dome. These towering plants grew through overhead laths. As a result, beginning in 1917, they were removed or cut down.

For many years after 1915 a long steel and glass greenhouse projected north from the back of the central portion. This feature was most like greenhouses that had been built for other expositions and parks. It was functional in shape and was so concealed behind the Lath Palace that few people knew how it looked. Visitors could see the greenhouse only from the inside. Windows were glazed and the atmosphere was humid. No drainage had been supplied for the subsoil, a defect that had to be remedied in 1923.

Here grew the tropical plants that astonished visitors to expositions . . . Anthuriums, Crotons, Dracaenas, Monstera Deliciosa, Philodendrons, Platycerium Alcicorne (staghorn ferns), and Isolepsis, a spiky, grasslike ground cover. Water lilies, including the long-leaved Victoria regia and the smaller-leaved Victoria cruziana and Myriophyllum prosperpinacoides formed a canopy over a pool in the center. Lagodium japonicum, a climbing fern, which along with Myriophyllum were later found to be nuisance species, and Philodendron asperatum twined around steel pillars. Goniophlebium and Nephrolepsis ferns hung from baskets and twenty-five to thirty-five feet long aerial roots of Vitis Utilis, a relative of the grape vine, dropped from the ceiling. An extensive irrigation system kept water in the pool warm. The water was circulated to a small pond in front of the Lath Palace where its mild temperature permitted the growth of lotuses, Nelumbo nucifera and Alba grandiflora. Faced with the enormous number of plants in the greenhouse, Park Superintendent John Morley, at the close of 1916, declared it was too small and expressed his desire for a larger model.

A small 50,000 gallon pond in front of the Botanical Building, sometimes called La Lagunita, approximately 43 feet wide and 50 feet long, is separated from a larger 250,000 gallon pond, sometimes called La Laguna, approximately 43 feet wide and 195 feet long, by a wooden balustrade walkway topped at both ends by urns, two on each side, in which grow blue agaves. The depth of the water in La Lagunita varies from 8 inches to 5 feet; the depth in La Laguna varies from 2 feet to 7 feet. Robert M. Golden replaced wood balustrade and plaster urns with concrete in 1964 at a cost to him of ,000.

Both lagoons were designed to be reflecting; however, algae and animal waste sometimes made the water as thick as "asparagus soup." At the outset the lagoons did not contain fish, but did contain aquatic plants ranging from lilies (Nymphae, lotuses (Nelumbo), Water Hyacinths, Water Poppies, Parrot’s Feathers, Thalia, Arrowhead, Water Iris, and Cape Pondweed. Growths increased in density as they approached the upper end of La Laguna. According to architect Winslow, the density of plants in La Lagunita was "almost swamp-like." When opened to the public in 1915 some of the plants were transplanted from boxes to the underwater soil; others were submerged, box and all, to a depth of from eight to twelve inches. All the plants in 2002 are potted with the exception of two small soil beds at the northeast and northwest ends of the big lagoon.

During World War I La Laguna was converted into a swimming pool so sailors at a Naval Training Station, then located in Balboa Park, could learn to swim. A cement liner was placed on the bottom. Some citizens protested. The San Diego Union, reported the overall depth as five feet. Since the depth of La Laguna has always been shallow, it is doubtful how efficacious the pool was for swimming, though it was a good subject for photographs.

After the war, both ponds reverted to original uses. Planting followed the plan that had been established for the 1915-16 Panama-California (International) Exposition. Many plants were donated. Others came from City of San Diego nurseries, located in Balboa Park A departure from the original planting scheme occurred sometime in the 1970’s when two Everglades Palms, Acoelorraphe wrightii, 15-30 feet in height and in width, were added at the upper end of the large pond in front of the balustrade. Staff justified the sprawling Palms by claiming they "framed" the Botanical Building.

World War II entailed another major change when the depth of the big pond was increased by two feet and resurfaced for use as a swimming pool for patients at a Naval Hospital that had taken over former Exposition buildings and grounds. Diving was not allowed. Protesters were accused of being "unpatriotic." The surface has been lined with impermeable materials ever since, making boxes for plants necessary and creating a maze in the now congested pool.

After the war, attempts were made to restore the ponds with limited park funds. Responding to pressures, the City Council of San Diego overruled the City of San Diego Park Commissioners and allowed fly casters to use the large pond. After protests mounted, the Council decided to permit the use of the pond for bait casting with fly casting on weekends These uses were discontinued when a fly casting pool was opened in Morley Field in 1949.

C. E. Wylie Construction Company and Southland Electric donated labor and materials for the installation of a scum-suck water filtration system in 1994. Since then the ponds have been relatively clear, sometimes better, sometimes worse, depending on ambient, animal and people conditions.

Other than regular patch-ups, major restorations were conducted in 1949, 1964 and 1999.

The ponds have been beset by constant problems which may be summarized as:

Attempts to improve its reflecting capability while allowing its use as a setting for aquatic plants.
Attempts to reduce algae and other undesirable objects, including goldfish, koi, turtles, and refuse.
Attempts to discourage its use by wanton visitors who fall in accidentally or intentionally.
Attempts to deter wild fowl, mostly ducks, from settling on its waters, consuming fish and vegetation and leaving droppings.
Attempts to control mosquitoes by the use of larvae-consuming minnows.

While trying to solve one problem the larvae-eating, gambusia minnows caused another as citizens wrote to the Park Department and newspapers complaining about their drab appearance in contrast to the colorful and ejected koi.

La Lagunita and La Laguna have many pleasing features, but it is the larger pond that reflects the Botanical Building and provides the City of San Diego and numerous artists with, in their opinion, the most picturesque view in the City.

The Botanical Building and the ponds are passive areas, where people walk and stop to look and enjoy. They have the merit of containing small detail in the rich variety of plants and flowers that dot its surfaces and of creating a pleasing whole (except for the addition of the two Everglades Palms). Not the least of their charms, is the fantastic symphony of colors — of whites and greens and reds and blues — that was created.

Of the original Lath Palace and Greenhouse, the Lath Palace is all that remains today. It is admired because of its plastic values, dramatic location at the head of two reflecting lagoons (no longer transparently clear), and contrast with the hard-edge character of other buildings in the park.

If Alfred D. Robinson were alive today, one wonders what he would say about the Botanical Building. As it is not a showcase for his favorite plants — azaleas, begonias and ferns — he would probably prefer the more functional and plainer structure for fuchsias at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, where plants are sheltered by wood frames and netting rather than the laths he found so comforting. His expression of opinion after viewing the completed Botanical Building is clear enough:

The mind is staggered in contemplating the horrible possibilities in a lath house treated ornately. Even a dome-shaped roof is only permissible under special circumstances and where great space is covered. This, for one reason, because a certain proximity of the lath roof seems necessary for best effects.

Returning to the subject as editor of California Garden in 1915, Robinson conveyed the impression that his heart was elsewhere:

Though the Garden did not succeed in getting a lath house covering acres which could have been built for the cost of the elaborate Horticultural Building, such a one is bound some day to be in Balboa Park. It will have groupings of shrubs and plants, ferny nooks and fragrant arbors and the visitor to our city shall find it a place to walk and a place to talk, a garden with sunshine tempered to order, wind changed to a whispering zephyr, a garden of Eden without a serpent.

Let us be thankful for our Horticultural Building. With that title it could hardly be a true lath house, but let us think of ten acres under a lathed-in pergola, partly on the flat, partly going in steps down into a canyon, lighted cunningly as with fireflies, and let us think hard enough to bring the reality before some other place seizes the idea and reaps the reward of originality.

As with Robinson, so Eugen Neuhaus, professor of design at the University of California, had mixed feelings about the Botanical Building in Balboa Park. His words are worth quoting:

A Botanical Building in San Diego is a joke. I cannot help it. A climate which will produce Poinsettias, the tender Bignonias, the Begonia, and the Bougainvillea in such profusion outdoors surely needs no sheltered buildings to produce an array of flowers, which seemed as if confined in a hospital for observation.37

In her published writings about planting conditions in San Diego, nursery woman Kate Sessions was silent about the Botanical Building.38

Anyone who has visited the many conservatories in the United States, like the Conservatory in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, the Conservatory in Garfield Park, Chicago, the Conservatory in Como Park, Saint Paul, and the Climatron at the Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, must experience a letdown when they are inside the Botanical Building. Gardeners are conscientious and knowledgeable about plants, but they are constrained by the size of the building, by the many potted plants that have to be taken out as blooms fade, and by the unruly nature of plants that periodically burst through the roof.

Mildew, termites and rust are perpetual problems. Pigeons are a nuisance as are — though the gardeners might not like to say so — people who are continually taking away plants by the roots and as cuttings.39 The pots in which so many of them grow makes the stealing all the easier.

For all its limitations and diminutiveness almost no one in San Diego wants to do away with the Botanical Building. History tells us that City bureaucrats proposed doing this in 1944,40 but even in its most dilapidated state in the years following World War II, San Diegans wanted to hold on to the building because it lifted their spirits in a manner that nothing else could. As Andrew Marvell (1621-1678) put it in his poem, "Thoughts in a Garden":

Mean while the Mind from pleasure less,
Withdraws into its happiness:
The Mind, that Ocean where each kind
Does straight its own resemblance find.
Yet it creates, transcending these,
Far other Worlds, and other Seas:
Annihilating all that’s made
To a green Thought in a green Shade.

The Botanical Building in Balboa Park was renovated in early 2002 to restore damaged lath and otherwise defective fixtures within the building at a cost of 4,000.00, approximately ten times the ,386.00 cost of the building in 1915,41 and eight times the ,069.00 cost of renovation between 1957 and 1959.42 During the 2002 restoration an attempt was made to determine the color of the building when it was presented to the City in 1915. Although there are many colored postcards of the building from this period and many paintings by artists showing how the building looked from 1915 onward, the Winterthur Museum Conservation Laboratories, located at Wilmington, Delaware, ascertained its original color by examining sample pieces consisting of two bolt and nut assemblies, an interior truss paint sample adhered to pressure sensitive tape, and one wood sample that had been sent to it for analysis.43

Word came back from Winterthur that the substratum color for the interior steel truss was "dark gray" (commercial equivalent Benjamin Moore 2139-10, River Rock). The color for the "wood fragment"was described (or not described) as "wood substrate, degraded" (commercial equivalent Benjamin Moore 2139-20, Dakota Woods).44 Thereupon City of San Diego Historic Resources Board staff decided that to reproduce the building’s original color, laths in the building should be painted "Benjamin Moore 2137-20, Char Brown." The discrepancy between the findings of Winterhur Museum Laboratories and of Historic Resources Board staff is accounted for by the Historic Resources Board sense that "the consultant’s color selection for the wood appears too green." Valid or not, the consultant’s advice was not followed.

The result of this skittish faith in laboratory tests of bolts, trusses and wood fragments, that may have been sandblasted in 1957-59, that were painted over during and even between restorations, and could be replacements that were changed so frequently that the word"original" has no meaning, is that San Diego in 2002 has a building that looks nothing like the building with which they are long familiar. Whether or not the new somber treatment is an "improvement" is for San Diegans to decide. They cannot, however, say that the color of the building before them is "historic," unless that history began in 2002 and not in 1915.

Carleton M. Winslow, who designed the Botanical Building, declared that the laths were redwood (red-wood) and that the steel trusses were painted to match the redwood. He said "match" and not "complement." By no stretch of the imagination can redwood be considered black or gray or green. Minutes of the Park Board, May 15, 1973, claim "a clear stain" had [originally] been used." No documentation exists to show the color of the redwood was altered during restorations in 1924 or 1933. Steel trusses were, however, sandblasted and painted and window frames replaced in 1933. Likewise, there is no indication that architect Richard Requa’s suggestion to replace the dark brown color of the lath with green over "the central portion of the building, facing the pool, and on the raised bands spaced along the arched dome over east and west wings" for the second year of the California-Pacific International Exposition (1936) was acted upon. A 1941 guidebook to Balboa Park described the color of the redwood lath as "brown."

A photograph of the exterior of the Botanical Building published in "A Book of Memories for the Ages" by Lillian Pray-Palmer in 1925 and a colored postcard issued by Western Publishing & Novelty Company, Los Angeles, circa April 1935, show that the vertical laths, inside the large arch above the center entrance, were covered by Rhoicissus Capensis, an evergreen creeper, that was confined within the borders of the arch. Other postcards for the 1935-36 California-Pacific International Exposition show the laths minus the growth. Based on available evidence, it is likely that the creeper was added during a renovation in 1924.50 Whatever the reason for its presence and for the presence of eucalyptus trees growing in front of east and west wings, both were removed for the 1935-36 Exposition because they were regarded as blemishes. Not impressed by this explanation, Requa wanted to replace the absent creeper with green paint.

After a gap caused by World War II when the Botanical Building was vandalized and allowed to deteriorate, restorations in 1957-59, 1973 and 1994 varied from perfunctory to precise

An unsigned article in Point Newsweekly, May 6, 1955, stated the building "began life as a Santa Fe station" that "was dismantled and reassembled in the park." No source is given for this belated assertion, though Leo Calland, Park Superintendent, was quoted prominently in the article. In February 2, 1975, San Diego Evening Tribune reporter Patricia Dibsie quoted nurseries supervisor George Kempland as saying "This building originally was supposed to be a station where trains turned around. That equipment was supposed to go beneath the huge dome located in the center of this structure."

A lawyer would consider the words "supposed to be" as conjecture and not fact. Why trains should turn around under such an ornate dome is best left for railroad engineers to explain. Curiously, the building in Balboa Park that most resembles a Roundhouse, where locomotives actually turn around on a turntable for positioning in stalls for maintenance, is the circular Ford Building. The turntable at the center was usually left exposed, though sometimes it was covered by a conical roof held up by steel braces with an opening at the top for smoke to escape. A Roundhouse in Truckee, California, built for the Southern Pacific Railroad and torn down in the 1940’s, was an example.

During the extensive 1957-59 renovation twelve miles or 70,000 feet of new redwood replaced the old and the building lost its side front arcades, its mullioned windows at the entrance, and its glass-enclosed northern wing. The destruction of the greenhouse necessitated repair and replacement of the irrigation system. A 1960 Master Plan for Balboa Park called for reconstruction of the glass extension, but the San Diego Zoo preempted this project by acquiring land near the former extension for expansion.

Minutes of the San Diego Park Board, June 19,1973, indicate that an inferior grade of redwood was used to replace damaged laths in 1973. To compensate for its deficiencies, horizontal batten lath was inserted to steady vertical laths and "pigmented stain" was used on laths in place of a preexisting "clear stain." The Facilities Committee of the Park Board criticized the Public Works Department for allowing these modifications to take place.51 The color of the redwood lath was changed to a dark brown at this time. During a 1,000 facelift in 1994 it was reported that the steel arch framework was replaced and reinforced. A lead-based paint, discovered inside the building, was removed. Newspapers do not tell how much of the steel framework was replaced or where the lead paint was discovered or how it was removed. In any case, laths were again painted "dark brown." Rightly or wrongly, this color was thought to match the color of the original redwood. And it is this color that in 2002 was replaced by a somber "char brown" with a hint of green.

No matter how funereal and unhistoric the Botanical Building may now look, the City is not about to replace 70,000 feet of redwood lath to correct the error. The moral of the story is that restorers should not be too quick to confirm findings based on their fascination with fallible technologies.

To those who persist in denying that the original color of the laths in the Botanical Building in Balboa Park was red-wood, despite evidence to the contrary, one can only reply in the words of Amos Bronson Alcott (1799-1888):

To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

1. California Garden, November 1911.
2. "From Seed to Center: Seven Decades of Floral Service," by Sharon Siegan, Journal of San Diego History, Summer 1979, 213-217.
3. California Garden, August 1911.
4. San Diego Sun, September 11, 1911.
5. Outwest Magazine, October 1912, 261.
6. San Diego Union, September 14, 1912, 10.
7. Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue by Richard Oliver, Architectural History Foundation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1983.
8. San Diego Union-Tribune, June 23, 1992, A-2.
9. California Garden, September 1911, 9.
10. Strolling through Barcelona: Landmarks of a City, by Nuria Casas, Soler & Lourdes Mateo, 1996, 104.
11. California Garden, August 1913, 7.
12. San Diego Union, November 28, 1913.
13. San Diego Union, December 20, 1912, 10.
14. San Diego Sun, July 3, 1914, 6.
15. San Diego Union, June 8, 1913, 13.
16. San Diego Union-Tribune, August 4, 1997.
17. National Register Nomination Form for El Prado Complex, Balboa Park,prepared for the Committee of 100 with the assistance of Mr. Jean Stern, December 1, 1975.
18. Ibid.
19. Reports by Superintendent of Parks John Morley, August & October 1917.
20. Report by Superintendent of Parks John Morley, November 1923.
21. Annual Report by Superintendent of Parks John Morley, 1916.
22. San Diego Union, February 26, 1964.
23. San Diego Union-Tribune, July 24, 1994.
24. California Garden, March, 1916.
25. The Architecture and Gardens of the San Diego Exposition, by Bertram Goodhue & Carleton Winslow, Paul Elder & Company, San Francisco, 1916, 128.
26. "Care of Pools and Water Lilies," by Kate Sessions, California Garden, February, 1927.
27. San Diego Union, January 11, 1918.
28. San Diego Union, May 9, 1918.
29. Trees and Gardens of Balboa Park, by Kathy Puplava and Paul Sirois, City of San Diego Park & Recreation Department, Tecolote Publishers, 2002, 84.
30. San Diego Union, August 12, 1945.
31. San Diego Union, January 8, 1948.
32. San Diego Union, August 21, 1947.
33. San Diego Union-Tribune, July 29, 1994.
34. San Diego Union-Tribune, July 22, 1999.
35. California Garden, August 1914.
36. California Garden, July 1915.
37. The San Diego Garden Fair, by Eugen Neuhaus, Paul Elder & Company Publishers, San Francisco, 1916, 71.
38. The Complete Writings of Kate Sessions in California Garden, 1909-1939, San Diego Floral Association, 1998.
39. San Diego Union, August 2, 1970, B-1.
40. Minutes of the Board of Park Commissioners, December 13, 1944.
41. San Diego Union-Tribune, May 30, 2002.
42. San Diego Union, March 21, 1959, A-18.
43. Microscopy Report: Sample Results, October 18, 2001, in Files, San Diego Historical Resources Board, City of San Diego Planning Dept., San Diego, Calif.
44. Paint Analysis Report from Winterthur Museum Conservation Division, Conservator Richard Wolber, no date.
45. Letter, From Nicole Purvis to Alejandra Michaelson, Ali Sohelli, Subject: Balboa Park Botanical Building, December 13, 2001, in Files of City of San Diego Historical Resources Board, City of San Diego Planning Dept., San Diego, Calif.; San Diego Union-Tribune, May 30, 2002.
46. Letter, From Angeles Leira, City of San Diego Planning Department, to Richard Amero, July 3, 2002.
47. The Architecture and Gardens of the San Diego Exposition, 1916, 130.
48. City of San Diego Interdepartmental Communication, from Oscar G. Knecht, Assistant Chief Inspector, to A. V. Goedell, City Manager; Subject: Building Survey, March 22/23, 1933.
49. Suggestions for the Improvement of the Buildings and Grounds of the California-Pacific International Exposition, 1936 by Richard Requa.
50. San Diego Union, February 3, 1924.
51. Minutes of the Park Board, May 15, 1973.
52. Trees and Gardens of Balboa Park, by Kathy Puplava and Paul Sirois, 108.
53. San Diego Union-Tribune, November 6, 1994, H-2.
54. Table Talk, by Amos Bronson Alcott.

NOTE: Copies of source documents used in this article may be found in the "Amero Collection" on file in the San Diego History Center Research Archives in Balboa Park. In regards to those areas in which information is not available, the author welcomes the contribution of substantiating data.

(Post from rapid prototyping companies in china blog)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s