ventura_kelley

Anybody know where you can get nose weights? I need to build a kit that I can't get to sit right and I need one of his nose weights. I can't seem to contact him at the AOL address listed at modeling madness. http://modelingmadness.com/scott/accessories/td2006prices.htm

I ordered parts for three kits from three manufacturers. Tamiya - One part for a kit that's not in production Revel/Monogram - Several parts for three different kits. Hasegawa - Parts for a single kit that is in production. The Tamiya part arrived first. About 3 or 4 days after I called and asked for it. The Revel/Monogram order arrived next (maybe 5 or 6 days), but there were problems with it. It was a complex order using their website with multiple parts for multiple kits. The B-25 parts did not arrive but after several phone calls, they got most of it straightened out. The Hasegawa

Hasegawa is now imported by Great Planes/Hobbico and the number I used to order parts was 217-398-8970. So far the process has been completely painless. I ordered the parts today and I'll let you know when they get here.

Oh, and I've come to the conclusion that the Hasegawa Corsair prop hub is too squashed looking. Anybody know of a better regular Corsair (not the F2G) prop?

What's up with that? Is something shrinking when they're making it?

Then again... This one makes the Quickboost engine look right. http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/domeric_...t/f4u_corsair_/ This is confusing.

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin3/f4u-5nl_122189/ Anybody know if the Vector engine is better?

I'm not so sure now. Check this out: http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/don_bu...5n_06_of_14.jpg It looks like that version of the R2800's crankcase should fill the cowl pretty well and should be considerably larger than the prop hub.

This is a "C" engine right? Is the Vector R-2800C better (size wise)? http://www.ultracast.ca/products/Vector/48...004/default.htm Or is there some other option? I'd been hoping for separate pushrods on the front row of cylinders if possible.

I picked up a Quickboost F4U-7 Corsair engine for the Hasegawa kit, and while the packaging says it's for this kit, it is drastically smaller in diameter than the kit engine. It's beautifully cast, but it's about 3/16 inches in diameter smaller than the Hasegawa engine, the crankcase is almost the same size as the prop hub, and it just looks funky in the cowl. Is the Quickboost engine underscale or is the Hasegawa F4U-5/AU-1/F4U-7 series overscale?

I find it impossible to do kits entirely with rattle cans because I can't find the right colors for the interior. If I could source green zinc chromate, interior green, bronze green, FS 36231, and yellow zinc chromate in cans, I might try one. Anybody know of a good source for those colors?

Bombs too.

I'd love to read that article. Can you source it please? How much time in the incident type?

How does that matter? I tell you about a trend that I'm noticing through a long term exposure to pilots related to their mistaken belief in the infallibility of their equipment and over reliance on that belief, which is a change in attitude that I've seen, and that's somehow invalid because I don't carry a card? Isn't that a little closed minded? If anybody is the most qualified to comment on the fallibility of the tech and mistaken beliefs about that, why wouldn't it would be the people that fixed it more so than the people that use it. Commercial pilots crack open their black boxes to

Is it smiling?

Hopefully that provides some stability.

Nope. Just work closely with professional pilots for 22 years. Give you an example... Early 90's, we had IR Mavericks, EO Mavs (cameras), and a fog problem. The high-tech-hot-dogs all demanded at least one IR Mav on their jets at all times. When the Mav system didn't work, a lot of them would wind up lost and would land at God knows where. We were sending people TDY all the time to collect lost jets from all over the countryside. The low-tech old guys all landed back at base unless visibility was below certain bare minimums for landing. I asked a Colonel why once and he said that the h

http://www.atticaircraft.com/product.php?id=3_1/48%20F-16XL There's a review here: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....howtopic=124733 You can see the air in the castings. I had one of these once. Didn't build it because of the mess.

Exactly my point.

Speaking entirely in generalizations, the young guys coming out of training all trusted the tech to fly. The old guys who started low tech (T-28's, T-33's, F-4's) all trusted their skill instead and used the tech as a tool. There's a big difference. The young glider pilot would still have to be someone who gives up the technology of the motors. Even though glider aerodynamics and airframes are high tech, that's a low tech approach to flying. You have to understand the physics of it and rapidly adapt to changing situations based on that. How many modern airline pilots believe that the chanc

Wait a minute. HTH did you read this: And get this: Either you're the one having trouble reading or you're trying to set up a straw man fallacy, which is a dishonest rhetorical strategy where you lie about what I said and then argue against your own lie.

I did. I was there when it happened and helped clean up afterward. The F-16 rear ended the 130 knocking most of the horizontal stab off the 130 and damaging the nose of the F-16, which is where the Flight control computer of the 16 is. So after impact, the only control they had left was the throttle. They firewalled the throttle to try to keep the jet from impacting the flightline/hangers and punched out, landing near the ops building IIRC. The nose of the 16 was out by the fence. The "debris" the 16 shedded on that road by the flightline was the canopy. Almost everything else was 130 tail d

Billy Crystal had a hilarious stand up routine about his grandfather saying stuff like that.

We used to have a saying on the flightline that sort of backed up your belief in the maintenance record of aircraft. "Takes a college education to break 'em and a high school degree to put them back together". But that's a double edged sword. Sure the tech has gotten better. Especially materials tech. Engines used to last 500 hours before overhaul and now they last thousands of hours. Range wasn't just limited in the "good old days" by fuel consumption, it was also limited by engine life. The problem with the improvement is two-fold. First off, there's an ever increasing demand that it

Here's the primary problem. They let kids use calculators in school now. They didn't when I was in school. I'm tutoring a 7th grader in math. TRY GETTING ONE OF THESE KIDS TO DO THEIR MATH WITHOUT THEIR MACHINES. It's dang near impossible. Like pulling teeth. And they trust the answers it gives them even when the answers don't make sense. 14/7=45911? Really? "Well, that's what it says!" Cooking is another example. Before the microwave, you were more likely than not to meet people who knew how to cook, at least well enough to survive. Today? This is the first girlfriend I've had since the